GO TO TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THIS PAGE
http://www.powernotebooks.com/specs/images/8660/
NEWS:
"Fiberhoods" in 2013??? Does
technology lead us invariably to
an uncertain future? Or just more of the
same? How
about cable? Zoning enforcement? What does it mean to be
"Running out of IP addresses?" And how about ever-present cameras?
You can sing along with this
page - just a simple substitution - just substitute "lawyers" for
"clowns" and do a Judy Collins
imitation!
CIVIC, CIVIL AND UNCIVIL USES
New
guy at F.C.C.?
Guess
who underwrote the Democratic National Convention in 2012?
F.C.C. Chairman Announces Resignation
By EDWARD WYATT, NYTIMES
March 22, 2013
Julius Genachowski, the Federal Communications Commission chairman
since June 2009, who set out ambitious plans to expand broadband
Internet service throughout the country and to free up additional
airwaves for sale to mobile phone companies, said Friday that he would
leave the commission “in the coming weeks.”
No successor has been named. Mr. Genachowski’s departure, on the heels
of the resignation earlier this week of Robert M. McDowell, a
Republican commissioner since 2006, will leave the agency with only
three of five board spots filled, although Democrats will retain a
2-to-1 majority.
Both resignations had been widely expected since the re-election of
President Obama, although the timing had been in doubt because of the
chairman’s desire not to leave the commission with a 2-to-2 split
between Republicans and Democrats.
Mr. Genachowski leaves a number of his highest priorities unfinished,
if well under way. The F.C.C. is in the process of drawing up an
ambitious plan to make additional high-value airwaves, or spectrum,
available for sale to mobile phone companies for use in wireless
broadband Internet service.
The plan hinges on the F.C.C.'s ability to persuade television
broadcasters to give up some of their airwaves in exchange for some
portion of the sale proceeds.
Most broadcasters have strongly resisted that plan, and an associated
proposal to move stations that don’t give up their airways to other
frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum. That process, known as
repacking, would vacate bands of airwaves by allowing television
broadcast signals to be packed closer together.
“Over the past four years, we’ve focused the F.C.C. on broadband, wired
and wireless, working to drive economic growth and improve the lives of
all Americans,” Mr. Genachowski told staff members on Friday, according
to an agency statement.
“Today, America’s broadband economy is thriving, with record-setting
private investment; unparalleled innovation in networks, devices and
apps; and renewed U.S. leadership around the world,” he added.
Mr. Genachowski also oversaw the conversion of an $8 billion federal
program to provide telephone service to rural and low-income Americans,
known as the Universal Service Fund, into one that used the same money
to expand broadband Internet service. The fund has now been renamed the
Connect America Fund.
As chairman, Mr. Genachowski attracted criticism from both industry and
consumer groups, although they also supported some of his actions.
Public Knowledge, a consumer group, said in a statement that the
chairmanship was best characterized as “one of missed opportunities.”
“The chairman deserves credit for defending both the commission’s data
roaming rules and unlicensed spectrum, for permitting DISH Network to
provide terrestrial wireless service, and for releasing the staff
report that helped to end AT&T’s attempted takeover of T-Mobile,”
the organization’s statement said. “But it remains to be seen whether
those positive steps will mitigate the enormous consolidation that has
taken place in the broadband marketplace under his watch.”
Michael Powell, a Republican who served as F.C.C. chairman and now
leads the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, a cable
industry trade group, praised Mr. Genachowski’s tenure. “Chairman
Genachowski wisely believed that ubiquitous Internet connectivity would
be the defining technology of our day,” Mr. Powell said, “and his
leadership has ensured that America’s robust wired and wireless
broadband networks are world class.”
FCC
proposes public Wi-Fi networks
Wireless
industry opposed, Google, Microsoft back plan
By CECILIA KANG The Washington Post
Article
published Feb 4, 2013
Washington - The federal government wants to create
super Wi-Fi networks across the nation, so powerful and broad in reach
that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the Internet
without paying a cellphone bill every month.
The proposal from the Federal Communications Commission has
rattled the $178 billion wireless industry, which has launched a fierce
lobbying effort to persuade policymakers to reconsider the idea,
analysts say. That has been countered by an equally intense campaign
from Google, Microsoft and other tech giants who say a free-for-all
Wi-Fi service would spark an explosion of innovations and devices that
would benefit most Americans, especially the poor.
The airwaves that FCC officials want to hand over to the
public would be much more powerful than existing Wi-Fi networks that
have become common in households. They could penetrate thick concrete
walls and travel over hills and around trees. If all goes as planned,
free access to the Web would be available in just about every
metropolitan area and many rural areas.
The new Wi-Fi networks would also have much farther reach,
allowing for a driverless car to communicate to another vehicle a mile
away or a patient's heart monitor to connect to a hospital on the other
side of town.
If approved by the FCC, the free networks would still take
several years to set up. And, with no one actively managing them,
connections could easily become jammed in major cities. But public
Wi-Fi could allow many consumers to make free calls from their mobile
phones via the Internet. The frugal-minded could even use the service
in their homes, allowing them to cut off expensive Internet bills.
"For a casual user of the Web, perhaps this could replace
carrier service," said Jeffrey Silva, an analyst at the Medley Global
Advisors research firm. "Because it is more plentiful and there is no
price tag, it could have a real appeal to some people."
Designed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the plan would
be a global first. When the U.S. government made a limited amount of
unlicensed airwaves available in 1985, an unexpected explosion in
innovation followed. Baby monitors, garage door openers and wireless
stage microphones were created. Millions of homes now run their own
wireless networks, connecting tablets, game consoles, kitchen
appliances and security systems to the Internet.
"Freeing up unlicensed spectrum is a vibrantly free-market
approach that offers low barriers to entry to innovators developing the
technologies of the future and benefits consumers," Genachowski said in
a an emailed statement.
Some companies and local cities are already moving in this
direction. Google is providing free Wi-Fi to the public in the Chelsea
neighborhood of Manhattan and parts of Silicon Valley.
Cities support the idea because the networks would lower
costs for schools and businesses or help vacationers easily find
tourist spots. Consumer advocates note the benefits to the poor, who
often cannot afford expensive cellphone and Internet bills.
The proposal would require local television stations and
other broadcasters to sell a chunk of airwaves to the government that
would be used for the public Wi-Fi networks. It is not clear whether
these companies would be willing to do so...full story here.
The
Brits know all about political sex
scandals, IIRC.
Petraeus Case Raises Fears About
Privacy in Digital Era
NYTIMES
By SCOTT SHANE
November 13, 2012
The F.B.I. investigation that toppled the director of the C.I.A. and
now threatens to tarnish the reputation of the top American commander
in Afghanistan underscores a danger that civil libertarians have long
warned about: that in policing the Web for crime, espionage and
sabotage, government investigators will unavoidably invade the private
lives of Americans.
On the Internet, and especially in e-mail, text messages, social
network postings and online photos, the work lives and personal lives
of Americans are inextricably mixed. Private, sensitive messages are
stored for years on computer servers, available to be discovered by
investigators who may be looking into completely unrelated matters.
In the current F.B.I. case, a Tampa woman, Jill Kelley, a friend both
of David H. Petraeus, the former C.I.A. director, and Gen. John R.
Allen, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, was disturbed by a
half-dozen anonymous e-mails she had received in June. She took them to
an F.B.I. agent whose acquaintance with Ms. Kelley (he had sent her
shirtless photos of himself — electronically, of course) eventually
prompted his bosses to order him to stay away from the investigation.
But a squad of investigators at the bureau’s Tampa office, in
consultation with prosecutors, opened a cyberstalking inquiry. Although
that investigation is still open, law enforcement officials have said
that criminal charges appear unlikely.
In the meantime, however, there has been a cascade of unintended
consequences. What began as a private, and far from momentous, conflict
between two women, Ms. Kelley and Paula Broadwell, Mr. Petraeus’s
biographer and the reported author of the harassing e-mails, has had
incalculable public costs.
The C.I.A. is suddenly without a permanent director at a time of urgent
intelligence challenges in Syria, Iran, Libya and beyond. The leader of
the American-led effort to prevent a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan is
distracted, at the least, by an inquiry into his e-mail exchanges with
Ms. Kelley by the Defense Department’s inspector general.
For privacy advocates, the case sets off alarms.
“There should be an investigation not of the personal behavior of
General Petraeus and General Allen but of what surveillance powers the
F.B.I. used to look into their private lives,” Anthony D. Romero,
executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in an
interview. “This is a textbook example of the blurring of lines between
the private and the public.”
Law enforcement officials have said they used only ordinary methods in
the case, which might have included grand jury subpoenas and search
warrants. As the complainant, Ms. Kelley presumably granted F.B.I.
specialists access to her computer, which they would have needed in
their hunt for clues to the identity of the sender of the anonymous
e-mails. While they were looking, they discovered General Allen’s
e-mails, which F.B.I. superiors found “potentially inappropriate” and
decided should be shared with the Defense Department.
In a parallel process, the investigators gained access, probably using
a search warrant, to Ms. Broadwell’s Gmail account. There they found
messages that turned out to be from Mr. Petraeus.
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center in Washington, said the chain of unexpected
disclosures is not unusual in computer-centric cases.
“It’s a particular problem with cyberinvestigations — they rapidly
become open-ended, because there’s such a huge quantity of information
available and it’s so easily searchable,” he said, adding, “If the
C.I.A. director can get caught, it’s pretty much open season on
everyone else.”
For years now, as national security officials and experts have warned
of a Pearl Harbor cyberattack that could fray the electrical grid or
collapse stock markets, policy makers have jostled over which agencies
should be assigned the sensitive task of monitoring the Internet for
dangerous intrusions.
Advocates for civil liberties have been especially wary of the National
Security Agency, whose expertise is unrivaled but whose immense
surveillance capabilities they see as frightening. They have
successfully urged that the Department of Homeland Security take the
leading role in cybersecurity.
That is in part because the D.H.S., if far from entirely open to public
scrutiny, is much less secretive than the N.S.A., the eavesdropping and
code-breaking agency. To this day, N.S.A. officials have revealed
almost nothing about the warrantless wiretapping it conducted inside
the United States in the hunt for terrorists in the years after 2001,
even after the secret program was disclosed by The New York Times in
2005 and set off a political firestorm.
The hazards of the Web as record-keeper, of course, are a familiar
topic. New college graduates find that their Facebook postings give
would-be employers pause. Husbands discover wives’ infidelity by
spotting incriminating e-mails on a shared computer. Teachers lose
their jobs over impulsive Twitter comments.
But the events of the last few days have shown how law enforcement
investigators who plunge into the private territories of cyberspace
looking for one thing can find something else altogether, with
astonishingly destructive results.
Some people may applaud those results, at least in part. By having a
secret extramarital affair, for instance, Mr. Petraeus was arguably
making himself vulnerable to blackmail, which would be a serious
concern for a top intelligence officer. What if Russian or Chinese
intelligence, rather than the F.B.I., had discovered the e-mails
between the C.I.A. director and Ms. Broadwell?
Likewise, military law prohibits adultery — which General Allen’s
associates say he denies committing — and some kinds of relationships.
So should an officer’s privacy really be total?
But some commentators have renewed an argument that a puritanical
American culture overreacts to sexual transgressions that have little
relevance to job performance. “Most Americans were dismayed that
General Petraeus resigned,” said Mr. Romero of the A.C.L.U.
That old debate now takes place in a new age of electronic information.
The public shaming that labeled the adulterer in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s
“Scarlet Letter” might now be accomplished by an F.B.I. search warrant
or an N.S.A. satellite dish. .
"PICKPOCKET'S DELIGHT"
People seem so absorbed while using "smartphones" that they lose
contact with their immediate surroundings.
Thefts of cellphones approach epidemic
proportions nationwide
DAY
By TERRY COLLINS Associated Press
Article published Oct 21, 2012
San Francisco - In this tech-savvy city teeming with commuters and
tourists, the cellphone has become a top target of robbers who use
stealth, force and even guns. Nearly half of all robberies in San
Francisco this year are cellphone-related, police say, and most occur
on bustling transit lines. One thief recently snatched a
smartphone while sitting right behind his unsuspecting victim and
darted out the rear of a bus in mere seconds.
Another robber grabbed an iPhone from an oblivious bus rider - while
she was still talking. And, in nearby Oakland, City Council
candidate Dan Kalb was robbed at gunpoint of his iPhone Wednesday after
he attended a neighborhood anti-crime meeting.
"I thought he was going to shoot me," recalled Kalb, who dropped his
phone during the stickup. "He kept saying, 'Find the phone! Find the
phone!"'
These brazen incidents are part of a ubiquitous coast-to-coast crime
wave. New York City police report that more than 40 percent of all
robberies now involve cellphones. Thefts of cellphones in Los Angeles -
more than a quarter of all the city's robberies - are up 27 percent
from this time a year ago, police said.
"This is your modern-day purse snatching," said longtime San Francisco
Police Capt. Joe Garrity, who began noticing the trend here about two
years ago. "A lot of younger folks seem to put their entire lives on
these things that don't come cheap."
Thefts of cellphones - particularly the expensive do-it-all smartphones
containing everything from photos and music to emails and bank
statements - are costing consumers millions and sending law enforcement
and wireless carriers nationwide scrambling for solutions. In San
Francisco, police have gone undercover and launched a transit ad
campaign, warning folks to "be smart with your smartphone." Similar
warnings went out in Oakland, where there have been 1,300 cellphone
robberies this year.
When Apple's ballyhooed iPhone 5 went on sale last month, New York City
police encouraged buyers to register their phone's serial numbers with
the department. That came just months after a 26-year-old chef at the
Museum of Modern Art was killed for his iPhone while heading home to
the Bronx. In St. Louis, city leaders proposed an ambitious
ordinance requiring anyone who resells cellphones to collect detailed
information including the seller's names, addresses, a copy of their
driver's licenses - even their thumbprints.
Though some experts put annual cellphone losses in the billions of
dollars, there is no precise figure on how many are stolen each year.
But the problem has become so visible that it has caught the attention
of lawmakers seeking to take the profit out of cellphone theft.
In April, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and New York City Police
Commissioner Ray Kelly announced that the major carriers and the
Federal Communications Commission have agreed to set up a national
database to track stolen phones - scheduled for late 2013.
Schumer also introduced the Mobile Device Theft Deterrence Act, which
proposes a five-year prison sentence for tampering with the ID numbers
of a cellphone.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association said carriers are
expected to launch databases later this month to permanently disable a
stolen cellphone. Previously, U.S. carriers have only been able
to disable so-called SIM cards, which can be swapped in and out of
phones. That's led to a profitable black market for stolen
phones. Chris Guttman-McCabe, CTIA's vice president of regulatory
affairs, said the goal of creating theft databases is to render stolen
cellphones worthless.
"We want to dry up the aftermarket," Guttman-McCabe said. "Hopefully,
there will be no sense in stealing a phone and a once valuable piece of
hardware will essentially turn into useless metal."
Right now, the incentive is to steal and that's creating huge losses,
said Kevin Mahaffey, a co-founder of Lookout, a San Francisco-based
mobile security firm which has advised carriers about the national
database.
"Thieves know that carrying a smartphone is like carrying $500 in your
hands," said Mahaffey. His company estimates that stolen and lost
cellphones could cost American consumers more than $30 billion this
year.
Many cities with highest rates of stolen and lost phones also rank
among the FBI's listing of U.S. cities with the highest crime rates,
including Cleveland, Detroit, Oakland and Newark, N.J., Mahaffey said.
Meanwhile, cellphone thefts and police response continue at a frenzied
pace. In Chicago, two men each were charged with armed robbery
last week after stealing an iPhone from a teen. In Oakland,
nearly three dozen people were recently arrested during a sweep for
allegedly stealing smartphones. On Tuesday, police arrested 15-year-old
boy who allegedly swiped a woman's iPhone near Oakland's City Hall and
sold it in downtown San Francisco for $200 to buy marijuana.
"It's a quick crime of opportunity, a snatch and grab, either by foot
or on bike," Officer Johnna Watson, an Oakland police spokeswoman,
said. "The thieves are gone in an instant."
WARNING:
"Data Centers" - really long story here.
And another part here.
CLICK ABOVE FOR NEWS REPORT; AN
EVEN EARLIER REPORT HERE
Googled map of Kansas City (Kansas and
Missouri) - click here
In One City, Signing Up for Internet
Becomes a Civic Cause
By JOHN ELIGON, NYTIMES
September 9, 2012
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — With Google’s promise last year to wire
homes, schools, libraries and other public institutions in this city
with the nation’s fastest Internet connection, community leaders on the
long forlorn, predominantly black east side were excited, seeing a
potentially uplifting force. They anticipated new educational
opportunities for their children and an incentive for developers to
build in their communities.
But in July, Google announced a process in which only those areas where
enough residents preregistered and paid a $10 deposit would get the
service, Google Fiber. While nearly all of the affluent, mostly white
neighborhoods here quickly got enough registrants, a broad swath of
black communities lagged. The deadline to sign up was midnight Sunday.
The specter that many blacks in this city might not get access to this
technology has inflamed the long racial divide here, stoking concern
that it could deepen.
“This is just one more example of people that are lower income,
sometimes not higher educated people, being left behind,” said Margaret
May, the executive director of the neighborhood council in Ivanhoe,
where the poverty rate was more than 46 percent in 2009. “It makes me
very sad.”
For generations, Kansas City has been riven by racial segregation that
can still be seen, with a majority of blacks in the urban core confined
to neighborhoods in the east. Troost Avenue has long been considered
the dividing line, the result of both overt and secretive efforts to
keep blacks out of white schools and housing areas and of historical
patterns of population growth and settlement, said Micah Kubic, with
the nonprofit Greater Kansas City Local Initiatives Support Corporation.
Nearly three in four people living east of Troost in Kansas City’s
urban center are black, according to an analysis of 2010 Census data by
Andrew Beveridge, a sociology professor at Queens College in New York
City.
As recently as 15 to 20 years ago, black residents said, they did
not venture west of Troost for fear of harassment from the police.
Today, they complain that their schools are failing, crime is rampant
and infrastructure is dilapidated.
“See all this filthiness?” Vic, a 47-year-old lifelong resident of the
east side who declined to give his last name, said as he stared at
hip-high brush in a vacant lot. He expressed doubt about how much of an
inroad Google Fiber would make. “You can’t get the neighborhood to come
together to get this cleaned up,” he said. “How you going to get them
to care about that?”
Convincing residents of the importance of Internet access — to apply
for jobs, do research, take classes and get information on government
services — was one of Google’s primary challenges here. The service is
currently being offered only here and in Kansas City, Kan. About 25
percent of homes in both cities do not have broadband, and 46 percent
of blacks do not use the Internet.
Qualifying neighborhoods will get Internet service with speeds of up to
a gigabit per second — 100 times faster than the average broadband
connection — for $70 a month. Google is also offering a television
service along with Internet for $120 a month. Schools, libraries,
hospitals and other institutions in areas that qualify would receive
gigabit connections for free.
But the feature most attractive to low-income areas is Google’s offer
of a free 5-megabit Internet connection for 7 years, but which requires
a one-time $300 construction fee.
As of Sunday evening, only about 32 percent of people in the
neighborhoods that qualified for Google Fiber were black, while just
over 54 percent were white, according to Mr. Beveridge.
With almost all of Kansas City, Kan., including low-income areas,
achieving their sign-up goals, Google’s focus over the weekend was here
in Missouri, where it worked with community groups to register people.
The dividing line of Troost “certainly predated us,” said Kevin Lo, the
general manager of Google Access, which oversees the Fiber operation.
“It’s unrealistic to expect that we can, in six weeks’ time, close the
gap.”
Yet Mr. Lo said helping close the digital divide was “absolutely a core
part of our mission.”
Google planned to announce on Monday that neighborhoods that did not
qualify this time would have another opportunity to do so, though it
did not say when. It also said it would offer grants to community
groups in Kansas City to promote digital literacy.
On Saturday, Ms. May, the neighborhood council director, and Google
workers set up a tent outside the Ivanhoe community center and urged
passers-by to sign up, with the center using a private donation to pay
the $10 deposits and giving out Rice Krispies treats. One woman who
registered herself offered to register her neighbor’s address as well.
Myron T. Moore, a neighborhood activist in Ivanhoe, walked door to door
with a clipboard asking people to write down their name, address and
telephone number so the council could sign them up and pay their
deposit. When Melissa Gilmore, 34, said she did not live at the house
where she had answered the door, Mr. Moore asked if she could sign up
the people who did live there. They were not home, and Ms. Gilmore said
she was not comfortable doing so, though she did give her own address.
Google rolled an ice cream truck through one area, as a woman on a
loudspeaker enticed residents to register. Several Google workers
walked alongside, answering questions and handing out brochures and ice
cream sandwiches.
Advertisements ran all weekend on Hot 103 Jamz, a hip-hop and R&B
radio station, urging people to sign up for the good of their
communities, even if they were not going to get the service.
In some neighborhoods, residents feared that if the service were
unavailable in their communities, property values would drop and their
schools and hospitals may fall further behind those in affluent areas.
Businesses that rely on technology might shun their communities, they
said, denying them jobs and economic development opportunities.
“It’s just one more step to the east side not being able to compete
with the west,” said Monsherry Terrell, 40, who lives in the east and
runs an Internet shopping business.
During the sign-up, Google faced other practical problems. Many people
did not have credit or debit cards, which were required to register, or
e-mail addresses. And it failed to account for numerous vacant homes in
some communities, so it lowered the number of registrants needed to
qualify in those areas.
Many people in black neighborhoods had not heard about Google Fiber,
and many who knew only had a vague understanding of it.
Three men pulled up to Ms. May’s table in a white Ford Expedition, and
one of them, Kevin Jackson, asked, “What’s that Google Fiber about?”
Mr. Jackson, 51, sighed when he found out that he would not be paid for
signing up — he initially mistook the offer to pay the $10 registration
fee for him to mean he would be given $10. Still, Mr. Jackson relented
and gave over his personal information after prodding from Ms. May.
“You’re helping Ivanhoe,” she said. “This has a deeper meaning.”
We’re becoming a Nation of leakers
NYPOST
By ARTHUR HERMAN
Last Updated: 11:39 PM, September 7, 2012
Posted: 11:28 PM, September 7, 2012
Most Americans know that in time of war, some national-security secrets
need to stay secret. The old World War Two poster said it best: “Loose
Lips Sink Ships.” Yet some of the loosest lips these days are at the
Pentagon, CIA and National Security Council. Democratic Sen. Diane
Feinstein spoke out this spring against the “avalanche of leaks” on the
Osama bin Laden kill. Now come new revelations that the Obama team may
have passed actionable intelligence about the operation to Hollywood
film-makers.
Call it the WikiLeak Presidency, in which no secret is safe if it helps
get Barack Obama re-elected.
E-mails recovered by the watchdog group Judicial Watch show just how
far President Obama’s team was willing to go to turn OBL’s death into a
pre-election PR blockbuster — and what they were willing to give away
to get it done.
When the Obamaites learned that a Hollywood film-making team wanted to
do a movie about the OBL killing, they got as excited as a 12-year-old
with a new Harry Potter novel. On June 15, 2011, the deputy national
security adviser for strategic communications said that the White House
wanted “visibility” in projects related to the OBL killing, and “this
[movie] is likely the most high-profile one.” A CIA spokesperson
agreed: “It makes sense to get behind a winning horse.”
They were particularly thrilled that the movie was slated to come out
in early October 2012, just before the election. (Thanks to the public
outcry, it’s now been postponed until afterward.)
That July 14, the Defense Department gave the film-makers direct access
to the planner of the OBL operation — whose identity was otherwise
highly secret. The official in charge meekly added, “The only thing we
ask is that you not reveal his name because he shouldn’t be talking out
of school.”
There was also worry that passing secrets to Hollywood producers might
set a bad precedent: “[We] do not want to make it look like the
commanders think it’s OK to talk to the media.”
The CIA went even further. According to the e-mails, when the producer
noticed that the third floor of OBL’s compound had been withheld from
the public-source plans he’d received, he asked if Langley would mind
passing the info along. “Of course I don’t mind,” gushed the CIA
spokesperson, “I’ll work on that tomorrow.”
The irony is, real secrets may have beem compromised in order to tell a
narrative that was a lie from the start.
“No Easy Day,” an unauthorized account of the OBL operation by one of
its Team Six members, flatly contradicts many aspects of the
administration’s narrative of the raid, including the claim that OBL
was armed and dangerous when he was taken out. And others report that
Obama put off the OBL raid at least twice, for fear failure would wreck
his reputation.
All in all, Obama & Co. look less like America’s avenging angels
and more like publicity-hungry opportunists willing to do anything to
get a good story in front of cameras.
According to “No Easy Day,” none of this came as a surprise to the Navy
SEALs risking their lives in the raid. They’d seen Obama grab credit
for the successful release of the Maerk Alabama hostages from Somali
pirates back in 2009 and “there was no doubt in anyone’s mind he would
take all the political credit for this too.” They even joked, “We’ll
get Obama re-elected for sure.”
This leaves a final question. “No Easy Day” is itself a bundle of
unauthorized leaks — including classified info, the Pentagon says. And
now Judicial Watch is pushing for the release of more e-mails dealing
specifically with OBL’s supposed “burial at sea.” Where does it stop?
Are we becoming a WikiLeaks Nation, where no secret stays secret unless
it serves our personal agenda?
After an earlier wave of leaks, including revelations of how the Obama
team had helped Israel launch a computer virus into Iran’s nuclear
program (a story that got three Iranian technicians arrested as
American spies), former Defense Secretary Bob Gates paid a visit to
National Security Adviser Tom Donilon’s office.
“A new strategy for you,” he reportedly said. “Shut the f--k up.”
That sounds like good advice for everyone involved in this mess.
Samsung ordered to pay Apple $1B
Greenwich TIME
PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press
Published 8:08 p.m., Friday, August 24, 2012
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- After a year of scorched-earth
litigation, a jury decided Friday that Samsung ripped off the
innovative technology used by Apple to create its revolutionary iPhone
and iPad.
The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1.05 billion. An appeal is
expected.
Apple Inc. filed its patent infringement lawsuit in April 2011 and
engaged legions of the country's highest-paid patent lawyers to demand
$2.5 billion from its top smartphone competitor. Samsung Electronics
Co. fired back with its own lawsuit seeking $399 million.
But the day belonged to Apple as the jury rejected all Samsung's claim
against Apple. The jury did reject some of Apple's claims against the
two dozen Samsung devices at issue, declining to award the $2.5 billion
Apple demanded.
However, the jury found that several of Samsung's products illegally
used such Apple creations as the "bounce-back" feature and the ability
to zoom text with a finger tap.
During closing arguments, Apple attorney Harold McElhinny claimed
Samsung was having a "crisis of design" after the 2007 launch of the
iPhone, and executives with the South Korean company were determined to
illegally cash in on the success of the revolutionary device.
Samsung's lawyers countered that it was simply and legally giving
consumers what they want: Smart phones with big screens. They said
Samsung didn't violate any of Apple's patents and further alleged
innovations claimed by Apple were actually created by other companies.
Samsung has emerged as one of Apple's biggest rivals and has overtaken
Apple as the leading smartphone maker. Samsung's Galaxy line of
phones run on Android, a mobile operating system that Google Inc. has
given out for free to Samsung and other phone makers. Samsung
conceded that Apple makes great products but said it doesn't have a
monopoly on the design of rectangle phones with rounded corners that it
claimed it created.
The trial came after each side filed a blizzard of legal motions and
refused advisories by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to settle the
dispute out of court.
Deliberations by the jury of seven men and two women began Wednesday.
Samsung has sold 22.7 million smartphones and tablets that Apple
claimed uses its technology. McElhinny said those devices accounted for
$8.16 billion in sales since June 2010.
Apple and Samsung combined account for more than half of global
smartphone sales.
As part of its lawsuit, Apple also demanded that Samsung pull its most
popular cellphones and computer tablets from the U.S. market.
From the beginning, legal experts and Wall Street analysts viewed
Samsung as the underdog in the case. Apple's headquarters is a mere 10
miles from the courthouse, and jurors were picked from the heart of
Silicon Valley where Apple's late founder Steve Jobs is a revered
technological pioneer.
While the legal and technological issues were complex, patent expert
Alexander I. Poltorak previously said the case would likely boil down
to whether jurors believe Samsung's products look and feel almost
identical to Apple's iPhone and iPad.
To overcome that challenge at trial, Samsung's lawyers argued that many
of Apple's claims of innovation were either obvious concepts or ideas
stolen from Sony Corp. and others. Experts called that line of argument
a high-risk strategy because of Apple's reputation as an innovator.
Apple's lawyers argued there is almost no difference between Samsung
products and those of Apple, and presented internal Samsung documents
they said showed it copied Apple designs. Samsung lawyers insisted that
several other companies and inventors had previously developed much of
the Apple technology at issue.
The U.S. trial is just the latest skirmish between the two tech giants
over product designs. Previous legal battles were fought in Australia,
the United Kingdom and Germany.
The U.S. case is one of some 50 lawsuits among myriad
telecommunications companies jockeying for position in the burgeoning
$219 billion market for smartphones and computer tablets.
Samsung won a home court ruling Friday in the global patent battle
against Apple.
Judges in Seoul said Samsung didn't copy the look and feel of the
iPhone and ruled that Apple infringed on Samsung's wireless technology.
However, the judges also said Samsung violated Apple's technology
behind the feature that causes a screen to bounce back when a user
scrolls to an end image. Both sides were ordered to pay limited damages.
Malware may knock 64,000 Americans off
Internet on Monday
Hartford Courant
By Salvador Rodriguez
1:34 PM EDT, July 5, 2012
As many as 64,000 Americans could be knocked offline Monday as a result
of malware unless they change their DNS server addresses, according to
a report.
The problem is exclusive to Windows users, but you can check if your
computer is infected by clicking on this link. If you are, call your
Internet provider, let its representatives know you were affected by
the DNS Changer Malware and have them give you a new DNS address, which
should solve the problem.
However, that link was down at least for some time Thursday morning,
likely due to high amounts of traffic, so if that's the case, there are
also various links on this help page to assist you in checking for the
infection manually.
Google and Facebook have also been Good Samaritans and have been
issuing alerts if their sites suspect infected users are logging on.
If you don't catch the infection in time, you can still fix the problem
the same way. Simply contact your Internet service provider.
The problem is a result of a large online advertising scam that took
over more than 4 million computers around the world.
When the FBI went in to shut down the scheme, the agency realized that
turning off the malicious servers would cause infected computers to
lose access to the Internet. So the FBI set up two other servers, which
have been connecting infected users to the Internet, but they will be
shut down on July 9 at 12:01 a.m. EDT.
As a result, 277,000 computer users worldwide as well as about 50
Fortune 500 companies could be affected by the shutdown, according to a
report by the Associated Press.
Photo: Carol Kaliff / The News-Times
Safety advocate, a familiar face, at Danbury High School with
computer monitor
with cameras that record activity around the building.
Smile, you're on security camera
Robert Miller, Danbury News-Times
Updated 10:55 a.m., Tuesday, May 22, 2012
There are cameras everywhere.
There traffic cameras monitoring the ebb and flow of traffic.
Security cameras are ubiquitous in banks and stores -- in corner
convenience stores and big box locations. They're also now
everyday installations in public schools -- especially in larger high
schools, where it's hard to keep an eye on every hallway.
"They're a fact of life," said New Fairfield First Selectman John
Hodge. "In fact, there may come a time when you're considered negligent
if you don't have one."
Local police are now starting to use cameras to scan passing license
plates, feeding those scans into central data bases. A bill
introduced in the General Assembly that came close to passing would
have installed cameras at intersections to catch people speeding
through red lights. A bill that died earlier would have required
the Department of Motor Vehicles to study the use of radio frequency
identification on state license plates.
That technology involves tiny radio components the size of a pellet of
rice that give off information about the vehicle and its owner when it
passes through a scanner. That technology is now in use in
private industries and retail stores as a way to track inventory. It's
how an E-ZPass works on a highway. Some European countries are now
installing the components in passports.
With a warrant, police can track your whereabouts via your
cellphone. All this gives some people pause. The many ways of
tracking where you are going and what you are doing can be a bit
intimidating.
"It's probably gotten worse since 9/11," said prominent civil rights
attorney John Williams, of New Haven. "But the debate over these issues
has been going on for a long time. Dostoevsky wrote about in `The
Brothers Karamazov.' "
"Personally, I don't think it's any of the government's damn business
to know where I'm going," said Kevin Gutzman, professor of history at
Western Connecticut State University in Danbury. "The problem is there
will never be a point at which the police stop and say, `We've got
enough information,' " Gutzman said. "They always want more."
But for the people who rely on the cameras and what they're capturing,
they are simply a valuable tool. Art Colley, finance director for
the Brookfield school system, said there are now 42 cameras in the
hallways and common areas of Brookfield High School -- but not in the
classrooms, cafeterias or gymnasiums.
"It's a very long building. We added to it by making it longer," Colley
said.
The monitors allow administrators to make sure nothing untoward is
happening. He said the school keeps the videotapes for a week.
"If anything happens, we can go back seven days," he said.
Sal Pascarella, Danbury superintendent of schools, said there are
cameras at the entrances of every school in the city to watch who
enters and leaves.
"We can monitor the hallways from the principal's office," Pascarella
said. "I can watch from my office. They're not an intrusion," he said.
"They are there for students' protection."
Alicia Roy, New Fairfield's school superintendent, said the images
caught on the tapes can be used to help teach students. If a
camera catches a student bullying another student in a hallway, Roy
said, school administrators can use the film to show the student why it
was wrong to act that way. The cameras that watch over Main
Street, are, in fact, benign. City Traffic Engineer Abdul Mohammed said
Danbury has the webcam system as several locations so it can watch how
traffic waxes and wanes.
The film is never stored and never used for law enforcement. Anyone can
watch it by going to the city's traffic cam website at
web.ci.danbury.ct.us/trafficams. For some civil libertarians, the
increasing amount of monitoring in other venues is a little
off-putting. For them, the police use of license plate scanners
with an unlimited database is an easy way to keep track of cars -- and
people -- without any legal restraint.
"It's so easy," Williams said of the way law enforcement can track
people. "You don't need to leave any fingerprints."
Williams said in the 1970s, it was easier to prove police were involved
in illegal wiretapping and other intrusions into private lives.
"Today, it's impossible to do that," he said. Police have become much
more sophisticated in gathering information.
Along with that, there's an increasing sense that people believe it's
all right for the government to do this -- "I'm not doing anything
wrong, so why should I worry?"
Gutzman, who has written the book "Who Killed the Constitution?" as
well as a new book on James Madison, the father of the Constitution,
has said that under the reauthorization of the National Defense
Authorization Act, the U.S. Congress made it legal to apprehend anyone
suspected of terrorism, including U.S. citizens, and hold them without
trial, indefinitely.
"Obama said the bill was so bad he wouldn't sign it," Gutzman said.
"When it reached his desk, he signed it anyway, then had a signing
statement said he would never use that power. I would really like
something more than a personal promise."
Williams said as technology advances, it's more important that ever for
those who defend civil liberties to speak out against its infiltration
of our lives.
"They have to keep their chins up and keep fighting," he said.
Spam Invades a Last Refuge, the Cellphone
By NICOLE PERLROTH, NYTIMES
April
7, 2012
Text message spam has started waking Bob Dunnell in the middle of the
night, promising cheap mortgages, credit cards and drugs. Some messages
offer gift cards to, say, Walmart, if he clicks on a Web site and
enters his Social Security number.
Once the scourge of e-mail providers and the Postal Service, spammers
have infiltrated the last refuge of spam-free communication:
cellphones. In the United States, consumers received roughly 4.5
billion spam texts last year, more than double the 2.2 billion received
in 2009, according to Ferris Research, a market research firm that
tracks spam.
Spread over 250 million text message-enabled phones, the problem is not
as commonplace as e-mail spam. But it is a growing menace, with the
potential for significant damage.
“Unsolicited text messaging is a pervasive problem,” said Christine
Todaro, a lawyer with the Federal Trade Commission, the consumer
watchdog agency, which is turning to the courts for help. “It is
becoming very difficult to track down who is sending the spam. We
encourage consumers to file complaints, which helps us track down the
spammers, but even then it is a little bit like peeling back an onion.”
Although some text spam is of the harmless, if annoying, marketing
variety, a vast majority is more insidious, experts say. With one
mobile tap, smartphone users risk signing up for a bogus,
impossible-to-cancel service.
Or they may succumb to that offer for a Walmart gift card or a free
iPhone in exchange for taking a survey and divulging all sorts of
personal information, like their addresses or their transaction history
— which can then be sold to digital marketers or even used to crack
their bank accounts.
And, so far, it is hard to stop it. Even replying to unwanted messages
with “NO” or “STOP” — the usual method for unsubscribing from an
unwanted text message list — may only verify to spammers that you have
a working number that can then be resold.
Scrambling to get a better grasp on the problem, the mobile industry
last month joined with a maker of antispam software, Cloudmark, on a
new reporting service that lets users forward mobile spam to “7726,” a
number that spells SPAM on most keypads. Carriers will then use that
information to block numbers.
Mobile spam is illegal under two federal laws — the 2003 Can Spam Act
and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which set up the Do Not Call
Registry in 2003. Smartphone users can report numbers that spam comes
from on both the Web sites of the F.T.C. and the Federal Communications
Commission. The major wireless carriers — AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile,
Bell Mobility and Verizon Wireless — all also offer ways to report the
numbers on their Web sites and can block numbers. A number of apps for
Android phones also promise enhanced spam text filtering.
Spammers, though, are endlessly inventive. Mobile carriers and
filtering software can detect when a large volume of spam is sent from
one phone number, and when the texts try to get someone to click on a
Web site.
So spammers are turning to large banks of phone numbers, regularly
changing the Web sites they try to get consumers to click, and blasting
their messages from the Internet using “over the top messaging
systems,” which let them send millions of messages cheaply. The minute
a carrier blocks one number, spammers simply start using another.
“It seems this is all coming from different sources,” said Mr. Dunnell,
a financial security consultant in St. Louis, who reported some texts
he received on the F.T.C.’s Web site and signed up for the Do Not Call
list — to no avail. “I don’t know what good blocking one number will
do.”
Spam on social media and instant-messaging services is also a problem,
and there is more of it than of mobile spam, experts say, although
security firms do not keep comprehensive figures. But the filtering
technologies are more sophisticated.
As of last October, Facebook said it had blocked 220 million malicious
links from a total of a trillion links clicked on Facebook a day.
Mobile spam, a more recent trend, is growing faster partly because
spammers can blast their messages across providers, which share
technologies; they have to customize for each instant-messaging
provider and social media platform.
Legal remedies may provide some help against mobile spam. Verizon has
brought 20 lawsuits against wireless telemarketers and spammers, most
of which have been settled.
The F.T.C. tried its first mobile spam case in February 2011 against
Phillip A. Flora of Huntington Beach, Calif., accusing him of sending
more than five million text messages over a 40-day period at a
“mind-boggling” rate of 85 a minute, according to court documents.
Prosecutors said Mr. Flora was draining users’ allotted text message
limits, which cost them money, and blasting messages at all hours of
the night. The number of anyone who verified it by replying to the text
message was sold to marketers.
The federal complaint against Mr. Flora said he charged $300 for every
100,000 text messages he sent — on top of what he made from selling
cellphone numbers to third parties.
Mr. Flora settled the charges for $32,000 and agreed to cease sending
spam texts. His lawyer, Michael A. Thurman, said his client “did not
realize what he was doing was in violation of the law.”
Text spam that tries to get consumers to reveal their personal
information is similar to the e-mail frauds known as “phishing.” In the
mobile context, these spams are known as “smishing.”
One of the two most common mobile spam messages last month, according
to Cloudmark, the antispam software maker, was the “Need Cash Now”
spam, in which users were promised quick cash if they disclosed
personal and financial tidbits about themselves, which could be used to
gain access to a bank account. The other was a gift card swindle, which
lured users into taking a survey, in many cases on a spoofed Web site,
and answering questions about their salary, debt levels, marital status
and health history.
“Attackers gain multiple layers of revenue from that information,” said
Rachel Kinoshita, Cloudmark’s head of security operations. “They amass
a 360-degree view of their target and can sell that information to
marketers or just phish their bank accounts.”
Spammers can make a tidy profit blasting tens of thousands of messages
at once. They use computers to generate millions of possible number
combinations and then send messages to those addresses without knowing
whether they have dialed a working number.
“If there weren’t so much money to be made here, spammers would simply
go away,” Ms. Kinoshita said.
And of course smishing costs victims who do not have unlimited text
message plans. Getting as few as 10 a month at 20 cents each would cost
$24 more a year. Mr. Dunnell has considered changing his
cellphone
number but concluded it would be too disruptive. “I just wish there was
a better way to deal with this,” he said.
Read about adventures in the one-Party government of Connecticut here. One thing in the Administration's
favor, they certainly aren't "roundabout" in their policy
direction. Right turns only!
WHERE GLOBAL FINANCE AND GLOBAL
COMMUNICATION MEET
THE
SOCIAL NETWORK
Thought you could expunge that silly photo you posted?
How many Harvard drop-outs are on the list of wealthiest people?
FACEBOOK
We have been following this concept of networking, wondering when and
if it might result in Big Brother Is Watching You effect - Supreme
Court in United States facing the question now - seems to be something they have
thought about, too!
DIE HARD 4 OR IS IT 5: 2012
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
Internet meets terrorism - or maybe just watching too many movies?
Anonymous planning another BART protest
Vivian Ho, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, August 22, 2011
Anonymous is anyone, and therefore it's everyone.
It's a cause, an idea, a network, a rallying point, its supporters say.
But it's a movement that has no structure, no leader, no rules. And yet
this is the group - and many of its supporters don't even consider it a
group - that gave BART a major headache last Monday when a protest
organized online forced the agency to close its four downtown San
Francisco stations during evening rush hour, stranding thousands of
commuters.
Today, Anonymous is promising more of the same, planning a protest for
5 p.m. at Civic Center Station - the same time and place as last week's
demonstration.
As part of the Anonymous campaign known as OpBART, the group promises
to keep up pressure until BART officials admit they were wrong to cut
off cell-phone service in underground stations to head off an earlier
planned protest, apologize to the public and fire the transit agency's
chief spokesman, who defended the cutoff and has been outspoken in his
denunciation of "cyber-thugs."
Sometimes called a proponent of "hacktivism," Anonymous generally
targets institutions its supporters consider to be suppressing free
speech and Internet freedom. Earlier this year, some blamed its
supporters for a sophisticated attack on Sony's PlayStation Network
over the company's pursuit of PS3 hackers, an attack that forced the
system offline.
In December, Anonymous initiated an online attack against PayPal after
the company stopped processing donations to WikiLeaks. When the FBI
arrested 14 Anonymous members last month in connection with the action,
the group asked supporters to boycott PayPal.
Offline
In 2008, Anonymous went offline, organizing demonstrations at
Scientology centers around the world. But several supporters in
Anonymous chat rooms - the forum where its plans are hatched and
organized - celebrated the Aug. 15 BART protest in San Francisco as one
of the movement's first strikes outside the confines of the online
world.
"We're not just cyber anymore," said Peter Fein, 33, a computer
programmer from Washington state and one of the few Anonymous
supporters willing to reveal his identity. "This is as good as a
protest gets. There were no arrests, no extensive injuries, no damages.
This is how it should be."
While Anonymous' faceless, online organizing technique makes it a
difficult target for law enforcement to pin down, it also leaves the
movement vulnerable to internal disagreements. When the Anonymous
Internet Relay Chat network was attacked and rendered unusable Thursday
evening, OpBART organizers initially said they feared the perpetrator
was an Anonymous supporter opposed to their protests. They later found
out it was someone with a personal grudge against some of his Anonymous
friends.
"Anonymous is not unanimous," said one of OpBART's organizers, who is
known by the pseudonym Po and identifies himself only as a computer
programmer living in the United States.
Some of the Anonymous actions taken in the name of OpBART have run into
criticism even from those who otherwise back the campaign. Po, who was
interviewed online, said he opposed the Anonymous-backed hacking last
weekend of the marketing website myBART.org, which resulted in the
online posting of more than 2,000 customers' personal information.
But because Anonymous does not control individual actions, there is
nothing organizers can do when an individual goes rogue.
"It's a matter of timing and 'force of will,' " said an OpBART
organizer known as AlbaandOmegle. "The actions we take (as a whole)
have to drown out the bumps."
Another problem for the Anonymous movement is that because anyone can
claim membership, any hacking can be attributed to Anonymous.
When a French girl known only as Lamaline_5mg hacked the BART police
association's website last week and released the personal information
of 102 officers and other employees, many assumed the action was the
work of Anonymous. The girl turned out to be acting on her own.
In addition to being angered by BART's cell-phone cutoff Aug. 11 - an
action the agency did not repeat during last week's actions - OpBART
supporters said that they were seeking to "amplify" earlier protests
over the July 3 fatal shooting of a knife-wielding transient by a BART
police officer. Among Anonymous' demands is that BART retrain its
officers to minimize the use of deadly force.
Changes ignored
Linton Johnson, the BART spokesman whom Anonymous wants fired, said the
movement is overlooking police reforms that BART has instituted since
the New Year's Day 2009 incident in which then-Officer Johannes
Mehserle fatally shot the unarmed Oscar Grant. Johnson said BART has
tripled police training and created two independent bodies to keep
police accountable.
"It's ironic that these protesters have no idea about the sacrifices
that people who live and care about this community made after Oscar
Grant, and all the sweat and tears they poured in to create citizen
oversight," Johnson said. "Use the process that your predecessors put
in place and let the people get to their jobs and loved ones."
As for Anonymous' call for his firing, Johnson said, "Regardless of
what they think of me, let's have a discussion outside the fare gates
and let the customers get from point A to point B."
Among those planning to protest at the Civic Center Station this
evening is Fein, who is making the trip from Washington state.
"If our only actions are online, then we're shouting in vain," Fein
said. "It's the year the Internet crossed back over into making a
difference in real life."
Planning for protests
BART advises that it may have to adjust service or close stations
temporarily tonight in downtown San Francisco because of a
demonstration planned for 5 p.m. at Civic Center Station.
Hackers
gain access to transit police
union site
YAHOO
By PAUL ELIAS - Associated Press
17 August 2011
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Hackers on Wednesday again targeted a California
transit agency that came under fire last week for turning off cell
phone service in its stations to thwart a potential protest.
This time, the hackers gained access to a Bay Area Rapid Transit police
union website and posted personal information on more than 100
officers. The officers' home addresses, email addresses and passwords
were posted online.
The hacker group Anonymous announced the breach on Twitter and
published the address of the website where the officers' information
could be found. It did not immediately claim responsibility for the
hack as it did when it broke into BART's marketing website last week
and released the personal information of more than 2,000 customers.
BART Police Deputy Chief Daniel Hartwig said his office "has been made
aware of the breach" and referred inquiries to the BART Police Officers
Association.
Union president Jesse Sekhon didn't immediately return a phone call.
The union's website was disabled later Wednesday.
The two hacks are in apparent retaliation to BART's cutting wireless
communication in its San Francisco stations last week to quell a
brewing protest over a police shooting.
Cell
service stays on during BART
protest in SF
SFGATE.COM
Rachel Gordon, Vivian Ho, Will Kane,Demian Bulwa, Chronicle
Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
SAN FRANCISCO -- The busy evening commute out of downtown San Francisco
gave way Monday to a chaotic cat-and-mouse game between police officers
and roving protesters who lashed out at the transit agency for
temporarily shutting down underground cellular phone service last week.
BART closed all four downtown San Francisco stations - Civic Center,
Powell, Montgomery and Embarcadero - soon after the protest began at 5
p.m. Officers in riot gear blocked entrances as many train riders fumed
on the sidewalks and tried to figure out how to get home. All stations
were reopened by 7:30 p.m.
Muni Metro stations at the same locations were closed in tandem with
the BART stations.
BART's action last Thursday - which ignited an international debate
about technology, free speech and public safety - was an effort to
diffuse an antipolice demonstration. But it spurred an even larger
protest Monday that was organized online by a loose-knit band of
computer hackers known as Anonymous.
Trains continued to run through the stations, only allowing passengers
to exit. Outside, protesters carried signs and chanted, while some - at
the urging of Anonymous - wore T-shirts spattered with fake blood and
creepy Guy Fawkes masks popularized by the graphic novel and movie "V
for Vendetta."
At a brief news conference after service was fully restored, BART
spokesman Linton Johnson said, "Tonight our customers are angry and
frustrated."
Police reported no arrests and no injuries.
Closing the stations
The station closures began at 5:25 p.m., when protesters were ejected
from the Civic Center Station after at least one blocked a door of a
Dublin-Pleasanton train for two minutes as others chanted "No justice,
no peace." The train continued east, and police issued a dispersal
order.
"Once we got to a situation where the BART platform was unsafe, we
cleared the station," said BART Deputy Police Chief Daniel Hartwig.
He said cell service was never switched off. "The bottom line with cell
service is that it's always in the game plan, but we chose not to
utilize that resource tonight," Hartwig said. "Once we read the
dispersal notice and they complied, we didn't feel like any other
actions were required."
Demonstrators then began marching toward the other stations, prompting
BART to close them, one by one, as people affiliated with the hacker
group gloated online through Twitter. At one point, near the
Embarcadero Station, protesters blocked Market Street, but quickly
complied with police orders to clear out.
Some transit riders were infuriated. Jennifer Cohn, an attorney who
works downtown, arrived at the Civic Center Station at about 6 p.m.
with her two sons, ages 3 and 4, after picking them up from day care.
She was trying to get home to the Glen Park neighborhood.
With the station closed, she tried to catch a cab, but they seemed to
be avoiding the area.
"This is an outrage. We just want to get home," Cohn said. "I don't
really see why they should be shutting down the stations. If they have
an issue with BART, they should go to BART headquarters."
But Ryan Bell, 25, of San Jose yelled to sullen-faced pedestrians,
"What's a bigger inconvenience, missing your train or getting shot by a
BART cop?" Other protesters held phones with cut cords while repeating
"Can you hear me now?"
Johnson, the BART spokesman, said earlier Monday that the agency had
the right to cut cell phone service Thursday because transit riders
"don't have the right to free speech inside the fare gates." He said
passengers' safety was threatened by protesters upset over a BART
police officer's fatal shooting of a knife-wielding man on July 3.
"We're in the business of transporting people from point A to point B
safely," Johnson said. "We were forced into a gut-wrenching decision on
how we were going to stop (the possible Thursday protest), given the
propensity of this group to create chaos on the platform."
Genesis of the protests
Activists angered by the police shooting of Charles Blair Hill
disrupted service during a protest July 11 that started at Civic Center
Station and spread to the 16th Street Mission and Powell Street
stations. BART closed all three stations for varying lengths of time.
BART shut down cell service Thursday at four downtown San Francisco
stations, Johnson said. The agency did not jam cell signals, which is
illegal, but shut off the system - which Johnson said is allowable
under an agreement with several major phone service providers that pay
rent to BART.
Lynette Sweet, a member of BART's Board of Directors, said Monday that
she opposed any further disruption of cell service and would seek to
bring the issue before the board for a vote.
"This is one where we can almost say we're stuck on stupid," Sweet
said. "We put ourselves on the radar screen for no good reason. This is
a country that champions civil liberties all the time. So why would a
transit agency take it upon themselves to trample on civil liberties?"
The Federal Communications Commission is looking into BART's action. In
a statement Monday, spokesman Neil Grace said, "Any time communications
services are interrupted, we seek to assess the situation."
The protest came after the hackers breached a BART website Sunday and
released personal information from more than 2,000 customers. Johnson
said the FBI was investigating the hack attack.
BART serves San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda and Contra Costa
counties, with about 350,000 boardings a day.
Legal Debate Ignites Over
BART’s Anti-Protester Cellphone Shutdown
WIRED.COM
By David Kravets Email Author
August 15, 2011 3:55 pm
For apparently the first time in the United States, a government agency
shuttered mobile internet and phone service in a bid to quash a
demonstration — the same type of speech suppression exercised by Middle
Eastern tyrannies to quell dissent.
Thursday’s move by Bay Area Rapid Transit authorities was greeted by an
uproar of comparisons to Egypt and Libya. The hacking collective
Anonymous responded in typical form over the weekend by defacing the
agency’s website, and stealing and releasing the private account
information of some 2,000 BART subway riders.
The controversy began when officials removed the power to underground
service towers Thursday at four San Francisco stations in anticipation
of a planned protest — which did not materialize — over the shooting
death of a knife-wielding man by BART police last month.
Some constitutional scholars are likening BART’s actions to an unlawful
suppression of First Amendment speech — a digital form of prior
restraint. Others, however, say BART’s move would probably survive a
court challenge, and will likely be copied by other government agencies
as the use of mobile technology and social networking by protesters
grows.
“You have the right to speak,” Damon Dunn, a First Amendment lawyer in
Chicago, said in a telephone interview. “I don’t think you have the
right to leverage your speech through technology that you don’t
necessarily control yourself.”
An earlier BART protest in July resulted in a major disruption of
rush-hour service, as some protesters even climbed atop cars at the
Civic Center station.
“The interruption of cell phone service was done Thursday to prevent
what could have been a dangerous situation. It’s one of the tactics we
have at our disposal. We may use it; we may not. And I’m not sure we
would necessarily let anyone know in advance either way,” BART
spokesman Jim Allison said.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation said BART’s actions constituted an
unconstitutional breach of protesters’ First Amendment rights. A blog
post on the San Francisco civil rights group’s website likened the
subway’s move to Egypt’s decision to cut internet access to quell
protests: “Bart Pulls a Mubarak in San Francisco.”
“What they did, effectively, is suppressed an enormous amount of speech
that otherwise would have occurred by disabling people’s devices,” Lee
Tien, an EFF staff attorney, said in a telephone interview. “They just
put a cone of silence for cell phone service over the BART stations in
the belief that something needed to be prevented. In my mind, that’s
the electronic version for shutting down somebody.”
He added that, “I’m not aware of us having thought about actually suing
yet. I’m not aware of anyone doing that.”
The American Civil Liberties Union said it was mulling legal action,
but conceded that there could be instances when it would be legal for a
government agency to shutter mobile-phone service.
“I don’t want to say, absolutely, that this will never be permissible,”
Michael Risher, an ACLU staff attorney, said in a telephone interview.
“It should not happen unless under extraordinary circumstances, real
and concrete, where it is necessary to prevent some disaster.”
He does not believe that BART has met that burden. But he noted that it
might be hard to put the genie back in the bottle.
“It’s very difficult to stop this from happening once,” he said. “It
never happened before. There are no rules.”
Anonymous
to BART: We Hack. We
Organize, Too
NYTIMES
By JOSHUA BRUSTEIN
August 15, 2011, 2:09 pm
Anonymous, the loosely affiliated group of computer hackers, is
planning a flesh-and-blood demonstration Monday afternoon in San
Francisco to protest the Bay Area Rapid Transit cutting off underground
cellphone service to thwart protesters.
Since Thursday, when BART temporarily shut down cellphone service in
its tunnels to prevent a protest against police violence, the group has
gone on the offensive. It hacked into myBart.org, a Web site for BART
riders, and leaked the names, phone numbers and passwords of users.
Now it is calling for people to gather at the San Francisco Civic
Center Bart Station at 5 p.m., wearing shirts stained with blood or
paint. In addition to putting a call out on Twitter, the group said
that it has sent an e-mail to the approximately 120,000 people it found
on BART’s own mailing list, asking them to attend.
“Remember to bring your mask, and remember that this is a peaceful
protest. Anonymous does not support violent action and it is
discouraged,” the group said in a video posted online.
While Anonymous’s target is ostensibly the agency, leaking the names
and passwords of riders has the potential to alienate those who it
claims to support. The group acknowledged this danger, but ultimately
blamed BART’s poor security for the breach.
“We apologize to any citizen that has his information published, but
you should go to BART and ask them why your information wasn’t secure
with them. Also do not worry, probably the only information that will
be abused from this database is that of BART employees,” the group
wrote on the Web site where it posted the leaked information.
Linton Johnson, a spokesperson for the BART police department, jumped
on the chance to portray the agency as a victim, saying that Anonymous
had violated riders’ privacy. He said that BART has called in the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies to
investigate the attack.
Anonymous has been very active in recent months, attacking the Web
sites of major corporations and government agencies. But this action
has been in the form of hacking attacks, not physical demonstrations.
The group has held several large-scale demonstrations in the past,
perhaps most notably a series of protests against the Church of
Scientology in 2008.
But previous protests took weeks of planning, said Gregg Housh, an
advocate affiliated with Anonymous who played a role in physical
demonstrations in the past. The speed at which such actions can be
organized is changing rapidly, a trend that has been on display across
the globe this year.
“It used to be months, then weeks, now it’s days,” he said. “Soon it
will be hours.”
Of course, it is unclear how many people will actually show up on
Monday. But BART is not taking any chances. On Sunday, it posted an
alert on its Web site warning riders of possible disruptions due to the
protest.
Mr. Johnson, the agency spokesperson, said that as BART prepares for
protests this afternoon and in the future, it would not rule out
cutting cellphone service again. He said that the criticism the agency
has received for its actions last week were misguided.
“The fact that people want to focus on the cellphone service, I think
it’s an interesting argument, but people are forgetting the other
constitutional right that allows government agencies to put people’s
right to safety ahead of their right of expression,” he said. “We are
allowed to designate the time, place and manner of free speech.”
San Francisco transit blocks
cellphones
to hinder protest
Washington Times
By Paul Elias, Associated Press
Saturday, August 13, 201
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Transit officials blocked cellphone reception in
San Francisco train stations for three hours to disrupt planned
demonstrations over a police shooting.
Officials with the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, better known as BART,
said Friday that they turned off electricity to cellular towers in four
stations from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Thursday. The move was made after BART
learned that protesters planned to use mobile devices to coordinate a
demonstration on train platforms.
The tactic drew comparisons to those used by the former president of
Egypt to squelch protests demanding an end to his authoritarian rule.
Authorities there cut Internet and cellphone services in the country
for days earlier this year.
“BART officials are showing themselves to be of a mind with the former
president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation
said on its website.
The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the tactic, saying on its
blog that it was the “wrong response to political protests.”
BART officials were confident the cellphone disruptions were legal.
They said in a statement that it’s illegal to demonstrate on the
platform or aboard the trains, and that it has set aside special areas
for demonstrations.
The demonstration planned Thursday failed to develop. “We had a commute
that was safe and without disruption,” said BART spokesman Jim Allison.
The demonstrators were protesting the July 3 shooting of Charles Blair
Hill by BART police, who claimed Hill came at them with a knife.
Several people were arrested when a July 11 demonstration disrupted
service during the rush-hour commute and prompted the closing of BART’s
Civic Center station.
Town meetings now live on mobile
devices
Greenwich TIME
Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Updated 10:55 p.m., Friday, July 8, 2011
Greenwich is pandering to the Droid population.
No, not R2-D2 -- smart phone owners can now watch town meetings in
progress through a free live video streaming application on their
mobile devices, including the Droid by Motorola, the iPhone and iPad.
"It's as if you were sitting in front of your TV set," said Paul
Curtis, the station's volunteer main producer and a member of the
Representative Town Meeting.
The feature is one of a series of enhancements that were recently
announced by Greenwich Community Television, the town's
government-access channel. In addition to the new service on mobile
devices, he station is also now available on Channel 24 of FiOS, the
fiber-optic television service of Verizon that was launched as a
competitor to cable in Greenwich in September 2010.
GCTV carries live coverage of the RTM, Board of Selectmen, Board of
Estimate and Taxation, BET Budget Committee, and Planning and Zoning
Commission meetings, as well as rebroadcasts of the meetings.
"The more people who watch our system of government here in Greenwich,
we'll all hopefully benefit and get more people involved," said
Selectman Drew Marzullo, a liaison between the station and the Board of
Selectmen.
The only way to watch GCTV up until last month, when the station rolled
out its new streaming service for smart phone users and availability on
FiOS, was on Channel 79 for Cablevision customers or the Internet.
"It's just another way to reach viewers," Curtis said, estimating that
over half the households in town now get the station, whether it be
through Verizon or Cablevision.
GCTV is dropping Channel 79 from its name as a result of the expansion
to FiOS.
The station is expected to receive funding from Verizon the way it does
from Cablevision, which Curtis said contributes $6,000 to $7,000 to the
station annually through equipment purchase reimbursements. Funding is
based on the number of customers in town, a figure Cablevision keeps a
closely-guarded secret.
"They say, `OK, go buy the cameras,' and they pay us back," Curtis said
of the reimbursement program.
Under federal and state law, all cable companies are required to
provide public access, including two channels devoted to local
government and education. In lower Fairfield County, Cablevision
viewers pay $5 per year in their bills to fund public access. The money
goes into to a pool governed by the Area Nine Cable Council, to which
municipalities can apply for grants to purchase equipment and cover
other costs associated with the channels.
GCTV is separate from the town's educational access station, Channel 78
for Cablevision customers and Channel 26 on FiOS, which carries school
board meetings and other events.
To watch town meetings live on your smart phone, go to the app store,
do a search for Ustream TV and hit "install" to download the free
application. Once the application is loaded, do a search for Greenwich
Community Television.
There's a 15-second to one-minute delay depending on wireless coverage
and whether the smart phone is connected to a Wi-Fi network, according
to Curtis.
"We had a couple of people watching it at the RTM on their Androids,
not on Wi-Fi, and it looked fine," Curtis said.
COMING SOON
TO AMERICA: go to a hospital/doctor and records are online???
Gordon Brown Says Newspaper Hired
‘Known Criminals’
NYTIMES
By JOHN F. BURNS, JO BECKER and ALAN COWELL
July 12, 2011
LONDON — Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown brought new and alarming
charges on Tuesday to the broadening scandal enveloping Rupert
Murdoch’s media empire in Britain, accusing one of the most prestigious
newspapers in the group of employing “known criminals” to gather
personal information on his bank account, legal files and tax affairs.
The claims came a day after the crisis deepened with reports that two
Murdoch newspapers may have bribed police officers or used other
potentially illegal methods to obtain information about Queen Elizabeth
II as well as Mr. Brown.
At the same time, two former journalists for The News of the World —
the newspaper at the epicenter of the scandal, which the Murdoch family
closed last weekend — said that police officers had been bribed to use
restricted cellphone-tracking technology to pinpoint the location of
people sought by the papers in their pursuit of scoops.
Since flying to Britain over the weekend, Mr. Murdoch has assumed
command of damage control efforts at his London headquarters amid a
torrent of new revelations, including reports that newsroom malpractice
extended far beyond The News of the World to two other newspapers in
his British stable — The Sunday Times, an upmarket broadsheet, and The
Sun, the country’s highest-selling daily tabloid.
On Tuesday, Mr. Brown accused The Sunday Times — owned by News
International, the British subsidiary of Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation
— of employing “known criminals” to gather personal information on his
bank account, legal files and “other files — documentation, tax and
everything else.”
“I think that what happened pretty early on in government is that the
Sunday Times appear to have got access to my building society account,
they got access to my legal files, there is some question mark about
what happened to other files — documentation, tax and everything else,”
Mr. Brown, who was Britain’s Labour prime minister from 2007 to 2010
after serving for a decade as chancellor of the Exchequer, told the BBC
on Tuesday.
“I’m shocked, I’m genuinely shocked, to find that this happened because
of their links with criminals, known criminals, who were undertaking
this activity, hired by investigators working with the Sunday Times,”
Mr. Brown said.
Mr. Brown added: “I just can’t understand this — if I, with all the
protection and all the defenses and all the security that a chancellor
of the Exchequer or a prime minister has, am so vulnerable to
unscrupulous tactics, unlawful tactics, methods that have been used in
the way we have found, what about the ordinary citizen?”
The Guardian newspaper reported earlier that Mr. Brown’s bank, Abbey
National, alerted him that someone acting for The Sunday Times had
posed in his name — a practice commonly referred to as identity theft,
or blagging — to obtain details of his account six times in 2000, when
he was chancellor. The BBC said that the effort was made as part of an
inquiry by the paper into allegations that Mr. Brown had bought a
property in his native Scotland at below-market value, something Mr.
Brown has strongly denied.
But the most damaging aspect of the
affair involving Mr. Brown related to his son Fraser, now five years
old, who suffers from cystic fibrosis. Mr. Brown told the BBC on
Tuesday that he had never publicly discussed his son’s medical
condition. But a person close to Mr. Brown said on Monday he believed
that The Sun gained access to his son’s medical records for an article
about his illness that ran in November 2006, four months after the
boy’s birth.
Mr. Brown said on Tuesday that he and his wife Sarah were “in tears”
when they learned that details of the health issue were going to appear
in the newspaper.
The BBC, quoting its sources, said the information about the boy’s
condition had been obtained first by The Sunday Times, and passed to
The Sun. Mr. Brown said that Rebekah Brooks, then The Sun’s editor and
now News International’s chief executive, called him to tell them that
the tabloid knew of the boy’s condition, which they had believed was
something known only to themselves and medical professionals who were
caring for their son.
In a statement, News International said it noted the allegations about
Mr. Brown, adding: “So that we can investigate these matters further,
we ask that all information concerning these allegations is provided to
us,” Britain’s Press Association news agency reported. The statement
said The Sun was satisfied that its story about the boy’s cystic
fibrosis had been obtained legitimately.
But Mr. Brown said: “They will have to explain themselves. I can’t
think of any way that the medical condition of a child can be put into
the public arena legitimately unless the doctor makes a statement or
the family makes a statement.”
A person close to Mr. Brown said that the former prime minister asked
Scotland Yard last year whether his personal details were among the
11,000 pages of notes seized from Glenn Mulcaire, a private
investigator working for The News of the World who was jailed in 2007
for hacking the phones of the royal household. Scotland Yard confirmed
that, the source said.
Phone hacking and other illegal or unethical methods have also been
common at many British newspapers that are not Murdoch-owned. But the
focus for now is on the Murdoch empire, which confronted what many have
called an existential threat on Monday by revising its attempted $12
billion takeover for Britain’s most lucrative satellite television
company, British Sky Broadcasting, in ways that appeared to delay the
bid for at least six months.
Many commentators in Britain said Mr. Murdoch appeared to be playing
for time, in the hope that public and political anger over the current
scandal will abate, making room for politicians and regulators to judge
the takeover on its business merits, and not on the basis of
retribution for the hacking scandal.
The revelations about the intrusive activities directed at the queen
and Mr. Brown have seized the headlines, driving home the realization
that nobody, not even the most powerful and protected people in the
land, had been beyond the reach of news organizations caught up in a
relentless battle for lurid headlines and mass circulation.
A wide segment of British society, from celebrities to ordinary
families wrestling with personal tragedies, has been shown to be
potentially vulnerable to the newspapers’ use of cellphone-hacking,
identity theft, tracking technology and police bribery — perhaps even
clandestine property break-ins, if some reports circulating in recent
days are true.
The BBC and The Guardian, in their Monday reports, cited internal
e-mails from a News of the World archive in which requests were made
for about $1,600 to pay a royal protection officer — one of several
hundred Scotland Yard officers eligible to serve in the palace security
detail — for classified information about the queen, Prince Charles and
other senior members of the royal family in what a Scotland Yard
official described as a major security breach. The Guardian article
said two officers on the royal detail were involved and that the
e-mails from an archive assembled by The News of the World were
exchanged by a senior executive and a reporter, neither of whom it
identified.
The accounts said the money was used to obtain a copy of a contact book
used by the royal protection service — a volume known as the Green
Book, according to the BBC — that contained information about the
queen, Prince Charles, other senior royals and their friends and
contacts. A report in The Evening Standard newspaper said the
information included “phone numbers, and tips about the movements and
activities” of the queen and her husband, Prince Philip. The BBC said
the book also gave details of friends of the royal couple, their palace
staff and other regular royal contacts. A Guardian report said the
police had informed the palace that the cellphones of Prince Charles
and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, may have also been hacked.
The BBC also reported that an e-mail requesting approval for the money
to buy the contacts book was written by Clive Goodman, The News of the
World’s royal correspondent, who served a four-month jail term in 2007
for his role in an earlier hacking case. The request for funds was
addressed to Andy Coulson, a former editor of The News of the World and
senior aide to Prime Minister David Cameron. Mr. Coulson was questioned
by police for nine hours on the hacking allegation and other alleged
abuses after he was arrested last Friday. He was released on bail.
Prime Minister Cameron said on Monday that he was outraged by the
diversion of the contact book, describing the alleged police
involvement in the palace intrusion as “a dereliction of duty” and
adding, “We need to get to the bottom of that if it is true.”
Separately, an inquiry by The New York Times, which included interviews
with two former journalists at The News of the World, has revealed the
workings of the illicit cellphone tracking, which the former tabloid
staffers said was known in the newsroom as “pinging.” Under British law, the technology involved
is restricted to law enforcement and security officials, requires
case-by-case authorization, and is used mainly for high-profile
criminal cases and terrorism investigations, according to a former
senior Scotland Yard official who requested anonymity so as to be able
to speak candidly.
According to Oliver Crofton, a
cybersecurity specialist who works to protect high-profile clients from
such invasive tactics, cellphones are constantly pinging off relay
towers as they search for a network, enabling an individual’s location
to be located within yards by checking the strength of the signal at
three different towers. But the former Scotland Yard official who
discussed the matter said that any officer who agreed to use the
technique to assist a newspaper would be crossing a red line.
“That would be a massive breach,” he
said.
A former show business reporter for
The News of the World, Sean Hoare, who was fired in 2005, said that
when he worked there, pinging cost the paper nearly $500 on each
occasion. He first found out how the practice worked, he said, when he
was scrambling to find someone and was told that one of the news desk
editors, Greg Miskiw, could help. Mr. Miskiw asked for the person’s
cellphone number, and returned later with information showing the
person’s precise location in Scotland, Mr. Hoare said. Mr. Miskiw, who
faces questioning by police on a separate matter, did not return calls
for comment.
John F. Burns and Jo Becker reported
from London and Alan Cowell from Paris. Ravi Somaiya, Don van Natta and
Graham Bowley contributed reporting from London.
Voicemail
spying shows phone network
weak spots
AP
By JORDAN ROBERTSON - Associated Press, RAPHAEL G. SATTER -
Associated Press
7 July 2011
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The voicemail tampering scandal engulfing
Rupert Murdoch's News of the World tabloid demonstrates not only the
vulnerability of phone networks, but also the fallibility of the people
who help maintain them.
The British tabloid is accused of breaking into voicemail accounts of
various celebrities and dignitaries —and even crime victims and their
families— in a relentless hunt for scoops.
Those accused of hacking on behalf of Murdoch's publication were
alleged to have employed a variety of ruses. Glenn Mulcaire, the
private investigator at the center of the phone hacking scandal, once
targeted members of Britain's royal household by duping phone operators
into handing over their personal codes. Those PIN codes in turn allowed
him and tabloid journalist Clive Goodman to listen in on the royal
family's voicemails.
Many of the methods that phone hackers use are surprisingly low-tech.
"Pretexting" is a common technique for fooling company representatives
into giving up a customer's private account information. A pretexting
scheme works like this: A hacker calls up the telephone company
pretending to be his victim. An agent asks for personal information,
such as mother's maiden name or a pass code, to determine the person's
identity. The customer service rep then surrenders call logs or
passwords if the information is convincing enough.
Perhaps the most famous example of pretexting emerged in 2006 when it
was revealed that Hewlett-Packard Co. was spying on journalists and its
own board members by hiring private investigators to retrieve their
phone logs. The practice was already illegal in the U.S., but was
common in the world of private investigations because prosecutions were
rare. After the HP debacle, new federal legislation clarified the
penalties. Anyone found guilty of pretexting in the U.S. could face up
to 10 years in prison.
Knowing bits of key information —such as a Social Security number,
names of family members on the accounts — can help a hacker establish
credibility in pretexting attacks. Having access to the target's e-mail
account can be valuable as well.
In other cases in Britain, all journalists had to do was dial directly
into victims' phones and enter a default or easy-to-remember password,
such as "1111," to gain access to their voicemails.
The News of the World fiasco has led to prison terms for an
investigator and a former reporter for the tabloid, caused several
major companies to pull advertising. It is complicating Murdoch's
attempt at a multibillion-pound (dollar) takeover of British Sky
Broadcasting, which some in government now insist should be blocked
because of the hacking incident.
Authorities say tabloid staffers may have interfered with police
investigations by hacking into the cellphone of a 13-year-old girl who
was eventually found murdered. The staffers are also being investigated
on allegations of tampering with phones of victims of the July 7, 2005,
terrorist attacks in London, which killed 52 people.
Just as many people are surprised by how easy it is to hack into
someone's Internet e-mail account — the "forgot my password" feature is
reviled by many security professionals— it may be surprising as well
that phone accounts aren't much safer.
Unlike an ATM withdrawal that requires a bank card and a PIN code,
voicemail typically only requires a PIN code.
Today, we simply store too much information and don't take enough
advantage of technologies such as voice recognition, for instance, that
could better secure voicemail, said Mark Rasch, director of
cybersecurity and privacy consulting for Computer Sciences Corp.
"The four-digit PIN will someday die, but I can't tell you when," Rasch
said. "Businesses still like it, and people like it because it's easy
and easy to remember. But it's only easy and easy to remember if you
use the same PIN for everything — and once you do that, if you've
compromised it one place, you've compromised everywhere."
If all else fails, hackers can sometimes purchase phone information.
Britain's Guardian newspaper has reported allegations that other
investigators paid bribes to obtain information from Britain's police
database, the drivers' licensing agency, and cell phone companies.
The phone numbers and passwords were obtained in industrial quantities.
Last year Scotland Yard said that some 4,000 names, 3,000 cell phone
numbers and nearly 100 passwords had been found in Mulcaire's notes
when he was arrested.
How do you say "bureaucracy kills
innovation"
across the pond?
10 May 2011 Last updated at 09:54 ET
Microsoft confirms takeover of Skype
Microsoft has confirmed that it has agreed to buy
internet phone service Skype.
The deal will see Microsoft pay $8.5bn (£5.2bn) for Skype, making
it Microsoft's largest acquisition. Luxembourg-based Skype has
663 million global users. In August last year it announced plans for a
share flotation, but this was subsequently put on hold. Internet
auction house eBay bought Skype for $2.6bn in 2006, before selling 70%
of it in 2009 for $2bn. This majority stake was bought by a group
of investors led by private equity firms Silver Lake and Andreessen
Horowit.
Other major shareholders include tech-firm Joltid and the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board.
'Defensive move'
Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer said: "Skype is a phenomenal
service that is loved by millions of people around the world.
Together we will create the future of real-time communications so
people can easily stay connected to family, friends, clients and
colleagues anywhere in the world."
Skype will now become a new division within Microsoft, and Skype chief
executive Tony Bates will continue to lead the business, reporting
directly to Mr Ballmer.
"It's a strategic asset and a defensive move [for Microsoft]," said
Colin Gillis, an analyst at BGC Financial.
"If they can put it on Windows 8, it gives them an advantage. It helps
them in the tablet market."
Other analysts say Microsoft's aim in buying Skype is to improve its
video conferencing services.
Price concerns
Although the price tag of $8.5bn will not stretch the US giant, some
experts have questioned whether it is paying too much for a company
that has struggled to turn a profit. Michael Clendenin, managing
director of consulting firm RedTech Advisors, said: "If you consider
[Skype] was just valued at about $2.5bn 18 months ago when a chunk was
sold off, then $8.5bn seems generous.
"[It] means Microsoft has a high wall to climb to prove to investors
that Skype is a necessary linchpin for the company's online and mobile
strategy."
This view was echoed by Ben Woods, head of research group CCS Insight.
"The big unanswered question is how do Skype assets work for
Microsoft... how do you justify the price?" he said.
Skype was founded in 2003. Calls to other Skype users are free,
while the company charges for those made to both traditional landline
phones and mobiles.
Microsoft agrees to buy Skype for $8.5B
YAHOO
By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer
10 May 2011
NEW YORK – Microsoft Corp. said Tuesday that it has agreed to buy the
popular Internet telephone service Skype SA for $8.5 billion in the
biggest deal in the software maker's 36-year history. Buying
Skype would give Microsoft a potentially valuable communications tool
as it tries to become a bigger force on the Internet and in the
increasingly important smartphone market. Microsoft said it will
marry Skype's functions to its Xbox game console, Outlook email program
and Windows smartphones. The company said it will continue to support
Skype on other software platforms.
The sellers include eBay Inc. and private equity firms Silver Lake and
Andreessen Horowitz.
About 170 million people log in to Skype's services every month, though
not all of them make calls. Skype users made 207 billion minutes of
voice and video calls last year. Most people use Skype's free
calling services, which has made it difficult for the service to make
money since entrepreneurs Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis started the
company in 2003. An average of about 8.8 million customers per month,
or just over 1 percent of the user base, pay to use Skype services.
Skype lost $7 million on revenue of $860 million last year, according
to papers that the company has filed since announcing its intentions
last summer to launch an initial public offering of stock. The IPO was
later put on hold. Skype's long-term debt, net of cash, was $543,883 at
the end of 2010.
The Skype takeover tops Microsoft's biggest previous acquisition — a $6
billion purchase of the online ad service aQuantive in 2007.
Microsoft said Skype will become a new business division headed by
Skype CEO Tony Bates, who will report directly to Ballmer.
Although it makes billions from its computer software, Microsoft has
been accustomed to losing money on the Internet in a mostly futile
attempt to catch up to Google Inc. in the lucrative online search
market. Microsoft got so desperate that it made a $47.5 billion bid to
buy Yahoo Inc. three years ago, but withdrew the offer after Yahoo
balked. Yahoo is now worth about half of what Microsoft offered.
Microsoft would be Skype's second large-company owner. EBay bought
Skype for $2.6 billion in 2005, but its attempt to unite the phone
service with its online shopping bazaar never worked out. It wound up
selling a 70 percent stake in Skype to a group of investors led by
private equity firms Silver Lake and Andreessen Horowitz for $2 billion
18 months ago.
Besides eBay, Silver Lake and Andreessen Horowitz, Skype's other major
shareholders are Joltid and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.
3.5 millions Texans' personal data
mistakenly posted on public servers
New Haven REGISTER
By The Associated Press
12 April 2011
SAN ANTONIO, Texas — The personal information of about 3.5 million
Texans — including addresses and Social Security numbers — was
mistakenly posted on public servers controlled by the state
comptroller’s office and remained there in some cases for more than a
year, the agency said Monday.
Texas Comptroller Susan Combs said that in some cases, the data
inadvertently released included dates of birth and driver’s license
numbers. There was no indication any personal data had been misused.
“I deeply regret the exposure of the personal information that occurred
and am angry that it happened,” Combs said in a statement.
Agency spokesman R.J. DeSilva said the personal data was contained
within folders on a comptroller FTP site separate from its main page —
one that contained hundreds of folders. Some of those folders were
security-protected and could only be accessed by state agencies, while
others were open to the public.
The personal information was “on a portion of the page where anyone
could look,” he said.
Jerry Strickland, a spokesman with the state attorney general’s office,
said officials had contacted the FBI to assist in a criminal
investigation that began last week. Strickland said he couldn’t comment
on whether the information had been misused, citing the active
investigation.
DeSilva said officials discovered the problem March 31, but only
notified those agencies it affected Monday.
The information affected was in data transferred by the Teacher
Retirement System of Texas, the Texas Workforce Commission, and the
Employees Retirement System of Texas.
The Teacher Retirement System data was transferred in January 2010 and
had records of 1.2 million education employees and retirees, while the
Texas Workforce Commission had data on about 2 million individuals
listed in an April 2010 information transfer. The records of about
281,000 state employees and retirees were included in an Employees
Retirement System’s transfer from last May.
The comptroller’s office will begin issuing letters Wednesday,
notifying those people whose personal information was mistakenly made
accessible to the public.
The personal information was included in data transfers required by
state statute.
Obama promotes plans for
wireless expansion
YAHOO
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press
10 February 2011
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wants nearly all Americans to have
access to speedy wireless services. He's promoting that plan in a small
city in Michigan that's becoming a model for how the Internet can bring
prosperity to far-flung places.
Obama on Thursday heads to Marquette, Mich., a university and tourism
town of 20,000 overlooking Lake Superior that cherishes both its
geographical remoteness and technological savvy. He'll see high-tech
wireless initiatives in action at Northern Michigan University, where
students telecommute, and talk about the plan in his State of the Union
address to expand access to high-speed wireless to 98 percent of the
population within five years.
It's a lofty goal considering such technology is only now being built
in major cities by AT&T, Verizon and others. And it costs billions
of dollars that Republicans probably will be unwilling to spend. But
it's all part of Obama's new focus on innovation, technology and
competitiveness as a pathway to jobs and "winning the future" — the new
White House mantra.
Thursday's visit also takes Obama to a largely conservative area of a
state that will be important in the 2012 presidential campaign.
Obama's wireless plan involves nearly doubling the space available on
the airwaves for wireless high-speed Internet traffic to keep up with
ever-growing demand. This would be accomplished in part by auctioning
off space on the radio spectrum to commercial wireless carriers. The
White House says this would raise nearly $30 billion over 10 years, and
the money could be spent on initiatives that include $10 billion to
develop a national broadband network for public safety agencies and $5
billion for infrastructure to help rural areas access high-speed
wireless. Additional money could be used to reduce the deficit, the
White House says.
It's all conditioned on congressional approval, and the proposals may
get cold-shouldered by the Republicans who now control the House and
have made clear they want to decrease spending in most areas, not go
along with the targeted increases in areas like infrastructure and
education that the president is pursuing.
Portions of the plan will be included in the 2012 budget proposal Obama
comes out with next week.
Vint Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, considered the
father of the Internet
Internet running out of addresses, new
set needed
San Francisco CHRONICLE
Carolyn Said, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Thirty years ago, when the Internet was just getting started, it seemed
a safe bet that 4.3 billion addresses would be more than enough. After
all, that was roughly the world's population at the time.
"Who the hell knew how much address space we needed?" said Vint Cerf,
Google's chief Internet evangelist, considered the father of the
Internet, in an interview last month with Australian journalists. "I
thought it was an experiment, and I thought that 4.3 billion
(addresses) would be enough to do an experiment."
But now it appears the number was too small.
"It turns out the experiment got out of the lab," said Leo Vegoda,
number resources manager at the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN), in an interview Thursday. "There is a big mismatch
between 4 billion and what we need today for a global-spanning
telecommunications network that's good for transmitting data packets.
We need more addresses."
Every website, computer, smart phone, network printer, cable TV and
wireless device out there has a unique numerical IP (Internet protocol)
address. As devices and data multiply and the world's population hovers
around 7 billion, those IP addresses are now almost exhausted.
On Thursday, the international groups that coordinate Net addresses
officially allocated the last blocks of them to five regional
registries that in turn distribute to Internet service providers,
websites and so forth. Those final allocations could be used up within
months.
That means the Internet must now switch to a new address protocol. It's
a bit like an overpopulated area code that's out of phone numbers - but
instead of just creating a new area code, the behind-the-scenes IP
addresses will become a lot more complex.
Seamless - for now
For most users, the transition should be seamless - until a few years
from now, when people with older modems may need to upgrade them to
recognize the new addresses.
The current system, IPv4 (version 4) uses "dotted quads" - four numbers
separated by periods. For instance, the IP address for www.sfgate.com
is 66.35.240.8. (Domain names, such as sfgate, essentially act as an
address book, providing an easy way to look up IP addresses.)
The new system, IPv6, uses 128-bit addresses. A typical IPv6 address
might look like this: 2001:0db8:0234:AB00:0123:8a2e:0370:7334.
It can handle a huge number of addresses, 340 undecillion, to be
precise. That number can be expressed as writing 3.4 followed by 38
zeroes, said David Ulevitch, founder and CEO of OpenDNS, a San
Francisco company that translates domain names into numbers.
"The (IPv4) trough is now empty," Ulevitch said. "The Internet
continues to grow, and the only way to grow is to use IPv6."
The new protocol
In fact, enterprises have been experimenting with the new protocol for
over a decade, but the imminent exhaustion of IP addresses provides
motivation to step up those efforts, he said.
June 8 has been designated as the ultra-nerdy "Test Flight Day" when
Google, Facebook, Yahoo and other major companies will offer their
content over IPv6 to motivate ISPs, hardwaremakers, operating system
vendors and others to handle the new addresses.
"It's drawing a line in the sand as to when everyone supports this
important technology," said Greg Smith, senior director of technical
marketing for Citrix Systems, which sells products to translate the
older version of IP addresses to the new ones. "There's a
chicken-and-egg dynamic: it requires some investment on the part of
websites and companies and they don't want to make it until they see
demand."
"This is not sneaking up on anybody," said Bill Woodcock, research
director at San Francisco's Packet Clearing House, a nonprofit that
researches Internet traffic and global network development. "IPv4
addresses will continue working exactly as they always have."
Some people with older modems may be affected eventually once the new
protocol becomes the default.
"A lot of DSL modems and cable modems out there right now don't support
v6 because they are the cheapest and most commodity pieces of gear and
vendors didn't require their hardware providers to do that engineering
until recently," Woodcock said. "At some point those may need to be
swapped out."
G.O.P. to Open House to Electronic
Devices
NYTIMES
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
December 24, 2010
WASHINGTON — The iPad is coming to Capitol Hill.
Tucked into new rules proposed by the incoming House Republican
majority is one that could fling the chamber — for good or ill — into
the 21st century: Members may use an electronic device on the House
floor as long as it doesn’t “impair decorum.”
The new rule would relax the complete ban on the use of gadgets like
the iPad, iPhone or BlackBerry on the floor. Mobile phones, tablet
computers and the whole universe of applications that run on them will
be officially available to House members as they conduct business.
Members still may not talk on the phone in the chamber and are supposed
to use the devices for official business only, according to a spokesman
for the soon-to-be speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio. But as
long as the mute switch is on, lawmakers will be free to tap away.
“Mr. Boehner has deep respect for the institution and its traditions,”
said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for the Republicans. “This is not free
license to Skype or pay bills online. But we recognize that people
consume information electronically these days. It’s just silly that the
House wouldn’t accommodate that.”
The decision represents a vivid concession of old-fashioned tradition
to new technology. But while the nation’s lawmakers will be fully
plugged in, they will also be in danger of tuning one another out.
As the Emily Post etiquette Web site states: “Tapping on a hand-held
device is O.K. if it’s related to what’s being discussed, but taking
care of personal business is unprofessional. Your associates might
think that you were more interested in your gadget than the business at
hand.”
Mobile technology has already started to sneak onto the floors of both
the House and the Senate. While the rules of the 111th Congress
officially banned iPads and other devices from the floor, there has
been a “wink and a nod” approach to a lawmaker who takes furtive
glances at his BlackBerry, according to a senior Republican aide.
That was obvious last week, when Senator John Kerry, Democrat of
Massachusetts, was seen, head down, tapping out messages as he sat
directly behind Senator Arlen Specter, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who
was giving his farewell address. Earlier this month, Representative
Henry Cuellar, Democrat of Texas, took his iPad to the speaker’s
rostrum as he presided over the chamber. And Representative Eric
Cantor, Republican of Virginia, was caught using his BlackBerry during
President Obama’s health care address in 2009.
In the Senate, a leadership aide said that no changes were planned, but
that the rules committee could look into loosening the rules at some
point. But in the House, members will be free to whip out their mobile
phones any time.
That prospect worries Jaron Lanier, the author of “You Are Not A
Gadget: A Manifesto.”
“This notion of the deliberative body being insulated and being a
little bit removed was there for a reason,” Mr. Lanier said Friday in
an interview. “Real-time Tweets? Do we want that?”
Apparently, we do. Mobile devices are everywhere these days. The one on
Mr. Obama’s hip can often be seen in photographs snapped as he emerges
from Air Force One. Even Laura Bush, the former first lady and a lover
of paper-bound books, admitted recently that she was hooked.
“I had not used a computer in the eight years I spent in the White
House, and I didn’t know a thing about BlackBerrys,” Mrs. Bush told
Advertising Specialty Institute Radio. “And now, like everyone in the
U.S., I have one in my hand every moment. I’m addicted to it.”
The new rules in the House, first reported by Nancy Scola of
techPresident.com, will be clarified early next month in a document
called the Speaker’s Announced Policies. For example, Mr. Buck, the
Republican spokesman, said the use of the ubiquitous white iPod
earphones would probably not be allowed.
The intent, he said, was to let lawmakers look up the text of a bill,
check a fact or keep up on the news of the day. Their advisers could
also send them important messages. And, especially with the iPad’s
bigger screen, lawmakers could abandon paper copies of bills in favor
of electronic versions. Or they could use Google on their smartphone to
check the accuracy of something a colleague had just said.
On the other hand, less-high-minded members could use the devices to
play games, do their Amazon shopping or find movie listings. In
Florida, where laptop computers are already allowed to sit on the desks
of state senators, one member was caught with pictures of naked women
on his screen.
Still, Mr. Lanier envisioned a bright side, even if lawmakers are not
using the devices strictly for work. Recalling the many scenes of
lawmakers’ speaking to a mostly empty chamber, he said, “At least if
they have a little game to play, maybe they will attend more.”
FAMILY FEUD..."What's good for me, Al
Franken" - on the losing end this time.
Divided FCC adopts Internet traffic
rules
YAHOO
By Jasmin Melvin
21 December 2010
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. communications regulators adopted Internet
traffic rules on Tuesday that prevent providers from blocking lawful
content but still let them ration access to their networks.
The Federal Communications Commission approved the "Open Internet"
order after FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's plan got the support of
fellow Democrats Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn.
The rules aim to strike a balance between the interests of Internet
service providers, content companies and consumers, but some industry
analysts think a court challenge is still likely.
At issue is whether regulators need to guarantee that all stakeholders
continue to have reasonable access to the Internet, a principle often
called "net neutrality," or whether the Internet is best left to
flourish unregulated.
The FCC's ability to regulate the Internet has been in doubt since an
appeals court in April said the agency lacked the authority to stop
cable company Comcast Corp from blocking bandwidth-hogging applications.
Senior FCC officials have said they will invoke new legal arguments not
employed in the Comcast case.
The two Republican commissioners at the agency opposed the latest
rule-making effort, saying it was unnecessary and would stifle
innovation. Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker told an FCC open
meeting that they believed the rules would fail in court.
High-speed Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon Communications
can "reasonably" manage their networks under the rules and perhaps
charge consumers based on levels of Internet usage.
The rules, to be somewhat looser for wireless Internet, could help
cable companies in competition with plans by Microsoft Corp, Google Inc
and Amazon.com to deliver competing video content over the same
Internet lines the cable companies run to customers' homes.
Adoption of the measure had been expected after Copps and Clyburn had
issued statements on Monday saying they would support the proposal
despite some misgivings.
But McDowell warned on Tuesday that the FCC was defying the court and
also circumventing the will of Congress. Republicans will be in control
of the U.S. House of Representatives come January and made gains
against Democrats in the Senate in November's elections.
"Litigation will supplant innovation. Instead of investing in
tomorrow's technologies, precious capital will be diverted to pay
lawyers' fees," McDowell warned.
Genachowski, speaking last at the meeting, said the Internet currently
was unprotected and invoked the names of his Republican predecessors to
back adoption of the rules.
"The rules of the road we adopt today are rooted in ideas first
articulated by Republican Chairmen Michael Powell and Kevin Martin, and
endorsed in a unanimous FCC policy statement in 2005," said Genachowski.
Internet rules
to get go ahead by US
regulators
By Maggie Shiels Technology reporter, BBC News, Silicon Valley
21 December 2010 Last updated at 05:34 ET
Controversial new rules affecting the running of the internet are
expected to be approved by US regulators today.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote on a principle
known as net neutrality; a tenet that ensures all web traffic is
treated equally.
The rules have been criticised for setting different standards for
fixed line broadband and mobile operators.
Officials said the regulations are "the first time the Commission has
adopted enforceable rules" to govern the web.
Tuesday's vote is the culmination of five years of fighting over how
best to ensure the free flow of information in all its forms over the
internet.
The proposal also comes at a time when consumers are increasingly
accessing the web via smart phones and turning to the internet to watch
TV shows.
'Rules of the road'
The Commission's ability to regulate the internet was thrown into doubt
following an appeals court decision earlier this year that said the
agency lacked the authority to stop cable firm ComCast from blocking
bandwidth-hogging applications.
The FCC's agenda said the vote will address "basic rules of the road to
preserve the open internet as a platform for innovation, investment,
competition and free expression".
That is a view backed by chairman Julius Genachowski.
"We're adopting a framework that will increase certainty for
businesses, investors and entrepreneurs," Mr Genachowski said in
remarks prepared for the meeting.
"We're taking an approach that will help foster a cycle of massive
investment, innovation and consumer demand both at the edge and in the
core of our broadband networks."
The five member Commission is expected to vote 3-2 along party lines.
Michael Copps, a Democrat, said in a written statement that he will not
block the plan after weeks of what senior FCC officials called "robust
engagement" with the Commission to toughen the rules.
"The item we will vote on is not the one I would have crafted but I
believe we have been able to make the current iteration better than
what was originally circulated," said Mr Copps.
"If vigilantly and vigorously implemented by the commission, it could
represent an important milestone in the ongoing struggle to safeguard
the awesome opportunity-creating power of the open internet."
Fellow Democrat Mignon Clyburn is also expected to concur on the rules,
whilst Mr Genachowski's vote is expected to push it through.
Republicans Meredith Baker and Robert McDowell are expected to vote
against the order.
The regulations are expected to be challenged in court.
'Squandered'
A number of interested parties including internet providers, developers
and companies like Google have said the rules will provide some
regulatory certainty going forward. Many have acknowledged that the
proposal could have been much worse.
The new regulations would prohibit telecommunications companies that
provide high-speed internet service from blocking access by customers
to any legal content, applications or service.
But, for the first time, there will be a policy that will allow for
what has been termed "paid-prioritisation", where companies will be
able to pay for a faster service.
The FCC proposal would also place tougher restrictions on wired
services from cable and phone companies than on wireless carriers,
which have more limited bandwidth.
It comes at a time when an increasing number of people are using smart
phones or tablet devices to access the web or watch TV shows.
The rules would allow mobile firms to block access to sites or
applications that specifically compete with a carrier's voice or video
services.
Supporters of net neutrality feel the new regulations should have gone
further and have slammed them as "fake net neutrality".
"I think today is a tremendously important day in the fight to preserve
a free and open internet," Aparna Sridhar of advocacy group the Free
Press, told BBC News.
"Chairman Genachowski has completely squandered a golden opportunity to
make this vote meaningful. Until now we have had a certain amount of
regulatory uncertainty and the carriers have had an incentive to stay
on their best behaviour.
"This rule will endorse bad practices in the wireless space and I think
we will see the flood gates open from the blocking of applications to
the slowing down of competitors' apps to monetising every application
that seeks to travel over their network," added Ms Sridhar.
In an opinion piece for the Huffington Post, Al Franken, US Senator for
Minnesota, called the FCC vote "the most important free speech issue of
our time" and the draft order the FCC will vote on a "badly flawed
proposal".
4 November 2010 Last updated at 11:33 ET
Burma hit
by massive net attack ahead of election
An ongoing computer attack has knocked Burma off the internet, just
days ahead of its first election in 20 years. The attack started
in late October but has grown in the last few days to overwhelm the
nation's link to the net, said security firm Arbor Networks.
Reports from Burma say the disruption is ongoing.
The attack, which is believed to have started on 25 October, comes
ahead of closely-watched national elections on 7 November.
International observers and foreign journalists are not being allowed
into the country to cover the polls. It will raise suspicions
that Burma's military authorities could be trying to restrict the flow
of information over the election period. The ruling generals say
the polls will mark a transition to democratic civilian rule.
But as the BBC's Sue Lloyd-Roberts reports from Burma, many believe the
election is a sham designed to cement the military's grip on
power. In the last elections in 1990, Aung San Suu Kyi's National
League for Democracy (NLD) won a landslide victory but the junta
ignored the result and have remained in power ever since.
Cyber attack
The Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack, as it is known, works
by flooding a target with too much data for it to handle.
The "distributed" element of it means that it involves PCs spread all
over the world. These networks of enslaved computers - known as
"botnets" - are typically hijacked home computers that have been
compromised by a virus. They are typically rented out by cyber
criminals for various means, including web attacks. They can be called
into action and controlled from across the internet.
Burma links to the wider net via cables and satellites that, at most,
can support data transfers of 45 megabits of data per second.
At its height, the attack was pummelling Burma's connections to the
wider net with about 10-15 gigabits of data every second. Writing
about the attack, Dr Craig Labovitz from Arbor Networks said the volume
of traffic traffic was "several hundred times more than enough" to
swamp these links. The result, said Dr Labovitz, had disrupted
network traffic in and out of the nation. He said the attack was
sophisticated in that it rolled together several different types of
DDoS attacks and traffic was coming from many different sources.
At time of writing, attempts to contact IP addresses in the block owned
by Burma and its telecoms firms timed out, suggesting the attack is
still under way.
"Our technicians have been trying to prevent cyber attacks from other
countries," a spokesperson from Yatanarpon Teleport told the AFP news
agency.
"We still do not know whether access will be good on the election day."
Mr Labovitz said that he did not know the motivation for the attack but
said that analysis of similar events in the past had found motives that
ran the gamut "from politically motivated DDoS, government censorship,
extortion and stock manipulation."
He also noted that the current wave of traffic was "significantly
larger" than high-profile attacks against Georgia and Estonia in 2007.
BlackBerry CEO suggests route to
eavesdropping
YAHOO
By ANDREW VANACORE, AP Business Writer
Mon Sep 27, 5:45 pm ET
NEW YORK – BlackBerry maker Research in Motion Ltd. says it has no way
of providing government officials with the text of encrypted corporate
e-mails its devices serve up. But if the companies that employ
BlackBerry phones want to hand over the encryption keys to their
e-mail, it won't object.
In a recent interview, RIM co-CEO Jim Balsillie said he could envision
countries that want access to BlackBerry e-mails setting up a kind of
national registry where companies doing business within their borders
would have to provide government officials with the ability to peek at
encrypted messages.
"We would support that if it's applied equitably to everyone,"
Balsillie said, while warning that governments that use too heavy of a
hand on the issue risk scaring away businesses.
The issue comes up as a growing list of countries — including the U.S.
— raise concerns that communications technology has outpaced the
ability of authorities to eavesdrop.
The controversy drew wide public attention last month when the United
Arab Emirates announced plans to block BlackBerry e-mail, messaging and
Web browsing services. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Indonesia and India are
considering or planning similar steps.
In the U.S., the Obama administration plans to propose legislation next
year that would require online communications providers to be
technically equipped to comply with a wiretap order, according to a
report in The New York Times on Monday. Along with BlackBerry service,
the new rules would apply to social media sites including Facebook and
direct person-to-person services such as Skype, the Times reported.
Balsillie took pains to emphasize that these security concerns extend
beyond BlackBerry service. He pointed out that most corporate e-mail is
encrypted in a similar way.
Because of how BlackBerry e-mail service is set up, it isn't
technically possible for RIM to give government officials access to
company e-mail that its users send back and forth. And RIM will not
remove the layers of encryption that protect corporate e-mail because
its customers put a high value on privacy.
While RIM won't give details of discussions with any particular
government, the type of national registry that Balsillie mentioned
helps outline one area of potential compromise.
The idea would leave RIM out of the decision-making process when it
comes to government surveillance requests. A foreign government would
collect the keys that it needs from companies whose employees use
company e-mail on their BlackBerrys. It would be up to any individual
company whether to hand over those keys.
"They're not ours to give," Balsillie said. "That's a decision for the
company that is operating within that jurisdiction."
Balsillie warned, however, that demanding access to encryption keys
would be a "blunt instrument" and could spook companies that want tight
security around their communications.
"Will companies just leave and say this is not commercial practice
that's acceptable?" he said. "Strong encryption for corporate data is
the norm in all business."
Report: US would make Internet
wiretaps easier
YAHOO
27 September 2010
WASHINGTON – Broad new regulations being drafted by the Obama
administration would make it easier for law enforcement and national
security officials to eavesdrop on Internet and e-mail communications
like social networking Web sites and BlackBerries, The New York Times
reported Monday.
The newspaper said the White House plans to submit a bill next year
that would require all online services that enable communications to be
technically equipped to comply with a wiretap order. That would include
providers of encrypted e-mail, such as BlackBerry, networking sites
like Facebook and direct communication services like Skype.
Federal law enforcement and national security officials say new the
regulations are needed because terrorists and criminals are
increasingly giving up their phones to communicate online.
"We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," said FBI lawyer
Valerie E. Caproni. "We're not talking about expanding authority. We're
talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority
in order to protect the public safety and national security."
The White House plans to submit the proposed legislation to Congress
next year. The new regulations would raise new questions about
protecting people's privacy while balancing national security
concerns. James Dempsey, the vice president of the Center for
Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the new
regulations would have "huge implications."
"They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services
function the way that the telephone system used to function," he told
the Times.
The Times said the Obama proposal would likely include several requires:
-Any service that provides
encrypted messages must be capable of unscrambling them.
-Any foreign communications providers that do business in the
U.S. would have to have an office in the United States that's capable
of providing intercepts.
-Software developers of peer-to-peer communications services
would be required to redesign their products to allow interception.
The Times said that some privacy and technology advocates say the
regulations would create weaknesses in the technology that hackers
could more easily exploit.
FCC to open up vacant TV airwaves for
broadband
YAHOO
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer
Mon Sep 13, 12:35 am ET
WASHINGTON – A new flavor of Wi-Fi, with longer range and wall-piercing
power, could show up in wireless gadgets a year from now if the Federal
Communications Commission works out the last details of new spectrum
rules that have been long in the making.
Nearly two years ago, the FCC voted to open up the airwaves between
broadcast TV channels — so-called "white spaces" — for wireless
broadband connections that would work like Wi-Fi on steroids. But
wrangling over key technical details, including concerns about
interference with TV signals and wireless microphones, has prevented
exploitation of these spaces.
On Sept. 23, the FCC plans to vote on rules meant to resolve those
issues. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski predicts electronics makers
will jump at this "super Wi-Fi" technology, as the agency calls it, and
make it just as popular as conventional Wi-Fi.
"We're hoping history will repeat itself," Genachowski said. "White
spaces are a big deal for consumers and for investment and innovation."
The commission's plan would make white spaces available for free,
without specific permission, just as it already does for Wi-Fi and
Bluetooth. Last year's transition from analog to digital
television broadcasting freed up enough spectrum to make this possible,
but the plan faced serious opposition from television broadcasters
worried that their signals could be disrupted. Wireless microphone
manufacturers and users — including churches, theatres, karaoke bars
and all types of performers — also raised concerns about interference.
To address these issues, the FCC has been working with broadcasters and
white-spaces proponents to map TV channels across the country. The
current FCC plan would require installers to configure white-spaces
devices to use a frequency that's vacant in their area — a white space.
Alternatively, the devices themselves could figure out their location
using such technologies as GPS; a database would then help the devices
figure out the right frequencies for their area.
In addition, the agency hopes to set aside at least two channels for
minor users of wireless microphones. And it plans to put big wireless
microphone users, such as Broadway theaters and sports leagues, in the
database, so devices would know to avoid their airwaves. The
upcoming FCC vote is a welcome development for some of the country's
biggest technology companies, including Google Inc., Microsoft Corp.
and Dell Inc. The tech industry hopes that white-spaces networks will
create a multibillion market for advanced wireless devices, including
laptops, set-top boxes and smart phones.
"We've all been chomping at the bit in the tech community ... to get
going with white spaces," said Richard Whitt, Google's Washington-based
counsel for telecommunications and media. "These are highly valuable,
open, unused airwaves."
If all goes according to plan, Liam Quinn, chief technology officer for
client business at Dell, expects to see "proof of concept" products at
the Consumer Electronics Show in January, followed by early products in
about a year and mass production a year after that. White spaces
are particularly well suited to providing broadband, tech companies
say, because they can penetrate walls, have plenty of network capacity
and are able to cover large areas. According to Quinn, the signals can
travel several miles and deliver Internet speeds ranging from 15 to 20
megabits per second — as fast as a cable modem.
Technology companies envision all sorts of uses for white spaces:
providing emergency services in disaster zones and creating home
wireless networks that can send video between television sets and
computers, to name just a few possibilities.
Wilmington, N.C., one of a handful of U.S. communities testing the
technology, is using white-spaces connections to send live video feeds
from traffic and surveillance cameras.
The city's network also gathers real-time data from a sensor in a
remote part of the local watershed to monitor water quality and levels.
Previously, Wilmington Mayor Bill Saffo said, the city had to send a
worker out in a boat once a month to collect the data, as the city's
Wi-Fi network could not reach the sensor.
"There are a million and one possibilities for this spectrum," Saffo
said.
Neeraj Srivastava, a vice president at a Florida company called
Spectrum Bridge Inc., noted that white-spaces networks could be used to
bring high-speed Internet access to remote corners of the country where
the phone and cable companies don't offer landline broadband. That's a
high priority for the FCC.
Indeed, Spectrum Bridge, which helped build the Wilmington network,
also helped build a test system in rural Claudeville, Va., a community
that had only dial-up Internet and costly satellite-based broadband
service before.
For now, it remains unclear whether the FCC's plan for dealing with
interference will go far enough for the broadcast industry, which wants
the FCC to require that white-spaces devices include spectrum-sensing
technology that can detect when airwaves are already being used. The
FCC left that requirement out amid opposition from the tech industry.
"This is still a work in progress," said David Donovan, head of the
Association for Maximum Service Television, which handles technical
issues facing broadcasters. "But we're trying to make it work."
Government report: 4 cos. control
wireless market
YAHOO
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer
26 August 2010
WASHINGTON – A government report finds that mergers and acquisitions
over the past decade have left just four big carriers in control of 90
percent of the wireless market, thus making it harder for small and
regional companies to compete.
A study from the Government Accountability Office, the investigative
arm of Congress, also found that despite the consolidation, consumers
are benefiting from better wireless coverage and prices that are half
what they were in 1999.
The GAO report, released Thursday, comes as the Federal Communications
Commission is ramping up oversight of the wireless industry. The report
says the number of cell phone subscribers in the U.S. stood at 285
million at the end of 2009, up from 3.5 million in 1989.
Protesters denounce Google plan for
'two-tier internet'
By Maggie Shiels Technology reporter, BBC News, Silicon Valley
14 August 2010 Last updated at 00:57 ET
Around 100 people have rallied outside Google's California
offices to protest against controversial proposals to alter how data is
treated over the web. Google and Verizon suggest treating fixed
line services differently to wireless and some specialised
content. This would allow net providers to give priority to
certain online traffic. Protesters outside the famed Googleplex
said this would create a "pay-to-play" service and urged Google to live
up to its famous motto "don't be evil".
"Companies like Google have benefited from a free and open internet and
their plan will destroy that," said James Rucker of ColourofChange.org,
one of many consumer and public advocacy groups taking part in the
event.
"They are talking about producing a fast lane, essentially a higher
tier, for premium content that means if you want to play in the 21st
Century internet you will have to pay."
The proposals unveiled this week by the search giant and telecom titan
Verizon champion an open net for wireline services but suggest
loopholes for wireless and what they called "differentiated"
content. Critics have said this would undermine the principle of
net neutrality where all web data is treated equally and no-one is
given preferential treatment or discriminated against.
"Whether you are a blogger, an entrepreneur, a journalist or someone
trying to organise a community, the internet is precious," said Mr
Rucker.
"We all want to stand together to ensure it is protected for the
future. We would expect Google to take leadership in making that
happen, not be on the front line of undoing that."
'In mourning'
Google and Verizon made their announcement after the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) ended closed-door talks with service
providers and internet companies to find a consensus on the principle
of net neutrality. The FCC is trying to navigate what it has
called a "third way" to resolve the issue after its authority was
called into question when a court ruled it had no power to sanction
Comcast for slowing some net traffic.
Net neutrality is seen as central to the government's broadband plan to
provide high speed access to every citizen by 2020. Protestor
Christine Springer criticised the lack of leadership coming from the
agency.
"The FCC is sitting on their hands. They are hoping nobody will notice
but unless we make a lot of noise the corporate giants will prevail.
The job of the FCC is to regulate not negotiate with giant
corporations."
Those taking part in the rally agree and chanted slogans like "net
neutrality is under attack, stand up and fight back" and "we demand our
internet rights, together we stand together we fight".
There was also some singing to the tune of "Clementine" organised by a
group of senior citizens calling themselves the Raging Grannies.
"We want to raise awareness about this issue and shine a light on how
important it is to keep the internet free and open to one and all,"
said Raging Granny Gail Sredanovic.
Martha Champion donned a heavy black Victorian costume to drive home
her concerns.
"I am in mourning for the death of the internet and believe this plan
will lock out those that can't afford to pay a premium for their
content to load faster or for their site to go quickly."
The rally also attracted the very young. Seven year old Alexis Buggs
said she took part "to help save the internet".
Her mum Erin Hodgson told BBC News "I'm a stay at home mom and so it
was either go to the park or come out here and take a stand and teach
my kids about putting our voice out there and being proud to be
American."
'Fierce supporter'
The rally organisers presented Google with boxes of petitions they
claimed held the signatures of 300,000 people opposed to anything that
would harm the principle of net neutrality.
guy carrying a box of petitions with Google don't be evil sign The
petition signatures were collected over the last couple of weeks
Google asked those that took part in the protest to fill out a form and
submit their own comments about the proposals. Afterwards the
company's head of public policy, Nicklas Lundblad spoke to reporters.
"This is an important issue, a complex issue and it deserves to be
discussed. Google is a fierce supporter of an open internet and we see
that we have a couple of key enforceable protections in our proposal
with Verizon and that is much better than no protections at all.
"This issue has been at a standstill for quite some time and we think
this proposal is a way to advance that discussion."
In a move that comes as no surprise, telecom company AT&T has given
its backing to the plan while firms like Facebook and Skype have
denounced it.
FCC draws
fire over talks with
Internet, telecom giants on 'net neutrality'
By Cecilia Kang, Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 5, 2010; A13
Thwarted in his campaign to set government control over consumer access
to the Internet, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius
Genachowski has been trying to salvage his efforts by negotiating
directly with a handful of the biggest Web firms and network service
providers.
His goal is for those firms to put aside their differences on how
Internet service providers control content on their networks and agree
on legislation that Genachowski can present to Congress.
But critics say that by handpicking Google, AT&T, Verizon and Skype
for seven closed-door meetings that continue this week at the FCC,
Genachowski could be determining the future of how consumers access the
Web in a manner more favorable to those businesses.
Massive corporate interests are at stake as the firms and the agency
discuss so-called net neutrality provisions, or regulations that would
prevent Internet providers from blocking or slowing access to Web
sites. The talks could determine, for instance, whether Verizon could
provide YouTube online video with better resolution than competitor
Netflix, or whether Google and Skype have to pay extra to get their
online voice services onto AT&T broadband networks.
"These big companies can make deals for themselves, but they are
leaving out the rest of us," said Susan Crawford, a communications law
professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
Wider discussions
Genachowski's chief of staff, Eddie Lazarus, has been running the
meetings and said he has also talked to dozens of consumer groups,
start-ups, venture capitalists and smaller network operators. Those
discussions have taken place outside the hours-long sessions that
continue this week with officials from Google, Skype, AT&T, Verizon
and a cable trade association and coalition advocating Genachowski's
net neutrality rules.
"That one room is not privileged, in my view. There have been dozens of
stakeholder discussions with varied interests who are all important to
this process," Lazarus said.
Free Press, Public Knowledge, Amazon.com and Sony Electronics are among
parties represented by the Open Internet Coalition, which has a place
at the meetings. Cable firms are also represented by a trade group, the
National Cable and Telecommunications Association.
"I can't presume to speak for all of them on any given issue," said
Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition,
which also represents Google. "We try to be a consensus-based
coalition, but the challenge is that there is a diversity of points of
view on any given issue when you get to very specific points."
Matt Polka, president of American Cable Association, a group that
represents smaller cable broadband operators, said he agrees with the
National Cable and Telecommunications Association that the FCC
shouldn't pursue open-Internet rules. But, he said, "you have to hope
that the interests of smaller rural providers are also being
represented in these discussions and not just the biggest cable firms."
Analysts said agreements made between those parties could encourage
Congress to introduce legislation as the FCC grapples with questions
over its ability to regulate broadband providers.
Wireless partners Google and Verizon are close to announcing an
agreement on ground rules that they hope to hold as an example of
successful self-regulation, according to sources familiar with those
negotiations. The firms are expected to announce a deal soon that would
allow Verizon to offer more room on its networks to content providers
that pay more. But any promises regarding open-Internet access wouldn't
apply to mobile phones, sources close to the companies said.
Verizon said in a statement that it will continue to participate in FCC
talks. Google did not respond to requests for comment. The two firms
have stood on opposite ends of the net neutrality debate but have
partnered on Android phones, based on Google's operating system and
applications. In recent months, Verizon chief executive Ivan Seidenberg
and Google chief Eric Schmidt have announced in op-eds and speeches
that they are finding "common ground" in the debate.
The FCC chief's goal
Such an agreement could frame discussion on legislation in Congress.
And it would enable Genachowski to address his biggest policy goal --
open Internet access -- without having to follow through on a separate,
controversial proposal to redefine broadband access providers as
telecommunications services. That promise of open-Internet rules was
touted by President Obama during his campaign but was derailed by a
federal court decision that questioned the FCC's authority over
broadband. And amid growing opposition in Congress, the FCC has sought
to find a way out by asserting its authority to regulate broadband.
"These matters clearly are important to both network and apps
providers, and it remains to be seen whether the difference can be
overcome," said Paul Gallant, an analyst at Concept Capital. "If they
are not, Chairman Genachowski is expected to move toward a
reclassification ruling that would be negative for cable, telcos and
possibly telecom equipment suppliers."
Apple to give iPhone 4 owners free
'bumper' case
NYPOST
Last Updated: 2:26 PM, July 16, 2010
Posted: 1:31 PM, July 16, 2010
Apple Inc., answering mounting criticism over the reception issue and
antenna design of its recently launched iPhone 4, admitted Friday the
phone drops more calls than the previous version, and said it would
give away protective cases as a remedy.
Apple "screwed up" with the signal algorithm of the phone, Chief
Executive Steve Jobs said during a press conference at the company’s
Cupertino, Calif., headquarters. But he stuck to the company line
regarding the antenna problems being common with all smartphones, and
said the problem was blown "so out of proportion, it's incredible."
Customers that buy an iPhone 4 through Sept. 30 will get a free
protective cover, or bumper. Anyone who has already purchased a bumper
will get a refund.
"We're not perfect," Jobs said. He went on to say the company has sold
more than 3 million iPhones since it went on sale in June 24, and
defended it as the "perhaps the best product made by Apple."
He acknowledged that the iPhone 4 loses signal strength when touched in
the lower left corner, but argued the problem is not unique to his
company's device. He went on to show videos of other smartphones,
including the BlackBerry Bold and HTC Droid Eris, that appear to lose
reception when gripped in certain ways.
"This is life in the smartphone world," he said. He said 1.7 percent of
customers have returned their iPhone 4 to AT&T Inc., a lower rate
than the predecessor, the iPhone 3GS.
The iPhone 4, which has an unusual antenna design, was immediately
dogged by complaints about its reception, particularly when owners held
the device in a particular way.
The problems cascaded into a full-blown public relations challenge for
Apple, which initially told owners to hold the phone differently and
then blamed the reception difficulties on software. The company's
problems worsened when influential product review publication Consumer
Reports said it could not recommend the phone.
The publication determined that touching the iPhone's antenna, which
wraps around the sides of the device, degrades the device's signal. It
later recommended sheathing the iPhone in a case that covers the
sensitive lower left section to remedy the situation.
Apple's stock has taken a beating since the release of the new iPhone,
dropping nearly 8 percent from record highs just a month ago.
The bumpers currently sell for $29 on its website. The product is sold
out; the website says it will ship in five to seven business days.
How Do
We Stop the Internet From Making Us Stupid?
By Niraj Chokshi, Atlantic Monthly
We found this article via the Courant on June 11, 2010
When it comes to focus, turning on the spotlight may not matter as much
as our ability to dim the ambient light.
Nicholas Carr argued on Saturday in The Wall Street Journal that the
Internet is making us dumber and on Monday The New York Times had a
front-page feature on the mental price we pay for our multi-tasked
lifestyles. If we are indeed losing our ability to think deeply, the
key to fighting back may lie in a subtlety: focus may be more about our
ability to filter out distractions than our ability to home in on the
issue at hand.
Carr posed his idea that technology is making us stupid in a 2008
Atlantic cover story and his forthcoming book "The Shallows" is a
longer rumination on the theory. According to professors and research
cited in The Times piece "the idea that information overload causes
distraction was supported by more and more research." And those
distractions, according to research Carr cites, are forcing us to
change the way we think. Deep thought is losing ground to
superficiality.
So, if our multitasking lifestyle causes distraction, and distraction
leads to superficial thinking, how do we fight back? Carr offers some
advice:
Reading a long
sequence of pages
helps us develop a rare kind of mental discipline. The innate bias of
the human brain, after all, is to be distracted. Our predisposition is
to be aware of as much of what's going on around us as possible. Our
fast-paced, reflexive shifts in focus were once crucial to our survival.
There is some noteworthy subtlety here. Carr doesn't argue that reading
directly increases our ability to focus, but that it "helps us develop
a rare kind of mental discipline." That's because focus may be less
about highlighting what matters and more about the discipline of
ignoring what doesn't.
This view of focus is supported by research. For example, in a 2009
paper published in the well-regarded Journal of Neuroscience, Theodore
P. Zanto and Adam Gazzaley, who is cited in The Times piece, reach a
similar conclusion. Filtering out the irrelevant, they suggest, may
improve accuracy and speed in a short-term memory test, but
attention-directing skills may not have a similar effect.
So, abandoning the distractions of technology for a single task may not
do as much to retrain our brains as improving our ability to brush
those distractions away.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/06/how-do-we-stop-the-internet-from-making-us-stupid/57796/
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic
Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved.
AT&T caps phone data usage with
new wireless plans
YAHOO
By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer
2 June 2010
NEW YORK – In time for the widely expected launch of a new iPhone
model, carrier AT&T Inc. is pulling in the reins on data usage by
its customers with smart phones and iPads.
The sole U.S. carrier of the iPhone is introducing two new data plans,
starting June 7, with limits on data consumption. They'll replace the
$30 monthly plan with unlimited usage that it has required for all
smart phones, including the iPhone.
With the change, AT&T is adopting a carrot-and-stick approach to
assuage the data congestion on its network, which has been a source of
complaints, especially in cities such as New York and San Francisco
that are thick with iPhone users. The new plans will take effect just
as Apple is expected to unveil the next generation of its iPhone at an
event Monday in San Francisco.
Subscribers who use little data or learn to limit their consumption
will pay slightly less every month than they do now, while heavy users
will be dinged with extra consumption fees.
One new plan will cost $25 per month and offer 2 gigabytes of data per
month, which AT&T says will be enough for 98 percent of its smart
phone customers. Additional gigabytes will cost $10 each.
A second plan will cost $15 per month for 200 megabytes of data, which
AT&T says is enough for 65 percent of its smart phone customers. If
they go over, they'll pay another $15 for 200 megabytes.
With that plan and voice service, a smart phone could cost as little as
$55 per month before taxes and add-on fees, down from $70 per month.
Ralph de la Vega, the head of AT&T's consumer business, said that
means smart phones can become accessible to more people.
"Customers are getting a good deal, and if they can understand their
usage, they can save some money," de la Vega said in an interview.
Current AT&T subscribers will be allowed to keep the unlimited
plan, even if they renew their contracts. But all new subscribers will
have to choose one of the two new plans.
Figuring out which one to choose may not be easy, given that many
people have only a hazy notion of the size of a gigabyte and how many
they use now. A gigabyte is enough for hundreds of e-mails and Web
pages, but it's quickly eaten up by Internet video and
videoconferencing.
De la Vega said AT&T is doing its part to educate consumers, by
letting them track their usage online. The iPhone contains a data usage
tracking tool. The carrier will also text-message subscribers to let
them know they're getting close to their limits.
Data usage over Wi-Fi, including AT&T's public Wi-Fi hot spots,
will not count toward the limits.
The new $25-per-month plan will replace the current $30 plan with
unlimited usage that is available for the iPad, the tablet computer
Apple Inc. released just a few months ago, though iPad owners can keep
the old plan as long as they keep paying $30 per month, AT&T said.
Paradoxically, the data caps arrive at time when carriers have started
to lift the limits on other forms of wireless use, by selling plans
with unlimited calling and unlimited text messaging. That's not a big
gamble, because not many people have the time to talk phone for eight
hours a day or spend every waking minute sending text messages. But
smart phones can draw a lot of data, depending one where and how
they're used. With the new plans, de la Vega hopes to see
high-consumption applications like Internet video being steered toward
hot spots, where they don't clog up AT&T's cellular network.
Consumers have rebelled against the idea of data usage caps on home
broadband, at least when the limits are set low enough to make online
video consumption expensive. Time Warner Cable Inc. was forced to back
away from trials of data caps last year after consumer protests and
threats of legislative action.
In the wireless world, where data capacity is more constrained, usage
caps are more common. Most wireless carriers, for instance, limit data
cards for laptops to 5 gigabytes per month.
But with intense competition for smart phone users, phone companies
have been reluctant to impose similar limits on those devices, although
Sprint Nextel Corp. reserves the right to slow down or disconnect users
who exceed 5 gigabytes per month. It remains to be seen whether
AT&T's rivals will join it in imposing caps or use their own
"unlimited" plans as a marketing advantage.
Instant messaging: This
conversation is terminated
Page last updated at 12:32 GMT, Monday, 24 May
2010 13:32 UK
|
By Jon Kelly,
BBC News Magazine
|
Instant messaging was once tipped to replace
e-mail, but recent figures suggest that it has lost ground sharply. Why?
OMG. Instant messaging (IM), once the mainstay of teenage
gossips, techie know-it-alls and office time-wasters everywhere, looks
as though it is in trouble.
Just a few years ago, it was meant to be the future.
More immediate than e-mail, less fiddly than texting, sending
an IM was widely expected by many technology pundits to become our
preferred mode of online communication, whether socially or in the
office - or socially in the office, for that matter.
 |
WHAT IS INSTANT MESSAGING?
Lets users send notes back and forth in
real time while online
Displays which friends and contacts are
online
Most popular providers include AOL
Instant Messenger (AIM), Yahoo! Messenger, Google Talk, Windows Live
Messenger (formerly MSN Messenger)
|
But how times change.
In 2007, 14% of Britons' online time was spent on IM,
according to the UK Online Measurement company - but that has fallen to
just 5%, the firm says, basing its findings on the habits of a panel of
40,000 computer users.
The study was released shortly after AOL sold its ICQ instant
messaging service $187.5m (£124m) - less than half what the
company paid for it in 1998.
And in September 2009, a survey of internet use by the New
York-based Online Publishers Association found that the amount of time
spent by surfers on traditional communications tools, including IM and
e-mail, had declined by 8% since 2003.
It is a far cry from the early days of the decade when this
very website anticipated that IM would overtake e-mail by 2004 [see
internet links].
Cast your mind back to the early noughties - a time when
dial-up was still widespread and the Apple G3s looked futuristic - and
it becomes easier to recall why IM looked like it was about to conquer
the world.
It was, after all, instant. It let users see if their friends
and contacts were online and, if so, communicate with them in real
time.
Tech-savvy office staff could chase up a query and expect an
answer straight away, without having to pick up the phone. Teenagers in
their bedrooms could exchange schoolyard tittle-tattle without the
encumbrance of having to press "refresh" on the browser screen to their
web-based e-mail account.
It also offered workers a handy means of circumventing their
employers' e-mail usage policies.
Chat's all folks
Chris Green, a technology journalist turned industry analyst,
recalls the heady days of IM's ascendency.
"That was the way it was going," he remembers. "E-mail had
peaked. And IM offered additional value over e-mail."
There were niggles, however. Initially, IM systems were
"proprietary" and non-compatible, so those using Microsoft's MSN
Messenger were unable to reach friends on Aim, ICQ, or Yahoo!
Messenger.
The firms would subsequently allow cross-pollination of their
systems, but, says Mr Green, the delay in "finding something that was
ubiquitous across all platforms" - in the same way that sending an
e-mail from a Yahoo! to a Hotmail account was seamless - cost the
format dearly.
Google Talk was supposed to revive IM. It
didn't
|
Into the vacuum stepped social networking sites.
Paul Armstrong, director of social media with the PR agency
Kindred, believes that the rise of the likes of Facebook and Twitter -
which allow users to do much more than just send messages - simply had
more to offer.
"With instant messaging you have to stay at your computer,"
he says. "With social networking, you can use your phone's web browser
or SMS.
"Rather than shifting away from instant messaging, people are
using the functions of instant messaging on different platforms."
Even though Facebook's own instant messaging system - not
covered in the UK Online Measurement habits - was widely-regarded as
inferior to those provided by the established IM networks, users were
tied into a one-stop shop for sharing thoughts, photos, and being
re-introduced to long-forgotten former colleagues and classmates.
Return to sender
The effect on IM, says Chris Green, has been catastrophic.
Windows Live Messenger - formerly MSN Messenger - was no
longer "bundled" with Vista and Windows 7, becoming instead an optional
extra, he says. Google may be bullish about Google Talk, the search
engine's attempt to blend IM with e-mail, insisting that millions of
its users "love the convenience and simplicity" of the service.
But Mr Green says its modest success represents a "flop" when
put alongside the company's dominance elsewhere on the web.
"People have moved on," he says. "The novelty value has worn
off. If you look at teenagers today, they are using Twitter on their
mobiles."
But has IM died out altogether? The figures would suggest
that although its market share has fallen, its raw numbers have not.
California-based IT research firm The Radicati Group
estimates that there are 2.4 billion IM accounts worldwide, rising to
3.5 billion by 2014.
Plenty of browers, it seems, still value the speed and
simplicity of IM.
Technology journalist and BBC Click presenter LJ Rich notes
that, in many countries where internet use is censored, BlackBerry
Messenger is used to bypass state-sponsored snoops.
And she believes that the principles of IM survive - it is
just that sites such as Facebook and Twitter let us talk to a wider
audience via a wider range of platforms, including mobiles.
"With social networks, we've gone from instant messaging to
something that's more like conference calls," she says.
Maybe IM will have the last laugh after all. Or, rather, the
last LOL.
White House sees no cyber attack on
Wall Street
YAHOO
By DANIEL WAGNER, AP Business Writer
Sun May 9, 12:45 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The White House's homeland security and counterterrorism
adviser says there is no evidence that a cyber attack was behind the
chaos that shook Wall Street last Thursday...full story here.
Apple's Jobs unveils 'intimate' $499
iPad tablet
YAHOO
By JESSICA MINTZ and RACHEL METZ, AP Technology Writers
January 27, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO – Apple Inc. will sell the newly unveiled tablet-style
iPad starting at $499, a price tag far below the $1,000 that some
analysts were expecting.
The iPad, which is larger in size but similar in design to Apple's
popular iPhone, was billed by CEO Steve Jobs on Wednesday as "so much
more intimate than a laptop and so much more capable than a smart
phone."
Jobs, 54, a pancreatic cancer survivor who got a liver transplant
during a 5 1/2-month medical leave last year, looked thin as he
introduced the highly anticipated gadget, though he seemed to have more
energy than he did at Apple's last event in September.
The iPad has a 9.7-inch touch screen, is a half-inch thick, weighs 1.5
pounds and comes with 16, 32 or 64 gigabytes of flash memory storage.
It comes with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity built in. Jobs said the
device has a battery that lasts 10 hours and can sit for a month on
standby without needing a charge.
The basic iPad models will cost $499, $599 and $699, depending on the
storage size, when it comes out worldwide in March.
Apple will also sell a version with data plans from AT&T Inc. in
the U.S.: $14.99 per month for 250 megabytes of data, or $29.99 for
unlimited usage. Neither will require a long-term service contract.
Those 3G iPad models will cost more — $629, $729 and $829, depending on
the amount of memory — and will be out in April. International cellular
data details have not yet been announced.
Apple had kept its "latest creation" tightly under wraps until
Wednesday's unveiling, though many analysts had correctly speculated
that it would be a one-piece tablet computer with a big touch screen,
larger than an iPhone but smaller than a laptop.
Raven Zachary, a contributing analyst with mobile researchers The 451
Group, considered the iPad a laptop replacement, especially because
Apple is also selling a dock with a built-in keyboard.
But Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey said he doesn't believe
the iPad added enough for consumers to justify buying yet another
gadget, or to call this a new category of devices. In an e-mail, he
criticized its lack of social features such as ways to share photos and
home video and recommend books.
Sitting on stage in a cozy leather chair, Jobs demonstrated how the
iPad is used for surfing the Web with Apple's Safari browser. The CEO
typed an e-mail using an on-screen keyboard and flipped through photo
albums by flicking his finger across the screen. He also showed off a
new electronic book store and a book-reading interface that emulates
the look of a paper book, putting the iPad in competition with
Amazon.com Inc.'s Kindle and other e-book
readers.
Like iPods and the iPhone, the iPad can sync with Apple's Macintosh and
Microsoft's Windows computers. Jobs said the iPad will also be better
for playing games and watching video than either a laptop or a smart
phone. Software coming with the iPad includes a calendar, maps, a video
player and iPod software for playing music. All seem to have been
slightly redesigned to take advantage of the iPad's bigger screen.
Tablet computers have existed for a decade, with little success. Jobs
acknowledged Apple will have to work to convince consumers who already
have smart phones and laptops that they need this gadget.
"In order to really create a new category of devices, those devices are
going to have to be far better at doing some key tasks," Jobs said. "We
think we've got the goods. We think we've done it."
Applications designed for the iPhone can run on the iPad. Apple is also
releasing updated tools for software developers to help them build
iPhone and iPad programs.
"We think it's going to be a whole 'nother gold rush for developers as
they build applications for the iPad," said Scott Forstall, an iPhone
software executive.
A new newspaper reader program from The New York Times and a game from
Electronic Arts Inc. were also demonstrated during the event. The
audience, which included many journalists and bloggers, clapped and
even gave Jobs a standing ovation.
Shares in Apple rose $2.04, or 1 percent, to close Wednesday at
$207.98. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company's shares have more than
doubled over the past year, partly on anticipation of the tablet
computer. Shares in Amazon rose $3.27, or 2.7 percent, to $122.75.
Pew study hints at what Web users will
pay for
YAHOO
Thu Dec 30, 12:13 am ET
NEW YORK – The Web may seem like the land of something for nothing.
Free video. Free news. Even free tools such as word processing and
spreadsheets.
But almost two-thirds of adult Internet users in the U.S. have paid for
access to at least one of these intangible items online, according to a
new survey from the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
Whether people will pay for different types of material on the Web is
among the most pressing questions facing media companies in the 21st
century.
As people shift their attention to the Internet from more traditional
ways of enjoying media, the companies that provide everything from
movies to mystery novels want to make sure they can still get paid for
what they do. The big TV networks want viewers to pay for full access
to episodes of their favorite shows. Newspaper companies want readers
to pay for news. Book publishers want higher prices for digital
editions of new releases.
The new figures from Pew suggest paying for content online is at least
not a completely foreign idea for most people.
About a third of respondents said they have paid for digital music.
Same for software.
Behind that came mobile apps for cell phones or tablet computers at 21
percent. Then digital games at 19 percent and newspaper, magazine or
journal articles at 18 percent.
The survey found that among people who paid for content, the typical
user spent about $10 a month. However, there are some extremely
high-end users, such that the average among those who have paid for
content is about $47 a month. That includes subscriptions and
individual files downloaded or accessed.
The survey of 755 Internet users in the U.S. was conducted Oct. 28-Nov.
1 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage
points.
The
Times to Charge for Frequent
Access to
Its Web Site
NYTIMES
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
January 21, 2010
The New York Times announced Wednesday that it intended to charge
frequent readers for access to its Web site, a step being debated
across the industry that nearly every major newspaper has so far feared
to take.
Starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain
number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat
fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the newspaper’s print edition
will receive full access to the site.
But executives of The New York Times Company said they could not yet
answer fundamental questions about the plan, like how much it would
cost or what the limit would be on free reading. They stressed that the
amount of free access could change with time, in response to economic
conditions and reader demand.
“This announcement allows us to begin the thought process that’s going
to answer so many of the questions that we all care about,” Arthur
Sulzberger Jr., the company chairman and publisher of the newspaper,
said in an interview. “We can’t get this halfway right or
three-quarters of the way right. We have to get this really, really
right.”
Any changes are sure to be closely watched by publishers and other
purveyors of online content who scoffed at the notion of online
charging until advertising began to plummet in 2007, battering visions
of Internet businesses supported solely by ads. Few general-interest
publications charge now, but many newspapers and magazines are studying
whether to make the switch.
Still, publishers fear that income from digital subscriptions would not
compensate for the resulting loss of audience and advertising revenue.
NYTimes.com is by far the most popular newspaper site in the country,
with more than 17 million readers a month in the United States,
according to Nielsen Online, and analysts say it is easily the leader
in advertising revenue, as well. That may make it better positioned
than other general-interest papers to charge — and also gives The Times
more to lose if the move backfires.
The Times Company has been studying the matter for almost a year,
searching for common ground between pro- and anti-pay camps — a debate
mirrored in dozens of media-watching blogs — and the system will not go
into effect until January 2011. Executives said they were not bothered
by the prospect of absorbing barbs for moving cautiously.
“There’s no prize for getting it quick,” said Janet L. Robinson, the
company’s president and chief executive. “There’s more of a prize for
getting it right.”
This would not be the first time the company has attempted an online
pay model. In the 1990s it charged overseas readers, and from 2005 to
2007 the newspaper’s TimesSelect service charged for access to
editorials and columns. TimesSelect attracted about 210,000 subscribers
who paid $49.95 a year but it was scrapped to take advantage of the
boom in online advertising.
Company executives said the current decision was not a reaction to the
ad recession but a long-term strategy to develop new revenue.
“This is a bet, to a certain degree, on where we think the Web is
going,” Mr. Sulzberger said. “This is not going to be something that is
going to change the financial dynamics overnight.”
Two specialized papers charge already: The Wall Street Journal, which
makes certain articles accessible only to subscribers, and The
Financial Times, which allows non-paying readers to see up to 10
articles a month, a system close to what is planned by The Times.
Most readers who go to the Times site, as with other news sites, are
incidental visitors, arriving no more than once in a while through
searches and links, and many of them would be unaffected by the new
system. A much smaller number of committed readers account for the bulk
of the site visits and page views, and the essential question is how
many of them will pay to continue that habit.
Executives said the computerized subscription service must work
smoothly and communicate seamlessly with the computer systems that
handle the database of print subscribers. The Times will not use one of
the pay systems being marketed by other companies, like Journalism
Online, led by Steven Brill, or the News Corporation, instead choosing
to create the system essentially from scratch.
“There’s a lot of technical work that we need to do over the next year
to get this right,” said Martin A. Nisenholtz, the company’s senior
vice president for digital operations. “And I think if you were to
benchmark this against other, similar implementations, you would find
that a year is not excessive.”
Bill Keller, the executive editor, embraced the plan.
“It underscores the value of what we do — trustworthy, aggressively
reported professional journalism, which is an increasingly rare and
precious thing,” Mr. Keller said. “And it gives us a second way to
sustain that hard, expensive work, in addition to our healthy
advertising revenue.
Company executives would not release estimates of how many subscribers
and how much revenue an online system would attract, how many visitors
the site might lose because of it, or how much ad revenue would decline.
The Times Company looked at several approaches, including a
straightforward pay wall similar to The Journal’s; various “metered”
systems, including the one they chose; a “membership” format similar to
the one used in public broadcasting, with rewards for supporters but
little or no limit on access to the site; and a hybrid among those
options.
The approach the company took is “the one that after much research and
study we determined has the most upside in both” subscriptions and
advertising, Mr. Nisenholtz said. “We’re trying to maximize revenue.
We’re not saying we want to put this revenue stream above that revenue
stream. The goal is to maximize both revenue streams in combination.”
Who has to hack anymore - just go on FACEBOOK
Companies Fight Endless War
Against
Computer Attacks
NYTIMES
By STEVE LOHR
January 18, 2010
The recent computer attacks on the mighty Google left every corporate
network in the world looking a little less safe.
Google’s confrontation with China — over government censorship in
general and specific attacks on its systems — is an exceptional case,
of course, extending to human rights and international politics as well
as high-tech spying. But the intrusion into Google’s computers and
related attacks from within China on some 30 other companies point to
the rising sophistication of such assaults and the vulnerability of
even the best defenses, security experts say.
“The Google case shines a bright light on what can be done in terms of
spying and getting into corporate networks,” said Edward M. Stroz, a
former high-tech crime agent with the F.B.I. who now heads a computer
security investigation firm in New York.
Computer security is an ever-escalating competition between so-called
black-hat attackers and white-hat defenders. One of the attackers’ main
tools is malicious software, known as malware, which has steadily
evolved in recent years. Malware was once mainly viruses and worms,
digital pests that gummed up and sometimes damaged personal computers
and networks.
Malware today, however, is likely to be more subtle and selective,
nesting inside corporate networks. And it can be a tool for industrial
espionage, transmitting digital copies of trade secrets, customer
lists, future plans and contracts.
Corporations and government agencies spend billions of dollars a year
on specialized security software to detect and combat malware. Still,
the black hats seem to be gaining the upper hand.
In a survey of 443 companies and government agencies published last
month, the Computer Security Institute found that 64 percent reported
malware infections, up from 50 percent the previous year. The financial
loss from security breaches was $234,000 on average for each
organization.
“Malware is a huge problem, and becoming a bigger one,” said Robert
Richardson, director of the institute, a research and training
organization. “And now the game is much more about getting a foothold
in the network, for spying.”
Security experts say employee awareness and training are a crucial
defense. Often, malware infections are a result of high-tech twists on
old-fashioned cons. One scam, for example, involves small U.S.B. flash
drives, left in a company parking lot, adorned with the company logo.
Curious employees pick them up, put them in their computers and open
what looks like an innocuous document. In fact, once run, it is
software that collects passwords and other confidential information on
a user’s computer and sends it to the attackers. More advanced malware
can allow an outsider to completely take over the PC and, from there,
explore a company’s network.
With this approach, the hackers do not need to break through a
company’s network defenses because a worker has unknowingly invited
them inside.
Another approach, one used in the Google attacks, is a variation on
so-called phishing schemes, in which an e-mail message purporting to be
from the recipient’s bank or another institution tricks the person into
giving up passwords. Scammers send such messages to thousands of people
in hopes of ensnaring a few. But with so-called spear-phishing, the
bogus e-mail is sent to a specific person and appears to come from a
friend or colleague inside that person’s company, making it far more
believable. Again, an attached file, once opened, unleashes the spy
software.
Other techniques for going inside companies involve exploiting
weaknesses in Web-site or network-routing software, using those
openings as gateways for malware.
To combat leaks of confidential information, network security software
looks for anomalies in network traffic — large files and rapid rates of
data transmission, especially coming from corporate locations where
confidential information is housed.
“Fighting computer crime is a balance of technology and behavioral
science, understanding the human dimension of the threat,” said Mr.
Stroz, the former F.B.I. agent and security investigator. “There is no
law in the books that will ever throw a computer in prison.”
As cellphones become more powerful, they offer new terrain for malware
to exploit in new ways. Recently, security experts have started seeing
malware that surreptitiously switches on a cellphone’s microphone and
camera. “It turns a smartphone into a surveillance device,” said Mark
D. Rasch, a computer security consultant in Bethesda, Md., who formerly
prosecuted computer crime for the Justice Department.
Hacked cellphones, Mr. Rasch said, can also provide vital corporate
intelligence because they can disclose their location. The whereabouts
of a cellphone belonging to an investment banker who is representing a
company in merger talks, he said, could provide telling clues to rival
bidders, for example.
Security experts say the ideal approach is to carefully identify a
corporation’s most valuable intellectual property and data, and place
it on a separate computer network not linked to the Internet, leaving a
so-called air gap.
“Sometimes the cheapest and best security solution is to lock the door
and don’t connect,” said James P. Litchko, a former government security
official who is a manager at Cyber Security Professionals, a consulting
firm.
Some companies go further, building “Faraday cages” to house their most
critical computers and data. These cages typically have a metal grid
structure built into the walls, so no electromagnetic or cellphone
transmissions can come in or out. Defense contractors, aerospace
companies and some automakers have built Faraday cages, named for the
19th-century English scientist Michael Faraday, who designed them to
shield electrical devices from lightning and other shocks.
But in the Internet era, isolationism is often an impractical approach
for many companies. Sharing information and knowledge with industry
partners and customers is seen as the path to greater flexibility and
efficiency. Work is routinely done by far-flung project teams. Mobile
professionals want vital company data to be accessible wherever they
are.
Most of that collaboration and communication is done over the Internet,
increasing the risk of outside attacks. And the ubiquity of Internet
access inside companies has its own risks. In a case of alleged
industrial theft that became public recently, a software engineer at
Goldman Sachs was accused last year of stealing proprietary software
used in high-speed trading, just before he left for another firm. The
engineer, who pleaded not guilty, had uploaded the software to a server
computer in Germany, prosecutors say.
The complexity of software code from different suppliers, as it
intermingles in corporate networks and across the Internet, also opens
the door to security weaknesses that malware writers exploit. One quip
among computer security experts is: “The sum of the parts is a hole.”
But, security experts say, the problem goes well beyond different kinds
of software not playing well together. The software products
themselves, they say, are riddled with vulnerabilities — thousands of
such flaws are detected each year across the industry. Several
weaknesses, it seems, including one in the Microsoft Internet Explorer
browser, were exploited in the recent attacks on Google that were aimed
at Chinese dissidents.
The long-term answer, some experts assert, lies in setting the software
business on a path to becoming a mature industry, with standards,
defined responsibilities and liability for security gaps, guided by
forceful self-regulation or by the government.
Just as the government eventually stepped in to mandate seat belts in
cars and safety standards for aircraft, says James A. Lewis, a computer
security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
the time has come for software.
Mr. Lewis, who advised the Obama administration about online security
last spring, recalled that he served on a White House advisory group on
secure public networks in 1996. At the time, he recommended a hands-off
approach, assuming that market incentives for the participants would
deliver Internet security.
Today, Mr. Lewis says he was mistaken. “It’s a classic market failure —
the market hasn’t delivered security,” he said. “Our economy has become
so dependent on this fabulous technology — the Internet — but it’s not
safe. And that’s an issue we’ll have to wrestle with.”
B'way broadband brawl center
stage
New York Post
By BILL SANDERSON
Last Updated: 10:59 AM, January 16, 2010
Posted: 2:44 AM, January 16, 2010
There's new drama on Broadway over the federal government's decision to
reallocate radio frequencies used by stage crews and performers.
Verizon and AT&T are taking over radio frequencies allotted to
wireless microphones used in theaters, churches, sports arenas and
stadiums, among other places.
On Broadway, the wireless systems are used by stage crews to
communicate scenery moves and by performers to amplify voices.
Theaters have until June 12 to switch to new frequencies. On some big
shows, the changeover could end up costing $100,000, the Broadway
League says.
Long-running shows like "Wicked" will have the hardest time, since
their producers bought equipment before the FCC contemplated changing
the airwave rules.
Broadway producers were unhappy with the change, but say that in return
for giving up their frequencies the FCC may impose new protections on
their new systems.
Verizon and AT&T won a government auction in 2008 to use the
theaters' frequencies for high-speed Internet services.
Also yesterday, Verizon and AT&T announced they'll cut prices for
voice cellphone services.
Verizon moved first, slashing the cost of an unlimited voice plan by
$30, to $69.99 before taxes. AT&T quickly matched it.
Pa. district took 56,000
images on student laptops
YAHOO
By MARYCLAIRE DALE, Associated Press Writer
20 April 2010
PHILADELPHIA – A suburban school district secretly captured at
least 56,000 webcam photographs and screen shots from laptops issued to
high school students, its lawyer acknowledged Monday.
"It's clear there were students who were likely captured in their
homes," said lawyer Henry Hockeimer, who represents the Lower Merion
School District.
None of the images, captured by a tracking program to find missing
computers, appeared to be salacious or inappropriate, he said. The
district said it remotely activated the tracking software to find 80
missing laptops in the past two years. The Philadelphia Inquirer
first reported Monday on the large number of images recovered from
school servers by forensic computer experts, who were hired after
student Blake Robbins filed suit over the tracking practice.
Robbins still doesn't know why the district deployed the software
tracking program on his computer, as he had not reported it lost or
stolen, his lawyer said. The FBI has opened a criminal
investigation into possible wiretap violations by the district, and
U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, of Pennsylvania, has introduced a bill to
include webcam surveillance under the federal wiretap statute.
The district photographed Robbins 400 times during a 15-day period last
fall, sometimes as he slept in bed or was half-dressed, according to
his lawyer, Mark Haltzman. Other times, the district captured screen
shots of instant messages or video chats the Harriton High School
sophomore had with friends, he said.
"Not only was Blake Robbins being spied upon, but every one of the
people he was IM chatting with were spied upon," said Haltzman, whose
lawsuit alleges wiretap and privacy violations. "They captured pictures
of people that have nothing to do with Harriton. It could be his cousin
from Connecticut."
About 38,000 of the images were taken over several months from six
computers the school said were stolen from a locker room. The
tracking program took images every 15 minutes, usually capturing the
webcam photo of the user and a screen shot at the same time. The
program was sometimes turned on for weeks or months at a time,
Hockeimer said.
"There were no written policies or procedures governing the
circumstances surrounding activating the program and the circumstances
regarding turning off the activations," Hockeimer said.
Robbins was one of about 20 students who had not paid the $55 insurance
fee required to take the laptops home but was the only one tracked,
Haltzman said. The depositions taken to date have provided
contradictory testimony about the reasons for tracking Robbins' laptop.
One of the two people authorized to activate the program, technology
coordinator Carol Cafiero, invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to
answer questions at the deposition, Haltzman said.
About 10 school officials had the right to request an activation,
Hockeimer disclosed Monday.
The tracking program helped police identify a suspect not affiliated
with the school in the locker room theft, Hockeimer said. The affluent
Montgomery County district distributes the Macintosh notebook computers
to all 2,300 students at its two high schools, Hockeimer said. As
part of the lawsuit, a federal judge this week is set to begin a
confidential process of showing parents the images that were captured
of their children.
The school district expects to release a written report on an internal
investigation in the next few weeks, Hockeimer said. School board
President David Ebby has pledged the report will contain "all the facts
— good and bad."
Specter pushes in Pa. for electronic
privacy laws
YAHOO
By MARYCLAIRE DALE, Associated Press Writer
29 March 2010
PHILADELPHIA – Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is pushing for new
federal laws on electronic privacy as a school district back home
struggles with a lawsuit over attempts to locate missing laptops by
turning on webcams — something that could have enabled it to film
students at home.
Specter, a Democrat, said at a field hearing of a Senate subcommittee
that he believes existing wiretap and video-voyeurism statutes do not
adequately address concerns in an era marked by the widespread use of
cell-phone, laptop and surveillance cameras.
"My family and I recognize that in today's society, almost every place
we go outside of our home we are photographed and recorded by traffic
cameras, ATM cameras, and store surveillance cameras," Blake Robbins,
the Harriton High School student who sued, wrote in a statement read
into the record at the hearing of the crime and justice subcommittee of
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"This makes it all the more important that we vigilantly safeguard our
homes, the only refuge we have from this eyes everywhere onslaught," he
wrote.
Robbins accuses the Lower Merion School District of spying by secretly
activating webcams on the school-issued laptops; officials admit they
did so but said they were trying only to locate 42 lost or stolen
computers.
Neither Robbins nor his parents attended the session, which did not
specifically focus on the Lower Merion case — the subject of ongoing
county and FBI investigations. Instead, five experts debated how best
to strike a balance between privacy and security concerns.
Lawyer Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that
wiretap laws, which now cover audio recordings, should be broadened to
include videotaped surveillance. But others disagreed, arguing that
wiretap charges should not apply, lest they entangle innocent people
using software tracking programs to try to find their own stolen phones
or laptops.
"If it does fall under (the Wiretap Act) in the new legislation, we
hope there will be an exception for stolen devices," said John
Livingston, chairman of Absolute Software Corp., the Vancouver, British
Columbia-based company that acquired the LANrev TheftTrack software
program deployed by Lower Merion.
The panel debated whether any new law should focus on the intent of the
person using the camera; whether the subject's location affords them an
expectation of privacy, such as a home or locker room; or the full
context of the situation.
Only one person from the Lower Merion district testified, a parent
opposed to the Robbins family's lawsuit who urged a middle ground
between security and privacy concerns.
Bob Wegbreit said a warning might suffice to let families know the
district might activate webcams without a student's knowledge. Students
could then choose to keep the computers in other parts of the house,
instead of their bedrooms, said Wegbreit, whose group fears the lawsuit
will damage the upscale district's finances and reputation.
Federal legislation might help clarify what school districts, employers
or others can and cannot do, he said.
"There's no question that I believe the federal government should be
legislating in this area," said Fred H. Cate, an Indiana University law
school professor who specializes in cybersecurity issues. "We've seen a
proliferation of video cameras in every aspect of our lives."
Specter, the only senator in attendance Monday, agreed to lead the
effort, noting that at least one federal judge voiced concerns a
quarter century ago that privacy laws were not keeping up with emerging
technology.
"My sense is my colleagues will be responsive," Specter said. "If there
is a gap, it ought to be closed ... after 25 years."
Pa.
school district is asked not to
wipe computers
YAHOO
By MARYCLAIRE DALE, Associated Press Writer
Feb. 22, 2010
PHILADELPHIA – A student who accuses his suburban Philadelphia school
district in a lawsuit of spying on students via their school-issued
webcams will ask district officials not to remove any potential
evidence from student computers, his lawyer said Monday.
Lawyers for the Lower Merion School District are due in federal court
on the issue Monday afternoon, on an emergency petition from student
Blake Robbins of Penn Valley.
Lower Merion officials confirmed last week they had activated the
webcams to try to find 42 missing laptops, without the knowledge or
permission of students and their families. Both the FBI and local
authorities are investigating whether the district broke any wiretap,
computer-use or other laws.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief in support of the
student Monday, arguing that the photo amounts to an illegal search.
"That school officials' warrantless, non-consensual use of a camera,
embedded in students' laptops, inside the home is a search cannot be
doubted," the ACLU wrote in a brief filed Monday morning.
Students at the district's two high schools have taken to taping over
the webcam and microphone, even as school officials insist they have
stopped the practice.
Robbins sued last week, alleging that Harriton High School officials
took a photo of him inside his home. He learned of it when an assistant
principal said she knew he was engaging in improper behavior at home,
according to his potentially class-action lawsuit. Robbins and his
family have told reporters that an official mistook a piece of candy
for a pill and thought he was selling drugs.
In the wake of the outcry over the alleged spying, school district
officials have said they have abandoned the practice of remotely
activating the webcams. Still, the Robbinses' lawyer does not want the
district to remove any information or programs from the 2,300 laptops
issued to students at its two high schools.
"Defendants intend to reclaim each laptop from the possession of
members of the class for the purpose of wiping clean the hard drive or
otherwise engaging in the spoliation of evidence," family lawyer Mark
S. Haltzman wrote in the emergency petition.
Lawyer Henry E. Hockeimer Jr., who represents the district, urged
families and community members not to jump to conclusions.
"These are important issues, and we view them seriously," Hockeimer, a
former federal prosecutor, said in a statement.
While courts have held that students can be searched at school given
"reasonable suspicion" of a crime — a more relaxed standard than
"probable cause," designed to ensure school safety — the lower standard
does not apply in the home, the ACLU argued in its brief.
The district recovered 18 of the 42 laptops that disappeared in the
past 14 months, district spokesman Doug Young said Monday. He did not
immediately know whether any were found — after the webcam pictures
were taken — in student homes.
Young has declined to discuss whether Blake Robbins' laptop was
reported missing, because of the litigation, but said the district did
not violate its policy to activate webcams only for that purpose.
Robbins insists in court filings that it was never reported missing.
The district has no plans to take back the student laptops, Young said.
"To the extent any mistakes were made, we will make recommendations for
any needed changes in policies and procedures," Hockeimer said.
Nationwide:
Computers Increase
Students' Temptation To Cheat
Hartford Courant
By JESSE LEAVENWORTH
October 30, 2009
The link between teenagers' computer abilities and an increase in
academic cheating is evident across the nation.
From Manchester to Newport Beach, Calif., high school students have
been accused of tapping into school computer systems to change grades,
erase absences and lift exams before they're given.
Two Manchester High School students — both boys, ages 15 and 17 — are
suspected of altering online grade books and attendance records,
officials said this week. No charges have been filed, but police are
investigating.
Asked Thursday if the boys had confessed, police spokesman Lt. Chris
Davis would say only that they "have been cooperative."
There's nothing new about cheating, said Lt. James Wardwell, a computer
forensics expert with the New Britain Police Department, "and the
computer is just another tool to help someone accomplish a bad deed."
What is new is that cheating in America's high schools has become
"rampant, and it's getting worse," according to a 2008 nationwide
survey by the Josephson Institute, the California-based nonprofit
organization that runs the Character Counts! youth ethics program in
schools in Connecticut and throughout the country.
The survey of 30,000 high school students found that 64 percent said
they had cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in
2006. The survey did not address school computer hacking, but 36
percent of respondents said they had used the Internet to plagiarize an
assignment, an increase from 33 percent in 2006.
Some students have been lured into cyber-cheating by the apparent cloak
that computers and personal communication devices provide, Michael
Josephson, president of the ethics institute, said. Armed with stolen
information, kids can enter school record systems from their bedrooms,
or they can photograph copies of tests with their cellphones and send
them to others who have to take the same test.
"Technology has made it easier to cheat" and is driving the upward
trend in cheating, Josephson said.
But most of the increase, he said, is due to a passive indifference and
cynicism among both schools staff and parents.
"It's a mistake to focus on the tools," Josephson said. "If they had
the moral fiber, they wouldn't do it no matter how easy it was."
Newspaper reports from throughout the country show that the methods
students use to crack school computer programs range from simply
watching a school staff member entering a password — the method used in
Manchester, according to police — to sneaking spyware onto school
computers. "Key-logger" programs, for instance, record all strokes on a
computer keyboard and send a record to another computer.
In some cases, cyber-cheating students have lifted user names and
passwords from hard copy lists left in school offices. Some school
staff members use their own names, or slightly altered variations, as
passwords, enabling a student to enter a grading or attendance site
after a few guesses.
That was the case in Naples, Fla., recently, where police say a
16-year-old boy slipped into school district computers by guessing an
employee's password. The boy was then able to change the grades of five
or six students, according to Florida news reports.
Students often share stolen passwords with friends, expanding illicit
record changes and the resultant costs to taxpayers in lost staff time
and security upgrades. In Sugar Land, Texas, last year, four high
school students were suspected of changing the grades of at least 60
students, according to the Houston Chronicle. Investigators estimated
the cost to the school district at about $190,000.
Manchester school officials have been close-mouthed about the alleged
cheating at the high school and have not commented about the students'
possible punishment. Davis said police must analyze the three computers
they seized from the boys before any charges are filed.
Just as a burglar leaves tracks in the mud, computer crime leaves
trails, Wardwell said. In most cases of school cyber-cheating, police
have seized computers to track that digital path.
Sometimes, however, evidence literally pops up.
In Eau Claire, Wis., last year, a high school student altered grade and
attendance records for himself and two friends, according to the St.
Paul Pioneer Press. School officials were tipped to the activity when a
box twice appeared on a teacher's computer screen indicating that she
was logging out while she was entering grades. The teacher also noticed
in her log-in history that she had logged in at times when she wasn't
using her computer, according to the newspaper report.
Alert teachers and school staff also have noticed discrepancies between
online and hard copy records, and sometimes their memories of students'
grades and absences didn't match the online record.
Classmates also reveal the schemes. Manchester police said another
student told officials about the alleged record changes.
Of course, there's always simple deduction.
A Kentucky high school student's scheme unraveled in 2007 when school
officials found tests and quizzes from seven teachers had been copied
from the school system. Those seven teachers had only one student in
common, according to The Courier-Journal newspaper in Louisville.
Copyright © 2009, The Hartford Courant
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski
F.C.C. Moves to Ease Wireless Congestion
By EDWARD WYATT, NYTIMES
February
20, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday took a
step to relieve growing congestion on Wi-Fi networks in hotels,
airports and homes, where Americans increasingly use multiple
data-hungry tablets, smartphones and other devices for wireless
communications.
The commission proposed making a large chunk of high-frequency
airwaves, or spectrum, available for use by unlicensed devices,
including Wi-Fi routers like those that many Americans use in their
homes.
The agency’s five commissioners also expressed hopes that the new
airwaves would unleash new innovations, just as unlicensed spectrum in
the past has made possible such devices as cordless phones, garage door
openers and television remote controls.
After a public comment period, the commissioners will try to issue
final rules and regulations, a process that could take a year or more.
But all of the commissioners expressed hope that the new airwaves could
be put to use without unnecessary delay.
Possible roadblocks do exist, however, mainly because some of the
airwaves proposed for the new applications are already in use by
private organizations and government agencies, including the United
States military.
Congress has mandated that the F.C.C. undertake the expansion of
unlicensed spectrum, and the Obama administration has urged the freeing
up or sharing of airwaves currently allocated to the federal government.
But various government agencies, including a division of the Department
of Commerce, have warned against allowing consumer uses to interfere
with current applications. Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant
commerce
secretary for communications and information, said in a letter to the
commission that the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and
NASA use parts of the same airwaves for communication between aircraft
and ground stations. Those communications enable activities like drug
interdiction, combat search and rescue, and border surveillance.
Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C. chairman, said he was confident that the
commission’s engineers would be able to work with the affected
government and private entities to solve interference problems.
“It’s very important for the country that we all lean into this in a
problem-solving way,” Mr. Genachowski said. “This is not a new
challenge for the commission to address.”
While “it will require significant consultation with stakeholders” to
avoid problems, he added, “consultation can’t be an excuse for inaction
or delay.”
The commission also voted unanimously to approve a new regulation
allowing consumers and companies to use approved and licensed signal
boosters to amplify signals between wireless devices, like cellphones,
and the wireless networks on which they operate.
Those boosters, millions of which are currently used in ungoverned
applications, help consumers and businesses to improve coverage where
cell signals are weak. Boosters are also used by public safety
departments to extend wireless access in tunnels, subways and garages.
The order, which takes effect March 1, creates two classes of signal
boosters, for use by consumers and businesses, each with distinct
requirements to minimize interference with wireless networks.
FCC
opens up unused TV signals
for broadband
YAHOO
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer
23 September 2010
WASHINGTON – The Federal Communications Commission is opening up unused
airwaves between television stations for wireless broadband networks
that will be more powerful and can travel farther than today's Wi-Fi
hotspots.
The five-member FCC voted unanimously Thursday to allow the use of
so-called "white spaces" between TV stations to deliver broadband
connections that can function like Wi-Fi networks on steroids. The
agency is calling the new technology "super Wi-Fi" and hopes to see
devices with the new technology start to appear within a year.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said white spaces networks will serve
as "a powerful platform for innovation," driving billions in industry
investment.
Leading technology companies, including Google Inc., Microsoft Corp.
and Dell Inc., are eager to develop the market. They say television
white spaces are ideally suited for broadband because they are able to
penetrate walls, have plenty of capacity and can travel several miles.
Just like the spectrum used by Wi-Fi, the white spaces will be
available to all users for free, with no license required. The FCC
hopes they will help ease strain on the nation's increasingly crowded
airwaves as more consumers go online using laptops and data-hungry
smart phones.
Although the FCC first voted to allow the use of white spaces for
broadband nearly two years ago, the plan ran into serious opposition
from television broadcasters worried about interference with their
over-the-air signals. Wireless
microphone manufacturers and users — including churches, theatres,
karaoke bars and all types of performers — raised similar concerns.
Thursday's vote mandates the creation of a database with a map of TV
channels across the country as well as big wireless microphone users,
such as Broadway theaters and sports leagues. White spaces networks and
devices would be required to determine their own location and then
consult the database to find vacant frequencies to use. The FCC is also
setting aside at least two channels for minor users of wireless
microphones.
David Donovan, president of the Association for Maximum Service
Television, said the group will work with the FCC to develop the
technical protections to safeguard television signals.
FCC,
public safety at odds
over broadband plan
YAHOO
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer
25 July 2010
WASHINGTON – Two years ago, the Federal Communications Commission
stumbled as it tried to create a nationwide wireless broadband network
for police officers, firefighters and emergency medical workers,
delaying the construction of what everyone agrees is an urgently needed
system.
Now the agency is hoping to rework the plan, which relies on a prime
slice of airwaves called the D Block. But many public safety officials
say the commission is, once again, going about it the wrong way.
In 2008, the FCC attempted to auction off the block to the wireless
industry, with a requirement that the winning bidder help build out a
sturdy communications network that would be shared with first
responders and give them priority in an emergency. But those conditions
proved too onerous, and the auction failed to attract any serious
bidders.
So this time around, the agency hopes to auction off the D Block to
wireless carriers and use the proceeds — projected to be as much as $4
billion — to help pay for a public safety network on a separate slice
of spectrum already set aside for first responder broadband use. In
frequency terms, the existing public safety airwaves are right next
door to the D Block and just as big. Both pieces of spectrum were freed
up in last year's transition from analog to digital TV signals.
The existing public safety block, the FCC says, provides plenty of
capacity for day-to-day operations — letting first responders access
everything from surveillance video to fingerprint databases using
laptops and handheld devices in the field. And in an emergency, the FCC
proposal would give public safety users priority access to the D Block
and other airwaves from the digital transition.
The FCC says its proposal would fulfill a Congressional requirement to
auction off the D Block and ensure public safety benefits from the
latest wireless technology.
"We have a brief technological window to get everybody on the same page
from the beginning and build a 21st Century ... broadband system," says
Rear Admiral James Barnett, head of the FCC's Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau.
But the FCC proposal has run into fierce resistance from public safety
leaders who warn that their current spectrum holdings are not big
enough to meet their needs. They are wary of relying on commercial
networks to fill the gap, particularly in emergencies, and are calling
on the government to give the D Block to them so they can combine it
with the adjacent airwaves and double the amount of spectrum dedicated
to public safety broadband.
"If they auction this spectrum, we've lost it forever," says Rob Davis,
head of the San Jose Police Department and president of the Major
Cities Chiefs of Police Association. "We need to control this network
ourselves."
Public safety officials have powerful allies in Congress, including
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Sen.
John McCain, R-Ariz. But House Commerce Committee leaders are drafting
legislation based on the FCC plan.
The big wireless carriers have also joined the fray. T-Mobile USA and
Sprint Nextel Corp., eager for more spectrum, support the FCC proposal.
Verizon Wireless and AT&T Inc., both flush with spectrum from 2008
auctions of other airwaves from the digital transition, want to see the
D Block go to public safety. So does Motorola Inc., which dominates the
market for first responder communications equipment and handsets.
The one thing everyone agrees on is the need to bring nation's public
safety communications networks into the digital age.
The shortcomings of the existing networks became apparent after the
9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, when police officers, fire fighters
and other first responders could not talk to one another because they
were using incompatible — and sometimes antiquated — systems. One
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission was the construction of a
nationwide "interoperable" wireless network that would let public
safety workers across agencies and jurisdictions communicate with each
other.
The FCC insists its proposal, part of its national broadband plan,
would meet the needs of first responders. The spectrum already
dedicated to public safety, Barnett says, can handle day-to-day
operations since advanced 4G wireless technology can make far more
efficient use of airwaves than public safety networks do today.
And in a big emergency, he warns, even the bigger block of spectrum
envisioned by the public safety plan might not be enough. The FCC's
proposal would give public safety first dibs on at least three times
more spectrum in a crisis.
But Chuck Dowd, deputy chief in the communications division of the New
York City Police Department, says commercial networks are just not
reliable enough for first responders who deal with life-and-death
matters. Richard Mirgon, president of the Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials International, adds that in a mass emergency,
commercial networks are often already overwhelmed — making it
impossible for first responders to even connect to them.
With the dispute now heading to Congress, the focus is on funding.
Bruce Gottlieb, chief counsel to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, says
the FCC plan would drive down the cost of a first responder network by
allowing public safety to piggyback on the massive investments being
made by commercial wireless carriers as they upgrade their technology.
The agency's plan puts the cost of building the public safety network
at roughly $6.5 billion and the cost of operating and maintaining it at
between $6 billion and $10 billion over 10 years — less than half the
cost of a stand-alone network, the FCC says.
In the face of a ballooning federal deficit and state and local budget
cuts, Barnett insists, the FCC plan offers the best way to come up with
this funding.
But public safety officials are confident they can find the resources
to pay for a broadband network even without D Block auction proceeds.
If they get the D Block, they say, they would be able to lease excess
airwaves to commercial carriers since they would not always need all of
it.
What's more, another key recommendation in the FCC's national broadband
plan is a proposal to free up a lot more spectrum for wireless
broadband over the next 10 years. That, public safety officials say,
will produce plenty of revenue to pay for a first responder network.
Gov't
plans to double available wireless spectrum
YAHOO
28 June 2010
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration intends to nearly
double the available amount of wireless communications spectrum over
the next 10 years in an effort to keep up with the ever-growing demand
for high-speed video and data transmission to cell phones, laptops and
other mobile devices.
President Barack Obama on Monday committed the federal government to
auctioning off 500 megahertz of federal and commercial spectrum.
Revenue from the auctions would be spent on public safety,
infrastructure investments and deficit reduction.
In a memo to heads of federal agencies and departments, Obama said he
wanted to unleash the full potential of wireless broadband and spur
innovation.
"This new era in global technology leadership will only happen if there
is adequate spectrum available to support the forthcoming myriad of
wireless devices, networks and applications that can drive the new
economy," Obama wrote.
National Economic Council director Lawrence H. Summers was to explain
the new policy in a speech Monday at the New America Foundation, a
Washington think tank. In an excerpt released by the White House,
Summers said the initiative could "help to create hundreds of thousands
of jobs."
The administration said it hopes to encourage the spread of wireless
broadband across the country, including rural areas. The auction is
intended, in part, to counter fears of a potential "spectrum crunch" as
smart phones and laptop computers become more popular and new wireless
devices hit the market.
FCC
asks: Do media ownership limits
make sense?
YAHOO
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer
21 June 2010
WASHINGTON – Even the news industry's free fall probably will not be
enough to wipe out complicated federal rules designed to restrain the
power of media companies. For decades, the Federal Communications
Commission has imposed strict limits preventing any company from
controlling too many media properties in the same market. These limits
were established to ensure that communities have choices of newspapers
and local TV and radio stations.
Congress requires the FCC to take a hard look at the rules every four
years to determine whether they still serve the public interest. If
they don't, the FCC has to rewrite them. Now, as the FCC kicks
off its latest review, it faces calls to pare the limits because
traditional media companies are no longer the almighty players that
they were when the ownership rules were first enacted.
Newspaper readers and advertisers have migrated to the Internet, where
a lot of content is free and advertising costs less. As a result,
newsrooms have shrunk and newspapers have sought bankruptcy protection
or shut down. Television broadcasters are suffering too as cable,
satellite TV and the Internet splinter audiences and siphon ad dollars
— forcing stations to seek new revenue streams and even raising
questions about the future of free, over-the-air TV.
Against this backdrop, media companies argue that the FCC's ownership
limits no longer make sense and should be relaxed, or even scrapped, so
that the companies can get bigger in order to better compete and
survive.
"These rules need to fall away," says Jerry Fritz, general counsel for
Allbritton Communications, an Arlington, Va., company that owns eight
TV stations in seven markets, a cable station in Washington, D.C., and
Politico, a successful online and print publication that covers
politics. Allbritton is also launching a local news website to cover
the Washington region. "The FCC rules make no sense anymore," Fritz
says.
But the FCC is unlikely to toss out media ownership restrictions
entirely. The agency is also under pressure from public interest groups
that support strong limits. Andrew Schwartzman, head of the group Media
Access Project, argues that such rules remain critical because
democracy relies on a vibrant press with many voices.
These groups have a key ally in Michael Copps, one of the three
Democrats on the five-member FCC. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has
said little publicly about his views on the existing rules, and his
staff has promised a fresh look at the entire media ownership
framework. But Genachowski was an architect of the Obama campaign's
technology platform, which included a pledge to encourage diversity in
media ownership.
Complicating the situation: Even as the FCC launches the 2010 review,
the agency still is tied up in a legal battle in the 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals over the media ownership reviews of Genachowski's
Republican predecessors.
The case goes back to the 2002 review under then-FCC chairman Michael
Powell. Powell tried to raise the caps on TV and radio station
ownership and relax the so-called "cross-ownership" ban, a rule adopted
in 1975 that prohibits common ownership of a broadcast station and a
newspaper in the same market. (Holdings in some markets, such as
Chicago, where Tribune Co. owns WGN radio and TV and the Chicago
Tribune, were grandfathered in.)
But Powell's plan drew legal challenges from public interest groups
that said he had gone too far and media companies that said he had not
gone far enough. So the 3rd Circuit sent the matter back to FCC,
telling it to rewrite the rules. And that led Powell's successor, Kevin
Martin, to try to ease the cross-ownership ban in the 20 largest media
markets. That drew more challenges from both sides.
After Genachowski came to the FCC last year, the agency urged the 3rd
Circuit to hold off on considering the case because Martin's rules
would soon be superseded by the 2010 review. For a time, the court
complied and prevented those rules from going into effect. But in
March, the court got tired of waiting for the agency to act and allowed
Martin's rules to take force, which could pave the way for
cross-ownership deals in the biggest markets. So now, the FCC must
decide how to respond in court to the challenges to Martin's actions —
even as it launches its own media ownership review.
On both fronts, public interest groups are pushing to roll back
Martin's cross-ownership rules and leave the rest of the restrictions
in place. Meanwhile, media companies are fighting to lift the
cross-ownership ban entirely. They also want some relief from rules
that prohibit one company from owning more than one TV station in
smaller markets and more than two TV stations in larger markets,
including only one of the top four.
Such rules, opponents say, reflect a time when the news business was
dominated by just three TV networks and local newspapers — before
cable, satellite and the Internet transformed the media, providing
outlets for all sorts of viewpoints and voices. Indeed, some of the
current ownership rules date in some form to as early as the 1940s. So
why, critics ask, should the FCC continue to measure competition by
counting broadcast stations and newspapers in individual markets?
"I don't think the average consumer sees the market the way we regulate
it," Powell says. "This isn't the way Americans consume media."
Critics also say the rules do more harm than good by artificially
inflating the number of media outlets fighting for a limited pool of
readers, viewers and advertisers in individual markets. Allowing
consolidation, says Harold Furchtgott-Roth, a former Republican FCC
commissioner, would let media companies build larger audiences to
attract advertisers and spread hefty newsgathering costs by repurposing
content across more platforms.
"If we want robust local news, we need to give media companies the
opportunity to achieve scale, since producing local news is not cheap,"
says Rebecca Duke, vice president of distribution for LIN Media, a
company based in Providence, R.I., that owns 29 TV stations.
Lifting the rules could help save struggling newspapers or TV stations
looking for a buyer, Furchtgott-Roth adds, because often the only
potential suitor might be the other major media outlet in town.
One irony not lost on media executives is that the FCC and the Justice
Department are expected to approve Comcast Corp.'s proposal to buy a
majority stake in NBC Universal from General Electric Co. That deal,
which would give the nation's largest cable TV operator control of
NBC's media empire, would dwarf the types of local media mergers
prohibited by the FCC's current rules.
Still, Corie Wright, policy counsel for the public interest group Free
Press, insists there is not enough competition in most markets to
permit consolidation. Even as cable and the Internet offer many more
choices for general news and commentary, most local reporting is still
done by newspapers and TV stations, she notes.
Georgetown Law professor Angela Campbell, who represents several public
interest groups defending strong ownership limits, fears more
consolidation would lead to newsroom layoffs as media companies combine
operations and feed the same content to different outlets.
"Every time you have one of these deals, at the end of the day it means
one newsroom closes, another lost voice, less local coverage and less
diversity of perspective," says FCC Commissioner Copps.
Schwartzman, head of Media Access Project, is also skeptical of the
argument that the industry's troubles justify deregulation. After all,
he noted, the economy is still emerging from a deep recession that has
hit major advertisers in the auto, real estate and retailing sectors
particularly hard. As those sectors recover, he says, media companies
may recover too.
"I am concerned about enacting policy changes based on temporary
economic conditions," Schwartzman says. "We don't know what the new
normal is."
But whatever the new normal turns out to be, it figures to look very
different from the traditional media landscape. That's why some
observers are asking whether all the debate over media consolidation
may be beside the point, given the huge problems facing the industry.
"Media companies are struggling and the government is standing in their
way," says Kenneth Ferree, a former FCC official who pushed to relax
the ownership limits under Powell and is now a senior fellow with The
Progress & Freedom Foundation, a free-market think tank. "But even
if the FCC got rid of the rules, would it matter anyway? That's the
$64,000 question."
Editorial: The
F.C.C. and the Internet
April 19, 2010
With the Internet fast becoming the most important communications
channel, it is untenable for the United States not to have a regulator
to ensure nondiscriminatory access, guarantee interconnectivity among
rival networks and protect consumers from potential abuse.
Yet that’s exactly where the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit left us all when it said this month that
the Federal Communications Commission didn’t have the authority to
regulate the Internet — and specifically, could not force the cable
giant Comcast to stop blocking peer-to-peer sites.
The decision, in the words of the F.C.C.’s general counsel, Austin
Schlick, undermines the agency’s ability to serve as “the cop on the
beat for 21st-century communications networks.” It also puts at risk
big chunks of the F.C.C.’s strategy for increasing the reach of
broadband Internet to all corners of the country and fostering more
competition among providers.
Chairman Julius Genachowski said the commission is not planning to
appeal the decision, and is studying its options. The F.C.C. could try
to forge ahead with its broadband plan despite the court’s decision. Or
Congress could give the F.C.C. specific authority to regulate broadband
access.
But the court tightly circumscribed the F.C.C.’s actions. And with
Republicans determined to oppose pretty much anything the
administration wants, the odds of a rational debate on the issues are
slim.
Fortunately, the commission has the tools to fix this problem. It can
reverse the Bush administration’s predictably antiregulatory decision
to define broadband Internet access as an information service, like
Google or Amazon, over which it has little regulatory power. Instead,
it can define broadband as a communications service, like a phone
company, over which the commission has indisputable authority.
The F.C.C. at the time argued that a light regulatory touch would
foster alternative technologies and aggressive competition among
providers. It assumed that the Internet of the future would be
dominated by companies like AOL that bundle access with other services,
justifying its conflation of access and information. And it
claimed that it could still regulate broadband access even if it was
classified as a service. All it had to do was convince the courts that
it was necessary to further other statutory goals, like promoting the
roll-out of competitive Internet services. This legal argument did not
hold up.
Any move now by the F.C.C to redefine broadband would surely unleash a
torrent of lawsuits by broadband providers, but the commission has
solid legal grounds to do that. To begin with, the three arguments
advanced by the F.C.C. during the Bush years have proved wrong.
Rather than seeing an explosion of new competition, the broadband
access business has consolidated to the point that many areas of the
country have only one provider. Broadband Internet has unbundled into a
business with many unrelated information service providers vying for
space on the pipelines of a few providers.
And most persuasively: broadband access is probably the most important
communication service of our time. One that needs a robust regulator.
Telecom
Report: FCC unveils grand plan for speedy Internet everywhere
Far-reaching goals called laudable, but stiff opposition to plan is
likely
By Jeffry Bartash, MarketWatch
March 15, 2010, 4:38 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Federal regulators are set to unveil an
ambitious plan to make the Internet faster and more affordable to all
Americans, but their efforts are likely to draw sizable opposition, and
the process could take years.
On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission will reveal its
long-awaited national broadband plan. The goals: connect every American
home to high-speed Internet service and make broadband in U.S. the
fastest in the world.
Hopes are fading that Google will be able to reach an agreement with
China to remain in business there. With an exit by Google, a big chunk
of the search market would be up for grabs, Ben Worthen reports on
Digits with Stacey Delo, Eric Savitz and Marcelo Prince.
The FCC, for example, envisions download speeds reaching as high as 100
megabits a second within 10 years in at least 100 million U.S. homes.
Current speeds range from 1.5 megabits to 12 megabits, with FCC data
showing that as many as one-third of all Americans lack broadband in
their homes.
In a summary of the plan released on Monday, the FCC said improved
broadband access would improve the lives of Americans in virtually
every area, including work, education, health care and access to
government services. Click here to read plan summary.
"Like electricity a century ago, broadband is a foundation for economic
growth, job creation, global competitiveness and a better way of life,"
the FCC summary said.
The FCC's far-ranging proposal, however, touches a number of hot-button
issues that are sure to provoke resistance from some members of
Congress as well as industry groups such as broadcasters and phone
companies.
The agency, for example, wants to make 500 megaherz of spectrum
available to wireless carriers - 10 times the amount of airwaves now in
FCC hands. Mobile carriers such as AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) and Verizon
Wireless (NYSE:VZ) say they will eventually need more spectrum to
provide reliable and superfast Internet connections to every customer.
Yet much of that spectrum is now in the hands of television
broadcasters, which won't give up the badly needed airwaves without
compensation.
"The problem is most of the spectrum is occupied by somebody else,"
said Adam Thierer, president of the free-market leaning Progress &
Freedom Foundation. "They are going to want a lot of money for this."
The agency suggests giving broadcasters a portion of the cash raised
when the FCC resells the spectrum to carriers, but analysts say that
might be a hard sell in Congress. Lawmakers have used proceeds from
past auctions to fund other priorities, including deficit reduction or
new programs.
The FCC also wants to overhaul the "universal service fund," which
subsidizes phone service for rural inhabitants and poorer Americans, to
include broadband. Yet past efforts at reform have been foiled by
disputes over how to pay for the multibillion-dollar fund and how to
divvy up the subsidies.
"There is a general consensus that the system is broken and needs to be
fixed," said Jeffrey Silva, a technology analyst at Washington,
D.C.-based Medley Global Advisors. "That doesn't mean it's not subject
to political infighting. It will be."
Other potential landmines include new FCC proposals to safeguard the
privacy of consumers, alter rules on competition and force network
operators to disclose more data on how they price Internet service.
"As with any report of this size, variety and complexity, we expect
that we will have points of agreement and disagreement on specific
issues," said Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable and
Telecommunications Association.
Despite the likelihood of some stiff opposition, many technology
companies strongly support the FCC's wider goals of making broadband
service faster and more affordable.
Jeff Campbell of Cisco Systems Inc. (NASDAQ:CSCO) , the nation's
largest seller of Internet-networking gear, said world-class broadband
networks would make the U.S. more competitive globally and spur the
creation of millions of jobs in the long run, especially in small and
medium businesses.
Cisco and dozens of other large companies such as Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) ,
Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) , eBay (NASDAQ:EBAY) and Dell (NASDAQ:DELL) are
members of the TechNet alliance that backs the general thrust of the
FCC plan.
Campbell acknowledged that change won't come easily, but he said the
FCC "has the fortitude to do it if they try to see it through." Given
the usual long lag in translating FCC plans into policy, however, major
changes won't take effect anytime soon.
"The impact for companies and investors is not going to ascertained for
at least a year," Silva said.
Another potential obstacle: an already jammed calendar for Congress.
Analysts say lawmakers would prefer the FCC to focus on the parts of
its plan that the agency can enact without congressional approval or
new funding.
I BBC
Icann oversees the structure of the net
Page last updated at 15:07 GMT,
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 16:07 UK
US relaxes grip on
the internet
|
By Jonathan Fildes, Technology reporter, BBC News
|
The US government has relaxed its control over
how the internet is run.
It
has signed a four-page "affirmation of commitments" with the net
regulator Icann, giving the body autonomy for the first time.
Previous agreements gave the US close oversight of Icann -
drawing criticism from other countries and groups.
The
new agreement comes into effect on 1 October, exactly 40 years since
the first two computers were connected on the prototype of the net.
"It's a beautifully historic day," Rod Beckstrom, Icann's
head, told BBC News.
The European Commission, which has long been critical of
Icann's alliance with the US government, welcomed the new deal.
"Internet
users worldwide can now anticipate that Icann's decisions...will be
more independent and more accountable, taking into account everyone's
interests," said Viviane Reding, European Commissioner for information
society and media.
'Global system'
The Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) is a not-for-profit
private sector corporation - set up by the US government - to oversee
critical parts of the internet, such as the top-level domain (TLD) name
system. Top level domains include .com and .uk.
Since its
inception in 1998, it has periodically signed accords - known
collectively as the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) - with the US
Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information
Administration.
|
 we endorse this
Affirmation and applaud the maturing of Icann's role in the provision
of internet stability 
|
These papers meant that the US government was responsible for
reviewing the work of the body.
These
have now been abandoned in favour of the new "affirmation of
commitments", a brief document which turns the review process over to
the global "internet community".
"Under the JPA, Icann staff would conduct reviews and hand
them over to the US government," explained Mr Beckstrom.
"Now we submit those reviews to the world and post them
publically for all to comment."
In
addition, independent review panels - including representatives of
foreign governments - would specifically oversee Icann's work in three
specific areas: security, competition and accountability.
The US will retain a permanent seat on the accountability
panel.
Mr
Beckstrom said the decision to break away from the US government in all
other areas had been made "over the last year and a half".
"Stakeholders
told us that the JPA should not be renewed and that it wasn't
appropriate for it to be renewed," he told BBC News.
"It is also recognition by the US government that the
internet is a global system."
The internet began as a research project by the US military,
known as Arpanet.
On
1 October 1969, the second computer was connected to the network, said
Mr Beckstrom. Ever since, the US has played close attention to the
workings and growth of the net.
"Today's announcement bolsters
the long-term viability of the internet as a force for innovation,
economic growth, and freedom of expression," said US Assistant
Secretary for communications and information Lawrence Strickling.
"This framework puts the public interest front and centre."
Businesses have also welcomed the change of direction by the
US.
"Google
and its users depend every day on a vibrant and expanding internet; we
endorse this affirmation and applaud the maturing of Icann's role in
the provision of internet stability," said Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google.
However, the new agreement does not totally sever the links
between the US government and Icann entirely.
In
addition, Icann also has a separate agreement with the US - to run the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) - that expires in 2011.
The IANA oversees the net's addressing system.
$100M-plus broadband map runs into
cost questions
By PETER SVENSSON and JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writers
Peter Svensson And Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writers
Sat Sep 12, 12:37 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The national stimulus package passed by Congress in
February may have been too enthusiastic about spending money on one
particular project: figuring out where broadband Internet access is
available and how fast it is.
The $787 billion stimulus bill championed by the Obama administration
set aside up to $350 million to create a national broadband map that
could guide policies aimed at expanding high-speed Internet access.
That $350 million tag struck some people in the telecommunications
industry as excessive, compared with existing, smaller efforts. The map
won't even be done in time to help decide where to spend much of the
$7.2 billion in stimulus money earmarked for broadband programs.
Now it appears the final cost won't be as high as $350 million — though
just how much it will be is unclear.
To ensure the mapping money is used "in a fiscally prudent manner," the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration signaled
Wednesday it would initially spend more than $100 million, and then
reassess the program.
The agency, which is part of the Commerce Department, said it has
received requests for $107 million in funding for projects that would
map broadband in individual states over the first two years. The states
want another $26 million for various purposes over five years,
including steps to encourage broadband demand. On top of that, the NTIA
will have to spend more money to collate the statewide maps into a
national one.
But while the map should run much less than the $350 million cap set by
Congress, the total still looks like it will be far higher than
estimates based on the costs of smaller mapping programs in individual
states.
In North Carolina, for instance, state broadband authority e-NC spends
at most $275,000 per year on maintaining a map of broadband
availability in the state, detailed enough to list individual
addresses, according to executive director Jane Smith Patterson.
Rory Altman, director at telecommunications consulting firm Altman
Vilandrie & Co., which has helped clients map broadband
availability in some areas, said $350 million was a "ridiculous" amount
of money to spend on a national broadband map.
Even $100 million might be high. The firm could create a national
broadband map for $3.5 million, and "would gladly do it for $35
million," Altman said.
Dave Burstein, editor of the DSL Prime broadband industry newsletter,
believes a reasonable cost for the map would be less than $30 million.
The map should reveal what most individuals already know: whether their
homes can get broadband, and how fast it is. Officially, the goal for
the map is to help shape broadband policy and determine where best to
invest government funds. It may also help consumers shopping for
Internet service.
However, the map won't be ready in time to influence the first round of
broadband grants and loans funded by the stimulus package. That money
will start going out this fall. And the map likely won't be finished
before February's scheduled release of a national broadband plan being
developed by the Federal Communications Commission, which is also
mandated by the stimulus bill.
About two-thirds of U.S. homes already have broadband. It's available
to many more, perhaps 90 percent of homes, but the figure is uncertain
because of the lack of authoritative nationwide studies. The cable
industry alone says it covers 92 percent of U.S. households.
When the Pew Internet and American Life Project surveyed people who
didn't have broadband in 2007 and 2008, it found that most of them
aren't interested in it, find the Internet too hard to use, or don't
have computers. Lack of available broadband was the third most common
reason.
Still, there is concern that the U.S. is falling behind other countries
in the reach and speed of its Internet connections, and that this might
hinder economic growth. Advocates of expanding broadband also worry
that some rural areas might never get high-speed Internet because
service providers don't see a payoff in extending their lines there.
Identifying those areas will be a major thrust of the mapping project.
The maps will show broadband availability, type (phone or cable, for
example) and speeds for each small cluster of homes, roughly equivalent
to a city block in urban areas.
Each state's grant for mapping will go to either a nonprofit or a
government agency. Internet service providers have already committed to
handing over data about where they have broadband coverage, so the main
job will be to collect and translate that information into a map.
Mark Seifert, who is overseeing the broadband grant and mapping
programs at the NTIA, offers several reasons why the federal government
may spend proportionally more on mapping than some states. For one
thing, he said, most efforts that have been done in states have focused
on so-called "last-mile" connections that link homes and businesses
with the broader infrastructure of the Internet. The NTIA also wants
extensive data on that behind-the-scenes Internet infrastructure.
What's more, since much of the mapping data will come from phone and
cable companies, the NTIA wants the information to be independently
verified — which could involve knocking on doors to confirm where
broadband is and is not available and conducting other on-the-ground
checks.
"You can spend less money on a map ... but you get what you pay for,"
he said. "Data costs money."
Although the map will not be done in time to guide this round of
broadband funding in the stimulus package, it could prove useful for
later broadband deployment programs. And it could help set priorities
in the years ahead for huge federal programs such as the Universal
Service Fund and the Rural Utilities Service, which spend billions of
dollars annually to subsidize telecom services.
In addition to the NTIA's mapping project, there's a parallel push at
the FCC to gather more detailed data on broadband subscribers. Both
efforts are designed to aid the Obama administration's goal of
"data-driven decision making" in setting telecom policy, said Colin
Crowell, a senior counselor to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.
"There is a voracious appetite for all kinds of broadband data," said
Crowell, who helped write the broadband mapping legislation as a
staffer on a House subcommittee overseeing telecommunications.
"Policymakers have been wringing their hands for several years that we
don't have accurate data on broadband deployment and adoption."
How does this relate to
ACORN, if at all...for example, some people get off easy?
Legal Battle Plays Out: Online
Attitude vs. Rules of the Bar
NYTIMES
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
September 13, 2009
Sean Conway was steamed at a Fort Lauderdale judge, so he did what
millions of angry people do these days: he blogged about her, saying
she was an “Evil, Unfair Witch.”
But Mr. Conway is a lawyer. And unlike millions of other online
hotheads, he found himself hauled up before the Florida bar, which in
April issued a reprimand and a fine for his intemperate blog
post. Mr. Conway is hardly the only lawyer to have taken to
online social media like Facebook, Twitter and blogs, but as officers
of the court they face special risks. Their freedom to gripe is limited
by codes of conduct.
“When you become an officer of the court, you lose the full ability to
criticize the court,” said Michael Downey, who teaches legal ethics at
the Washington University law school.
And with thousands of blogs and so many lawyers online, legal ethics
experts say that collisions between the freewheeling ways of the
Internet and the tight boundaries of legal discourse are inevitable —
whether they result in damaged careers or simply raise eyebrows.
Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University Law
School, sees many more missteps in the future, as young people who grew
up with Facebook and other social media enter a profession governed by
centuries of legal tradition.
“Twenty-somethings have a much-reduced sense of personal privacy,”
Professor Gillers said. Younger lawyers are, predictably, more
comfortable with the media than their older colleagues, according to a
recent survey for LexisNexis, the legal database company: 86 percent of
lawyers ages 25 to 35 are members of social networks like Facebook,
LinkedIn and MySpace, as opposed to 66 percent of those over 46. For
those just out of law school, “this stuff is like air to them,” said
Michael Mintz, who manages an online community for lawyers,
Martindale-Hubbell Connected.
In Mr. Conway’s case, the post that got him in trouble questioned the
motives and competence of Judge Cheryl Aleman, and appeared on a rowdy
blog created by a criminal defense lawyers’ group in Broward County.
The judge regularly gave defense lawyers just one week to prepare for
trials, when most judges give a month or more. To Mr. Conway, the move
was intended to pressure the lawyers to ask for a delay in the trials,
thus waiving their right under Florida law to have a felony trial heard
within 175 days, pushing those cases to the back of the line.
“All I had left were my words,” Mr. Conway said, adding that he decided
to use the strongest ones he had.
Mr. Conway initially consented to a reprimand from the bar last year,
but the State Supreme Court, which reviews such cases, demanded briefs
on First Amendment issues. The American Civil Liberties Union of
Florida argued that Mr. Conway’s statements were protected speech that
raised issues of legitimate public concern. Ultimately the court
affirmed the disciplinary agreement and Mr. Conway paid $1,200.
That penalty is light compared with the price paid by Kristine A.
Peshek, a lawyer in Illinois who lost her job as an assistant public
defender after 19 years of service over blog postings and who now faces
disciplinary hearings as well. According to the complaint by
officials of the state’s legal disciplinary body, Ms. Peshek wrote
posts to her blog in 2007 and 2008 that referred to one jurist as
“Judge Clueless” and thinly veiled the identities of clients and
confidential details of a case, including statements like, “This stupid
kid is taking the rap for his drug-dealing dirtbag of an older brother
because ‘he’s no snitch.’ ”
Another client testified that she was drug free and received a light
sentence with just five days’ jail time, and then complained to Ms.
Peshek that she was using methadone and could not go five days without
it. Ms. Peshek wrote that her reaction was, “Huh? You want to go back
and tell the judge that you lied to him, you lied to the presentence
investigator, you lied to me?”
The complaint, first noted by the Legal Profession Blog, said that not
only did Ms. Peshek seem to reveal confidential information about a
case, but that her actions might also constitute “assisting a criminal
or fraudulent act.”
Ms. Peshek declined to comment, citing the pending inquiry “for which I
am currently seeking representation.”
Frank R. Wilson, a lawyer in San Diego, caused a criminal conviction to
be set aside and sent back to a lower court because of his blog
postings as a juror. According to a decision published recently in the
California Law Journal and picked up by the Legal Profession Blog, Mr.
Wilson, while serving on a jury in 2006, posted details of the case on
his blog. Any juror who blogs about the details of a trial risks
trouble and even civil contempt charges. But lawyers like Mr. Wilson
also face professional penalties that can threaten their livelihood.
Mr. Wilson received a 45-day suspension, paid $14,000 in legal fees and
lost his job. He said that warnings not to discuss the case did not ban
blogging; the bar disagreed. Mr. Wilson also had not disclosed during
jury selection that he was a lawyer. In an interview, Mr. Wilson said
he had not been working as a lawyer at the time and had only been asked
his occupation.
Judges,
too, can get into trouble online. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in California,
was investigated for off-color humor that was accessible on his
family’s Web server, though not intended to be public. He was cleared
of wrongdoing, but a three-judge panel admonished him for not
safeguarding the site, which they said was “judicially imprudent.”
Of course, some lawyers’ online problems are the same as everyone
else’s, like getting caught in a fib. Judge Susan Criss of the Texas
District Court in Galveston recalled in an interview a young lawyer who
requested a trial delay because of a death in the family. The judge
granted the delay, but checked the lawyer’s Facebook page.
“There was a funeral, but there wasn’t a lot of grief expressed
online,” Judge Criss said. “All week long, as the week is going by, I
can see that this lawyer is posting about partying. One night drinking
wine, another night drinking mojitos, another day motorbiking.” At the
end of the delay, the lawyer sought a second one; this time the judge
declined, and disclosed her online research to a senior partner of the
lawyer’s firm.
Judge Criss, who first told the story at a panel during an American Bar
Association conference, said that the lawyer has since removed her from
her friends list.
For his part, Mr. Conway noted that the judge he criticized was
reprimanded last year by the Florida Supreme Court, which affirmed a
state panel’s criticism of what it called an “arrogant, discourteous
and impatient” manner with lawyers in another case. (Judge Aleman did
not return calls seeking comment.) Mr. Conway said his practice was
“probably enhanced by the experience” of going public.
But the State Supreme Court ultimately concluded that his online
“personal attack” was “not uttered in an effort to expose a valid
problem” with the judicial system. And so, the court concluded, the
statements “fail as protected free speech under the First Amendment.”
ALERT:
Danger to the Internet
ACORN fires 2 in DC after video footage
Washington Times
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Saturday, September 12, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The advocacy group ACORN said Friday it fired two
more employees over hidden camera videos that show the group's workers
giving financial advice to women posing as prostitutes. The
latest
firings, in the Washington office, come a day after two other ACORN
workers in Baltimore were fired over hidden camera footage. Fox
News
Channel aired parts of the latest video and posted it online Friday. It
shows a man and woman at the group's Washington office, asking for help
in buying a house for her prostitution business.
Fox News said the video was provided by conservative activist James
O'Keefe, who appears in both videos.
The workers tell the woman not to list prostitution as her profession
on housing loans. Instead, they suggest she create a false business
name and tell banks that she's a consultant for her own company.
The
couple tells the workers they plan to bring several girls from Central
America to work in the house. Another option the workers suggest is
that the man could buy the house and act as a landlord unaware of
what's happening in the home.
Because of his political ambitions, the workers tell the supposed law
student and potential office-seeker to avoid the house. They say the
couple must be low-key about the business, or people could "call Fox."
On Thursday, two other ACORN workers in Baltimore were fired after a
they were recorded in a similar incident. O'Keefe, the filmmaker, has
told FOX he posed as a pimp in the first video and that he was shocked
by the ACORN employees' helpfulness. In Maryland, Delegate
Anthony J.
O'Donnell, House Minority Leader on Friday called for an investigation
into ACORN by the state's attorney general, Baltimore's state's
attorney, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for Maryland.
In a statement, ACORN's President of Housing Alton Bennett and
Executive Director Mike Shea, said they were "appalled and angry" to
see the latest video. They said there were no loan documents completed,
no bank loans arranged and no new business established. They said the
two workers were fired and an internal review of practices will be done.
But Bennett and Shea said the video was "slanted to misinform the
public about ACORN Housing." The video fails to mention that the same
people who made the tape went to at least five other ACORN Housing
offices where they were either turned away or where employees responded
by calling police, they said.
"It is part of a long-term plan to smear ACORN Housing for political
reasons and provide entertainment in the process," Bennett and Shea
said. "But that does not excuse the behavior of the employees."
ACORN
officials are asking Fox News to disclose its relationship with
O'Keefe. An attorney for the group sent a letter to Fox News on Friday
saying the filming and broadcast of the conversations violate secret
recording laws. The letter demands that the network stop broadcasting
the videos on air and the Internet in advance of litigation.
ACORN -- which stands for the Association of Community Organizations
for Reform Now -- advocates for poor people. It conducted a massive
voter registration effort last year and became a target of
conservatives when some employees were accused of submitting false
registration forms with names such as "Mickey Mouse." ACORN has said
only a handful of employees submitted false registration forms and did
so in a bid to boost their pay.
On its Web site, Fox News reported that the first videotape was made
public Thursday on a political blog, BigGovernment.com.
Op-Ed Columnist
Stung by the Perfect Sting
By MAUREEN DOWD
NYTIMES
August 26, 2009
WASHINGTON
If I read all the vile stuff about me on the Internet, I’d never come
to work. I’d scamper off and live my dream of being a cocktail waitress
in a militia bar in Wyoming.
If you’re written about in a nasty way, it looms much larger for you
than for anyone else. Gossip goes in one ear and out the other unless
you’re the subject. Then, nobody’s skin is thick enough.
“The velocity and volume on the Web are so great that nothing is
forgotten and nothing is remembered,” says Leon Wieseltier, the
literary editor of The New Republic. “The Internet is like closing time
at a blue-collar bar in Boston. Everyone’s drunk and ugly and they’re
going to pass out in a few minutes.”
Those are my people, I protested, but I knew what he meant. That’s why
I was interested in the Case of the Blond Model and the Malicious
Blogger.
Sooner or later, this sort of suit will end up before the Supreme Court.
It began eight months ago when Liskula Cohen, a 37-year-old model and
Australian Vogue cover girl, was surprised to find herself winning a
“Skankiest in NYC” award from an anonymous blogger. The online
tormentor put up noxious commentary on Google’s blogger.com, calling
Cohen a “skank,” a “ho” and an “old hag” who “may have been hot 10
years ago.”
Cohen says she’s “a lover, not a fighter.” But the model had stood up
for herself before. In 2007, at a New York club, she tried to stop a
man named Samir Dervisevic who wanted to drink from the vodka bottle on
her table. He hit her in the face with the bottle and gouged a hole
“the size of a quarter,” as she put it, requiring plastic surgery.
This time, she punched the virtual bully in the face, filing a
defamation suit to force Google to give up the blogger’s e-mail. And
she won.
“The words ‘skank,’ ‘skanky’ and ‘ho’ carry a negative implication of
sexual promiscuity,” wrote Justice Joan Madden of State Supreme Court
in Manhattan, rejecting the Anonymous Blogger’s assertion that blogs
are a modern soapbox designed for opinions, rants and invective.
The judge cited a Virginia court decision that the Internet’s
“virtually unlimited, inexpensive and almost immediate means of
communication” with the masses means “the dangers of its misuse cannot
be ignored. The protection of the right to communicate anonymously must
be balanced against the need to assure that those persons who choose to
abuse the opportunities presented by this medium can be made to answer
for such transgressions.”
Cyberbullies, she wrote, cannot hide “behind an illusory shield of
purported First Amendment rights.”
Once she had the e-mail address, Cohen discovered whence the smears: a
cafe society acquaintance named Rosemary Port, a pretty 29-year-old
Fashion Institute of Technology student.
Cohen called and forgave Port, but did not get an apology. She had her
lawyer, Steve Wagner, drop her defamation suit. But now Port says
she’ll file a $15 million suit against Google for giving her up.
Port contends that if Cohen hadn’t sued, hardly anyone would have seen
the blog. (If a skank falls in the forest and no one hears it ... ?)
But Cohen says the Internet is different than water-cooler gossip.
“It’s there for the whole world to see,” she told me. “What happened to
integrity? Why go out of your way solely to upset somebody else? Why
can’t we all just be nice?”
She said she may become an activist, and has been e-mailing with Tina
Meier, mother of Megan Meier, the 13-year-old who killed herself after
getting cyberbullied by the mother of a classmate who pretended to be a
teen suitor named “Josh.”
“If that woman had started a MySpace page as herself, that little girl
would still be in her mother’s arms,” Cohen said.
The Internet was supposed to be the prolix paradise where there would
be no more gatekeepers and everyone would finally have their say. We
would express ourselves freely at any level, high or low, with no
inhibitions.
Yet in this infinite realm of truth-telling, many want to hide. Who are
these people prepared to tell you what they think, but not who they
are? What is the mentality that lets them get in our face while wearing
a mask? Shredding somebody’s character before the entire world and not
being held accountable seems like the perfect sting.
Pseudonyms have a noble history. Revolutionaries in France, founding
fathers and Soviet dissidents used them. The great poet Fernando Pessoa
used heteronyms to write in different styles and even to review the
work composed under his other names.
As Hugo Black wrote in 1960, “It is plain that anonymity has sometimes
been assumed for the most constructive purposes.”
But on the Internet, it’s often less about being constructive and more
about being cowardly.
ORWELL LIVES! ("Big Brother is watching you" department)
Editorial: The Government and
the Web
NYTIMES
August 25, 2009
The Obama administration is considering new rules to make it easier for
government Web sites to use “cookies” and other technology to track
visitors. There are valid reasons for using such tools, but the
government has to build in robust privacy protections.
The Clinton administration adopted a rule severely limiting tracking on
federal Web sites. Tracking could be done only if officials could prove
a compelling need and the agency head had personally authorized it.
Tracking technology can help improve the quality of Web sites by
monitoring how many people are visiting and how they use the site, and
by personalizing the experience. For example, the Parks Service could
offer information based on where a user lives.
Browser makers have made it easier for users to remove cookies or even
reject them wholesale. But tracking technology can still present a real
privacy risk, especially for the uninitiated. If users give personal
information on one government Web site, the government could track
visits to its other Web sites, like one offering information on drug
addiction or H.I.V./AIDS. It could do this with cookies, or by keeping
track of users’ IP addresses, which may be tied to specific individuals.
In recent years, the government has monitored some Americans’ library
use and illegally eavesdropped on telephone calls and e-mail. Privacy
groups are concerned that the new rules could pave the way for third
parties to collect large amounts of data through government sites — for
example, if an agency site posted a YouTube video carrying its own
cookies.
The Office of Management and Budget is developing the new rules.
Officials say they recognize that people must be told that their use of
Web sites is being tracked — and be given a chance to opt out. More is
needed. The government should commit to displaying such notices
prominently on all Web pages — and to making it easy for users to
choose not to be tracked.
It must promise that tracking data will be used only for the purpose it
was collected for: if someone orders a pamphlet on living with cancer,
it should not end up in a general database. Information should be
purged regularly and as quickly as possible. These rules must apply to
third parties that operate on government sites.
The Obama administration is working to better harness the power of the
Internet to deliver government services. That is good. But it needs to
be mindful that people should be able to get help and be assured that
their privacy is being vigilantly protected.
Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart
Man
NYTIMES
By JOHN MARKOFF
July 26, 2009
A robot that can open doors and find electrical outlets to recharge
itself. Computer viruses that no one can stop. Predator drones, which,
though still controlled remotely by humans, come close to a machine
that can kill autonomously.
Impressed and alarmed by advances in artificial intelligence, a group
of computer scientists is debating whether there should be limits on
research that might lead to loss of human control over computer-based
systems that carry a growing share of society’s workload, from waging
war to chatting with customers on the phone.
Their concern is that further advances could create profound social
disruptions and even have dangerous consequences.
As examples, the scientists pointed to a number of technologies as
diverse as experimental medical systems that interact with patients to
simulate empathy, and computer worms and viruses that defy
extermination and could thus be said to have reached a “cockroach”
stage of machine intelligence.
While the computer scientists agreed that we are a long way from Hal,
the computer that took over the spaceship in “2001: A Space Odyssey,”
they said there was legitimate concern that technological progress
would transform the work force by destroying a widening range of jobs,
as well as force humans to learn to live with machines that
increasingly copy human behaviors.
The researchers — leading computer scientists, artificial intelligence
researchers and roboticists who met at the Asilomar Conference Grounds
on Monterey Bay in California — generally discounted the possibility of
highly centralized superintelligences and the idea that intelligence
might spring spontaneously from the Internet. But they agreed that
robots that can kill autonomously are either already here or will be
soon.
They focused particular attention on the specter that criminals could
exploit artificial intelligence systems as soon as they were developed.
What could a criminal do with a speech synthesis system that could
masquerade as a human being? What happens if artificial intelligence
technology is used to mine personal information from smart phones?
The researchers also discussed possible threats to human jobs, like
self-driving cars, software-based personal assistants and service
robots in the home. Just last month, a service robot developed by
Willow Garage in Silicon Valley proved it could navigate the real world.
A report from the conference, which took place in private on Feb. 25,
is to be issued later this year. Some attendees discussed the meeting
for the first time with other scientists this month and in interviews.
The conference was organized by the Association for the Advancement of
Artificial Intelligence, and in choosing Asilomar for the discussions,
the group purposefully evoked a landmark event in the history of
science. In 1975, the world’s leading biologists also met at Asilomar
to discuss the new ability to reshape life by swapping genetic material
among organisms. Concerned about possible biohazards and ethical
questions, scientists had halted certain experiments. The conference
led to guidelines for recombinant DNA research, enabling
experimentation to continue.
The meeting on the future of artificial intelligence was organized by
Eric Horvitz, a Microsoft researcher who is now president of the
association.
Dr. Horvitz said he believed computer scientists must respond to the
notions of superintelligent machines and artificial intelligence
systems run amok.
The idea of an “intelligence explosion” in which smart machines would
design even more intelligent machines was proposed by the mathematician
I. J. Good in 1965. Later, in lectures and science fiction novels, the
computer scientist Vernor Vinge popularized the notion of a moment when
humans will create smarter-than-human machines, causing such rapid
change that the “human era will be ended.” He called this shift the
Singularity.
This vision, embraced in movies and literature, is seen as plausible
and unnerving by some scientists like William Joy, co-founder of Sun
Microsystems. Other technologists, notably Raymond Kurzweil, have
extolled the coming of ultrasmart machines, saying they will offer huge
advances in life extension and wealth creation.
“Something new has taken place in the past five to eight years,” Dr.
Horvitz said. “Technologists are replacing religion, and their ideas
are resonating in some ways with the same idea of the Rapture.”
The Kurzweil version of technological utopia has captured imaginations
in Silicon Valley. This summer an organization called the Singularity
University began offering courses to prepare a “cadre” to shape the
advances and help society cope with the ramifications.
“My sense was that sooner or later we would have to make some sort of
statement or assessment, given the rising voice of the technorati and
people very concerned about the rise of intelligent machines,” Dr.
Horvitz said.
The A.A.A.I. report will try to assess the possibility of “the loss of
human control of computer-based intelligences.” It will also grapple,
Dr. Horvitz said, with socioeconomic, legal and ethical issues, as well
as probable changes in human-computer relationships. How would it be,
for example, to relate to a machine that is as intelligent as your
spouse?
Dr. Horvitz said the panel was looking for ways to guide research so
that technology improved society rather than moved it toward a
technological catastrophe. Some research might, for instance, be
conducted in a high-security laboratory.
The meeting on artificial intelligence could be pivotal to the future
of the field. Paul Berg, who was the organizer of the 1975 Asilomar
meeting and received a Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1980, said it was
important for scientific communities to engage the public before alarm
and opposition becomes unshakable.
“If you wait too long and the sides become entrenched like with
G.M.O.,” he said, referring to genetically modified foods, “then it is
very difficult. It’s too complex, and people talk right past each
other.”
Tom Mitchell, a professor of artificial intelligence and machine
learning at Carnegie Mellon University, said the February meeting had
changed his thinking. “I went in very optimistic about the future of
A.I. and thinking that Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil were far off in their
predictions,” he said. But, he added, “The meeting made me want to be
more outspoken about these issues and in particularly be outspoken
about the vast amounts of data collected about our personal lives.”
Despite his concerns, Dr. Horvitz said he was hopeful that artificial
intelligence research would benefit humans, and perhaps even compensate
for human failings. He recently demonstrated a voice-based system that
he designed to ask patients about their symptoms and to respond with
empathy. When a mother said her child was having diarrhea, the face on
the screen said, “Oh no, sorry to hear that.”
A physician told him afterward that it was wonderful that the system
responded to human emotion. “That’s a great idea,” Dr. Horvitz said he
was told. “I have no time for that.”
Finally - someone has noticed that old
notions of privacy are out the window.
The End of Privacy?
NYTIMES editorial
July 14, 2012
Cellphones,
e-mail, and online social networking have come to rule daily life, but
Congress has done nothing to update federal privacy laws to better
protect digital communication. That inattention carries a heavy price.
Striking new data from wireless carriers collected by Representative
Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, and first reported last week
by Eric Lichtblau of The Times, showed surging use of cellphone
surveillance over the past five years by law enforcement agencies at
every level and for crimes both mundane and serious.
Wireless carriers reported responding to a whopping 1.3 million demands
from law enforcement agencies for subscriber information, including
location data, calling records and text messages. The number of people
whose information was turned over is almost certainly much higher
because a single request for a cell tower “dump” could sweep in the
names of thousands of people connected to a given tower at a certain
time.
As cell surveillance has ballooned, federal and local officials have
come to rely less on wiretapping to eavesdrop on conversations,
probably because cell tracking is less time consuming and less legally
difficult to manage. In most cases, law enforcement officers do not
need to hear the actual conversation; what they want to know can be
discerned from a suspect’s location or travel patterns. And location
data can be as revealing of a cellphone owner’s associations,
activities and personal tastes as listening in on a conversation, for
which a warrant is mandatory.
As a result, warrants for wiretaps, which are subject to stringent
legal standards used for decades, declined by 14 percent last year, to
just 2,732 nationwide. The legal standards applied to cell tracking and
other forms of digital monitoring are more lax and inconsistently
applied, with many law enforcement agencies claiming a right to such
data without having to show a compelling need or getting detailed
vetting by a court.
Clearly, federal laws need to be revamped and brought into line with
newer forms of surveillance. A good place to begin is the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the main federal statute governing access
to electronic information. The act has not had a significant overhaul
since its passage in 1986.
Senator Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman and lead author
of the 1986 law, introduced a promising bill last year that would amend
it in important, sensible ways. It would require a probable cause
warrant for access to e-mails and other electronic communications no
matter how long they were saved or where they were saved, whether in a
personal computer or an online storage system. Under current law, there
is no warrant requirement after an e-mail has been stored for 180 days.
Electronic correspondence deserves no less protection than letters kept
in a drawer. The government would still be free to access blog postings
and other publicly available content, and exceptions to the warrant
requirement would remain for emergencies and intelligence
investigations.
Similarly,
existing law requires a warrant for the government to access photos,
calendars and other private data stored on laptops or desktop computers
at home, but not for the same files stored with a service provider in
the “cloud.”
The Leahy bill would also provide some protection for location
information from cellphones or GPS systems, though probably not enough.
It would require a warrant for law enforcement agencies to access
real-time location data, but not past location records. The warrant
rule should cover both, the sensible standard in a bipartisan location
privacy bill offered in the House by Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican,
and in the Senate by Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat.
Both the Leahy bill and the location privacy bill break away from the
traditional “third-party doctrine,” which says there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy if the information is held by third parties,
like the cell carriers. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court shied away
from eliminating that doctrine when it rightly ruled this year that
having the police attach a GPS device to a car constitutes a “search”
under the Fourth Amendment. The Leahy bill has not attracted any
Republican co-sponsors. That is all the more reason to put it before
the Judiciary Committee and begin a debate on this critical issue.
That’s
No Phone. That’s My Tracker.
NYTIMES
By PETER MAASS and MEGHA RAJAGOPALAN
July 13, 2012
THE device in your purse or jeans that you think is a cellphone — guess
again. It is a tracking device that happens to make calls. Let’s stop
calling them phones. They are trackers.
Most doubts about the principal function of these devices were erased
when it was recently disclosed that cellphone carriers responded 1.3
million times last year to law enforcement requests for call data.
That’s not even a complete count, because T-Mobile, one of the largest
carriers, refused to reveal its numbers. It appears that millions of
cellphone users have been swept up in government surveillance of their
calls and where they made them from. Many police agencies don’t obtain
search warrants when requesting location data from carriers.
Thanks to the explosion of GPS technology and smartphone apps, these
devices are also taking note of what we buy, where and when we buy it,
how much money we have in the bank, whom we text and e-mail, what Web
sites we visit, how and where we travel, what time we go to sleep and
wake up — and more. Much of that data is shared with companies that use
it to offer us services they think we want.
We have all heard about the wonders of frictionless sharing, whereby
social networks automatically let our friends know what we are reading
or listening to, but what we hear less about is frictionless
surveillance. Though we invite some tracking — think of our mapping
requests as we try to find a restaurant in a strange part of town —
much of it is done without our awareness.
“Every year, private companies spend millions of dollars developing new
services that track, store and share the words, movements and even the
thoughts of their customers,” writes Paul Ohm, a law professor at the
University of Colorado. “These invasive services have proved
irresistible to consumers, and millions now own sophisticated tracking
devices (smartphones) studded with sensors and always connected to the
Internet.”
Mr. Ohm labels them tracking devices. So does Jacob Appelbaum, a
developer and spokesman for the Tor project, which allows users to
browse the Web anonymously. Scholars have called them minicomputers and
robots. Everyone is struggling to find the right tag, because
“cellphone” and “smartphone” are inadequate. This is not a semantic
game. Names matter, quite a bit. In politics and advertising, framing
is regarded as essential because what you call something influences
what you think about it. That’s why there are battles over the tags
“Obamacare” and “death panels.”
In just the past few years, cellphone companies have honed their
geographic technology, which has become almost pinpoint. The
surveillance and privacy implications are quite simple. If someone
knows exactly where you are, they probably know what you are doing.
Cellular systems constantly check and record the location of all phones
on their networks — and this data is particularly treasured by police
departments and online advertisers. Cell companies typically retain
your geographic information for a year or longer, according to data
gathered by the Justice Department.
What’s the harm? The United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, ruling about the use of tracking devices by the
police, noted that GPS data can reveal whether a person “is a weekly
church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful
husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of
particular individuals or political groups — and not just one such fact
about a person, but all such facts.” Even the most gregarious of
sharers might not reveal all that on Facebook.
There is an even more fascinating and diabolical element to what can be
done with location information. New research suggests that by
cross-referencing your geographical data with that of your friends,
it’s possible to predict your future whereabouts with a much higher
degree of accuracy.
This is what’s known as predictive modeling, and it requires nothing
more than your cellphone data.
If we are naïve to think of them as phones, what should we call
them? Eben Moglen, a law professor at Columbia University, argues that
they are robots for which we — the proud owners — are merely the hands
and feet. “They see everything, they’re aware of our position, our
relationship to other human beings and other robots, they mediate an
information stream around us,” he has said. Over time, we’ve used these
devices less for their original purpose. A recent survey by O2, a
British cell carrier, showed that making calls is the
fifth-most-popular activity for smartphones; more popular uses are Web
browsing, checking social networks, playing games and listening to
music. Smartphones are taking over the functions that laptops, cameras,
credit cards and watches once performed for us.
If you want to avoid some surveillance, the best option is to use cash
for prepaid cellphones that do not require identification. The phones
transmit location information to the cell carrier and keep track of the
numbers you call, but they are not connected to you by name. Destroy
the phone or just drop it into a trash bin, and its data cannot be tied
to you. These cellphones, known as burners, are the threads that
connect privacy activists, Burmese dissidents and coke dealers.
Prepaids are a hassle, though. What can the rest of us do? Leaving your
smartphone at home will help, but then what’s the point of having it?
Turning it off when you’re not using it will also help, because it will
cease pinging your location to the cell company, but are you really
going to do that? Shutting it down does not even guarantee it’s off —
malware can keep it on without your realizing it. The only way to be
sure is to take out the battery. Guess what? If you have an iPhone, you
will need a tiny screwdriver to remove the back cover. Doing that will
void your warranty.
Matt Blaze, a professor of computer and information science at the
University of Pennsylvania, has written extensively about these issues
and believes we are confronted with two choices: “Don’t have a
cellphone or just accept that you’re living in the Panopticon.”
There is another option. People could call them trackers. It’s a
neutral term, because it covers positive activities — monitoring
appointments, bank balances, friends — and problematic ones, like the
government and advertisers watching us.
We can love or hate these devices — or love and hate them — but it
would make sense to call them what they are so we can fully understand
what they do.
Peter Maass and Megha Rajagopalan are
reporters on digital privacy for ProPublica, the nonprofit
investigative newsroom.
Tight
Budget? Look to the ‘Cloud’
NYTIMES
By VIVEK KUNDRA
August 30, 2011
Cambridge, Mass.
AS the global economy struggles through a slow and painful recovery,
governments around the world are wasting billions of dollars on
unnecessary information technology. This problem has worsened in recent
years because of what I call the “I.T. cartel.” This powerful group of
private contractors encourages reliance on inefficient software and
hardware that is expensive to acquire and to maintain.
In one particularly egregious example of waste, the Defense Department
last year pulled the plug on a personnel system devised by Northrop
Grumman after spending approximately $850 million on it in 10 years.
When I joined the Obama administration as the chief information
officer, we quickly discovered vast inefficiencies in the $80 billion
federal I.T. budget. We also saw an opportunity to increase
productivity and save costs by embracing the “cloud computing”
revolution: the shift from hardware and software that individuals,
businesses and governments buy and then maintain themselves, to
low-cost, maintenance-free services that are based on the Internet and
run by private companies.
Examples of cloud computing companies include Web behemoths like Amazon
and Google, which offer a variety of services (data storage or e-mail,
for example), as well as companies like salesforce.com, which helps
businesses manage customer relationships via social networks. Other
services and applications include health care access, mobile energy
management and storm recovery assistance. Most cloud-based services are
either free for consumers or delivered via a monthly subscription
service for businesses. According to the research firm Gartner, cloud
computing will be a $149 billion industry by 2015.
Like a large office building, cloud data centers are efficient: many
different tenants occupy the same space, sharing the same critical
infrastructure, yet each tenant still has its own secure, customizable
space. For example, in preparation for the 2010 census, the Census
Bureau used the cloud computing services of salesforce.com to expand
its I.T. capabilities, saving the cost and time of purchasing,
designing and installing a brand-new I.T. infrastructure.
Shortly after the Obama administration took office, we instituted a
“Cloud First” policy, which advocates the adoption of cloud services by
government agencies and mandates the transition of at least three
projects for every agency to the cloud by next summer.
Some agencies, like the General Services Administration, have embraced
cloud computing; the agency has cut the I.T. costs on things as simple
as its e-mail system by over 50 percent. But other agencies have
balked. The State Department, for instance, has raised concerns about
whether the cloud approach introduces security risks, since data is
stored off site by private contractors.
But cloud computing is often far more secure than traditional
computing, because companies like Google and Amazon can attract and
retain cyber-security personnel of a higher quality than many
governmental agencies. And government employees are so accustomed to
using cloud services like Dropbox and Gmail in their personal lives
that, even if their agencies don’t formally permit cloud computing,
they use it for work purposes anyway, creating a “shadow I.T.” that
leads to a more vulnerable organization than would a properly overseen
cloud computing system.
The United States cannot afford to be left behind in the cloud
computing revolution. In health care alone, a productivity increase of
1 percent in the next 10 years — much of which could be achieved with
cloud-based services — represents a $300 billion value. Similar
efficiencies could be realized in sectors like financial services,
education and manufacturing.
Consider the example of Japan, which has faced significant economic
challenges for two decades. The government’s Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry estimates that the Japanese cloud computing market is
likely to reach $20.1 billion by 2015 and is implementing a cloud
initiative as a key tenet of its national economic strategy.
Similar growth is predicted for India, where the cloud market is
projected to grow to $3 billion by 2015 and create 100,000 jobs. As
foreign governments prioritize investment in the cloud, the United
States cannot hesitate because of hypothetical security threats that
serve the entrenched interests of the I.T. cartel.
One of the critical remaining issues concerning cloud computing is
whether cloud data can and should flow between nations and what
restrictions should be placed upon it. The next step should be the
creation of a global Cloud First policy that forces nations to work
together and resolve these critical issues. The United States, along
with leading nations in Europe and Asia, has an opportunity to announce
such an initiative at the World Economic Forum meeting in January.
The budget crisis will accelerate the move toward cloud services.
Governments, businesses and consumers all have a lot to gain, but not
everyone will have an equal say at the table. Public and private
organizations that preserve the status quo of wasteful spending will be
punished, while those that embrace the cloud will be rewarded with
substantial savings and 21st-century jobs.
Vivek Kundra, the Obama
administration’s chief information officer from 2009 until this month,
is a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society and the
Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, both at
Harvard.
Salesforce
shares soaring on cloud
computing craze
YAHOO
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Technology Writer
Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:04 pm ET
SAN FRANCISCO – A hot high-tech concept known as "cloud computing" is
lifting Salesforce.com Inc.'s stock to lofty heights.
The shares rocketed more than 18 percent Friday after Salesforce issued
a strong third-quarter earnings report and an optimistic management
forecast that persuaded several analysts that the stock is bound to
climb even higher. As it is, Salesforce in nearly 6 1/2 year as a
public company is proving to be more fruitful than high-tech darling
Google Inc.
The fervor surrounding Salesforce has been swelling during the past
year because the company appears to be sitting in a sweet spot as more
businesses and government agencies change the way they buy and use
software.
After years of paying huge upfront fees to install and maintain
applications on individual computers in their offices, more companies
are embracing the idea of subscribing to software that can be accessed
from any machine with an Internet connection. The trend is becoming so
popular that it has been tagged with the catchphrase "cloud computing"
to replace its more geeky shorthand of "SaaS, an abbreviation of
"software as a service."
The transition has enriched and vindicated Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff,
who faced widespread ridicule when he started the company 11 years ago
on the presumption that the old way of installing software made by the
likes of Microsoft Corp., Oracle Corp. and SAP was doomed. Skeptics
abounded at the time, contending that businesses would never be willing
to trust a vendor to run their critical programs and applications on
computers far away from their own premises.
But now Salesforce is seen as being ahead of the curve, as Microsoft,
Oracle and SAP all scramble to build their own online subscription
services. At the end of its latest quarter, Salesforce boasted 87,200
customers, including personal computer manufacturer Dell Inc. and
health insurer Kaiser Permanente.
Wall Street has become so enamored with Salesforce that its stock is
outshining Internet search leader Google, a much more renowned company
that went public just two months after Salesforce did in 2004.
A $10,000 investment in Salesforce's June 2004 initial public offering
would now be worth $124,000 after Friday's surge left shares with a
gain of 85 percent so far this year. A $10,000 investment in Google's
August 2004 IPO would be worth about $70,000.
Even Google has latched on to some of Salesforce's ideas as it tries to
expand its own cloud computing service. Google now offers a suite of
word processing, spreadsheet and calendar programs in hopes of luring
people away from Microsoft's Office bundle of applications. Salesforce
and Google have also teamed up on some cloud computing projects.
Google remains the far larger company with more than 23,000 employees
and revenue expected to approach $30 billion this year. Salesforce
employs about 5,000 people and is on track for about $1.7 billion in
revenue in its fiscal year, which ends in January. Salesforce stirred
excitement late Thursday when it topped off the release of
better-than-expected third-quarter earnings with a prediction that its
revenue for the year ending in January 2012 would reach $2 billion for
the first time.
Salesforce shares soared $20.97, or 18.1 percent, Friday to close at
$136.74 after hitting a new record high of $137.31 earlier in the
session. The run-up has left Salesforce with an exceptionally high
price-to-earnings, or "p/e," ratio, a wildly used yardstick for sizing
up a company's value. Based on its projected earnings for fiscal 2012,
Salesforce's p/e is 90; Google's is 18. An extremely high p/e ratio
sometimes signals investors are becoming irrationally exuberant about a
company's prospects, but most analysts don't seem to believe that's
what's happening with Salesforce.
Benioff, 46, has relied on some of the marketing skills that he picked
up while working at Oracle to win over potential customers and
investors. He's a protege of Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, who has blended
a flair for the dramatic with technological savvy and ruthless
negotiating tactics to build his software empire. Ellison was among
Salesforce's early investors and served on the company's board until
Benioff fired him because he thought his former boss was stealing
secrets to help Oracle develop a competing product.
Ellison also is the largest shareholder in another cloud computing
service, NetSuite Inc., which competes with Salesforce.
Investors are now betting NetSuite will also prosper from the cloud
computing craze: NetSuite shares gained $2.57, or nearly 12 percent, to
close Friday at $24.57.
Ellison recently has been publicly criticizing Salesforce, something he
has done to other companies that Oracle has ended up buying. A suitor
interested in making a bid would have to have deep pockets, as Oracle
does, because Salesforce's market value now stands at $15 billion.
With Salesforce flying high, Benioff's stake in the company is now
worth about $1.4 billion. The fortune has allowed Benioff to build a
huge home in Hawaii, where he says he likes to swim with dolphins to
clear his mind. Although Salesforce has its headquarters in San
Francisco, Benioff sometimes runs the company from Hawaii, using
high-definition videoconferencing technology.
One of Benioff's latest ideas has been focused on building a business
version of Facebook's social networking tools. That effort appears to
be paying off as 60,000 Salesforce customers use a new tool called
"Chatter." Although Chatter is free, analysts believe its popularity
will make workers even more reliant on Salesforce's money-making
services that help companies manage their customer relationships.
Op-Ed Contributor - we
note the interrelationship between
"cloud" computing and another concern...
Lost in the Cloud
NYTIMES
By JONATHAN ZITTRAIN
July 20, 2009
Cambridge, Mass.
EARLIER this month Google announced a new operating system called
Chrome. It’s meant to transform personal computers and handheld devices
into single-purpose windows to the Web. This is part of a larger trend:
Chrome moves us further away from running code and storing our
information on our own PCs toward doing everything online — also known
as in “the cloud” — using whatever device is at hand.
Many people consider this development to be as sensible and inevitable
as the move from answering machines to voicemail. With your stuff in
the cloud, it’s not a catastrophe to lose your laptop, any more than
losing your glasses would permanently destroy your vision. In addition,
as more and more of our information is gathered from and shared with
others — through Facebook, MySpace or Twitter — having it all online
can make a lot of sense.
The cloud, however, comes with real dangers.
Some are in plain view. If you entrust your data to others, they can
let you down or outright betray you. For example, if your favorite
music is rented or authorized from an online subscription service
rather than freely in your custody as a compact disc or an MP3 file on
your hard drive, you can lose your music if you fall behind on your
payments — or if the vendor goes bankrupt or loses interest in the
service. Last week Amazon apparently conveyed a publisher’s
change-of-heart to owners of its Kindle e-book reader: some purchasers
of Orwell’s “1984” found it removed from their devices, with nothing to
show for their purchase other than a refund. (Orwell would be amused.)
Worse, data stored online has less privacy protection both in practice
and under the law. A hacker recently guessed the password to the
personal e-mail account of a Twitter employee, and was thus able to
extract the employee’s Google password. That in turn compromised a
trove of Twitter’s corporate documents stored too conveniently in the
cloud. Before, the bad guys usually needed to get their hands on
people’s computers to see their secrets; in today’s cloud all you need
is a password.
Thanks in part to the Patriot Act, the federal government has been able
to demand some details of your online activities from service providers
— and not to tell you about it. There have been thousands of such
requests lodged since the law was passed, and the F.B.I.’s own audits
have shown that there can be plenty of overreach — perhaps wholly
inadvertent — in requests like these.
The cloud can be even more dangerous abroad, as it makes it much easier
for authoritarian regimes to spy on their citizens. The Chinese
government has used the Chinese version of Skype instant messaging
software to monitor text conversations and block undesirable words and
phrases. It and other authoritarian regimes routinely monitor all
Internet traffic — which, except for e-commerce and banking
transactions, is rarely encrypted against prying eyes.
With a little effort and political will, we could solve these problems.
Companies could be required under fair practices law to allow your data
to be released back to you with just a click so that you can erase your
digital footprints or simply take your business (and data) elsewhere.
They could also be held to the promises they make about content sold
through the cloud: If they sell you an e-book, they can’t take it back
or make it less functional later. To increase security, companies that
keep their data in the cloud could adopt safer Internet communications
and password practices, including the use of biometrics like
fingerprints to validate identity.
And some governments can be persuaded — or perhaps required by their
independent judiciaries — to treat data entrusted to the cloud with the
same level of privacy protection as data held personally. The Supreme
Court declared in 1961 that a police search of a rented house for a
whiskey still was a violation of the Fourth Amendment privacy rights of
the tenant, even though the landlord had given permission for the
search. Information stored in the cloud deserves similar safeguards.
But the most difficult challenge — both to grasp and to solve — of the
cloud is its effect on our freedom to innovate. The crucial legacy of
the personal computer is that anyone can write code for it and give or
sell that code to you — and the vendors of the PC and its operating
system have no more to say about it than your phone company does about
which answering machine you decide to buy. Microsoft might want you to
run Word and Internet Explorer, but those had better be good products
or you’ll switch with a few mouse clicks to OpenOffice orFirefox.
Promoting competition is only the tip of the iceberg — there are also
the thousands of applications so novel that they don’t yet compete with
anything. These tend to be produced by tinkerers and hackers. Instant
messaging, peer-to-peer file sharing and the Web itself all exist
thanks to people out in left field, often writing for fun rather than
money, who are able to tempt the rest of us to try out what they’ve
done.
This freedom is at risk in the cloud, where the vendor of a platform
has much more control over whether and how to let others write new
software. Facebook allows outsiders to add functionality to the site
but reserves the right to change that policy at any time, to charge a
fee for applications, or to de-emphasize or eliminate apps that court
controversy or that they simply don’t like. The iPhone’s outside apps
act much more as if they’re in the cloud than on your phone: Apple can
decide who gets to write code for your phone and which of those
offerings will be allowed to run. The company has used this power in
ways that Bill Gates never dreamed of when he was the king of Windows:
Apple is reported to have censored e-book apps that contain
controversial content, eliminated games with political overtones, and
blocked uses for the phone that compete with the company’s products.
The market is churning through these issues. Amazon is offering a
generic cloud-computing infrastructure so anyone can set up new
software on a new Web site without gatekeeping by the likes of
Facebook. Google’s Android platform is being used in a new generation
of mobile phones with fewer restrictions on outside code. But the
dynamics here are complicated. When we vest our activities and
identities in one place in the cloud, it takes a lot of dissatisfaction
for us to move. And many software developers who once would have been
writing whatever they wanted for PCs are simply developing less
adventurous, less subversive, less game-changing code under the
watchful eyes of Facebook and Apple.
If the market settles into a handful of gated cloud communities whose
proprietors control the availability of new code, the time may come to
ensure that their platforms do not discriminate. Such a demand could
take many forms, from an outright regulatory requirement to a more
subtle set of incentives — tax breaks or liability relief — that nudge
companies to maintain the kind of openness that earlier allowed them a
level playing field on which they could lure users from competing,
mighty incumbents.
We’ve only just begun to measure this problem, even as we fly directly
into the cloud. That’s not a reason to turn around. But we must make
sure the cloud does not hinder the creation of revolutionary software
that, like the Web itself, can seem esoteric at first but utterly
necessary later.
Jonathan Zittrain, a law professor at
Harvard, is the author of “The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop
It.”
U.S. Justice Department Eyeing Telecom
Probe: Report
NYTIMES
By REUTERS
Filed at 3:20 p.m. ET
July 6, 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department has begun looking at
big telecom companies to try to determine if they have abused their
market power, the Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition on
Monday.
The journal, which cited people familiar with the matter, said the
Antitrust Division's review was in its very early stages and was not a
formal probe of any specific company.
The country's biggest operators are AT&T Inc <T.N> and
Verizon <Communications <VZ.N>.
Lawmakers have recently raised questions about whether large wireless
carriers were hurting smaller rivals by entering exclusive agreements
with the makers of popular phones. Deals like AT&T's multiyear
agreement with Apple Inc <AAPL.O> for exclusive rights to sell
the iPhone in the U.S. are at the center of some lawmakers' concerns.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.
AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel referred questions on any probe to the
Department of Justice. But he defended the practice of exclusive
agreements between carriers and phone makers, saying they spurred
competition and helped companies collaborate on new features.
Verizon Wireless spokesman Jeffrey Nelson said that his company, which
is the biggest U.S. mobile service, had had no notice from the Justice
Department about any probe into handset exclusivity. Verizon Wireless
is a venture of Verizon Communications <VZ.N> and Vodafone Group
Plc <VOD.L>.
John Taylor, a spokesman for Sprint Nextel <S.N>, the No. 3 U.S.
mobile service which has an exclusive agreement to sell Palm Inc's
<PALM.O> high-profile Pre phone, declined comment on the reported
probe.
He also defended exclusive handset agreements as pro-competitive. "We
think that without these exclusivity arrangements carriers are less
likely to risk the investment necessary to develop and promote devices
like these," he said.
The new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius
Genachowski, plans to review the deals. According to a copy of
the
written responses to questions from Senator John Kerry obtained by
Reuters in mid-June, Genachowski said he would "promote competition and
consumer choice."
Lawmakers have also raised questions about the pricing of text messages.
Plugging In $40 Computers
NYTIMES
By Saul Hansell
May 21, 2009, 7:45 am
What would you do with a $40 Linux computer the size of
a three-prong plug adapter?
Marvell Technology Group is counting on an army of computer engineers
and hackers to answer that question. It has created a “plug computer.”
It’s a tiny plastic box that you plug into an electric outlet. There’s
no display. But there is an Ethernet jack to connect to a home network
and a USB socket for attaching a hard drive, camera or other device.
Inside is a 1.2 gigahertz Marvell chip, called an application
processor, running a version of the Linux operating system.
All this can be yours for $99 today and probably for under $40 in two
years.
“There’s not much in there,” said Sehat Sutardja, Marvell’s chief
executive and co-founder, just a few chips and the sort of power supply
used to charge a cellphone battery. Because this computer uses chips
designed for cellphones, it uses far less power than chips designed for
regular computers.
In its 13 years of existence, Marvell Technology Group has become a
major player in semiconductors, with annual sales of more than $2
billion a year. It makes more than half of the microprocessors that
control hard disk drives and is also a supplier of chips that go into
cellphones.
Mr. Sutardja envisions an explosion of innovation about to hit home
users because of the combination of open-source software and very
powerful chips that are becoming available at very low costs.
The first plausible use for the plub computer is to attach one of these
gizmos to a USB hard drive. Voila, you’ve got a network server.
CloudEngines, a startup, has in fact built a $99 plug computer called
Pogoplug, that will let you share the files on your hard drive, not
only in your home but also anywhere on the Internet.
“This creates a smart data center for the home,” Mr. Sutardja said.
Another application might be to connect a security camera to the
Internet, adding enough intelligence to help analyze images to
distinguish between a stray dog and a cat burglar.
Scientific American asked some “alpha geeks” at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory what they might do with a plug computer. One researcher
imagined a system to automatically turn on and off appliances as people
moved around the house. Another described a “life filter” that might
weed out boring e-mails before sending them on to his computer.
Ultimately, these computers may well be used in more mainstream
devices, especially for home entertainment.
“We wanted to seed the thinking of people in the market place with what
you can do with our processors,” Mr. Sutardja said. “Eventually you
won’t see the plug. We want this device to be in your TV, your stereo
system, your DVD player.”
The Marvell chips are based on designs by ARM Holdings, which have
emerged as the leading rival to Intel’s x86 chip architecture. ARM
dominates the cellphone market because of its chips’ low power usage.
ARM licenses its designs to Marvell and many other chipmakers. A year
ago, Warren East, the chief executive of ARM, predicted what would
happen when the price of ARM’s processors fell from the $10 range to 50
cents. At that level, every light switch may well be an Internet
connected computer, he said.
The plug computer idea is clearly a step in that direction. And it is
part of an even broader array of chips designed initially for phones
that will add features to many other devices.
Mr. Sutardja talked about the sort of digital photo frame you can now
buy for about $50. Add $2 in chips, and it can display high definition
movies, he said. Another $2 adds a camera. And less than a dollar adds
several microphones.
“You now have the sort of video conferencing that corporations buy for
much more money,” he said.
Not surprisingly, in Mr. Sutardja’s view, it is the sort of brain that
Marvell makes that will be in the center of all this.
“The uses of an application processor are endless,” he said. “It is up
to smart people to imagine what it can do.”
Frontier to Buy Rural Verizon Lines for
$5.3B
NYTIMES
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:31 a.m. ET
May 13, 2009
NEW YORK (AP) -- Verizon Communications Inc. said Wednesday it reached
a deal to sell scattered phone service areas outside its main
Northeastern and Californian territories for $5.3 billion in
stock.
The buyer is Frontier Communications Corp., based in Stamford, Conn.
The company focuses on serving small towns and rural areas and will
triple in size with the deal.
The deal continues Verizon's strategy of focusing on its core areas,
where it is upgrading its phone lines to fiber optics, enabling it
offer TV service and faster Internet access. It sold off its phone
lines in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont for $2.3 billion last year to
Fairpoint Communications Inc. The agreement would give Frontier
4.8
million phone lines to residential and small business customers and 1
million broadband connections. Frontier currently has 2.3 million
customers.
The sale includes all of Verizon's phone lines in Arizona, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,
South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin as well as some
assets in border areas of California. Verizon shareholders will
receive one share of Frontier stock for approximately every 4.2 shares
of Verizon stock, depending on the price of Frontier shares at closing,
which is expected within a year.
Frontier shares were up 39 cents, or 5.2 percent, at $7.96 in premarket
trading Wednesday. Verizon shares gained 9 cents to $30.49.
Verizon is
also extracting $3.3 billion from the units before selling them off, by
having them pay cash to the parent company and letting them assume
debt. Frontier will issue so much stock to Verizon shareholders
that
they will end up owning 68 percent of the company.
''This is a truly transformational transaction for Frontier,'' Maggie
Wilderotter, Frontier's chief executive, said in a statement. ''With
more than 7 million access lines in 27 states, we will be the largest
provider of voice, broadband and video services focused on rural to
smaller city markets in the United States.''
Frontier also said it is cutting its annual dividend to 75 cents from
$1, freeing cash to invest in the acquired areas, including for
broadband buildouts. The cut takes its dividend yield to 9.9 percent.
Analyst Christopher King at Stifel Nicolaus noted that buyers of
Verizon phone lines have fared badly in the past -- Fairpoint is
struggling with its debt load, and the buyer of Verizon's Hawaiian
business is in bankruptcy. But Frontier will actually reduce its debt
load relative to its earnings through the transaction, King said.
The
roughly 11,000 workers that support the local landlines will move to
Frontier with union contracts intact, Verizon said.
Verizon lines in Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Texas and Virginia and most of California are not
affected by the deal.
FORMER
LEADER INFO
Oklahoma, Utah
Lead
Going Cell-Only; Calif, NY Lag
NYTIMES
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:21 p.m. ET
March 11, 2009
Trendy California isn't a trendsetter when it comes to relying on cell
phones. And while the 1987 movie ''Wall Street'' helped introduce the
then-brick-sized mobile phone to popular culture, New York and other
Northeast states lag in dropping landlines. Surprisingly, Oklahoma and
Utah lead in going wireless, according to federal estimates released
Wednesday.
At least 26 percent of households are now cell-only in Oklahoma and
Utah, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated.
That rate was at least 20 percent in nine other states -- Nebraska,
Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, Texas, South Carolina and
Tennessee -- and the District of Columbia.
The study is sure to be watched closely by telecommunications companies
trying to understand state and local markets better, and by government,
academic and commercial survey researchers using telephone polling to
monitor health trends, politics and much more.
The CDC, blending its own 2007 survey data with Census updates, found
the prevalence of cell-only households varies widely by state --
sometimes within regions and even between neighboring states. This is
tied to differences by state in demographics known to predict
wireless-only ownership, especially being young and renting rather than
owning a home.
States with the fewest cell-only households: Vermont (5 percent) and
Connecticut, Delaware and South Dakota (6 percent each). South Dakota
was near the bottom even though next-door Nebraska was near the top.
Also below 10 percent: Rhode Island, New Jersey, Hawaii, California (9
percent), Montana, Massachusetts and Missouri.
In New York -- where Michael Douglas as corporate raider Gordon Gekko
roamed lower Manhattan barking orders on a huge early cell phone in
''Wall Street'' -- 11 percent of households were cell only.
The study also estimated how many adults only have cell phones. Those
estimates mostly came within a point or two of the household numbers.
The study's lead author, Stephen Blumberg, senior scientist at the
CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, noted the data are from
2007 and all signs indicate people keep substituting cell phones for
landlines at a steady pace.
''We would expect that today in 2009 the prevalence rates in every
state have increased, perhaps by 5 percentage points or more. What we
don't know is whether the rate of growth is the same in every state,''
Blumberg said in an interview.
By asking about telephone usage in its monthly in-person health
surveys, Blumberg's agency is the only source for data on prevalence of
cell-phone-only households. It estimates more than one in six American
homes -- 17.5 percent -- had only wireless phones as of a year ago.
The health survey doesn't have enough interviews to produce reliable
state-level estimates in most states, so Blumberg's team looked to the
Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, with large state samples.
The researchers compared CPS data on demographic groups known to be
associated with cell phone usage and adjusted the CDC state estimates
to conform.
U.S. telephone surveys, especially on the state level, typically sample
only landline phones. There's growing evidence from the 2008 election
that excluding cell phones could hurt poll accuracy, at least a little.
Blumberg noted that in health surveys omitting cell-only respondents
could, among other things, underestimate the number of smokers and
binge drinkers -- and, paradoxically, those who exercise regularly.
China will limit Internet access
during the Olympic games
DAY
By Andrew Jacobs
Published on 7/31/2008
Beijing - The International Olympic Committee failed to press China to
allow fully unfettered access to the Internet for the thousands of
journalists arriving here to cover the Olympics, despite promising
repeatedly that the foreign news media could “report freely” during the
games, Olympics officials acknowledged Wednesday.
Since the Olympic Village press center opened Friday, reporters have
been unable to access scores of Web pages - among them those that
discuss Tibetan issues, Taiwanese independence, the violent crackdown
of the protests in Tiananmen Square and the Web sites of Amnesty
International, the BBC, Radio Free Asia and several Hong Kong
newspapers.
The restrictions, which closely resemble the blocks that China places
on the Internet for its own citizens, undermine sweeping claims by
Jacques Rogge, the IOC president, that China had agreed to provide free
Web access for foreign news media during the games.
But a high-ranking IOC official said Wednesday that the committee was
aware that China would continue to censor Web sites carrying content
that Chinese propaganda authorities deemed harmful to national security
and social stability. The committee acquiesced to China's demands to
maintain such controls, said the official, who declined to be
identified.
In its negotiations with the Chinese over Internet controls, the
official said, the IOC insisted only that China provide unfettered
access to sites containing information useful to sports reporters
covering athletic competitions, not to sites that the Chinese and the
Olympic committee negotiators determined had little relevance to sports.
The official said he now believed that the Chinese defined their
national security needs more broadly than the Olympic committee had
anticipated, denying reporters access to some information that they
might need to cover the events and the host country fully.
This week, foreign news media in China were unable directly to access
an Amnesty International report that detailed what it called a
deterioration in China's human rights record in the prelude to the
games.
Chinese officials initially suggested that any troubles journalists
were having with Internet access probably stemmed from the sites
themselves, not any steps that China had taken to filter Web content.
But Sun Weide, the chief spokesman for the Beijing Olympic organizing
committee, acknowledged Wednesday that journalists would not have
uncensored Internet use during the Games.
”It has been our policy to provide the media with convenient and
sufficient access to the Internet,” said Sun. “I believe our policy
will not affect reporters' coverage of the Olympic games.”
Demand for Data Puts Engineers
in Spotlight
NYTIMES
By STEVE LOHR
Published: June 17, 2008
In Silicon Valley, the stars have long been charismatic marketing
visionaries and cool-nerd software wizards. By contrast, mechanical
engineers who design and run computer data centers were traditionally
regarded as little more than blue-collar workers in the high-tech
world. For years, they toiled in relative obscurity in the engine
rooms of the digital economy, amid the racks of servers and storage
devices that power everything from online videos to corporate e-mail
systems. Their mission was to keep the computing power plants humming,
while scant thought was given to rising costs and energy consumption.
Today, data center experts are no longer taken for granted. The torrid
growth in data centers to keep pace with the demands of Internet-era
computing, their immense need for electricity and their inefficient use
of that energy pose environmental, energy and economic challenges,
experts say. That means people with the skills to design, build
and run a data center that does not endanger the power grid are
suddenly in demand. Their status is growing, as are their salaries —
climbing more than 20 percent in the last two years into six figures
for experienced engineers.
“The data center energy problem is growing fast, and it has an economic
importance that far outweighs the electricity use,” said Jonathan G.
Koomey, a consulting professor of environmental engineering at
Stanford. “So that explains why these data center people, who haven’t
gotten a lot of glory in their careers, are in the spotlight now.”
At one time, “we were seen as sheet metal jockeys,” said Chandrakant
Patel, a mechanical engineer at Hewlett-Packard Labs who has worked in
Silicon Valley for 25 years. “But now we have a chance to change the
world for the better, using engineering and basic science.”
There is no letup in the demand for data center computing. Digital
Realty Trust, a data center landlord with more than 70 facilities, says
that customer demand for new space is running 50 percent ahead of its
capacity to build and equip data centers for the next two years. “We’re
building the railroads of the future, and we can’t keep up,” said Chris
J. Crosby, a senior vice president at Digital Realty.
For every new center, new data center administrators need to be hired.
“It takes us eight months to find a guy to run a data center,” said Mr.
Crosby.
Indeed, some data managers with only a degree from a two-year college
can command a $100,000 salary. Trade and professional conferences for
data center experts, unheard of years ago, are now commonplace.
Five-figure signing bonuses, retention bonuses and generous stock
grants have become ingredients in the compensation packages of data
center experts today.
Paul Marcoux knows the feeling of being wanted. Cisco Systems, giant
Silicon Valley maker of equipment used in data centers, recently held a
nationwide search for a vice president for “green engineering.” It
needed someone who could manage the traditional information technology
functions as well as increasingly important mechanical and electrical
systems.
Last November, Cisco found Mr. Marcoux, an electrical engineer with an
M.B.A. working at American Power Conversion, a manufacturer of power
supplies and air-conditioners for data centers. Mr. Marcoux, 57, worked
on the design and construction of about 100 data centers in his 30-year
career.
“To really make progress, we have to bridge the analog and the digital
worlds,” said Mr. Marcoux.
At Cisco, Mr. Marcoux is applying his experience to improving the
company’s data centers and its products, so that its computers
increasingly can communicate with the coolers and power generators.
“Our products need to talk to the power supplies and air-conditioners
instead of being standalone boxes,” he explained.
Cisco is just one of the many companies — and the Energy Department’s
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory — working on the challenge of
making data centers operate more like seamless machines, using sensors
and software, for example, so the computers can direct air-conditioners
and fans where and what level of cooling is needed.
Mr. Patel is overseeing H.P.’s programs in energy-efficient data
centers and technology. The research includes advanced projects like
trying to replace copper wiring in server computers with laser beams.
But like other experts in the field, Mr. Patel says that data centers
can be made 30 percent to 50 percent more efficient by applying current
technology.
The pace of the data center buildup is the result of the surging use of
server computers, which in the United States rose to 11.8 million in
2007, from 2.6 million a decade earlier, according to IDC, a research
firm. Worldwide, the 10-year pattern is similar, with the server
population increasing more than fourfold to 30.3 million by 2007.
“For years and years, the attitude was just buy it, install it and
don’t worry about it,” said Vernon Turner, an analyst for IDC. “That
led to all sorts of inefficiencies. Now, we’re paying for that
behavior.”
The problem is that most computers in data centers run at 15 percent or
less of capacity on average, loafing the rest of the time, though
consuming electricity all the while. (In the old days, when they housed
a few large computers, data centers were far more efficient. Mainframe
computers run at 80 percent of capacity or more.)
The computers also generate a lot of heat, so much so that half of the
energy consumed by a typical data center is for enormous
air-conditioners, fans and other industrial equipment used mainly to
cool the high-tech facilities.
The nation’s data centers doubled their energy consumption in the five
years to 2006, exceeding the electricity used by the country’s color
televisions, according to the latest government estimates.
The availability of electricity, not just its cost, presents a threat
to the continued expansion of data center computing that can hamper
companies across the economy, as they increasingly rely on information
technology.
Based on current trends, by 2011 data center energy consumption will
nearly double again, requiring the equivalent of 25 power plants. The
world’s data centers, according to recent study from McKinsey &
Company, could well surpass the airline industry as a greenhouse gas
polluter by 2020.
Because the task ahead, analysts say, is not just building new data
centers, but also overhauling the old ones, the managers who know how
to cut energy consumption are at a premium. Most of the 6,600 data
centers in America, analysts say, will be replaced or retrofitted with
new equipment over the next several years.
They apparently have little choice. Analysts point to surveys that show
30 percent of American corporations are deferring new technology
initiatives because of data center limitations.
Mechanical and electrical engineers with experience in data center
design, air-flow modeling and power systems management are in demand.
“If you have those skills, there are jobs waiting,” says Phil
Calabrese, a mechanical engineer and director of I.B.M.’s real estate
engineering and construction unit.
No company has longer experience in the care and feeding of data
centers than I.B.M., and analysts say improving data center efficiency
will involve applying some mainframe-style management disciplines.
To exploit the opportunity, I.B.M., which built its business on
mainframes and still sells them, last fall introduced a green data
center services unit. The new group signed $300 million in contracts in
the fourth quarter of last year, and the business is growing rapidly
this year, the company says.
Now that costs and energy consumption are priorities, the data center
gurus are getting a hearing and new respect.
“After 25 years, we’re finally elevating mechanical engineering and
adding a lot of electrical engineering, computer science and applied
physics,” said Mr. Patel of Hewlett-Packard. “I wish I were 20 years
younger.”
Vast Spy System Loots Computers in 103
Countries
NYTIMES
By JOHN MARKOFF
March 29, 2009
TORONTO — A vast electronic spying operation has infiltrated computers
and has stolen documents from hundreds of government and private
offices around the world, including those of the Dalai Lama, Canadian
researchers have concluded.
In a report to be issued this weekend, the researchers said that the
system was being controlled from computers based almost exclusively in
China, but that they could not say conclusively that the Chinese
government was involved.
The researchers, who are based at the Munk Center for International
Studies at the University of Toronto, had been asked by the office of
the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan leader whom China regularly
denounces, to examine its computers for signs of malicious software, or
malware.
Their sleuthing opened a window into a broader operation that, in less
than two years, has infiltrated at least 1,295 computers in 103
countries, including many belonging to embassies, foreign ministries
and other government offices, as well as the Dalai Lama’s Tibetan exile
centers in India, Brussels, London and New York.
The researchers, who have a record of detecting computer espionage,
said they believed that in addition to the spying on the Dalai Lama,
the system, which they called GhostNet, was focused on the governments
of South Asian and Southeast Asian countries.
Intelligence analysts say many governments, including those of China,
Russia and the United States, and other parties use sophisticated
computer programs to covertly gather information.
The newly reported spying operation is by far the largest to come to
light in terms of countries affected.
This is also believed to be the first time researchers have been able
to expose the workings of a computer system used in an intrusion of
this magnitude.
Still going strong, the operation continues to invade and monitor more
than a dozen new computers a week, the researchers said in their
report, “Tracking ‘GhostNet’: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network.”
They said they had found no evidence that United States government
offices had been infiltrated, although a NATO computer was monitored by
the spies for half a day and computers of the Indian Embassy in
Washington were infiltrated.
The malware is remarkable both for its sweep — in computer jargon, it
has not been merely “phishing” for random consumers’ information, but
“whaling” for particular important targets — and for its Big
Brother-style capacities. It can, for example, turn on the camera and
audio-recording functions of an infected computer, enabling monitors to
see and hear what goes on in a room. The investigators say they do not
know if this facet has been employed.
The researchers were able to monitor the commands given to infected
computers and to see the names of documents retrieved by the spies, but
in most cases the contents of the stolen files have not been
determined. Working with the Tibetans, however, the researchers found
that specific correspondence had been stolen and that the intruders had
gained control of the electronic mail server computers of the Dalai
Lama’s organization.
The electronic spy game has had at least some real-world impact, they
said. For example, they said, after an e-mail invitation was sent by
the Dalai Lama’s office to a foreign diplomat, the Chinese government
made a call to the diplomat discouraging a visit. And a woman working
for a group making Internet contacts between Tibetan exiles and Chinese
citizens was stopped by Chinese intelligence officers on her way back
to Tibet, shown transcripts of her online conversations and warned to
stop her political activities.
The Toronto researchers said they had notified international law
enforcement agencies of the spying operation, which in their view
exposed basic shortcomings in the legal structure of cyberspace. The
F.B.I. declined to comment on the operation.
Although the Canadian researchers said that most of the computers
behind the spying were in China, they cautioned against concluding that
China’s government was involved. The spying could be a nonstate,
for-profit operation, for example, or one run by private citizens in
China known as “patriotic hackers.”
“We’re a bit more careful about it, knowing the nuance of what happens
in the subterranean realms,” said Ronald J. Deibert, a member of the
research group and an associate professor of political science at Munk.
“This could well be the C.I.A. or the Russians. It’s a murky realm that
we’re lifting the lid on.”
A spokesman for the Chinese Consulate in New York dismissed the idea
that China was involved. “These are old stories and they are nonsense,”
the spokesman, Wenqi Gao, said. “The Chinese government is opposed to
and strictly forbids any cybercrime.”
The Toronto researchers, who allowed a reporter for The New York Times
to review the spies’ digital tracks, are publishing their findings in
Information Warfare Monitor, an online publication associated with the
Munk Center.
At the same time, two computer researchers at Cambridge University in
Britain who worked on the part of the investigation related to the
Tibetans, are releasing an independent report. They do fault China, and
they warned that other hackers could adopt the tactics used in the
malware operation.
“What Chinese spooks did in 2008, Russian crooks will do in 2010 and
even low-budget criminals from less developed countries will follow in
due course,” the Cambridge researchers, Shishir Nagaraja and Ross
Anderson, wrote in their report, “The Snooping Dragon: Social Malware
Surveillance of the Tibetan Movement.”
In any case, it was suspicions of Chinese interference that led to the
discovery of the spy operation. Last summer, the office of the Dalai
Lama invited two specialists to India to audit computers used by the
Dalai Lama’s organization. The specialists, Greg Walton, the editor of
Information Warfare Monitor, and Mr. Nagaraja, a network security
expert, found that the computers had indeed been infected and that
intruders had stolen files from personal computers serving several
Tibetan exile groups.
Back in Toronto, Mr. Walton shared data with colleagues at the Munk
Center’s computer lab.
One of them was Nart Villeneuve, 34, a graduate student and self-taught
“white hat” hacker with dazzling technical skills. Last year, Mr.
Villeneuve linked the Chinese version of the Skype communications
service to a Chinese government operation that was systematically
eavesdropping on users’ instant-messaging sessions.
Early this month, Mr. Villeneuve noticed an odd string of 22 characters
embedded in files created by the malicious software and searched for it
with Google. It led him to a group of computers on Hainan Island, off
China, and to a Web site that would prove to be critically important.
In a puzzling security lapse, the Web page that Mr. Villeneuve found
was not protected by a password, while much of the rest of the system
uses encryption.
Mr. Villeneuve and his colleagues figured out how the operation worked
by commanding it to infect a system in their computer lab in Toronto.
On March 12, the spies took their own bait. Mr. Villeneuve watched a
brief series of commands flicker on his computer screen as someone —
presumably in China — rummaged through the files. Finding nothing of
interest, the intruder soon disappeared.
Through trial and error, the researchers learned to use the system’s
Chinese-language “dashboard” — a control panel reachable with a
standard Web browser — by which one could manipulate the more than
1,200 computers worldwide that had by then been infected.
Infection happens two ways. In one method, a user’s clicking on a
document attached to an e-mail message lets the system covertly install
software deep in the target operating system. Alternatively, a user
clicks on a Web link in an e-mail message and is taken directly to a
“poisoned” Web site.
The researchers said they avoided breaking any laws during three weeks
of monitoring and extensively experimenting with the system’s
unprotected software control panel. They provided, among other
information, a log of compromised computers dating to May 22, 2007.
They found that three of the four control servers were in different
provinces in China — Hainan, Guangdong and Sichuan — while the fourth
was discovered to be at a Web-hosting company based in Southern
California.
Beyond that, said Rafal A. Rohozinski, one of the investigators,
“attribution is difficult because there is no agreed upon international
legal framework for being able to pursue investigations down to their
logical conclusion, which is highly local.”
Lawmakers say computers were hacked
from China
DAY
By PETE YOST and LARA JAKES JORDAN
Published on 6/12/2008
Washington - Multiple congressional computers have been hacked by
people working from inside China, lawmakers said Wednesday, suggesting
the Chinese were seeking lists of dissidents.
Two congressmen, both longtime critics of Beijing's record on human
rights, said the compromised computers contained information about
political dissidents from around the world. One of the lawmakers said
he'd been discouraged from disclosing the computer attacks by other
U.S. officials. Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf said four of his
computers were compromised, beginning in 2006. New Jersey Rep. Chris
Smith, a senior Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said
two of his computers were attacked, in December 2006 and March 2007.
Wolf said that following one of the attacks, a car with license plates
belonging to Chinese officials went to the home of a dissident in
Fairfax County, Va., outside Washington and photographed it.
During the same time period, The House International Relations
Committee - now known as the House Foreign Affairs Committee - was
targeted at least once by someone working inside China, said committee
spokeswoman Lynne Weil.
Wednesday's disclosures came as U.S. authorities continued to
investigate whether Chinese officials secretly copied the contents of a
government laptop computer during a visit to China by Commerce
Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez and used the information to try to hack
into Commerce Department computers. The Pentagon last month
acknowledged at a closed House Intelligence committee meeting that its
vast computer network is scanned or attacked by outsiders more than 300
million times each day.
Wolf said the FBI had told him that computers of other House members
and at least one House committee had been accessed by sources working
from inside China. The Virginia Republican suggested that Senate
computers could have been attacked as well. He said the hacking
of computers in his Capitol Hill office began in August 2006, that he
had known about it for a long time and that he had been discouraged
from disclosing it by people in the U.S. government he refused to
identify.
”The problem has been that no one wants to talk about this issue,” he
said. “Every time I've started to do something I've been told 'You
can't do this.' A lot of people have made it very, very difficult.”
The FBI and the White House declined to comment. The Bush
administration has been increasingly reluctant publicly to discuss or
acknowledge cyber attacks, especially ones traced to China.
In the Senate, the office of Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who chairs the
Senate's subcommittee on humanitarian issues, asked the sergeant at
arms to investigate whether Senate computers have been compromised.
Wolf said the first computer hacked in his office belonged to the
staffer who works on human rights cases and that others included the
machines of Wolf's chief of staff and legislative director.
”They knew which ones to get,” said Dan Scandling, who currently is on
leave of absence from his job as Wolf's chief of staff. “It was a very
sophisticated operation,” he said. “The FBI verified that it had been
done.”
Smith said the attacks on his office computers were “very much an
orchestrated effort.”
He said that after the first intrusion in December 2006, “that was the
last time” his office put the names of dissidents on its computers.
In Beijing, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs had no immediate
comment on the allegations by Wolf and Smith. Last week, China
denied the accusations regarding Gutierrez's laptop and the alleged
effort to hack Commerce Department computers. Wolf said he was
introducing a House resolution that would help ensure protection for
all House computers and information systems.
It calls for the chief administrative officer and sergeant at arms of
the House, in consultation with the FBI, to alert members and their
staffs to the danger of electronic attacks. Wolf also wants lawmakers
to be fully briefed on ways to safeguard official records from
electronic security breaches.
”My own suspicion is I was targeted by China because of my long history
of speaking out about China's abysmal human rights record,” Wolf said
in a draft of remarks he prepared to give on the House floor.
He said Congress should hold hearings, specifically the House
Intelligence Committee, Armed Services Committee and Government
Operations Committee. Speaking generally in May 2006, Wolf called
Chinese spying efforts “frightening” and said it was no secret that the
United States is a principal target of Chinese intelligence services.
Wolf thinks that President Bush should stay away from the Olympics
because of China's human rights record. He also has been
outspoken on the subject of violence in the Darfur region of Sudan,
where China has major oil interests. Smith has introduced the
Global Online Freedom Act which would prohibit U.S. Internet companies
from cooperating with countries such as China that restrict information
about human rights and democracy on the Internet.
Wolf and Smith both traveled to Beijing 17 years ago seeking the
release of 77 people imprisoned or under house arrest because of their
religious activities.
Recording Industry Getting Tougher On
State's Students For Illegal Downloads; Settle Now Or Face A Federal
Lawsuit, Lawyers Tell The Accused In Form Letter
DAY
Published on 2/15/2008
Free downloads have never cost so much.
Since last August, 84 University of Connecticut students, along with
many others from Yale, Fairfield University, and Trinity College, have
received letters from attorneys representing several major record
companies threatening heavy fines and legal action against the
students, who have allegedly downloaded music illegally using the
school's Internet server.
The letters state, “You have been infringing copyrights owned by the
Record Companies.”
The correspondence, obtained this week by The Day and addressed Jan. 9
from the Denver-based law firm Holme, Roberts and Owen, goes on to say
that the students had 20 days “to settle the claims for a significantly
reduced amount.”
If the accused students do not settle, the record companies promise to
file a federal lawsuit, according to the letter, and the students would
face much stiffer penalties compared to what the companies' settlement
offers.
A spokesman for the law firm said it doesn't comment on the letters.
One Canterbury man, who is the father of a UConn sophomore, said his
daughter received a presettlement letter. The man asked not to be
identified because he fears retaliation from the record companies. When
he called the settlement hotline, the law firm asked for $3,000
compensation for the 350 songs his daughter had downloaded.
“It's totally ridiculous — it's extortion,” he said. “They're kind of
bullying you.”
The man said his daughter did not pay the fine and now faces $262,000
in penalties from the record companies.
The record companies represented by the law firm are the heavyweights
of the industry — EMI Recorded Music, Sony BMG Music Entertainment,
Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, as well as all of their
subsidiaries.
Since last February, the Recording Industry Association of America has
been waging an aggressive campaign against illegal downloads,
especially cracking down on colleges and universities, because there
are disproportionately higher incidences of illegal file sharing on
college campuses. More than 2,350 students have settled with the RIAA
since the stepped-up campaign began, according to the association.
The recording industry does not know the names of the students yet,
just the specific IP addresses of their computers; however, the
companies can compel the university to reveal the names by issuing a
subpoena.
“We're familiar with these kinds of claims, and we have no direct
authority to intervene,” Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said
earlier this week.
According to Blumenthal and an online database for federal court cases,
the university has not yet been served with a subpoena.
Blumenthal said he has been contacted by a relatively small number of
people seeking help, and his office has “successfully moderated or
reduced such penalties in the past by appealing to the companies' sense
of fairness and common sense.”
University officials said that instances of illegal downloading on
campus has drastically decreased over the past years, but combating it
is still a challenge.
“It's a constantly moving target,” said Michael Kerntke, chief
information officer at UConn.
Kerntke said the college has software to prevent the type of
person-to-person file sharing that has led to legal challenges, but
students who are determined to download files illegally will find a way
to do so.
“The RIAA is obviously trying to enforce royalty payments in some way,
shape or form,” Kerntke said. As a way to help students avoid the
temptation of illicit file sharing, the university points students to a
site that allows free, legal downloads, www.ruckus.com.
In a Feb. 6 post on the university's Web site, Dean of Students Lee
Williams warned about the consequences of illegal file sharing.
“When the RIAA contacts the University, and produces a legal subpoena,
we are obliged to give them information about students' identification
and online activity,” Williams wrote in her post. “All we can (and
will) do on your behalf is notify you that the RIAA is after you. At
that point, you'll have to either pay this fine, or hire a lawyer to
fight this.”
The experience of people who have fought that legal battle has not been
good. Just this week Oklahoma State University revealed the names of 11
students accused of illegal downloads. The students and the school were
unsuccessful in trying to quash the RIAA subpoena.
“The bottom line is: illegal downloading is ... illegal. And it will
cost you a bundle,” Williams said in her message.
SOFTWARE WILL RULE THE WORD
Das Kapital: This is very Orwellian
"K" only replace as a capital letter Kindel? Not to try to
start a fire, how about replacing "kindling" with "nookling?"
Nook version of "War and Peace"
contains embarrassing search-and-replace error
YAHOO
By Tecca | Today in Tech
4 June 2012
Editors are pretty important people. They keep books, magazines, and
even websites error free. But what happens when you take shortcuts and
skimp on professional editing? You open yourself up to significant
embarrassment, as the publisher of the Nook e-book version of War and
Peace is finding out.
While reading a copy he downloaded on his Barnes & Noble Nook for
99 cents, eagle-eyed blogger Philip Howard noticed the odd usage of the
word "Nookd." It was a bizarre inclusion, but since War and Peace is
translated from the original Russian, the word didn't truly stand out.
"Thinking this was simply a glitch in the software," Howard explains,
"I ignored the intrusive word and continued reading. Some pages later I
encountered the rogue word again. With my third encounter I decided to
retrieve my hard cover book and find the original (well, the
translated) text."
It turns out that every instance of "kindled" had been replaced with
"Nookd," with Kindle, of course, being the name of Nook's competitor.
It's believed the mistake happened as a result of a lazy application
for inclusion in the Nook Book Store. The book's publisher likely
performed a search-and-replace to change all references to Amazon's
competing e-book Kindle, not realizing that Leo Tolstoy had used the
word "kindled" no fewer than eight times in the text.
The Amazon "Kindel" (seen above)
Sony to Launch a Wireless e-Reader
NYTIMES
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:42 p.m. ETAugust 25, 2009
NEW YORK (AP) -- Sony Corp. plans to offer an e-book reader with the
ability to wirelessly download books, injecting more competition in a
small but fast-growing market by adopting a key feature of the rival
Kindle from Amazon.com.
Sony's $399 Reader Daily Edition will go on sale by December, Sony
executives said Tuesday at an event at the New York Public Library. The
device has a 7-inch touch screen and will be able to get books, daily
newspapers and other reading material over AT&T Inc.'s cellular
network.
Sony has sold e-book reading devices with ''electronic ink'' displays
in the United States since 2006, but has seen most of the attention
stolen by Amazon.com Inc., which launched the Kindle with similar e-ink
technology a year later. The latest version of the Kindle -- which is
not controlled by touching the screen -- costs $299 and uses Sprint
Nextel Corp.'s wireless network for downloads.
On Tuesday, Sony also began selling a ''Pocket Edition'' e-book reader
with a 5-inch screen, for $199, and a larger $299 touch-screen model.
Neither has wireless capability, so both have to be connected to a
computer to acquire books.
Though Sony is following in Amazon's footsteps by adding wireless
capability, its e-book strategy differs in crucial respects.
The only copy-protected books the Kindle can display are from Amazon's
store, and the only devices the store supports are the Kindle, the
iPhone and the iPod Touch.
Sony, on the other hand, has committed to an open e-book standard,
meaning its Readers can show copy-protected books from a variety of
stores, and the books can be moved to and read on a variety of devices,
including cell phones.
Sony also announced Tuesday that the Readers will be able to load
e-books ''loaned'' from local libraries. A library card will provide
access to free books that expire after 21 days.
The library connection ''would seem to be something Amazon would never
embrace, so that could be a key differentiator,'' said Richard Doherty,
director of research firm The Envisioneering Group.
The alliance with AT&T helps the Dallas-based carrier further
expand the use of its wireless network beyond cell phones. Like other
carriers, AT&T is looking for new avenues of growth now that almost
every adult has a cell phone. In July, it announced that it would
provide the connection to another upcoming e-book reader from Plastic
Logic Ltd., which will use the e-book store of Barnes & Noble Inc.
Reader owners won't be charged a subscription fee for wireless access,
said Steve Haber, head of Sony's U.S. reading division.
Instead, the bookseller will likely have to pay AT&T for the
wireless access, out of money it charges for the books, similar to the
way Amazon pays Sprint. Sony's multi-store strategy makes that
challenging. The Daily Edition will initially have wireless access only
to Sony's e-book store, Haber said.
Sony said the names of the newspapers that will be available on the
device will be announced later. The Kindle already offers 46
newspapers, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and
USA Today.
Sony's U.S. shares rose 43 cents, or 1.6 percent, to $27.01 in midday
trading, while Seattle-based Amazon gained 30 cents to $84.80.
7 May 2009
|
By Michael
Fitzpatrick
BBC News
|
The Kindle DX is designed for newspapers
and periodicals - but is only black and white
The rise and rise of e-readers
Amazon's launch of its first dedicated e-reader for
newspapers and magazines points to a future when digital and analogue
publishing begins to merge.
Nearly double the size of the book giant's existing
e-reader, Amazon's wireless Kindle DX has adopted a tabloid-like format
for ease of reading newspapers and magazines such as The New York Times
and the Washington Post which have announced they will launch pilots
editions on Kindle DX this summer.
Although others, most notably the Japanese and the
Dutch, have trials underway that publish tabloid-size digital editions
for other handheld e-reader devices, Amazon with its mighty marketing
clout represents the first mainstream commercial stab at the market.
Increased graphics resolution and the larger size of
the tablet-like, the $489 Kindle DX is also a departure from previous
e-readers on the market, although Japan's Fujitsu has a similar sized
colour reader on the market for twice the price.
"Cookbooks, computer books, and textbooks - anything
highly formatted -shine on the Kindle DX," claims Jeff Bezos,
Amazon.com Founder and CEO underlining the new Kindle's purported
better handling of detail and graphics.
Amazon already has a hit on its hands with the Kindle
2. The same heft as a paperback, weighing about eight ounces, such
e-ink readers are basically handheld screens on which you can read
words page by page reasonably comfortably.
Amazon says it has already sold more than 500,000 of
its $359 Kindle e-readers, which buyers use mostly as a portable
library downloading print media via a wireless connection.
The new Kindle DX, like other popular e-readers such as
the Sony reader, employs "e-ink" technology that far enhances the
reading of digitized print.
Sony has a rival e-reader on the
market
|
As there is no backlight and no glare, the effect is
not unlike reading a page in a regular book. Publications are bought
online making paid subscriptions, along the lines of paid for music on
iTunes, a possibility.
Such benefits have not been lost on newspaper editors
who are desperate to find alternatives to today's failing business
models of newspaper publishing.
Alan Rusbridger, the editor of UK newspaper The
Guardian, for one, has predicted there might be an "iPod moment" for
the industry with the coming of a handheld device on which reading a
newspaper will become commonplace.
However excited some in the ailing newspaper and
magazine industry are over the new Kindle, there are still severe
shortcomings, not least that content offerings still come only in black
and white.
Vastly superior to reading off a computer monitor or
conventional mobile phone screen Amazon's e-readers and their ilk are
products of electronic-ink technology that creates clear, easy-to-read
text even in sunlight.
With electronic ink, charged particles migrate under
the influence of an electric field. Depending on the field applied,
either the white or the black particles move to the front of the screen
to make up the image.
The technology used in most e-readers are adaptations
of this form of "ePaper" and "e-ink" that create bubbles of e-ink by
pushing ink-like particles around under its light-grey plastic skin.
As a leader in the field of e-paper development
Japanese researchers at Fujitsu Frontech have attempted to sidestep the
mono-chromatic drawbacks by creating colour e-ink and went to market
last month with a full colour e-reader.
Dubbed Flepia, the three-quarters of a pound device
displays 260,000 colours - good enough to display magazine-like
graphics, is slightly smaller than a sheet of A4 and just over a
centimetre thick.
Fuji sells a colour e-reader - but
it is expensive
|
Colour for such e-ink technology does not come cheap,
however, and Flepia retails at $1,000 in Japan.
Looking at the Flepia, the future of e-ink digital
e-readers, says Tokyo-based new media journalist Nobuyuki Hayashi, has
a long way to go, not least on price.
"Flepia has a too slow refresh rate (1.8 seconds),
users have to use a stylus to turn pages and its user interface is
no-frill, no-fun and non-intuitive. In my opinion this does not look
like a serious consumer device," he says.
"An easier-to-use device from outside of the country
such as Kindle (or the iPhone), will probably eliminate this somewhat
alien product."
Whatever the outcome of both Fujitsu's and Amazon's new
formats the rivals have entered an increasingly crowded marketplace for
the e- reader.
Sony and a Dutch firm iRex have both experimented with
newspaper subscriptions on their paperback sized e-readers.
The Kindle DX has a 9.7 inche
screen and can display Adobe Acrobat files
|
Since Christmas, iRex has offered over 800 newspapers
from 81 countries on its new monochrome but high- resolution iRex
Digital Reader 1000 series.
While French telecoms provider Orange has just finished
an e-reader trial in partnership with five French newspapers, including
Le Monde and Les Echos, and will be looking to start a proper
commercial service by the end of the year.
But despite having success with using an e-reader with
its e-reading clients, Orange is undecided which platform is best
suited to delivering daily print media subscriptions "as the market is
moving too fast to tell".
With smartphones and net books falling in price, such
all in one devices - suitable for anything from book reading to
watching TV - might prove a more convenient platform for publishing and
even present better business models for publishers as Japan has found.
"Expect a slow beginning and a period of rapid
evolution before e-reader's become ubiquitous, " says Japanese media
consultant David Kilburn.
"They will also need to compete successfully with what
people can already do using their mobile phones."
Already "keitai culture", the pervasiveness of mobile
phone usage, as generated by Japan's early embracing of mobiles is
making its impact felt in other activities such as newsgathering and
newspaper reading.
The popularity of Amazon's Kindle and the Sony e-book
reader suggests there is a market that has been poorly exploited so far
by smartphones in the west while Japan is racing ahead with manga by
e-mail and paid for newspaper subscriptions by phone.
Ryo Shimizu CEO of applications developer UEI in Tokyo
says the phone as book, magazine or sketchpad is already something that
has taken off in Japan.
"The killer application in Japan is CGM, such as novels
or comics, which can be read by mobile phones. Here, mobiles are
already a true alternative to paper."
Looking at Japan's reach for the handier keitais, going
bigger isn't always going to be better, even for Amazon.
|
JULIA'S LAST NAME IS HUXLEY?
Click above left for on-line "Brave New World" - the
original.
‘Julia Decides to Have a
Child’
Jeffrey H. Anderson, Weekly Standard
May 8, 2012 6:05 AM
One aspect of President Obama's philosophically revealing — and
mock-worthy — "Julia" web ad doesn't seem to have garnered as much
attention as one might have expected. Just as Julia's life of
government dependency isn't likely to inspire a new set of books along
the lines of the celebration of self-reliance and freedom depicted in
the Little House on the Prairie series, her romantic life isn't likely
to spawn any sequels to Jane Austen novels.
Julia, of course, is the fictional subject of the newly released Obama
ad. She leads a rather bland, conformist, and dependent life — a life
more reminiscent of the centrally planned lives in Brave New World than
of the vibrant lives led by so many Americans from the founding
generation, through the era of Abraham Lincoln and Huckleberry Finn, to
the present day. Throughout the ad, we’re shown what Julia is
doing at various points in her life with the help of the Obama
administration's myriad regulations and taxpayer-funded federal
programs.
When Julia, who never entirely seems to grow out of childhood in her
own right, hits the age of 31, we are told that she "decides to have a
child."
This is peculiar phrasing. There's no mention of Julia having
first decided to get married, and no mention of Julia's husband — or
even of her dating anyone — in any of the snippets shown from any of
the stages of her life. Perhaps the ad simply doesn't mention
Julia having gotten married because it was one of the few noteworthy
events in her life that didn't involve the active assistance of the
federal government.
Still, it would be a rather strange choice to convey Julia's and her
husband's (or even her boyfriend's) desire to start a family by using
the phrase, "Julia decides to have a child." Who would say
this? Nor does the ad suggest that Julia has found herself in an
unenviable predicament and is now simply trying to do the right thing —
it doesn't say, "Having unexpectedly gotten pregnant, Julia decides to
have the child."
No, by all appearances, Julia has planned this pregnancy, by herself,
from the start. Moreover — and most disturbingly — the ad
suggests that Obama thinks this is a good thing, worthy of federal
support (in the form of Obamacare benefits, which are listed as being
offered to Julia at this juncture).
Aside from the total lack of romantic spirit on display in this stage
of Julia's life, one wonders what Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the longtime
Democratic senator from New York, would have thought of this ad.
Moynihan famously highlighted the decline of the American family —
particular of black Americans’ families. He highlighted that, as
of 1963, the out-of-wedlock birthrate had risen to an alarming 24
percent among black Americans (from 17 percent in 1940), compared to 3
percent among white Americans (from 2 percent in 1940). He noted
that this “breakdown” in the family structure “led to a startling
increase in welfare dependency.”
Fast-forwarding to the present day, the New York Times reports that
these numbers are now 73 percent (for black Americans) and 29 percent
(for white Americans). Overall, 41 percent of American children
are now born out of wedlock — including 53 percent of American children
born to women under the age of 30.
In his choosing to present Julia’s decision in cheerful tones and brag
about the federal support he would offer to help make it possible,
perhaps Obama could be defended on the grounds that Julia’s life is
nearly (to quote the Times) "the new normal" — although not quite — in
this vein. But would Moynihan so casually have released such an
ad? Would he have condoned at least implicitly awarding the
presidential seal of approval to this lifestyle choice? (And in
Julia’s case it seemingly is a lifestyle choice, not a reaction to
unplanned events.) Moreover, shouldn’t Obama be aware of the
heavy price that many Americans, and especially inner-city black
Americans, have paid for the decline of the American family?
Shouldn’t he be doing something, at least rhetorically, to try to
reverse this trend?
In a sense, however, it's not surprising that Obama would instead
subtly offer the opposite message. After all, observers from
Plato to Moynihan (and beyond) have noted the inverse relationship
between the strength of the family and the strength of the state.
After many years the "Revisited" came
out...Source: Wikipedia:
Brave New World Revisited (Harper & Row,
1958, 1965), written by Huxley almost thirty years after Brave New
World, was a non-fiction work in which Huxley considered whether
the world had moved towards or away from his vision of the future from
the 1930s. He believed when he wrote the original novel that it was a
reasonable guess as to where the world might go in the future but in Brave
New World Revisited he concluded that the world was becoming much
more like Brave New World much faster than he thought...
Rell seeks to safeguard citizenry's
private information from online search sites
Manchester Journal Inquirer
By: Harlan Levy
12/25/2007
Complaints about online directory assistance sites that reveal
extensive personal data have prompted Gov. M. Jodi Rell to start
developing a legislative package to help
In a news release, Rell said Monday that she's received complaints
about online search engines that list not only names, addresses, and
telephone numbers but also people's ages, places of work, and other
personal information.
Rell said she plans to propose restrictions that would likely be in the
form of an "opt-out" registry that's an electronic version of the state
and federal "Do Not Call" list, which blocks telemarketing calls to
citizens whose phone numbers are on the list.
"Anyone who goes to WhitePages.com or 411.com will find personal
information published that many people may want protected," Rell said.
"This is a safety and security issue, particularly for our elderly
citizens who too often are targeted by scam artists and other
opportunists."
A third site, veromi.net, provides the names of possible relatives and
roommates, as well as a person's name, address, age, and other
information.
The opt-out registry Rell outlined would establish a centralized,
one-time process for Connecticut residents to remove some or all of
their private information from Internet search sites, credit card
solicitations, direct mail lists, and other records.
"There have long been Web sites that, for a modest fee, specialize in
taking bits and pieces from each of these sources and assembling a
surprisingly complete profile of an individual, including Social
Security number, address history, employer and even the make and model
of their car," Rell said in the release.
"Now some sites are adding even more personal information to search
results ... I am concerned this 'personal information creep' will put
more and more individual privacy at risk."
Rell said she understands that these sites are breaking no law by
gathering and disseminating this information.
Nevertheless, she said, an opt-out registry "will in no way jeopardize
my commitment to transparency in government," because "I believe there
are reasonable protections we can explore without compromising the
Freedom of Information Act and the principles of open government."
One impediment is that the First Amendment of the Constitution
prohibits the restraint of free speech. That means that the
directory-assistance Web sites cannot be forced to remove any data that
is public. And one's name, spouse's name, address (unless unpublished),
age, and workplace are probably all available to the public, whether
they can be easily found or not.
If it's public, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said, "there are no
constitutional problems that I would foresee. The government cannot
censor what's in the public realm."
What the government can censor, Blumenthal said, is a party tracking
and selling the private information that comes from an individual's
Internet dealings and purchases without the individual's knowledge.
Three weeks ago Blumenthal proposed a "Do Not Track" list similar to a
Canadian program that would prohibit such conduct by telemarketers and
others who use, buy, or sell such information that they surreptitiously
obtain without consent. Blumenthal wants next year's legislature to
enact the measure.
"The basic concept is to prevent collecting information without the
consumer's consent," Blumenthal said.
"If the consumer objects to collecting the information and says, 'Do
not track me when I travel the Internet,' that wish should be
respected, and this law would compel marketers to protect that right
under consumer privacy."
That protection would come from state law and not under the right to
privacy under the Fourth Amendment, Blumenthal added.
"The Fourth Amendment right is against the government invading my
privacy and telling me what to do," he said.
Privacy laws being scrutinized
Rell noted that many states are examining their privacy laws, security
measures, and the kinds of information they collect, manage, and
distribute in light of identity theft, fraud, and other computer crimes.
The state has endured several recent incidents of misplaced computers
with vast amounts of unprotected personal data. Protective reactions
followed soon thereafter.
In October, Rell announced that the Department of Information
Technology had selected a new encryption tool for use by state agencies
for laptop computers and other mobile computing and storage devices.
On Sept. 10, Rell announced a new mobile computing and storage device
security policy requiring agencies to adhere to new restrictions and
accountability measures, including mandatory risk assessments and
written authorization from the agency head for any instance in which
restricted or confidential data must reside on a mobile device for
business reasons.
Any data residing on a mobile device under these controlled
circumstances must be encrypted, the amount of data and length of time
it may reside on the mobile device must be limited, and protections
from unauthorized access and disclosure are required.
Rell also directed all agencies to assess and purge sensitive data
currently on laptop computers and portable storage devices if there was
no compelling business need for the information to be so stored.
"Privacy concerns are constantly evolving," Rell said. "We must not
only keep up with them but do our best to stay ahead of the curve."
Rell said she will ask state agencies to review private information
about residents that the state collects, manages, and distributes.
"While bearing in mind such traditional functions such as tax
collection, media and freedom-of-Information requests and law
enforcement, I want to ensure that the security of private information
within state government is protected," Rell said.
Recent new laws in other states sharply curtail the business use and
release of Social Security numbers and specify that businesses may not
retain information from the "magnetic stripe" on the back of credit and
debit cards for longer than 48 hours.
On Its Own, Europe
Backs Web Privacy Fights
NYTIMES
By SUZANNE DALEY
August 9, 2011
MADRID — All 90 people wanted information deleted from the Web.
Among them was a victim of domestic violence who discovered that her
address could easily be found through Google. Another, well into middle
age now, thought it was unfair that a few computer key strokes could
unearth an account of her arrest in her college days.
They might not have received much of a hearing in the United States,
where Google is based. But here, as elsewhere in Europe, an idea has
taken hold —individuals should have a “right to be forgotten” on the
Web.
Spain’s government is now championing this cause. It has ordered Google
to stop indexing information about 90 citizens who filed formal
complaints with its Data Protection Agency. The case is now in court
and being watched closely across Europe for how it might affect the
control citizens will have over information they posted, or which was
posted about them, on the Web.
Whatever the ruling in the Spanish case, the European Union is also
expected to weigh in with new “right to be forgotten” regulations this
fall. Viviane Reding, the European Union’s justice commissioner, has
offered few details of what she has in mind. But she has made clear she
is determined to give privacy watchdogs greater power.
“I cannot accept that individuals have no say over their data once it
has been launched into cyberspace,” she said last month. She said she
had heard the argument that more control was impossible, and that
Europeans should “get over it.”
But, Ms. Reding said, “I don’t agree.”
On this issue, experts say, Europe and the United States have largely
parted company.
“What you really have here is a trans-Atlantic clash,” said Franz
Werro, who was born and raised in Switzerland and is now a law
professor at Georgetown University. “The two cultures really aren’t
going in the same direction when it comes to privacy rights. “
For instance, in the United States, Mr. Werro said, courts have
consistently found that the right to publish the truth about someone’s
past supersedes any right to privacy. Europeans, he said, see things
differently: “In Europe you don’t have the right to say anything about
anybody, even if it is true.”
Mr. Werro says Europe sees the need to balance freedom of speech and
the right to know against a person’s right to privacy or dignity,
concepts often enshrined in European laws. The European perspective was
shaped by the way information was collected and used against
individuals under dictators like Franco and Hitler and under Communism.
Government agencies routinely compiled dossiers on citizens as a means
of control.
Court cases over these issues have popped up in many corners of Europe.
In Germany, for instance, Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber, who
became
infamous for killing a German actor in 1990, are suing Wikipedia to
drop the entry about them. German privacy laws allow suppression of
criminal identities in news accounts once people have paid their debt
to society. The lawyer for the two killers argues that criminals have a
right to privacy too, and a right to be left alone.
Google has also faced suits in several countries, including Germany,
Switzerland and the Czech Republic, over its efforts to collect
street-by-street photographs for its Street View feature. In Germany,
where courts found that Street View was legal, Google allowed
individuals and businesses to opt out, and about 250,000 have.
The issue, however, has had no traction in the United States, where
anyone has the right to take pictures of anything in plain sight from
the street.
Google declined to discuss the Spanish cases, instead issuing a
statement saying that requiring search engines to ignore some data
“would have a profound chilling effect on free expression without
protecting people’s privacy.”
In a blog post this year, Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy
counsel, discussed the subject under the headline, “Foggy thinking
about the Right to Oblivion.” The blog post made clear that he was
speaking for himself, not Google. But he left little doubt that he
considered Europe’s efforts to forge new privacy rights poorly defined
and misguided, raising complex legal and technical questions.
In fact, the phrase “right to be forgotten” is being used to cover a
batch of issues, ranging from those in the Spanish case to the behavior
of companies seeking to make money from private information that can be
collected on the Web.
Some European experts feel that new rules of play need to be drawn up
anyway.
Mr. Werro says many Europeans, including himself, are broadly
uncomfortable with the way personal information is found by search
engines and used for commerce. When ads pop up on his screen, clearly
linked to subjects that are of interest to him, he says he finds it
Orwellian.
A recent poll conducted by the European Union found that most Europeans
agree. Three out of four said they were worried about how Internet
companies used their information and wanted the right to delete
personal data at any time. Ninety percent wanted the European Union to
take action on the right to be forgotten.
Spain’s Data Protection Agency, created in the 1990s to protect
individual rights, believes that search engines have altered the
process by which most data ends up forgotten — and therefore
adjustments need to be made.
The deputy director of the agency, Jesús Rubí, pointed to
the official
government gazette, which used to publish every weekday, including
bankruptcy auctions, official pardons, and who passed the civil service
exams. Usually 220 pages of fine print, it quickly ended up gathering
dust on various backroom shelves. The information was still there, but
not easily accessible.
Then two years ago, the 350-year-old publication went online, making it
possible for embarrassing information — no matter how old — to be
obtained easily.
Mr. Rubí said he doubted that anyone meant for the information
to haunt
citizens forever: “The law obliges us to put this info in the gazette.
But I am sure that if the law was written today, lawmakers would say
O.K., publish this, but it should not be accessible by a search engine.”
The publisher of the government publication, Fernando Pérez,
said it
was meant to foster transparency. Lists of scholarship winners, for
instance, make it hard for the government officials to steer all the
money to their own children. “But maybe,” he said, “there is
information that has a life cycle and only has value for a certain
time.”
Experts say that Google and other search engines see some of these
court cases as an assault on a principle of law already established —
that search engines are essentially not responsible for the information
they corral from the Web, and hope the Spanish court agrees. The
companies believe if there are privacy issues, the complainants should
address those who posted the material on the Web.
But some experts in Europe believe that search engines should probably
be reined in. “They say they are not publishing, so you should address
yourself elsewhere,” said Javier de la Cueva, a Madrid lawyer
specializing in the relationship between law and technology. “But they
are the ones that are spreading the word. Without them no one would
find these things.”
Major Internet hubs see lesser influence
By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer
October 7, 2007
NEW YORK - The recent rush by major Internet portals to buy advertising
companies and extend their sales networks is a sign that the business
of being a one-stop shop for information and entertainment isn't what
it used to be. Gone are the days of emphasizing ways to attract
and keep visitors — the way television networks long have operated — by
creating destinations with anything people might need for work, leisure
or companionship.
Instead, those companies are now more aggressively trying to follow Web
surfers elsewhere — and bring lucrative advertising to them.
As people increasingly turn to blogs, social-networking sites and other
sources of user-generated media, Google Inc., Yahoo Inc., Microsoft
Corp. and Time Warner Inc.'s AOL have spent more than $10 billion
collectively this year to acquire companies and technologies that help
extend their online advertising networks. So instead of relying
solely on being portals for consumers, the major companies are creating
one-stop shops for advertisers, who are increasingly wanting to buy ads
centrally and place them where the eyeballs are. The networks take care
of feeding the ads to smaller sites.
"We're not interested in building yesterday's portal," said Ron Grant,
AOL's president and chief operating officer. "Consumers are finding
what they are looking for is coming from more and more fragmented
places. We need a way for advertisers to take advantage of that
fragmentation."
That shift is important for the major Internet businesses to grab a
substantial share of the marketing dollars expected to flow at the
expense of television and print. For consumers, the development
means greater freedom and a further erosion of artificial walls
designed to keep visitors from leaving sites. According to
comScore Media Metrix, the U.S. audience for the four major Internet
brands grew over the past year. But the total time spent at Yahoo and
AOL dropped about 10 percent, while Microsoft's MSN-Windows Live
services saw an 8 percent decline.
In other words, these sites are attracting more people but are keeping
them for shorter durations as users find what they need
elsewhere. Google was the exception, with a 57 percent jump in
total time spent, but even the company recognizes that "no individual
property will have all those products and services" a user might want,
said Tim Armstrong, Google's head of North American ad sales.
"The Internet is basically being built and scaling (faster) than any
one property on the Internet is," Armstrong said. "Companies in the
Internet space are changing their business models to have models which
are consumer driven, not property driven."
That's not to say the major Internet destinations are ceding their own
properties. In a few cases, the large companies have bought
wildly popular sites. Google spent about $1.76 billion last November to
absorb the leading video-sharing site, YouTube. It also owns the
blogging service Blogger, while Yahoo has the photo-sharing site
Flickr. They are also innovating. AOL revamped its video search
site in August, while Yahoo retooled its core search engine this month
to try to make it more engaging and lure back those who had defected to
Google.
"Everyone still wants to be your home page. They are always going to
battle for that," said Nick Nyhan, chief executive of market research
firm Dynamic Logic. "But they have to think beyond that. Consumers
aren't going to just take your stuff."
Google, Yahoo and AOL still make most of their ad money from sites they
own and operate (Microsoft did not break down figures in its regulatory
filings). Google and Yahoo even reported relative growth there in the
second quarter. Ad networks set the stage for the future and help
the large Internet companies ensure they will have enough inventory to
sell in the years ahead. Ford Motor Co. can, for instance, come
to Google and buy ads that run not only there but also at The New York
Times' Web site and thousands of others within Google's AdSense
network. Ford wouldn't have to deal with all those sites individually;
third-party sites wouldn't have to expand their sales team.
Meanwhile, Google gets a cut of ad revenues — without spending a dime
developing those specialty sites. Although this concept isn't
new, what is changing is the scale. In agreeing to acquire
DoubleClick Inc. for $3.1 billion, Google is looking for better ways to
deliver multimedia display ads to supplement the small, text-based ads
the company already does well. The still-pending acquisition also
extends Google's reach beyond AdSense to all the outside sites for
which DoubleClick now distributes advertising.
Likewise, in buying Tacoda Inc., AOL not only gets Tacoda's technology
for targeting ads, but also extends its reach to NBC Universal, Scripps
Networks and the Times (sites can join multiple ad networks). AOL also
has a network through its 2004 acquisition of Advertising.com and
separately bought companies this year serving international markets and
wireless devices.
Yahoo, meanwhile, paid about $650 million for the 80 percent of Right
Media Inc. it did not already own and agreed to buy BlueLithium Inc.
for $300 million. Microsoft bought aQuantive Inc. for $6 billion.
"It's not that networks are going to supplant these mass-market sites,
but they will have less influence as networks have more," said David
Hallerman, a senior analyst at the research group eMarketer, which
projects U.S. online advertising spending at $44 billion in 2011, more
than double the $17 billion last year.
The shift didn't happen overnight. Many factors are involved, including
online hangouts like Facebook and News Corp.'s MySpace commanding more
of a user's time over the past few years. Web sites big and small are
making features available, through tools called widgets, for viewing
directly at those sites. Of course, the major brands would still
prefer visitors going to them directly, as they wouldn't have to share
ad revenues with another site.
But as audiences disperse, advertisers have become reluctant to
concentrate their spending at a traditional portal.
Besides standardization, efficiency and diversity, advertisers get
better targeting with networks. Say you are trying to reach Seattle
natives with a propensity to fly to the remote Arctic island of
Svalbard. On a portal you might find 10. On a network 100 times larger,
you'd find 1,000 without changing your campaign.
There are drawbacks, though.
U.S. and European regulators are reviewing Google's proposed
acquisition of DoubleClick. Critics complain Google would have too much
control over online advertising and personal information collected on
users.
And despite the efficiencies, consolidation could hamper flexibility,
said Jason Turner, vice president for interactive at advertising agency
Ignited.
"When there were four television networks, you were beholden to those
four, (who could say), `Here are the rules. This is what it's going to
cost and if you don't like it you're not going to get on TV,'" Turner
said.
Nonetheless, ad networks are here to stay.
"Advertisers are going to need to start to use the Internet the way
people always use the Internet, spreading out in hot pursuit of the
things they need and want," said Jarvis Coffin, chief executive of
Burst Media Corp., an independent ad network. "It's much easier to fish
where the fish are."
Intel Unveils New Classmate PCs
NYTIMES
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 3, 2008
Filed at 10:50 a.m. ET
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Intel Corp. unveiled new features for its line of
low-cost laptops for schools Wednesday, adding bigger screens and more
data storage capacity as the chip maker ratchets up its rivalry with
the One Laptop per Child organization,
which sells a competing machine.
Intel's new Classmate PCs -- slated to go on sale in April for between
$300 and $500 -- reflect the company's growing efforts to sell
computers equipped with its own chips to schools in developing
countries, a battleground for technology companies because of the
millions of people there just coming online.
But the target market has expanded to include kids in the U.S. as
potential users of cheaper, stripped-down machines.
Classmate PCs also are part of Intel's push to generate interest in a
new class of mobile devices the company is calling ''netbooks,'' which
are smaller and have fewer functions than standard laptops but also use
far less power and are easier to carry around.
Other tweaks to the Classmate that Intel announced Wednesday from its
developer forum in Shanghai include the availability of both 7-inch and
9-inch screens, a 30 gigabyte hard disk drive and an integrated Web
camera.
At the developer forum, Intel executives also rolled out five new
processors under the ''Atom'' brand name. The chips are designed for
pocket-size Internet devices. The chips come in speeds up to 1.86
gigahertz while using less than 3 watts of power.
Intel said its Classmate PCs will eventually use Atom processors.
Classmates are based on Intel's design and include its processors, but
they are built by other manufacturers and sold under a variety of brand
names. The first generation went on sale in March 2007 with the 7-inch
screen and fewer functions. Intel said it has sold ''tens of
thousands'' of the machines but declined to provide more specific data.
Intel and OLPC have feuded furiously over their competing products.
The Cambridge, Mass.-based nonprofit OLPC says it has sold hundreds of
thousands of its $188 machines.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology spinoff's low-cost XO laptop
includes a microprocessor from Advanced Micro Devices Inc., the world's
No. 2 microprocessor maker behind Intel.
A short-lived truce between Intel and OLPC ended earlier this year when
Intel suddenly pulled out from OLPC's board of directors.
Intel claimed it couldn't continue cooperating with OLPC when founder
Nicholas Negroponte demanded Intel stop selling Classmates overseas.
Negroponte said the dispute stemmed from Intel sales reps disparaging
OLPC products while pushing Intel's own machines.
WORLD-WIDE
INTERNET CONNECTIVITY...BEGUN IN 2007...
One
Laptop Per Child's next move: the $100 tablet
YAHOO
JESSICA MINTZ, AP Technology Writer
Thu May 27, 2:15 pm ET
SEATTLE – The nonprofit organization that has tried to produce a $100
laptop for children in the world's poorest places is throwing in the
towel on that idea __ and jumping on the tablet bandwagon.
One Laptop Per Child's next computer will be based on chipmaker Marvell
Technology Group Ltd.'s Moby tablet design. Marvell announced a
prototype of the device this year and said it costs about $99.
Nicholas Negroponte, founder of One Laptop Per Child, is optimistic his
organization will be able to keep the price under $100 in part because
Marvell plans to market its tablets widely to schools and health care
institutions.
"We want to see the price drop, and volume is the key to that,"
Negroponte said.
The quirky green and white XO laptop sold by One Laptop Per Child
(OLPC) to governments and organizations in countries such as
Afghanistan and Uruguay wasn't destined for such a broad audience. OLPC
had to repeatedly scale back expectations for how many of the laptops
it could produce, and it didn't get the price much below $200, twice
the price specified by the device's "$100 laptop" nickname.
In 2005, Negroponte envisioned having built 100 million laptops in
about two years. Today, 2 million of the machines are in use.
The XO was also more expensive to produce than a tablet would be
because of its many moving parts and features meant to withstand
glaring sun, blowing sand and spotty access to electricity. In some
cases, OLPC had to change the XO's design by region. For example, the
physical keyboard had to be customized for students in countries that
don't use a Latin alphabet. It would be less expensive to change the
software behind touch-screen keyboards.
Marvell's co-founder, Weili Dai, said the company has also found ways
to cut costs in the way it's designing the chips.
The new tablets will have at least one, and maybe two, video cameras.
They'll sport Wi-Fi connections to the Internet, "multi-touch" screens
and have enough power to play high-definition and 3-D video. Marvel
hopes to make the screens 8.5 inches by 11 inches, the size of a
standard sheet of paper. Unlike Apple Inc.'s iPad tablet, the device
will also work with plug-in peripherals such as mice.
Negroponte said he eventually wants the tablets to run some version of
the free Linux PC operating software. But the first generation of the
"XO 3.0" tablet will likely use Android, the mobile-device operating
system from Google Inc., or something similar.
Although his group, which is based in Cambridge, Mass., worked with
Microsoft Corp. to get its Windows operating system running on the XO
laptops, Negroponte said the new tablets will not use Windows 7 because
the software requires too much memory and computing power.
Negroponte said he plans to unveil the tablet device at the annual
International Consumer Electronics Show in January.
The One Laptop Per Child project has its share of skeptics, who have
questioned the possibility of manufacturing a laptop for $100 and the
point of computers in countries that lack basic infrastructure.
Even so, OLPC's work turned competitors on to the growing market for
technology in developing countries. Companies including Intel Corp.
came up with their own designs for inexpensive laptops for kids, while
other organizations figured out ways to turn regular desktop computers
into multiple workstations, drastically cutting costs for school
computer labs and Internet cafes.
The scramble to produce inexpensive laptops for kids in developing
countries also helped prime the pump for the recent flood of
"netbooks," which are smaller, cheaper and less powerful than laptops.
Negroponte said the last few months have been a turning point for his
group.
"People are no longer asking 'Does this work?'" Negroponte said. "The
one question I hear all the time is, how do I pay for it? How do the
economics work?"
Op-Ed Columnist
The
Land of ‘No Service’
NYTIMES
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
August 16, 2009
Chief’s Island, Botswana
If you travel long enough and far
enough — like by jet to Johannesburg, by prop plane to northern
Botswana and then by bush plane deep into the Okavango Delta — you can
still find it. It is that special place that on medieval maps would
have been shaded black and labeled: “Here there be Dragons!” But in the
postmodern age, it is the place where my BlackBerry, my wireless laptop
and even my satellite phone all gave me the same message: “No Service.”
Yes, Dorothy, somewhere over the
rainbow, there is still a “Land of No Service” — where the only “webs”
are made by spiders, where the only “net” is the one wrapped around
your bed to keep out mosquitoes, where the only “ring tones” at dawn
are the scream of African fish eagles and the bark of baboons, where
the only GPS belongs to the lioness instinctively measuring the
distance between herself and the antelope she hopes will be her next
meal, and where “connectivity” refers only to the intricate food chain
linking predators and prey that sustains this remarkable ecosystem.
I confess, I arrived with enough
devices to stay just a teensy-weensy connected to e-mail. I wasn’t
looking for the Land of No Service. But the Okavango Delta’s managers
and the Wilderness Trust — a South African conservation organization
that runs safaris to support its nature restoration work — take the
wilderness seriously. The staff at our camp on the northwestern tip of
Chief’s Island, the largest island in the delta, did have a radio, but
otherwise the only sounds you heard were from Mother Nature’s symphony
orchestra and the only landscapes, sunsets and color combinations were
painted by the hand of God.
So, like it or not, coming here
forces you to think about the blessings and curses of “connectivity.”
“No Service” is something travelers from the developed world now pay
for in order to escape modernity, with its ball and chain of e-mail.
For much of Africa, though, “No Service” is a curse — because without
more connectivity, its people can’t escape poverty. Can there be a
balance between the two?
For the normally overconnected
tourist, the first thing you notice in the Land of No Service is how
quickly your hearing, smell and eyesight improve in an act of instant
Darwinian evolution. It is amazing how well you can hear when you don’t
have an iPod in your ears or how far you can see when you’re not
squinting at a computer screen. In the wild, the difference between
hearing and seeing with acuity is the difference between survival and
extinction for the animals and the difference between a rewarding
experience and a missed opportunity for photographers and guides.
It was our guide spotting a
half-eaten antelope lodged high in a tree that drew our attention to
its predator, a leopard, calmly licking her paws nearby and then
yawning from her midday meal. The cat’s stomach was heaving up and
down, still digesting her prey. The leopard had suffocated the antelope
— you could still see the marks on its neck — and then dragged it up
the tree, holding it in her jaws, and placed the kill perfectly in the
V between two branches. And there the antelope dangled, head on one
side, dainty legs on the other, with half her midsection eaten away.
The rest would be tomorrow’s leopard lunch, stored high above where the
hyenas could not get it.
But while maintaining “No Service”
in the wild is essential for Africa’s ecotourism industry, the rest of
the continent desperately needs more connectivity. Eric Cantor, who
runs Grameen Foundation’s Application Laboratory in Uganda, explains
what a huge difference cellphones and Internet access can make to
people in Africa:
“A banana farmer previously limited
to waiting for a buyer truck to pass his farm to sell the week’s
harvest can now use a mobile-phone marketplace to publicize the
availability of his stock or to search for buyers who might be in the
market or have truck transport available to a larger market,” said
Cantor. “They can also compare going prices to gain more power in a
negotiation. Teenagers too shy to ask parents about causes and symptoms
of sexually transmitted diseases can research them privately and
improve their own health outcomes. A farmer with no money who needs a
remedy for the pest attacking her primary crop can find one that uses
locally available materials, when they need it.”
Botswana, about the size of Texas,
luckily has enough diamonds to be able to turn 40 percent of its land
into nature preserves. Its urban connectivity with the global diamond
exchanges enables it to maintain “No Service” in its wilderness.
Zimbabwe, by contrast, has become virtually a country of “No Service”
after decades of dictatorship by Robert Mugabe, and, as a result, both
its people and wildlife are endangered species.
The more African countries where “No
Service” can be a choice, not a fate — an offering for the eco-tourist
to enjoy, not a condition for the entrepreneur to overcome — the more
hope that this continent will be able to enhance its natural wonders
and its people at the same time.
Bringing
the Internet to Remote
African Villages
NYTIMES
By CHRIS NICHOLSON
February 2, 2009
ENTASOPIA, Kenya — The road from Nairobi winds 100 miles to this town
deep in Masai country. The asphalt gives way to sand and dust, until
finally it is just a dirt track climbing over broken hills and plunging
back to desert flats. The going is slow.
The outpost, with about 4,000 inhabitants, is at the end of that road
and beyond the reach of power lines. It has no bank, no post office,
few cars and little infrastructure. Newspapers arrive in a bundle every
three or four weeks. At night, most people light kerosene lamps and
candles in their houses or fires in their huts and go to bed early,
except for the farmers guarding crops against elephants and buffalo.
Entasopia is the last place on earth that a traveler would expect to
find an Internet connection. Yet it was here, in November, that three
young engineers from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, with
financial backing from Google, installed a small satellite dish powered
by a solar panel, to hook up a handful of computers in the community
center to the rest of the world.
In recent years the mobile phone has emerged as the main modern
communications link for rural areas of Africa. From 2002 to 2007, the
number of Kenyans using cellphones grew almost tenfold to reach about a
third of the population, many of whom did not have land lines,
according to the International Telecommunication Union.
But many of the phones were simple models made more for talking than
Web browsing, and wireless data networks are slow, with sporadic
coverage.
Satellite connections are faster and more stable, which is why they are
attracting interest from the likes of Google, as a way to provide
Internet connections to the estimated 95 percent of Africans who,
according to the telecommunications union, have no access.
Although providing Internet access is outside the normal business realm
of Google, with this project it is looking at how obstacles might be
overcome in Kenya and other parts of Africa.
The dish at Entasopia was intended to operate for months with little
maintenance under harsh conditions. This station, along with two others
in villages almost as remote, is part of a larger push by Google into
small, marginal communities, providing them with new tools to access
information, work with distant colleagues, and communicate with friends
and family.
Google paid for the final design of the stations and is covering the
monthly fees for satellite bandwidth. The company has also invested in
O3b, a start-up that hopes to deploy a constellation of satellites over
Africa by the end of next year.
“Building infrastructure is not necessarily Google’s objective, but if
you look at all the areas that Google has gone into, in many cases it
has been to fill a gap,” said Joseph Mucheru, who heads Google’s East
Africa office. “The market should see the opportunity.”
Just how much opportunity there is remains unclear. Google is uncertain
whether such satellite stations can pay for themselves in rural areas,
given the cost of equipment and bandwidth. Communities may well benefit
from the connection, but they do not all have the means to afford it.
Bandwidth fees for stations like the one in Entasopia could cost as
much as $700 a month, though slower ones cost less, said Wayan Vota, a
senior director at Inveneo, a nonprofit that works to disseminate
Internet technology throughout Africa and the developing world. As
these connections are introduced more widely, which is O3b’s goal, the
price could fall, Mr. Vota said.
When Internet connections arrive in small towns like Entasopia, they
put new tools into the hands of people hungry to use them, and for some
there, that has had wide repercussions.
James Mathu has worked for the Kenyan agriculture ministry in Entasopia
for five years, advising farmers on the environment, crop husbandry and
soil conservation. The stable Internet link allows him to send
information to district headquarters in Kajiado, instead of spending
days traveling there and back to deliver monthly reports, which are too
lengthy for him to send via cellphone.
“It is a five-day affair,” he said, estimating that the Internet saved
him 12,000 shillings a year, or $152, in a country where the gross
domestic product per person is $1,700.
Julius Kasifu, 40, is using the Internet to try to help others. His
family runs a farm, but because his legs were crippled by polio as a
child, he was limited in the farm work he could do.
In Masai society, he said, disabilities like his were seen as bad
omens. Traditionally, disabled newborns were abandoned and their
mothers were put through a ritual cleansing to banish the evil spirits
that were said to have caused the disability, while the place where the
birth took place was burned. Even now, such children are often kept
hidden away in the family manyatta, a wattle-and-daub hut.
Mr. Kasifu is leading a campaign to raise awareness and to build a
shelter, called Tuko, for such children. With the Internet connection,
he has been able to upload a short video about their plight.
“The mothers come to me and say: ‘Have you got a place to take our
children?’ ” he said. “It hurts, but what can I do? Out of that hurt
came this project.”
But there are significant limits to how many Kenyans the Internet can
reach. Even if it is available free, not everyone can take full
advantage of it, one obstacle being computer literacy.
Teddy Chenya, who for the past eight months has helped staff the
community center for the Arid Lands Information Network, the Kenyan
nongovernmental organization running the satellite ground stations,
said that younger people were more likely to visit him than older ones,
because they had time to spend and were willing to sit down, three to a
computer, and learn by trial and error.
“Most people looking for information, they need help,” he said. “They
still don’t know where to look or what a Web address is. I played for
them streaming video, and they said: ‘Is it a radio? Is it a TV?’ ”
Another obstacle is literacy itself: many of the adults in Entasopia,
especially women, cannot read.
Nthenya Mule, East Africa manager for Acumen Funds, a nonprofit
organization, directs investments in regional businesses that have a
social-development aspect. Ms. Mule said there were many challenges
facing poor, rural communities, and progress was often held back by
larger problems like lack of infrastructure, health care or loan
availability, rather than the scarcity of Internet access.
“Is VSAT what’s most important?” she asked, referring to very small
aperture terminal, the satellite technology being used in the project.
Still, Ms. Mule said, “there are so many issues, sometimes you just
begin acting where you can.”
MIT Spinoff's
Little Green Laptop A Hit In Remote Peruvian Village
DAY
By Frank Bajak, AP Technology Writer
Published on 12/25/2007
Arahuay, Peru — Doubts about whether poor, rural children really can
benefit from quirky little computers evaporate as quickly as the
morning dew in this hilltop Andean village, where 50 primary school
children got machines from the One Laptop Per Child project six months
ago.
These offspring of peasant families whose monthly earnings rarely
exceed the cost of one of the $188 laptops — people who can ill afford
pencil and paper much less books — can't get enough of their “XO”
laptops.
At breakfast, they're already powering up the combination
library/videocam/audio recorder/music maker/drawing kits. At night,
they're dozing off in front of them — if they've managed to keep older
siblings from waylaying the coveted machines.
“It's really the kind of conditions that we designed for,” Walter
Bender, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology spinoff,
said of this agrarian backwater up a precarious dirt road.
Founded in 2005 by former MIT Media Lab director Nicholas Negroponte,
the One Laptop program has retreated from early boasts that
developing-world governments would snap up millions of the pint-sized
laptops at $100 each. In a backhanded tribute, One Laptop now
faces homegrown competitors everywhere from Brazil to India — and a
full-court press from Intel Corp.'s more power-hungry Classmate.
But no competitor approaches the XO in innovation. It is hard
drive-free, runs on the Linux operating system and stretches wireless
networks with “mesh” technology that lets each computer in a village
relay data to the others. Mass production began last month and
Negroponte, brother of U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte,
says he expects at least 1.5 million machines to be sold by next
November. Even that would be far less than Negroponte originally
envisioned. The higher-than-initially-advertised price and a lack of
the Windows operating system, still being tested for the XO, have
dissuaded many potential government buyers.
Peru made the single biggest order to date — more than 272,000 machines
— in its quest to turn around a primary education system that the World
Economic Forum recently ranked last among 131 countries surveyed.
Uruguay was the No. 2 buyers of the laptops, inking a contract for
100,000.
Negroponte said 150,000 more laptops will get shipped to countries
including Rwanda, Mongolia, Haiti, and Afghanistan in early 2008
through “Give One, Get One,” a U.S.-based promotion ending Dec. 31 in
which you buy a pair of laptops for $399 and donate one or both.
The children of Arahuay prove One Laptop's transformative conceit: that
you can revolutionize education and democratize the Internet by giving
a simple, durable, power-stingy but feature-packed laptop to the
worlds' poorest kids.
“Some tell me that they don't want to be like their parents, working in
the fields,” first-grade teacher Erica Velasco says of her pupils. She
had just sent them to the Internet to seek out photos of invertebrates
— animals without backbones.
Antony, 12, wants to become an accountant.
Alex, 7, aspires to be a lawyer.
Kevin, 11, wants to play trumpet.
Saida, 10, is already a promising videographer, judging from her artful
recording of the town's recent Fiesta de la Virgen.
“What they work with most is the (built-in) camera. They love to
record,” says Maria Antonieta Mendoza, an Education Ministry
psychologist studying the Arahuay pilot to devise strategies for the
big rollout when the new school year begins in March.
Before the laptops, the only cameras the kids at Santiago Apostol
school saw in this population-800 hamlet arrived with tourists who
visit for festivals or to see local Inca ruins. Arahuay's lone
industry is agriculture. Surrounding fields yield avocados, mangoes,
potatoes, corn, alfalfa and cherimoya. Many adults share only
weekends with their children, spending the workweek in fields many
hours' walk from town and relying on charities to help keep their
families nourished.
When they finish school, young people tend to abandon the
village. Peru's head of educational technology, Oscar Becerra, is
betting the One Laptop program can reverse this rural exodus to the
squalor of Lima's shantytowns four hours away. It's the best
answer yet to “a global crisis of education” in which curricula have no
relevance, he said. “If we make education pertinent, something the
student enjoys, then it won't matter if the classroom's walls are straw
or the students are sitting on fruit boxes.”
Indeed, Arahuay's elementary school population rose by 10 when families
learned the laptop pilot was coming, said Guillermo Lazo, the school's
director. The XOs that Peru is buying will be distributed to
pupils in 9,000 elementary schools from the Pacific to the Amazon basin
where a single teacher serves all grades, Becerra said. Although
Peru boasts thousands of rural satellite downlinks that provide
Internet access, only about 4,000 of the schools getting XOs will be
connected, said Becerra.
Negroponte says One Laptop is committed to helping Peru overcome that
hurdle. Without Internet access, he believes, the program is incomplete.
Teachers will get 21/2 days of training on the laptops, Becerra said.
Each machine will initially be loaded with about 100 copyright-free
books. Where applicable, texts in native languages will be included, he
added. The machines will also have a chat function that will let kids
make faraway friends over the Internet.
Critics of the rollout have two key concerns. The first is the
ability of teachers — poorly trained and equipped to begin with — to
cope with profoundly disruptive technology. Eduardo Villanueva, a
communications professor at Lima's Catholic University, fears “a
general disruption of the educational system that will manifest itself
in the students overwhelming the teachers.”
To counter that fear, Becerra said the government is offering $150
grants to qualifying teachers toward the purchase of conventional
laptops, for which it is also arranging low-interest loans.
The second big concern is maintenance. For every 100 units it
will distribute to students, Peru is buying one extra for parts. But
there is no tech support program. Students and teachers will have to do
it.
“What you want is for the kids to do the repairs,” said Negroponte, who
believes such tinkering is itself a valuable lesson. “I think the kids
can repair 95 percent of the laptops.”
Tech support is nevertheless a serious issue in many countries,
Negroponte acknowledged in a phone interview. One Laptop is
currently bidding on a contract with Brazil's government that
Negroponte says demanded unrealistically onerous support
requirements. The XO machines are water resistant, rugged and
designed to last five years. They have no fan so they won't suck up
dust, are built to withstand drops from a meter and a half and can
absorb power spikes typical of places with irregular electricity.
Mendoza, the psychologist, is overjoyed that the program stipulates
that kids get ownership of the laptops. Take Kevin, the aspiring
trumpet player. Sitting in his dirt-floor kitchen as his mother
cooks lunch, he draws a soccer field on his XO, then erases it. Kevin
plays a song by “Caliente,” his favorite combo, that he recorded off
Arahuay's single TV channel. He shows a reporter photos he took of him
with his 3-year-old brother. A bare light bulb hangs by a wire
from the ceiling. A hen bobs around the floor. There are no books in
this two-room house. Kevin's parents didn't get past the sixth grade.
Indeed, the laptop project also has adults in its sights.
Parents in Arahuay are asking Mendoza, the visiting psychologist, what
the Internet can do for them.
Among them is Charito Arrendondo, 39, who sheds brief tears of joy when
a reporter asks what the laptop belonging to ruddy-cheeked Miluska —
the youngest of her six children — has meant to her. Miluska's father,
it turns out, abandoned the family when she was 1.
“We never imagined having a computer,” said Arrendondo, a cook.
Is she afraid to use the laptop, as is typical of many Arahuay parents,
about half of whom are illiterate?
“No, I like it. Sometimes when I'm alone and the kids are not around I
turn it on and poke around.”
Arrendondo likes to play checkers on the laptop.
“It's also got chess, which I sort of know,” she said, pausing briefly.
“I'm going to learn.”
I-BBC; Last Updated: Wednesday,
12 December 2007, 15:04 GMT
A child's view
of the $100 laptop
|
| What will a child in the UK make of a laptop
designed to help children in the developing world? Rory Cellan-Jones
brought an XO home to find out.
The laptop was designed to be
robust and easy to use
|
In late November I returned from Nigeria with a
sample of the XO laptop.
The computer, made by the One Laptop per Child
charity, is a robust little machine designed to entertain and educate
children while allowing them to learn by themselves.
I knew there was only one person who could
review it for me.
The Nine Year-old's View
Enter Rufus Cellan-Jones. He is nine, has far
more experience of games consoles than computers, and has strong views
on most matters.
"Looks fun," was his only comment when I handed
over the small, green and white laptop, explaining that he was the only
child in Britain to have one.
But very quickly he was up and running.
All I did was give him the security code for
our home wireless network so he could take the XO online. The rest he
figured out for himself, as he explains:
Lots of fun
"I just seemed to work it out. It was rather
easy. I didn't even need help." Surprise, surprise, his first discovery
was a game. "I found Block Party. It's like Tetris. I'm now up to Level
7."
I thought my young games fanatic might stick
there but he moved on. "Then I discovered paint. You can use pencils,
change the texture, use different sizes of brush."
Even better, there was an animation programme
called Etoys.
"That's my favourite.You make things. You can
see tutorials and demos. Then you can make a new project. I've made a
crazy UFO which you can move."
But Rufus says it isn't just about play.
"I use the calculator - that can be rather
useful for sums. You can even browse onto the internet. You can watch
and learn stuff. You can write things and it can also remind you which
is extremely useful."
What, I asked, does a nine year old need to
remind himself about? "Christmas stuff," he said, with an air of
mystery.
Social networking
But the real surprise came one evening, when
Rufus asked me to explain what his friends were telling him on the
laptop.
I thought those imaginary childhood friends
from years back must have returned.
But I went and had a look - and it was true -
he appeared to be chatting online.
So how had he managed that?
"You go on "neighbourhood", then you go to the
chat thing.
You go on Nigeria and you chat to them."
But why, if he was online with the children at
the Nigerian school I had visited, were they sending messages in
Spanish?
I decided he must be linking up with one of the
South American schools taking part in the OLPC project but we still
aren't sure quite how that is happening.
Still, Rufus is widening his social circle. " I
have three friends. It's nice to talk to them. They don't speak much
English but I can understand them." The conversation is not exactly
sparkling, but Rufus has learned to say "Hola".
Not a toy
So Rufus is using his laptop to write, paint,
make music, explore the internet, and talk to children from other
countries.
Because it looks rather like a simple plastic
toy, I had thought it might suffer the same fate as the
radio-controlled dinosaur or the roller-skates he got last Christmas -
enjoyed for a day or two, then ignored.
Instead, it seems to provide enduring
fascination.
I had returned
from Nigeria not entirely convinced that the XO laptop was quite as
wonderful an educational tool as its creators claimed.
I felt that a lot of effort would be needed by
hard-pressed teachers before it became more than just a distracting toy
for the children to mess around with in class.
But Rufus has changed my mind.
With no help from his Dad, he has learned far
more about computers than he knew a couple of weeks ago, and the XO
appears to be a more creative tool than the games consoles which occupy
rather too much of his time.
The One Laptop Per Child project is struggling
to convince developing countries providing computers for children is as
important as giving them basic facilities like water or electricity.
Unusually, Rufus does not have an opinion about
that controversy, but he does have a verdict on the laptop. "It's
great," he says.
|
Laptop
Project Says Each Sale To U.S. Buyer Will Donate One To
Developing-Country User
DAY
By Brian Bergstein, AP Technology Writer
Published on 9/24/2007
Cambridge, Mass. — The project that hopes to supply developing-world
schoolchildren with $188 laptops will sell the rugged little computers
to U.S. residents and Canadians for $400 each, with the profit going
toward a machine for a poor country.
The One Laptop Per Child project expects that its “Give One, Get One”
promotion will result in a pool of thousands of donated laptops that
will stimulate demand in countries hesitant to join the program. It
will be offered for only two weeks in November.
Originally conceived as the “$100 laptop,” the funky green-and-white
low-power “XO” computers now cost $188. The laptops' manufacturer,
Quanta Computer Inc., is beginning mass production next month, but with
far fewer than the 3 million orders One Laptop Per Child director
Nicholas Negroponte had said he was waiting for.
Negroponte said the availability of donated laptops would not be the
sole condition for many countries weighing whether to place
multimillion-dollar orders. But “it just triggers it,” he said. “It
makes it all happen faster.”
By opening sales to people in the U.S. and Canada at
http://www.xogiving.com, “Give
One, Get One” will delight computing
aficionados, because the XO is unlike any other laptop.
It has a homegrown user interface designed for children, boasts
built-in wireless networking, uses very little power and can be
recharged by hand with a pulley or a crank. Its display has separate
indoor and outdoor settings so it can be read in full sunlight,
something even expensive laptops lack.
The machines use the Linux open-source system and don't run Windows;
Negroponte expects that to be possible soon, but Microsoft Corp.
insists it can't guarantee that, given the machine's idiosyncratic
specs.
The catch is that “Give One, Get One” will run only from Nov. 12 to
Nov. 26. Negroponte said the limited availability is partly necessary
so the nonprofit doesn't run afoul of tax laws, but mainly designed to
create scarcity-induced excitement.
“We need that burst,” he said.
Just the first 25,000 buyers will be promised delivery of their XOs by
the Christmas season. Everyone else will be on a pace reminiscent of
the old Sears Roebuck catalog, with the computer probably arriving in
January.
Then again, most buyers figure to be motivated more by the “Give One”
aspect than the “Get One” part. Negroponte said that dynamic is
beginning to pervade the program, with several poor countries finding
that richer governments are willing to act as sponsors.
For example, Italy is buying all 50,000 XOs that Ethiopia will get in
the program's first wave. Now Negroponte is trying to encourage similar
arrangements with governments in Europe and Asia, with Pakistan and
Afghanistan among the possible recipients. Megabillionaire Carlos Slim
is expected to purchase 25,000 XOs and lend them to Mexican children.
Thailand, Uruguay, Nigeria, Brazil, Libya and Rwanda are among the
countries that could be in the first wave of laptop customers, though
specifics have not been announced.
Given all the innovations in the XO and the discussions it has inspired
about computers in education, One Laptop Per Child — a spinoff from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology — can claim significant
achievements. However, Negroponte hoped to be further along by now.
In September 2005, he was saying that 5 million to 15 million machines
might be in production in 2006, with perhaps 100 million out by now. In
April 2006 he foresaw 5 million to 10 million XOs dotting the landscape
in 2007.
Now 250,000 to 300,000 are due to be made by the end of this year.
Negroponte expects that to ramp up to 1 million a month next year,
though he still lacks signed orders for that many.
One reason things may have gone slower than predicted is One Laptop Per
Child's impending emergence awoke commercial vendors to the promise of
a low-cost international educational market. Now governments
considering buying XOs for their youngsters have multiple options in
the $200 range — including more-conventional computers that can run
Windows. Negroponte acknowledges the absence of Windows led Russia to
say no.
One of the laptop program's unabashed admirers is Miguel Brechner, who
runs a government-funded technology group in Uruguay. Brechner has been
overseeing a test of 200 XOs in a Uruguayan village and believes the
laptops have stimulated collaboration and raised expectations for
children. He expects to buy many more XOs as Uruguay soon begins to
outfit all 400,000 of its primary schoolchildren with laptops.
“I'm absolutely a believer that this will change the country,” Brechner
said.
But not all of those computers will be XOs. To hedge its bets, Uruguay
probably will buy other inexpensive laptops as well, including Intel
Corp.'s Classmate PCs. Brechner argues that Windows is a better option
for older kids who are closer to entering the computing work force.
“We will see (what happens) in the field and change whatever is
necessary,” Brechner said. “We will make some mistakes. We don't know
who to copy on this.”
Wireless is beefed up in downtown
By FRANK MacEACHERN, fmaceachern@thestamfordtimes.com
September 6, 2007
STAMFORD —Three small parks in the city's downtown are more than just
places to relax on a warm day, they're also areas where people can
connect to the Internet via free Wi-Fi service.
City officials hope it's just the start of a "wireless corridor"
running from the downtown to the transportation center, said Michael
Pensiero, Stamford's director of technology management services.
"Our entire plan is to have a wireless service from Ferguson Library to
the transportation center, to create a wireless corridor," said
Pensiero.
The service enables people who have a laptop to work in an area where
they can't plug in to a wall socket in order to access the Internet.
Instead they're able to sit in an area, such as a park, and connect to
the Internet wirelessly.
The project is funded by a $15,000 federal grant which was used to
purchase the radio equipment and for service fees, said Pensiero.
Approval for the grant came last fall and the city received the money
approximately two months later.
Last year the city offered the service at Columbus Park. This summer
the city added Latham Park on Bedford Street and Veterans Park on
Atlantic Street near Stamford Town Center.
The city is working with the state to have the service extended to the
transportation center so commuters would be able to use it while
waiting for a train, said Pensiero.
To access the Internet users have to type the 13-digit access code on
Connecticut library cards. Out-of-state residents have to obtain a
library card from Ferguson Library if they wish to connect to the
Internet.
There haven't been many users yet, said Pensiero, but he hoped more
will take advantage of it once they get to know about the service.
Once users know about free Wi-Fi service they're eager to use it, said
Alice Knapp, director of public services at the Ferguson Library.
The library began offering the service three years ago at its main
branch and then expanded it this year to the Harry Bennett and the Weed
& Hollander Memorial branches in Turn of River and Springdale areas
respectively. She estimated about 12-13,000 users have signed on to use
the Wi-Fi service.
For people who bring their laptop to the library to work on a project
or assignment the Wi-Fi service is another convenience for them. They
can work and also access reference material at the same time as others
are doing so, said Knapp.
Internet speed at the Wi-Fi sites is very good, said Pensiero, although
he cautioned it's affected by how many users are online.
Municipal
Wi-Fi faces financial hurdles
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer
Fri Aug 31, 2:54 AM ET
SAN FRANCISCO - A year ago, it seemed like just about every major U.S.
city was drawing up ambitious plans to build wireless Internet networks
so more people, both rich and poor, could have online access wherever
they wanted. Now, economics is blurring the Utopian vision as city
leaders and the companies proposing to build the Wi-Fi networks haggle
over whether the projects make financial sense.
The problem came into sharper focus this week as once-ballyhooed
projects in San Francisco and Chicago unraveled while another
high-profile deal in Houston neared a breaking point.
"Cities and companies are rethinking the models that they are
adopting," said Esme Vos, founder of MuniWireless.com, a Web site that
tracks trends in the industry. "It's all about economics and
risk-sharing now."
MuniWireless estimates Wi-Fi networks have either already been built or
are under consideration in 455 cities and counties across the United
States, up from 122 two years ago.
The second thoughts about municipal Wi-Fi revolve around questions
about whether the networks will generate enough revenue to justify the
multimillion-dollar investments to build and maintain them.
EarthLink Inc., an Internet service provider that had been one of the
chief evangelists in the crusade to blanket cities with Wi-Fi, has
decided it can no longer afford to foot the bill by itself as the
Atlanta-based company tries to bounce back from $46 million in losses
during the first half of this year.
"We will not devote any new capital to the old municipal Wi-Fi model
that has us taking all the risks," Rolla Huff, EarthLink's chief
executive, told analysts during a Wednesday conference call. "In my
judgment, that model is simply unworkable."
Later Wednesday, Huff informed San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom that
EarthLink was rescinding a proposal to cover the estimated $14 million
to $17 million cost of building the city's Wi-Fi network.
Had the San Francisco system been built, EarthLink planned to charge
about $20 per month for Wi-Fi access that would have been three to four
times faster than a free service subsidized by ads sold by Google Inc.
San Francisco still hopes to find other vendors willing to build a
Wi-Fi network in its city, an effort that Google said it will continue
to support.
"Google is committed to promoting alternative platforms for people to
access the Web no matter where they are, and we encourage others to
think creatively about how to address access issues in their own
communities," Google spokesman Andrew Pederson said.
Last year, Google completed a free Wi-Fi network in its home town of
Mountain View that the company says attracts about 15,000 users per
month.
EarthLink had doubts about whether it could sign up enough San
Francisco subscribers to recover its costs there, based on its
experience so far in other cities, including Philadelphia and New
Orleans, where it has already completed or is still building Wi-Fi
networks.
Houston was counting on EarthLink to invest about $50 million to build
a Wi-Fi network there, but those high hopes are now fading. The city
this week notified EarthLink that it will fine the company $5 million
for missing its contractual deadlines. The payment will give EarthLink
more time to consider whether it wants to abandon the Houston project
or find other partners willing to help defray the costs.
Chicago canceled its $18.5 million Wi-Fi project after concluding it
would require the city to spend too much money to help finance it.
Financial worries also have jeopardized a $20 million Wi-Fi network in
Milwaukee. The project remains in its testing phase, but the vendor,
Midwest Fiber Networks, has publicly expressed concerns about whether
the network will attract enough customers to recoup the investment.
Vos and other industry observers believe the dreams about wireless
Internet access in big cities can still be realized if the some of the
financial burden is shifted from the private sector.
"What is happening right now is a black eye (for Wi-Fi), but I don't
think it's a death blow," said Godfrey Chua, who follows wireless
networking issues for the research firm IDC. "We just need to work on
new business models."
Some cities already have agreed to help finance Wi-Fi by sharing some
of the upfront costs and guaranteeing subscriptions. Minneapolis, for
instance, has agreed to become the "anchor tenant" on its Wi-Fi network
— a commitment that will cost the city $1.25 million annually.
Houston had also agreed to pay EarthLink $500,000 annually to give the
city's workers Wi-Fi access during the first five years of its
contract, but that still might not be enough to keep EarthLink on board.
DPUC Issues
Certificate For U-Verse; Decision Clears The Way For AT&T's New
Phone-Line Television Offering
By Anthony Cronin, Day Business Editor
Published on
11/2/2007
AT&T and union officials on Thursday welcomed state regulators'
approval of the communications company's new U-verse offering, which
provides television services over its phone network.
The state Department of Public Utility Control issued a “certificate of
video franchise,” making AT&T the first competitor to offer
television services under a new state law designed to increase
competition with the cable industry.
New London is one of the introductory markets for the new U-verse
television service. AT&T, whose statewide headquarters is in New
Haven, launched the service last December in a handful of towns and
cities. Since then, it has expanded to 42 municipalities and serves
more than 150,000 customers. Company officials said AT&T would
continue to expand the service to more towns and cities across
Connecticut.
In addition, downtown New London is home to a service center for the
new U-verse service that employs about 100.
Ramona Carlow, president of AT&T's Connecticut operations, said her
company is pleased with the DPUC decision, saying that Connecticut
consumers “have long desired more choice in the video marketplace.”
The U-verse service comes into a residence via the telephone network.
Once inside the home, equipment essentially “splits” the television
signal off from the voice or data signals, providing cable-like service
to individual television sets in a home.
Earlier this week, AT&T won an important court victory when a
Hartford Superior Court judge backed the communications company in its
battle to convince state regulators to let it sell the service without
being considered a regulated cable provider.
The DPUC had ruled this past month that AT&T needed a
cable-television license for its new service. AT&T objected, along
with its union workers and many of its customers. AT&T officials
said they have invested more than $300 million in the new service and
disputed that it is a cable-like service.
William F. Henderson III, president of the Communications Workers of
America Local 1298, said the DPUC decision on Thursday offers welcome
relief to his union, which had forecast the loss of at least 1,300 jobs
across the state if the new television offering were halted.
The CWA workers include various technicians and service personnel who
are working to install the new service and broaden the U-verse network
to more municipalities across the state. “I'm happy that they (DPUC)
moved so quickly because jobs were at stake and the economy in the
state of Connecticut would suffer” if jobs were lost from the initial
DPUC ruling in October, Henderson said.
U-verse basic service starts at $44 a month, but the price increases
depending on the level of service, such as adding television offerings
or Internet-related packages.
AT & T Wins In Court;
TV Service To Continue
By MARK PETERS | Courant Staff Writer
November 1, 2007
A Hartford Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday that AT&T can
resume signing up customers for its TV service, possibly ending the
battle over how to regulate the company's alternative to cable
television.
Judge Robert McWeeny overturned a ruling by the state Department of
Public Utility Control that required AT&T to follow the same rules
as cable companies. McWeeny ruled that AT&T should instead be
regulated under a new state law designed to promote TV services that
compete with cable companies, something the state hopes will lead to
lower rates and improved service.
"The legislature has made a policy determination to encourage
competition in the area of cable services by reducing the regulatory
burden on providers… The DPUC and [state Office of Consumer Counsel]
are created by the legislature to facilitate and implement their policy
determinations, not to frustrate them," the judge wrote.
As a result of the recent DPUC decision, AT&T threatened to lay off
hundreds of workers, call off hundreds of millions of dollars in
construction and shut down the TV service for its 7,000 existing
customers.
AT&T now plans to continue expanding its TV service known as
U-verse, which is available in parts of 42 towns and cities in
Connecticut. The company uses an Internet-like technology to deliver
ESPN, HBO and other TV programming over telephone lines.
As part of the new state law, AT&T will have to receive a new kind
of license from the DPUC as a competitive video provider. The company
said it won't start signing up new customers until it gets the license.
"Connecticut consumers will have a chance for video choice at last. We
are proud and pleased today to have gotten clarity from [the court],"
Seth Bloom, an AT&T spokesman, said in a statement.
It wasn't clear Thursday whether the state might appeal the ruling.
Neither officials at the DPUC nor the Office of Consumer Counsel, which
represents TV service customers, could be reached for comment.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal had argued that U-verse should be
treated the same as cable TV companies and abide by the same rules. But
he softened his position in recent days, and said Thursday he doesn't
believe McWeeny's ruling should be appealed. He may seek legislative
changes to ensure competition for TV service is fair.
"We may differ on legal issues, but we share the goal of providing
cable consumers with this new service so they, hopefully, have the
benefits of lower prices and better service. Continued legal combat
ill-serves that common objective," Blumenthal said in a statement.
The battle over AT&T's U-verse service had focused on whether the
phone giant should be compelled to get a franchise license for the
whole state and provide service to anyone who wanted it, statewide.
Cable companies like Comcast and Cox Communications currently have that
requirement for their franchise areas, which encompass several
municipalities and not the whole state.
The consumer counsel and Blumenthal had argued that if AT&T wasn't
required to serve everyone, then only certain areas of the state would
benefit from competition. The company could then pick and choose the
most lucrative areas, leaving others particularly the poor or those in
rural areas with no competitive choice.
AT&T argued that to offer the service to everyone would be
burdensome as it entered a market where cable companies have had a
decades-old monopoly. If the state wanted competition, the company
maintained, it would have to drop the so-called universal service
requirement.
The General Assembly did just that in a law passed earlier this year
that prevents AT&T from discriminating against low-income areas,
but doesn't require the company to offer U-verse to all customers. The
law also set up a lighter regulatory system that still included
customer service requirements and public access TV funding.
However, that law came into question after a federal court ruled that
AT&T was a cable company in a lawsuit brought by the consumer
counsel and cable industry. The federal ruling resulted in the DPUC
ruling on Oct. 15 that AT&T didn't qualify under the new state law
and had to stop signing up customers until it received a cable
franchise license.
AT&T balked and appealed the ruling to state court, leading to
Wednesday's ruling.
AT&T
building U-verse
CT POST
By PAM DAWKINS
Article Last Updated: 08/23/2007 10:35:33 PM EDT
While a federal district court and state regulators contemplate rulings
about the nature of AT&T's U-verse television service, the company
continues building up the infrastructure and customer base.
AT&T plans to spend about $336 million on infrastructure
improvements in the state as part of its three-year plan to roll out
U-verse nationally.
It started the service in Connecticut in parts of nine towns in
December; today it is available in parts of 35 cities and towns,
including Bridgeport, Danbury, Derby, Fairfield, Milford, New Haven,
Stratford, Trumbull, Westport and West Haven. The company won't
disclose specific numbers, but says it has thousands of subscribers
here already. Its marketing efforts include a doublewide trailer with
two living rooms, where customers can check out the service. That
trailer is at the Best Buy parking lot in Danbury for another month.
"The main driver behind U-verse is the empowerment of the Web U-verse
is about bringing that Web empowerment to your TV," Chris Traggio,
AT&T's vice president for consumer operations, said Thursday during
a media tour of the video hub office.
For security and competitive reasons, AT&T has asked the hub's
location be identified only as being in New Haven County, around the
center of the state. The hub has no identifying signage.
This is where AT&T acquires Connecticut and New York City channels
— sent digitally through fiber optics — and merges them with national
content, said Rob Frey,
the facility manager.
Inside, gray and black bookcase-like shapes line rows, holding black
boxes sporting a variety of wires and lights; bundles of yellow
fiber-optic cable are everywhere. Everything has a redundancy, Frey
said, so service isn't interrupted. This includes the power supply;
huge batteries fill in for a secondary backup generation if the primary
generator, which is on site, fails.
The local signal moves down an aisle of machinery, which processes it
into an Internet Protocol stream. Technicians can also change the color
or volume in a program. The process is mirrored on the other side of
the room for national programming.
Both sets move via fiber optics to neighborhood nodes but once there,
the content moves to individual sites via the copper wire that also
carries phone service, said Chad Townes, AT&T's vice president and
general manager for Connecticut. That need to move through sites with
fiber optics is why it's not available in the whole state at once, he
said. "Every day, we're adding more fiber."
Part of the installation — the company has 100 technicians now with
more going through six-week training courses continuously — includes
rewiring the house if the wires are too old.
U-verse is billed as competition to cable television, but Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal maintains the service is cable television,
and so AT&T should be regulated like a cable company, which
includes requesting a franchise from the state Department of Public
Utility Control.
One worry, Blumenthal has said, is that AT&T will "cherry pick" its
demographic, bringing U-verse to wealthier communities and leaving
poorer areas behind. Also, unless held to franchise rules, the company
won't offer public access television; AT&T, however, has promised
to do this.
In June 2006, the DPUC ruled AT&T's Internet Protocol Television is
not subject to cable franchising requirements; Blumenthal sued in U.S.
District Court for a ruling that it is. In July 2007, the court
overturned the DPUC's decision. Now, AT&T has moved for a
reconsideration while Blumenthal has filed an emergency request with
the DPUC to force AT&T to apply for a franchise.
Blumenthal puts AT&T's chances of a reconsideration at "virtually
zero," calling it a "futile attempt" at delaying the inevitable.
"Whatever the rules for cable franchises they should apply to IPTV," he
said Thursday. "It's the law," and what the federal courts have decided.
"We're waiting until court action is finalized," because it would be
imprudent to take action until then, DPUC spokeswoman Beryl Lyons said
Thursday. The DPUC's cable regulating authority is minimal and includes
ensuring cable companies meet public, education and government access
requirements.
"Cable competition has been permitted since 1984," Lyons said, but "the
investment is enormous. The risk was very great," so no one wanted to
start up service. AT&T, however, already has a fiber-optic
infrastructure.
In its most recent session, the state Legislature passed, and Gov. M.
Jodi Rell signed, a bill to prompt competition wherever possible. In
part, Lyons said, as of Oct. 1, the bill narrows the DPUC's
jurisdiction once competition — when there's at least one non-cable
company customer in an existing franchise — is established. The DPUC,
however, remains the franchising authority and continues to oversee
access channels and customer service.
Townes declined to comment Thursday about the court case, but said,
"There's a huge difference between the two technologies." Cable, he
said, is a one-way broadcast of content; U-verse is two-way
communication.
The cable box, he said, brings in a signal with all the offerings. The
U-verse set-top box tells the hub what programming to send. This frees
up bandwidth for more channels and other offerings.
The company has four packages, which include high definition television
channels. Prices for bundled U-verse and Internet service — customers
can buy the television service alone but the highspeed Internet service
is embedded in the signal — range from $59 to $129 a month, depending
on Internet speed.
The basic package has more than 100 channels and comes with one
receiver. Other packages come with three receivers, including one with
a digital video recorder, which can record up to four channels at once.
"We don't ever expect to replace the computer," Townes said, but
U-verse will soon be capable of showing photos from the Web, stock
quotes and movie times and even send messages to appear on the screen
from an off-site computer. Today, users can program their DVR from an
off-site computer or cell phone.Wallingford resident Leslie Spiars, an
AT&T employee, has a projection television hooked up to U-verse, as
well as a 1988-era model in the basement. "We're kind of into
technology," said Spiars; the company used her home setup as a
demonstration for reporters Thursday. While AT&T is looking at
U-verse as a way to bring new services to existing customers, it is
also planning to take people away from the cable companies. According
to Townes and other executives, their service is about 20 to 30 percent
cheaper than comparable cable television prices.
But the cable companies, which are going after telephone customers
through their new offerings, won't be giving up on
television.Cablevision, for example, has about 1.4 million residential
phone service customers; it also offers customers a chance to bundle
telecommunications services.
"Cablevision is successful in a competitive market because customers
love and value our television, Internet and phone products. Our digital
cable service features real interactivity, local news and information
through News 12 Connecticut, and 40 high-definition programming
services at no additional charge," the company said in a prepared
statement. Blumenthal, meanwhile, said even if the court and DPUC rule
against AT&T, he doesn't expect the company will pull its U-verse
out of Connecticut, because there's "too much money and opportunity
[here]."
AT&T
Asks Court To
Reconsider 'U-verse' Decision; Company's new interactive video service
must abide by cable-TV rules, judge said
DAY
By Patricia Daddona
Published on 8/14/2007
AT&T has asked the U.S. District Court in New Haven to reject a
recent federal opinion that finds the same rules for cable programming
apply to a new video product offered by the phone company.
At the same time, one of the plaintiffs in the case, the state's Office
of Consumer Counsel, has asked Judge Janet Bond Arterton to halt
AT&T's acceptance of its new “U-verse” interactive video technology
until it obtains a cable franchise license and to direct the state
Department of Public Utility Control to require the company to take
that step immediately.
Last month, the judge ruled in a summary judgment in federal court that
U-verse must be subjected to the same regulations as conventional
cable. The opinion, if it becomes a final ruling, would require
AT&T to get a cable franchise just like other cable providers.
Arterton's judgment has the effect of potentially shooting down a 2006
decision by the DPUC, which had said AT&T was not required to seek
a cable franchise for its Internet protocol television service, since
it was not the same as conventional cable, but rather relied on two-way
interaction between the company and the subscriber.
Arterton said, however, that federal law pre-empts the state's
interpretation. Although AT&T uses two-way delivery of services,
AT&T still delivers prepackaged programming to all subscribers, so
subscriber interaction “is the same as that involved in traditional”
cable programming, she wrote.
In its request to be heard again, in writing and orally, AT&T
argues that the judge erred factually and as a matter of law, in part
by failing to take into account that the new video service is capable
of providing — and “in time” will enable — features and functions that
subscribers can use to customize the type of video content they receive.
The distinction makes AT&T's service “fundamentally” different than
traditional cable service, the telecommunications giant argues.
AT&T describes U-verse as interaction over a corporate Internet
network that enables a person's TV to communicate and work with other
Internet-driven devices. For instance, a cell phone might be used to
set the recording time for a digital video recorder, or a subscriber
might display ball-game statistics without waiting for a program
producer to do it.
The court also mistakenly decided, AT&T contends, that U-verse is
not a two-way transmission and that “interactivity must be visible to
the subscriber” to count as interactivity, an interpretation the
company claims is nowhere to be found in legislative language or
history governing cable franchises in Connecticut, or in the Federal
Communication Commission's interpretations.
The cable company also provided the court with a “status report” on
recent changes in Connecticut law regarding cable franchises. A new law
intended to encourage competition among video service providers
requires new providers like AT&T to get a certificate of video
franchise authority, the company states, asserting that the law was
written with specific regard for AT&T.
“Once (the judge) evaluates the information we submitted, we're eagerly
anticipating her decision on that,” said Adam Cormier, a spokesman for
AT&T.
But William Vallee Jr., lead attorney for the state's Office of
Consumer Counsel, said the judge's opinion “is pure law” and correctly
interprets what existing federal law means.
“There's nothing new here,” Vallee said of the motion for
reconsideration. He also points out in a status report for the
plaintiff that the state certificate does not become effective until
Oct. 1. “Only a clear, unambiguous order from this Court can ensure ...
compliance,” he wrote.
Last week, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal asked the DPUC to force
AT&T to apply for a franchise license, but DPUC spokeswoman Beryl
Lyons said no action could be taken until any appeal period on a final
ruling expired. Lyons was not available for comment late Monday.
“AT&T's request for reconsideration is without basis in law or
fact,” Blumenthal said, “a blatant delaying tactic to forestall state
licensing and regulation of its Internet television service.”
Smile! Aerial images being used to
enforce laws
YAHOO
By FRANK ELTMAN, Associated Press Writer
14 August 2010
RIVERHEAD, N.Y. – On New York's Long Island, it's used to prevent
drownings. In Greece, it's a tool to help solve a financial crisis.
Municipalities update property assessment rolls and other government
data with it. Some in law enforcement use it to supplement
reconnaissance of crime suspects. High-tech eyes in the sky —
from satellite imagery to sophisticated aerial photography that maps
entire communities — are being employed in creative new ways by
government officials, a trend that civil libertarians and others fear
are eroding privacy rights.
"As technology advances, we have to revisit questions about what is and
what is not private information," said Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel
at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Democracy and Technology.
Online services like Google and Bing give users very detailed images of
practically any location on the planet. Though some images are months
old, they make it possible for someone sitting in a living room in
Brooklyn to look in on folks in Dublin or Prague, or even down the
street in Flatbush. Sean Walter, an attorney and first-term town
supervisor in Riverhead, N.Y., insists he is a staunch defender of
privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against
unreasonable search and seizure.
But Walter supported using Google Earth images to help identify about
250 Riverhead homes where residents failed to get building permits
certifying their swimming pools complied with safety regulations. All
but about 10 eventually came to town hall. Walter said the focus
was safety, not filling town coffers with permit money, which averaged
about $150 depending on the size of the pool. A 4-foot fence is
required, gates have to be self-closing and padlocked. All pools must
have an alarm that sounds when sensors are activated indicating someone
is in the pool.
"We have a town employee who is a personal friend of mine whose son was
found face-down in a swimming pool," Walter said. "He's OK, but I don't
want to be the supervisor that attends the funeral of a child that
drowns in a swimming pool."
Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information
Center in Washington, D.C., fears that while Walter's focus was safety,
other municipalities may use the images to check for other
transgressions.
"It's only a matter of time," Coney said. "There are lots of ordinances
where this can be used. In California, where they deal with brush
fires, could a satellite image show if a homeowner has brush growing
too close to his home? What if someone has junk cars on their lot in
violation of ordinances?"
Riverhead resident Tony Villar said the town's action "could be
considered Big Brother looking down at you."
"But at the same time, if the government can listen to your telephone
conversations in the name of terrorism," he said.
Standing outside the Riverhead Public Library, Walter Casey of Flanders
agreed. "I think it's a great intrusion on people's privacy; they
should use it on the politicians' backyards."
The New York Civil Liberties Union's Donna Lieberman said there are
ways to enforce requirements "without this sort of engaging in Big
Brother on high. Technically, it may be lawful, but in the gut it does
not feel like a free society kind of operation."
In Greece, officials are struggling with a debt crisis and have sought
to catch tax-evaders by using satellite photos to spot undeclared
swimming pools — indicators of taxable wealth. Google spokeswoman
Kate Hurowitz said in a statement that Google Earth acquires its
information from a broad range of commercial and public sources.
"The same information is available to anyone who buys it from these
widely available public sources," she said. "Google's freely available
technology has been used for a variety of purposes, ranging from travel
planning to scientific research to emergency response, rescue and
relief in natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the Haiti
earthquake."
At least nine lawsuits seeking class-action status have been filed in
the United States, contending that Google collected fragments of
e-mails, Web-surfing data and other information from unencrypted
wireless networks as it photographed neighborhoods for its "Street
View" feature. Google is also facing investigations or inquiries in 38
states as well as in several countries, including Germany, Spain and
Australia. The Mountain View, Calif., company said in May it had
inadvertently collected the data from public Wi-Fi networks in more
than 30 countries, but maintains it never used the data and hasn't
broken any laws.
Google Earth posts updates about every two weeks on selected images
from its providers, with images ranging from a few weeks to a few years
old. For big cities like Chicago, tracking illegal pools, porches
and decks through Google Earth requires frequent imaging updates, so
the Chicago buildings department uses it as a reference tool on a
case-by-case scenario, said spokesman Bill McCaffrey.
"We're not opposed to adopting new technology, but until it advances
where we can get photos of more recent updates, we don't have any plans
to implement it," he said.
Smaller towns such as Champaign and Naperville, Ill. opted to use
satellite images as reference only.
"Mostly it's so we can see that we're going to the right building when
we go to do inspections," said Ann Michalsen, lead inspector for code
enforcement in Naperville.
It's also important for police officers to know they have the right
destination when executing search warrants, said Joe Pollini, a
professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "Most departments
would use it as a preliminary step, but they would also use active
surveillance with their own aircraft," he said.
The nonprofit group Consumer Watchdog is seeking to determine the
extent of the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration's use of Google
Earth in its investigations, spokesman John M. Simpson said last week.
Federal contracting records reviewed by Consumer Watchdog show that the
FBI has spent more than $600,000 on Google Earth since 2007. The Drug
Enforcement Administration, meanwhile, has spent more than
$67,000. Simpson has called on Congress to investigate how U.S.
law enforcement and intelligence communities are using Google
technologies. The group says it has concerns that data could be used
for racial profiling.
The New York Police Department's Real Time Crime Center uses satellite
imaging and computerized mapping systems to identify geographic
patterns of crimes and to pinpoint possible addresses where suspects
might flee — information relayed to investigators on the street. The
NYPD also has two major security initiatives where a network of public
and private cameras will eventually link and be searchable.
The NYCLU has filed lawsuits in opposition.
"We live in an environment where we are told that if it's on camera, if
you have a video record, that will make us safer," Lieberman said.
"That may be appealing, but it is an unproven assertion. There's no
evidence of that. Yet we see millions, if not billions, of post-9/11
money has gone to law enforcement for installing cameras in every
conceivable nook and cranny."
Big Brother is
watching us all
|
|
By Humphrey
Hawksley, BBC News, Washington
15 September 2007
|
The US and UK
governments are developing increasingly sophisticated gadgets to keep
individuals under their surveillance. When it comes to technology, the
US is determined to stay ahead of the game.
Humphrey Hawksley's data is
captured by a camera in one second
|
"Five nine, five ten," said the research
student, pushing down a laptop button to seal the measurement. "That's
your height."
"Spot on," I said.
"OK, we're freezing you now," interjected
another student, studying his computer screen. "So we have height and
tracking and your gait DNA".
"Gait DNA?" I interrupted, raising my head, so
inadvertently my full face was caught on a video camera.
"Have we got that?" asked their teacher
Professor Rama Challapa. "We rely on just 30 frames - about one second
- to get a picture we can work with," he explained.
Tracking individuals
I was at Maryland University just outside
Washington DC, where Professor Challapa and his team are inventing the
next generation of citizen surveillance.
They had pushed back furniture in the
conference room for me to walk back and forth and set up cameras to
feed my individual data back to their laptops.
Gait DNA, for example, is creating an
individual code for the way I walk. Their goal is to invent a system
whereby a facial image can be matched to your gait, your height, your
weight and other elements, so a computer will be able to identify
instantly who you are.
How you walk could be used to
identify you in a crowd
|
"As you walk through a crowd, we'll be
able to track you," said Professor Challapa. "These are all things that
don't need the cooperation of the individual."
Since 9/11, some of the best scientific minds
in the defence industry have switched their concentration from tracking
nuclear missiles to tracking individuals such as suicide bombers.
Surveillance society
My next stop was a Pentagon agency whose
headquarters is a drab suburban building in Virginia. The Defence
Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) had one specific mission - to
ensure that when it comes to technology America is always ahead of the
game.
Its track record is impressive. Back in the
70s, while we were working with typewriters and carbon paper, Darpa was
developing the internet. In the 90s, while we pored over maps, Darpa
invented satellite navigation that many of us now have in our cars.
"We ask the top people what keeps them awake at
night," said its enthusiastic and forthright director Dr Tony Tether,
"what problems they see long after they have left their posts."
"And what are they?" I asked.
He paused, hand on chin. "I'd prefer not to
say. It's classified."
"All right then, can you say what you're
actually working on now."
"Oh, language," he answered enthusiastically,
clasping his fingers together. "Unless we're going to train every
American citizen and soldier in 16 different languages we have to
develop a technology that allows them to understand - whatever country
they are in - what's going on around them.
"I hope in the future we'll be able to have
conversations, if say you're speaking in French and I'm speaking in
English, and it will be natural."
"And the computer will do the translation?"
|
Opinion polls, both in
the US and Britain, say that about 75% of us want more, not less,
surveillance
|
"Yep. All by computer," he said.
"And this idea about a total surveillance
society," I asked. "Is that science fiction?"
"No, that's not science fiction. We're
developing an unmanned airplane - a UAV - which may be able to stay up
five years with cameras on it, constantly being cued to look here and
there. This is done today to a limited amount in Baghdad. But it's the
way to go."
In Britain we are monitored 24/7 by
four million CCTV cameras
|
Smarter technology
Interestingly, we, the public, don't seem to
mind. Opinion polls, both in the US and Britain, say that about 75% of
us want more, not less, surveillance. Some American cities like New
York and Chicago are thinking of taking a lead from Britain where our
movements are monitored round the clock by four million CCTV cameras.
So far there is no gadget that can actually see
inside our houses, but even that's about to change.
Ian Kitajima flew to Washington from his
laboratories in Hawaii to show me sense-through-the-wall technology.
"Each individual has a characteristic profile,"
explained Ian, holding a green rectangular box that looked like a TV
remote control.
Using radio waves, you point it a wall and it
tells you if anyone is on the other side. His company, Oceanit, is due
to test it with the Hawaiian National Guard in Iraq next year, and it
turns out that the human body gives off such sensitive radio signals,
that it can even pick up breathing and heart rates.
"First, you can tell whether someone is dead or
alive on the battlefield," said Ian.
"But it will also show whether someone inside a
house is looking to harm you, because if they are, their heart rate
will be raised. And 10 years from now, the technology will be much
smarter. We'll scan a person with one of these things and tell what
they're actually thinking."
He glanced at me quizzically, noticing my
apprehension.
"Yeah, I know," he said. "It sounds very Star
Trekkish, but that's what's ahead."
|
Chips: High tech aids or
tracking tools?
By TODD LEWAN, AP National Writer
Sun Jul 22, 6:23 AM ET
CityWatcher.com, a provider of surveillance equipment, attracted little
notice itself — until a year ago, when two of its employees had
glass-encapsulated microchips with miniature antennas embedded in their
forearms.
The "chipping" of two workers with RFIDs — radio frequency
identification tags as long as two grains of rice, as thick as a
toothpick — was merely a way of restricting access to vaults that held
sensitive data and images for police departments, a layer of security
beyond key cards and clearance codes, the company said.
"To protect high-end secure data, you use more sophisticated
techniques," Sean Darks, chief executive of the Cincinnati-based
company, said. He compared chip implants to retina scans or
fingerprinting. "There's a reader outside the door; you walk up to the
reader, put your arm under it, and it opens the door."
Innocuous? Maybe.
But the news that Americans had, for the first time, been injected with
electronic identifiers to perform their jobs fired up a debate over the
proliferation of ever-more-precise tracking technologies and their
ability to erode privacy in the digital age.
To some, the microchip was a wondrous invention — a high-tech helper
that could increase security at nuclear plants and military bases, help
authorities identify wandering Alzheimer's patients, allow consumers to
buy their groceries, literally, with the wave of a chipped hand.
To others, the notion of tagging people was Orwellian, a departure from
centuries of history and tradition in which people had the right to go
and do as they pleased, without being tracked, unless they were harming
someone else.
Chipping, these critics said, might start with Alzheimer's patients or
Army Rangers, but would eventually be suggested for convicts, then
parolees, then sex offenders, then illegal aliens — until one day, a
majority of Americans, falling into one category or another, would find
themselves electronically tagged.
The concept of making all things traceable isn't alien to Americans.
Thirty years ago, the first electronic tags were fixed to the ears of
cattle, to permit ranchers to track a herd's reproductive and eating
habits. In the 1990s, millions of chips were implanted in livestock,
fish, dogs, cats, even racehorses.
Microchips are now fixed to car windshields as toll-paying devices, on
"contactless" payment cards (Chase's "Blink," or MasterCard's
"PayPass"). They're embedded in Michelin tires, library books,
passports, work uniforms, luggage, and, unbeknownst to many consumers,
on a host of individual items, from Hewlett Packard printers to Sanyo
TVs, at Wal-Mart and Best Buy.
But CityWatcher.com employees weren't appliances or pets: They were
people made scannable.
"It was scary that a government contractor that specialized in putting
surveillance cameras on city streets was the first to incorporate this
technology in the workplace," says Liz McIntyre, co-author of
"Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your
Every Move with RFID."
Darks, the CityWatcher.com executive, dismissed his critics, noting
that he and his employees had volunteered to be chip-injected. Any
suggestion that a sinister, Big-Brother-like campaign was afoot, he
said, was hogwash.
"You would think that we were going around putting chips in people by
force," he told a reporter, "and that's not the case at all."
Yet, within days of the company's announcement, civil libertarians and
Christian conservatives joined to excoriate the microchip's
implantation in people.
RFID, they warned, would soon enable the government to "frisk" citizens
electronically — an invisible, undetectable search performed by readers
posted at "hotspots" along roadsides and in pedestrian areas. It might
even be used to squeal on employees while they worked; time spent at
the water cooler, in the bathroom, in a designated smoking area could
one day be broadcast, recorded and compiled in off-limits, company
databases.
"Ultimately," says Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate who
specializes in consumer education and RFID technology, "the fear is
that the government or your employer might someday say, 'Take a chip or
starve.'"
Some Christian critics saw the implants as the fulfillment of a
biblical prophecy that describes an age of evil in which humans are
forced to take the "Mark of the Beast" on their bodies, to buy or sell
anything.
Gary Wohlscheid, president of These Last Days Ministries, a Roman
Catholic group in Lowell, Mich., put together a Web site that linked
the implantable microchips to the apocalyptic prophecy in the book of
Revelation.
"The Bible tells us that God's wrath will come to those who take the
Mark of the Beast," he says. Those who refuse to accept the Satanic
chip "will be saved," Wohlscheid offers in a comforting tone.
___
In post-9/11 America, electronic surveillance comes in myriad forms: in
a gas station's video camera; in a cell phone tucked inside a teen's
back pocket; in a radio tag attached to a supermarket shopping cart; in
a Porsche automobile equipped with a LoJack anti-theft device.
"We're really on the verge of creating a surveillance society in
America, where every movement, every action — some would even claim,
our very thoughts — will be tracked, monitored, recorded and
correlated," says Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and
Liberty Program at the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington,
D.C.
RFID, in Steinhardt's opinion, "could play a pivotal role in creating
that surveillance society."
In design, the tag is simple: A medical-grade glass capsule holds a
silicon computer chip, a copper antenna and a "capacitor" that
transmits data stored on the chip when prompted by an electromagnetic
reader.
Implantations are quick, relatively simple procedures. After a local
anesthetic is administered, a large-gauge hypodermic needle injects the
chip under the skin on the back of the arm, midway between the elbow
and the shoulder.
"It feels just like getting a vaccine — a bit of pressure, no specific
pain," says John Halamka, an emergency physician at Beth Israel
Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
He got chipped two years ago, "so that if I was ever in an accident,
and arrived unconscious or incoherent at an emergency ward, doctors
could identify me and access my medical history quickly." (A chipped
person's medical profile can be continuously updated, since the
information is stored on a database accessed via the Internet.)
Halamka thinks of his microchip as another technology with practical
value, like his BlackBerry. But it's also clear, he says, that there
are consequences to having an implanted identifier.
"My friends have commented to me that I'm 'marked' for life, that I've
lost my anonymity. And to be honest, I think they're right."
Indeed, as microchip proponents and detractors readily agree,
Americans' mistrust of microchips and technologies like RFID runs deep.
Many wonder:
Do the current chips have global positioning transceivers that would
allow the government to pinpoint a person's exact location, 24-7? (No;
the technology doesn't yet exist.)
But could a tech-savvy stalker rig scanners to video cameras and film
somebody each time they entered or left the house? (Quite easily,
though not cheaply. Currently, readers cost $300 and up.)
How about thieves? Could they make their own readers, aim them at
unsuspecting individuals, and surreptitiously pluck people's IDs out of
their arms? (Yes. There's even a name for it — "spoofing.")
What's the average lifespan of a microchip? (About 10-15 years.) What
if you get tired of it before then — can it be easily, painlessly
removed? (Short answer: No.)
Presently, Steinhardt and other privacy advocates view the tagging of
identity documents — passports, drivers licenses and the like — as a
more pressing threat to Americans' privacy than the chipping of people.
Equipping hospitals, doctors' offices, police stations and government
agencies with readers will be costly, training staff will take time,
and, he says, "people are going to be too squeamish about having an
RFID chip inserted into their arms, or wherever."
But that wasn't the case in March 2004, when the Baja Beach Club in
Barcelona, Spain — a nightclub catering to the body-aware, under-25
crowd — began holding "Implant Nights."
In a white lab coat, with hypodermic in latex-gloved hand, a company
chipper wandered through the throng of the clubbers and clubbettes,
anesthetizing the arms of consenting party goers, then injecting them
with microchips.
The payoff?
Injectees would thereafter be able to breeze past bouncers and entrance
lines, magically open doors to VIP lounges, and pay for drinks without
cash or credit cards. The ID number on the VIP chip was linked to the
user's financial accounts and stored in the club's computers.
After being chipped himself, club owner Conrad K. Chase declared that
chip implants were hardly a big deal to his patrons, since "almost
everybody has piercings, tattoos or silicone."
VIP chipping soon spread to the Baja Beach Club in Rotterdam, Holland,
the Bar Soba in Edinburgh, Scotland, and the Amika nightclub in Miami
Beach, Fla.
That same year, Mexico's attorney general, Rafael Macedo, made an
announcement that thrilled chip proponents and chilled privacy
advocates: He and 18 members of his staff had been microchipped as a
way to limit access to a sensitive records room, whose door unlocked
when a "portal reader" scanned the chips.
But did this make Mexican security airtight?
Hardly, says Jonathan Westhues, an independent security researcher in
Cambridge, Mass. He concocted an "emulator," a hand-held device that
cloned the implantable microchip electronically. With a team of
computer-security experts, he demonstrated — on television — how easy
it was to snag data off a chip.
Explains Adam Stubblefield, a Johns Hopkins researcher who joined the
team: "You pass within a foot of a chipped person, copy the chip's
code, then with a push of the button, replay the same ID number to any
reader. You essentially assume the person's identity."
The company that makes implantable microchips for humans, VeriChip
Corp., of Delray Beach, Fla., concedes the point — even as it markets
its radio tag and its portal scanner as imperatives for high-security
buildings, such as nuclear power plants.
"To grab information from radio frequency products with a scanning
device is not hard to do," Scott Silverman, the company's chief
executive, says. However, "the chip itself only contains a unique,
16-digit identification number. The relevant information is stored on a
database."
Even so, he insists, it's harder to clone a VeriChip than it would be
to steal someone's key card and use it to enter secure areas.
VeriChip Corp., whose parent company has been selling radio tags for
animals for more than a decade, has sold 7,000 microchips worldwide, of
which about 2,000 have been implanted in humans. More than one-tenth of
those have been in the U.S., generating "nominal revenues," the company
acknowledged in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing in
February.
Although in five years VeriChip Corp. has yet to turn a profit, it has
been investing heavily — up to $2 million a quarter — to create new
markets.
The company's present push: tagging of "high-risk" patients — diabetics
and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer's disease.
In an emergency, hospital staff could wave a reader over a patient's
arm, get an ID number, and then, via the Internet, enter a company
database and pull up the person's identity and medical history.
To doctors, a "starter kit" — complete with 10 hypodermic syringes, 10
VeriChips and a reader — costs $1,400. To patients, a microchip implant
means a $200, out-of-pocket expense to their physician. Presently, chip
implants aren't covered by insurance companies, Medicare or Medicaid.
For almost two years, the company has been offering hospitals free
scanners, but acceptance has been limited. According to the company's
most recent SEC quarterly filing, 515 hospitals have pledged to take
part in the VeriMed network, yet only 100 have actually been equipped
and trained to use the system.
Some wonder why they should abandon noninvasive tags such as
MedicAlert, a low-tech bracelet that warns paramedics if patients have
serious allergies or a chronic medical condition.
"Having these things under your skin instead of in your back pocket —
it's just not clear to me why it's worth the inconvenience," says
Westhues.
Silverman responds that an implanted chip is "guaranteed to be with
you. It's not a medical arm bracelet that you can take off if you don't
like the way it looks..."
In fact, microchips can be removed from the body — but it's not like
removing a splinter.
The capsules can migrate around the body or bury themselves deep in the
arm. When that happens, a sensor X-ray and monitors are needed to
locate the chip, and a plastic surgeon must cut away scar tissue that
forms around the chip.
The relative permanence is a big reason why Marc Rotenberg, of the
Electronic Privacy Information Center, is suspicious about the motives
of the company, which charges an annual fee to keep clients' records.
The company charges $20 a year for customers to keep a "one-pager" on
its database — a record of blood type, allergies, medications, driver's
license data and living-will directives. For $80 a year, it will keep
an individual's full medical history.
___
In recent times, there have been rumors on Wall Street, and elsewhere,
of the potential uses for RFID in humans: the chipping of U.S.
soldiers, of inmates, or of migrant workers, to name a few.
To date, none of this has happened.
But a large-scale chipping plan that was proposed illustrates the
stakes, pro and con.
In mid-May, a protest outside the Alzheimer's Community Care Center in
West Palm Beach, Fla., drew attention to a two-year study in which 200
Alzheimer's patients, along with their caregivers, were to receive chip
implants. Parents, children and elderly people decried the plan, with
signs and placards.
"Chipping People Is Wrong" and "People Are Not Pets," the signs read.
And: "Stop VeriChip."
Ironically, the media attention sent VeriChip's stock soaring 27
percent in one day.
"VeriChip offers technology that is absolutely bursting with
potential," wrote blogger Gary E. Sattler, of the AOL site
Bloggingstocks, even as he recognized privacy concerns.
Albrecht, the RFID critic who organized the demonstration, raises
similar concerns on her AntiChips.com Web site.
"Is it appropriate to use the most vulnerable members of society for
invasive medical research? Should the company be allowed to implant
microchips into people whose mental impairments mean they cannot give
fully informed consent?"
Mary Barnes, the care center's chief executive, counters that both the
patients and their legal guardians must consent to the implants before
receiving them. And the chips, she says, could be invaluable in
identifying lost patients — for instance, if a hurricane strikes
Florida.
That, of course, assumes that the Internet would be accessible in a
killer storm. VeriChip Corp. acknowledged in an SEC filing that its
"database may not function properly" in such circumstances.
As the polemic heats up, legislators are increasingly being drawn into
the fray. Two states, Wisconsin and North Dakota, recently passed laws
prohibiting the forced implantation of microchips in humans. Others —
Ohio, Oklahoma, Colorado and Florida — are studying similar
legislation.
In May, Oklahoma legislators were debating a bill that would have
authorized microchip implants in people imprisoned for violent crimes.
Many felt it would be a good way to monitor felons once released from
prison.
But other lawmakers raised concerns. Rep. John Wright worried,
"Apparently, we're going to permanently put the mark on these people."
Rep. Ed Cannaday found the forced microchipping of inmates "invasive
... We are going down that slippery slope."
In the end, lawmakers sent the bill back to committee for more work.
Cameraphone-Internet catches another excess?
Lawyer
Wants Video Suppressed in Texas
Fight Case
NYTIMES
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:11 p.m. ET
July 6, 2009
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) -- A lawyer for a man accused of organizing
fights among developmentally disabled Texans for entertainment argued
Monday that cell phone videos of the events should be suppressed.
The grainy cell phone videos showing the students forced to fight each
other was expected to be the evidence centerpiece this week as four
former employees at the Corpus Christi State School go on trial.
State District Judge Sandra Watts was hearing arguments Monday on a
motion filed for defendant Timothy Dixon, who allegedly recorded the
fights on a phone that was turned over to police. His attorney, Ira
Miller, contends the phone was stolen and police should have obtained a
search warrant before examining the videos.
Jury selection, expected to begin Monday morning, was delayed. Jurors
were expected to be picked for the trial of Dixon, 30, D'Angelo Riley,
23, and Jesse Salazar, 25, all charged with multiple counts of causing
bodily injury to a disabled person. In a separate courtroom, Stephanie
Garza, 21, was to face a lesser charge of not intervening to stop the
fights. Two other former employees are scheduled to go on trial later
this year.
''These people did horrific things,'' said Jeff Garrison-Tate, of the
advocacy group Community Now!, which has called for closing the state
schools in favor of community-based services. ''But they were given
silent permission for these heinous acts.''
District Attorney Carlos Valdez did not return calls for comment.
Defense attorneys for the accused declined to comment.
Almost 20 videos dating back to 2007 were found on a cell phone turned
in to police, showing staff at the Corpus Christi State School forcing
residents into late-night bouts, even kicking them to egg them on.
Eleven staff members were identified and six were charged.
Dixon is believed to have shot the videos, though other staff members
can been seen pointing cell phone cameras toward the brawls. None of
those charged still works at the facility.
The state has taken pains to close the issue. In May, the Legislature
approved a $112 million settlement with the Justice Department for
widespread mistreatment found at Texas' 13 residential facilities for
the developmentally disabled. Gov. Rick Perry signed legislation last
month aimed at improving oversight of the facilities that house nearly
5,000 people.
The settlement is ''a big step that will certainly bring improvements
and changes to the system,'' said Laura Albrecht, a spokeswoman for the
Department of Aging and Disability Services. She said the agency is
making unannounced visits to the Corpus Christi facility and cameras
are being installed.
The school's director remains in place, to the consternation of some
who say that the incidents showed a disturbing lack of supervision.
Beth Mitchell, the managing lawyer for Advocacy Inc., a nonprofit with
federal authority to monitor abuse and neglect at the facilities, asked
what the administration's role in the alleged crimes was.
''They (those charged) were probably the ones instigating the fight
clubs, but my concern is: How can you have it going on as long as it
did without the administration knowing about it?'' she asked.
Camera phone maker mulls
gadget's impact
By MAY WONG, AP Technology Writer
Sun May 20, 1:47 AM ET
SANTA CRUZ, Calif. - The chilling sounds of gunfire on the
Virginia Tech campus; the hateful taunts from Saddam Hussein's
execution; the racist tirade of comedian Michael Richards.
Those videos, all shot with cell phone cameras and seen by millions,
are just a few recent examples of the power now at the fingertips of
the masses. Even the man widely credited with inventing the camera
phone in 1997 is awed by the cultural revolution he helped launch.
"It's had a massive impact because it's just so convenient," said
Philippe Kahn, a tech industry maverick whose other pioneering efforts
include the founding of software maker Borland, an early Microsoft
Corp. antagonist.
"There's always a way to capture memories and share it," he said. "You
go to a restaurant, and there's a birthday and suddenly everyone is
getting their camera phones out. It's amazing."
If Kahn feels a bit like a proud father when he sees people holding up
their cell phones to snap pictures, there's good reason: He jury-rigged
the first camera phone while his wife was in labor with their daughter.
"We were going to have a baby and I wanted to share the pictures with
family and friends," Kahn said, "and there was no easy way to do it."
So as he sat in a maternity ward, he wrote a crude program on his
laptop and sent an assistant to a RadioShack store to get a soldering
iron, capacitors and other supplies to wire his digital camera to his
cell phone. When Sophie was born, he sent her photo over a cellular
connection to acquaintances around the globe. A decade later, 41
percent of American households own a camera phone "and you can hardly
find a phone without a camera anymore," said Michael Cai, an industry
analyst at Parks Associates.
Market researcher Gartner Inc. predicts that about 589 million
cell phones will be sold with cameras in 2007, increasing to more than
1 billion worldwide by 2010. Mix in the Internet's vast reach and
the growth of the YouTube generation, and the ubiquitous gadget's
influence only deepens and gets more complicated. So much so that the
watchful eyes on all of us may no longer just be those of Big Brother.
"For the past decade, we've been under surveillance under these big
black and white cameras on buildings and at 7-Eleven stores. But the
candid camera is wielded by individuals now," said Fred Turner, an
assistant professor of communications at Stanford University who
specializes in digital media and culture.
The contraption Kahn assembled in a Santa Cruz labor-and-delivery room
in 1997 has evolved into a pocket-friendly phenomenon that has
empowered both citizen journalists and personal paparazzi.
It has prompted lawsuits — a student sued campus police at UCLA for
alleged excessive force after officers were caught on cell-phone video
using a stun gun during his arrest; and been a catalyst for change — a
government inquiry into police practices ensued in Malaysia after a
cell-phone video revealed a woman detainee being forced to do squats
while naked.
On another scale, parents use cell-phone slideshows — not wallet photos
— to show off pictures of their children, while adolescents document
their rites of passage with cell phone cameras and instantly share the
images. One of the recipients of Kahn's seminal photo e-mail was
veteran technology consultant Andy Seybold, who recalled being "blown
away" by the picture.
"The fact that it got sent wirelessly on the networks those days — that
was an amazing feat," Seybold said.
Kahn's makeshift photo-communications system formed the basis for a new
company, LightSurf Technologies, which he later sold to VeriSign Inc.
LightSurf built "PictureMail" software and worked with cell phone
makers to integrate the wireless photo technology. Sharp
Corp. was the first to sell a commercial cell phone with a camera in
Japan in 2000. Camera phones didn't debut in the U.S. until 2002, Kahn
said.
Though Kahn's work revolved around transmitting only digital still
photographs — video-related developments were created by others in the
imaging and chip industries — his groundbreaking implementation of the
instant-sharing via a cell phone planted a seed.
"He facilitated people putting cameras in a phone, and he proved that
you can take a photo and send it to someone with a cell phone," Seybold
said.
Kahn, 55, is well aware of how the camera phone has since been put to
negative uses: sneaky shots up women's skirts, or the violent trend of
"happy slapping" in Europe where youths provoke a fight or assault,
capture the incident on camera and then spread the images on the Web or
between mobile phones. But he likes to focus on the technology's
benefits. It's been a handy tool that has led to vindication for
victims or validation for vigilantes.
As Kahn heard the smattering of stories in recent years about
assailants scared off by a camera phone or criminals who were nabbed
later because their faces or their license plates were captured on the
gadget, he said, "I started feeling it was better than carrying a gun."
And though he found the camera-phone video of the former Iraqi
dictator's execution disturbing, Kahn said the gadget helped "get the
truth out." The unofficial footage surreptitiously taken by a guard was
vastly different from the government-issued version and revealed a
chaotic scene with angry exchanges depicting the ongoing problems
between the nation's factions.
Kahn also thinks the evolution of the camera phone has only just begun.
He wouldn't discuss details of his newest startup, Fullpower
Technologies Inc., which is in stealth mode working on the "convergence
of life sciences and wireless," according to its Web site. But,
Kahn said, it will, among other things, "help make camera phones
better."
Our question is this: what will actions taken be after the
last "twitter" is silenced?
Internet
Most Popular Information Source: Poll
NYTIMES
By REUTERS
Filed at 1:04 p.m. ET
June
17, 2009
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Internet is
by far the most popular source of information and the preferred choice
for news ahead of television, newspapers and radio, according to a new
poll in the United States.
But just a small fraction of U.S.
adults considered social websites such as Facebook and MySpace as a
good source of news and even fewer would opt for Twitter.
More than half of the people
questioned in the Zogby Interactive survey said they would select the
Internet if they had to choose only one source of news, followed by 21
percent for television and 10 percent for both newspapers and radio.
Only 10 percent described social
websites as an important for news, and despite the media buzz about
Twitter, only 4 percent would go to it for information.
The Internet was also selected as
the most reliable source of news by nearly 40 percent of adults,
compared to 17 percent who opted for television and 16 percent who
selected newspapers and 13 percent for listened to the radio.
"The poll reinforces the idea that
efforts by established newspapers, television and radio news outlets to
push their consumers to their respective websites is working," Zogby
said in a statement.
Almost half of 3,030 adults
questioned in the online survey said national newspaper websites were
important to them, followed by 43 percent who preferred television
websites.
Blogs were less of a necessity than
websites with only 28 percent of those polled saying blogs that shared
their political viewpoint were important.
"That the websites of traditional
news outlets are seen by a wide margin as more important than blog
sites - most of which are repositories of opinion devoid of actual
reportage - could be seen as an encouraging development for the media
at large," Zogby added.
When asked to peer into the future,
an overwhelming 82 percent said the Internet would be the main source
of information in five years time, compared to 13 for television and
0.5 percent chose newspapers.
About 84 percent of American have
access to the Internet, according to industry studies.
Page last updated at 09:36 GMT,
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
US plans to give high-speed
broadband to every American
|
By Maggie Shiels,
Technology reporter, BBC News, Silicon Valley
|
Pressure groups see broadband investment
as vital to the US economy
|
US regulators have unveiled the nation's first
plan to give every American super-fast broadband by 2020.
The
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which will now submit the plan
to Congress, said broadband was the "greatest infrastructure
challenge".
It estimates that one-third of Americans, about 100 million
people, are without broadband at home.
The FCC's goal is to provide speeds of 100 megabits per
second (Mbps), compared to an average 4Mbps now.
"Broadband
for every American is not too ambitious a plan and it is absolutely
necessary," former FCC chairman Reed Hundt told BBC News.
"The
consequences of not succeeding are heartbreaking. Every nation needs a
common medium to gather around and to have the internet as a common
medium where a third are left out is unacceptable."
'Silver bullet'
In
an executive summary released ahead of the presentation to Congress on
16 March, the FCC said: "Broadband is a foundation for economic growth,
job creation, global competitiveness and a better way of life.
|
WHAT GOVERNMENT WILL DO
Connect 100 million homes to super-fast
broadband with speeds up to 100 megabits per second
Allocate spectrum to allow network
updates for wireless broadband
Increase adoption rates to 90% and make
sure every child is digitally literate before they leave school
Encourage greater competition among
providers to make prices cheaper and deals easier to understand
Use digital switch-over fund to bring
cheap broadband to rural areas
Provide one gigabit broadband to
schools, hospitals and military installations
|
"It is changing how we educate children, deliver healthcare,
manage
energy, ensure public safety, engage government, and access, organise
and disseminate knowledge".
For industry analyst Erik Sherman of business and news site
BNet.com, all the talk "sounds like an overstatement".
"The
plan cannot be a silver bullet for all these issues and problems which
exist for a number of different reasons and not just because of a lack
of broadband.
"The plan is very big in scope and if you look at
the rationale, the FCC is basically saying we need more money for more
internet. I am not saying we don't need a broadband plan but we have to
be realistic about what it can and cannot do," Mr Sherman told BBC
News.
'Fairy wings and wishes'
Months of hype and
speculation has preceded the presentation of the country's first
comprehensive broadband roadmap. The FCC has also held a series of
briefings previewing its goals.
"It's an action plan, and
action is necessary to meet the challenges of global competitiveness,
and harness the power of broadband to help address so many vital
national issues," said FCC chairman Julius Genachowski.
Wide differences in broadband access are
revealed by statistics
The executive summary revealed that access to high-speed
internet
services had grown dramatically from eight million Americans 20 years
ago to nearly 200 million today.
Estimates to implement the
plan have been put at $350bn (£233bn). How that bill will be
split
between private investment and tax dollars is not known.
"Who pays and how much is the big fight ahead," said
technology industry analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group.
"The
devil is in the detail and right now it's all fairy wings and wishes.
The Republicans are going to fight anything that is excessively
expensive while the Democrats have to be wary of looking like they are
cutting cheques at a time when the government is for the most part
broke."
The FCC will auction off some 500 megahertz of spectrum
to pay for some of the expense. More than $7bn will come from President
Obama's 2009 stimulus package, which targeted broadband-related
initiatives.
'Digital exclusion'
For years the technology industry has pushed for the US
government to create a national broadband plan.
Ahead of today's meeting with Congress, a number of hi-tech
companies wrote to Mr Genachowski to praise the plan.
"Broadband
is critical to America's long-term economic and social well-being. As
society increasingly moves online, the costs of digital exclusion grow
as well," said the signatories of the letter, which included Cisco,
Sony, Salesforce, Microsoft, Facebook and Intel.
One possible battleground is expected to be over the sale of
spectrum that is mostly in the hands of television broadcasters.
Mobile
carriers like AT&T and Verizon have said they will need more
spectrum in future to provide superfast reliable internet connections
to every customer.
"The problem is most of the spectrum is
occupied by somebody else. They are going to want a lot of money for
this," said Adam Thierer, president of the free-market leaning Progress
& Freedom Foundation.
|
Warning sounded on
web's future
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News
15 September 2008
|
Some feared firing up the LHC would
doom the Earth
|
The internet needs a way to help
people separate rumour from real science, says the creator of the World
Wide Web.
Talking to BBC News Sir Tim Berners-Lee said he was
increasingly worried about the way the web has been used to spread
disinformation.
Sir Tim spoke prior to the unveiling of a Foundation he
has co-created that aims to make the web truly worldwide.
It will also look at ways to help people
decide if sites are trustworthy and reliable sources of information.
Future proof
Sir Tim talked to the BBC in the week in which Cern,
where he did his pioneering work on the web, turned on the Large Hadron
Collider for the first time.
The use of the web to spread fears that flicking the
switch on the LHC could create a Black Hole that could swallow up the
Earth particularly concerned him, he said. In a similar vein was the
spread of rumours that the MMR vaccine given to children in Britain was
harmful.
Sir Tim told BBC News that there needed to be new
systems that would give websites a label for trustworthiness once they
had been proved reliable sources.
"On the web the thinking of cults can spread very
rapidly and suddenly a cult which was 12 people who had some deep
personal issues suddenly find a formula which is very believable," he
said. "A sort of conspiracy theory of sorts and which you can imagine
spreading to thousands of people and being deeply damaging."
Sir Tim and colleagues at the World Wide
Web consortium had looked at simple ways of branding websites - but
concluded that a whole variety of different mechanisms was needed.
Sir Tim wants to help get the web
to people who are cut off from it.
|
"I'm not a fan of giving a website a simple number like
an IQ rating because like people they can vary in all kinds of
different ways," he said. "So I'd be interested in different
organisations labelling websites in different ways".
Sir Tim spoke to the BBC to publicise the launch of his
World Wide Web Foundation which aims to improve the web's
accessibility.
Alongside this role it will aim to make it easier for
people to get online. Currently only 20% of the world's population have
access to the web
"Has it been designed by the West for the West?" asked
Sir Tim.
"Has it been designed for the executive and the
teenager in the modern city with a smart phone in their pocket? If you
are in a rural community do you need a different kind of web with
different kinds of facilities?"
Creative medium
The Web Foundation will also explore ways to make the
web more mobile-phone friendly. That would increase its use in Africa
and other poor parts of the world where there are few computers but
plenty of handsets.
The Foundation will also look at how the benefits of
the web can be taken to those who cannot read or write.
"We're talking about the evolution of the web," he
said. "Perhaps by using gestures or pointing. When something is such a
creative medium as the web, the limits to it are our imagination".
The Foundation will also look at concerns that the web
has become less democratic, and its use influenced too much by large
corporations and vested interests.
"I think that question is very important and may be
settled in the next few years," said Sir Tim.
"One of the things I always remain concerned about is
that that medium remains neutral," he said.
"It's not just where I go to decide where to buy my
shoes which is the commercial incentive - it's where I go to decide who
I'm going to trust to vote," he said.
"It's where I go maybe to decide what sort of religion
I'm going to belong to or not belong to; it's where I go to decide what
is actual scientific truth - what I'm actually going to go along with
and what is bunkum".
|
FCC set to test
wide-range broadcast internet
DAY
By Kim Hart
Published on 7/25/2008
Wasington - The nation's top technology companies have spent millions
of dollars and nearly two years building devices, poring over laptops
and working in federal labs trying to come up with a new way of
providing high-speed Internet to bandwidth-hungry cities as well as
hard-to-reach rural regions.
Last week, the companies moved from lab to field.
Engineers from the technology heavyweights, including Motorola and
Philips, lugged their laptops, antennas and other equipment to parks,
homes and high-rises around the Washington area, hoping to prove to the
Federal Communications Commission that the unlicensed airwaves between
television stations, known as white spaces, could provide a new form of
mobile Internet service.
Using white spaces “will provide a way to provide broadband across long
distances at much faster speeds than cellphone networks and WiFi,” said
Jake Ward, spokesman for the Wireless Innovation Alliance, which
includes Google, Microsoft, HP and Dell.
The group is trying to convince regulators that using the airwaves will
provide broadband to rural schools, beam high-definition online video
to low-income households and let consumers stream music while sitting
in highway traffic.
First out of the gate was a team from Motorola. On a recent steamy day
in the middle of Patapsco Valley State Park about 10 miles west of
Baltimore, Dave Gurney, an engineer for the company, set up shop in a
parking lot surrounded by dense forest.
A large black box the size of a suitcase hooked up to a laptop sat near
the base of a tree-covered hill. An antenna perched on a tripod rested
a few feet away. A group of engineers stared intently at the
contraption, as if it were about to spring to life.
”It's done!” Gurney said. He held his breath as the men leaned in
further and quickly jotted down a cryptic list of numbers. Then he ran
the test again.
The stakes are high for this mysterious black box. Tech giants and
Silicon Valley start-ups are betting that using white spaces could
extend the Internet's reach. They also hope it will spark a new wave of
portable devices.
But the idea faces big hurdles. Broadcasters use adjacent airwaves to
beam TV shows to viewers, and they say the technology could interfere
with over-the-air signals. Wireless microphone users, from pop stars to
mega-church ministers, say using white spaces could blot out their
sounds.
White-space backers say their devices will be able to detect and avoid
frequencies being used by broadcasters and wireless mics. Critics say
the devices are not reliable enough.
The FCC is trying to settle that debate. For more than a year, the
agency has been testing prototypes with mixed results. An early
prototype built by Microsoft failed to operate in the FCC's lab.
Microsoft later determined the device was broken.
The FCC is now testing other prototypes built by Philips and Motorola
as well as Silicon Valley start-up Adaptrum and Singapore-based
Institute for Infocomm Research. The Motorola device connects to a
database of TV stations operating within 200 kilometers and scans the
airwaves nearly every second for other signals that may pop up
unexpectedly, such as a wireless microphone.
If the device senses that it is within or close to a TV station's
coverage area, it is supposed to avoid that station's frequency. It
then ranks empty frequencies by their proximity to existing signals. If
a new signal suddenly appears, the white-space device should
automatically switch to another open channel.
”We're testing multiple times to make sure the results are consistent,”
Gurney said.
But the results can be hard to decipher. At the first location,
Motorola's device indicated that channel 51, for example, was open and
available. At the second location, the device picked up a weak signal
on the channel, suggesting that it was already in use.
Motorola's engineers say that means the signal changed slightly between
locations, and the device would be able to avoid that channel as soon
as it was detected. But Bruce Franca, vice president of policy and
technology for the Association for Maximum Service Television, a
broadcasting industry group, is skeptical.
”The results of every single test were different,” he said. “The device
failed to recognize that certain channels are actually being occupied
by TV signals. ... Clearly this is not ready for prime time.”
Shure, which makes microphones and other audio equipment used in
Broadway shows and sports games, argues the tests have not proven that
the prototypes can consistently detect TV signals, let alone wireless
microphones that hop on frequencies without notice.
The FCC plans to test the white-space devices at an entertainment venue
in the next few months. The National Football League has offered the
Baltimore Ravens' stadium or the Washington Redskins' park as possible
venues. And the Recording Academy, which puts on the Grammy Awards, has
offered up the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago next month for
testing.
”That's where the rubber will meet the road,” said Mark Brunner, senior
director of brand management at Shure.
LATEST (l) 2011; a
wajanbolic antenna (c),
described in story below. Example (r) of "WIFRY" - narrowing
signal for better quality and range
WOKTENNA
instructions below:
Make
2.4GHz parabolic mesh dishes from cheap but sturdy Chinese
cookware scoops & a USB WiFi adaptor! The largest so called "WIFRY"
or "WOKTENNA" (12"= 300mm diam) shows 12-15dB gain (enough
for a LOS
range extension to 3-5km),costs ~US$5 & comes with a user friendly
bamboo handle that suits WLAN fieldwork- if you can handle the curious
stares! Neater boutique versions may better appeal indors.
Starbucks: Free Wi-Fi at 6,700 US sites
YAHOO
By ASHLEY M. HEHER, AP Retail Writer
14 June 2010
CHICAGO – Starbucks Corp. will begin offering unlimited free Wi-Fi at
all of its company-operated U.S. locations next month, part of an
ongoing effort to bring more customers in the door.
The free wireless Internet will be available July 1 at about 6,700
locations.
The coffee house, which recorded its first quarterly increase in
customers in 13 quarters earlier this year, had previously offered two
free hours of Web access each day to registered customers.
After that, consumers at the Seattle chain were charged a small fee.
Access will continue to be offered through AT&T. But it won't
require a Starbucks loyalty card, according to the announcement Monday
by CEO Howard Schultz, who spoke at a conference in New York.
The move comes six months after Starbucks' competitor McDonald's Corp.
began offering free Wi-Fi at 11,500 U.S. locations.
The two companies have sparred in recent years at McDonald's revamped
its coffee and rolled out a successful McCafe line offering everything
from drip coffee and lattes to cappuccinos to icy coffee drinks.
Along the way, Starbucks struggled as it was hit by the recession and
overwhelmed by its own rapid expansion.
As business soured, it brought back Schultz, who helped build the
company, to lead the day-to-day operations. And it shut hundreds of
locations and laid off thousands of workers to scale back its spending.
Also Monday, Starbucks said customers will get free access to certain
online content through its Wi-Fi this fall. Called the Starbucks
Digital Network, the program will give Starbucks Web surfers free
access to paid sites like the Wall Street Journal, along with exclusive
content and free downloads from other organizations such as Apple
Inc.'s iTunes, The New York Times, Patch, USA TODAY, Yahoo and Zagat.
Starbucks shares climbed 34 cents, or 1.3 percent, to $27.49 in midday
trading Monday.
Frying the wires, freeing the
waves
Grassroots
organisations in Indonesia are building communication media from the
most basic of utensils
By Edwin Jurriëns - jurriens-wajanbolic.jpg
Received via e-mail from Yale, 2-15-09
While Indonesia’s big cities are saturated with many types of media,
media fare at the village level is often quite limited. In response,
several grassroots organisations have begun building a more
participatory communications infrastructure, relying on advances in
technology to provide community television facilities and cheap
wireless Internet. Like existing community radio, theatre and print
media already scattered across the archipelago, these new media have
emerged as an alternative to government and business-controlled
Internet and television programming.
Out of the frying pan
In 2000, residents of Timbulharjo village in Bantul, Central Java
formed the organisation Angkringan, named after the Javanese term for
‘food vendor’, to build a media infrastructure that would meet the
information and communication needs of their community. Starting with
an eight-page print bulletin of local news and entertainment, within
half a year, Angkringan expanded into community radio broadcasts.
During the parliamentary elections of 2004, the organisation used
mobile screening facilities to air information about the elections. And
in 2007, Angkringan began work on establishing a local Internet
network, called AngkringanNet, for Timbulharjo.
AngkringanNet relies on the convergence of community radio broadcasting
with wireless Internet technology. Using a community radio antenna,
AngkringanNet transmits an Internet signal over the 2.4 MHz frequency,
free of charge. The signal can then be accessed by anyone in
Timbulharjo with a computer and a ‘wajanbolic’ antenna.
Using wajanbolic receivers, browsing
the Internet and sending e-mail is as easy as frying an egg
The wajanbolic antenna is the key to the system: it is composed of an
actual wajan, or frying pan, wrapped in aluminium foil and connected to
a short tube. Once placed on a rooftop, tree or other elevated point,
the linked WiFi USB stick can be connected to one or more personal
computers. Users do not have to pay individual Internet connection
fees, but can share the costs with other users, keeping the costs per
household to only several thousand rupiah per month.
Angkringan’s wajanbolic antenna is based on alternative Internet
technology pioneered by the Indonesian technology guru Onno W Purbo and
students from Muhammadiyah University in Malang. Angkringan
deliberately chose the wajan, a basic piece of cookware that can be
found in almost every Indonesian kitchen, to put people with no prior
exposure to modern communication technology at ease, and to make it
clear that browsing the Internet or sending an e-mail was as easy as
frying an egg. The choice can also be seen as a symbol of local
resistance against business monopolies dominating the computer and
Internet industries.
AngkringanNet provides Timbulharjo residents with Internet links to the
outside world as well as an Intranet exclusively for the community.
Villagers are encouraged to understand and creatively engage with the
technology, and move beyond simply being end users. The AngkringanNet
web site makes available various Open Source software programs for
villagers to use. They can also contribute to the Village Database,
which contains information on local governance, economy, health and
other issues.
To date, 12 wajanbolic antennas have been installed in Timbulharjo. In
various workshops, Angkringan has shared its ideas and experiences
beyond their village with representatives of other Indonesian community
media organisations. The Indonesian government, through the Department
of Communications (Depkominfo), has also donated computer equipment and
provided assistance in Internet training sessions. Angkringan plans to
open its wireless service to locally produced community television
broadcasts in the near future.
Members of Angkringan also helped establish the Association of
Indonesian Community Television (Asosiasi Televisi Komunitas Indonesia,
or ATVKI), an umbrella organisation of community television stations.
Similar to Angkringan’s wajanbolic philosophy, ATVKI defines its
community television as ‘from, by and for the people’. ATVKI members
exchange technical information and give each other guidance on
organisation and broadcast content.
Not coincidentally, ATVKI was founded in Grabag village in Central
Java, home of Grabag TV, one of the few active community television
stations in Indonesia. Grabag TV was founded in 2005 by Hartanto, a
lecturer from the Jakarta Institute of the Arts and native of Grabag.
At the time, Grabag residents could only receive the commercial
television channel RCTI, relayed from Jakarta by antenna because of the
village’s mountainous surroundings. Hartanto built a small studio,
provided basic equipment, and organised training sessions on
script-writing, filming and editing. Using the existing antenna,
villagers began broadcasting programs written and produced by their
fellow citizens.
Community TV should broadcast content
‘from, by and for the people’
Currently, Grabag TV has two-hour broadcasts every Monday, Wednesday
and Friday afternoon. Any villager with an idea for a program or a
general interest in broadcasting is welcome to make a contribution.
Farmers and traders go on air to talk about their professional
problems, plans and strategies. Programs have featured students from
primary and secondary schools discussing the positive and negative
effects of television on education, part of Grabag TV’s efforts to
raise the media literacy of Grabag’s citizens. The art and culture
programs often contain popular Javanese dance and music performances.
Grabag TV also organised live coverage of elections for the village
head, thus providing a new mechanism for monitoring local political
processes.
Costs and controversies
Grabag TV has been able to restrict its average operational costs to
only Rp. 800,000 ($A109) per month. It covers these costs with
voluntary donations from the viewers. In general, money is an important
issue, but not a major obstacle to community initiatives like Grabag TV
and AngkringanNet. Often such initiatives find more difficulties in
generating innovative and educational media content, and ensuring
community participation once the initial enthusiasm has worn off.
Community media also face regulatory and legal hurdles. In the 2003
negotiations over the allocation of broadcast frequencies by the
government, community television was passed over while public,
commercial and pay television channels were given official broadcast
rights, possibly under pressure from the broadcasting industry. The
process of receiving a community broadcasting license is also
time-consuming and expensive. AKTVI continues to fight for official
broadcast frequencies and the streamlining of broadcast licenses.
The work done by organisations like Angkringan and AKTVI illustrates
the awareness of Indonesian media activists that the struggle for free
and independent information and communication can start, but certainly
will not stop, with a WiFi USB stick and a frying pan.
Edwin Jurriëns
(e.jurriens@adfa.edu.au) is a lecturer in Indonesian Language and
Culture at The University of New South Wales, Canberra.
Global Dreams for a Wireless Web
NYTIMES
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: May 25, 2008
Menorca, Spain
SITTING on the porch at Finca Torrenova, his 800-acre retreat on this
Mediterranean island, Martin Varsavsky ticks off the credentials of the
group of Internet entrepreneurs finishing lunch at a nearby table.
“He has 40 million uniques, he has 50 million, and he has 8 million,”
Mr. Varsavsky says, referring to the number of visitors to Web sites
owned by his guests — many of whom are also business associates and
have joined him for several days of brainstorming about the digital
future.
These days, commercial victory on the Internet is all about scale, and
Mr. Varsavsky, a 48-year-old from Argentina, can be forgiven for
speaking longingly and in detail about his peers’ achievements. No
stranger to success — he has had a tidy crop of new media and
telecommunications hits since the 1990s — he is still struggling to
bring his newest Internet venture to fruition.
Three years ago, aiming to create a global wireless network, he founded
FON, a company based in Madrid that wants to unlock the potential power
of the social Internet. FON’s gamble is that Internet users will share
a portion of their wireless connection with strangers in exchange for
access to wireless hotspots controlled by others.
The swaps, in theory, would allow “Foneros” to have ubiquitous, global
wireless access while traveling for business or pleasure. But despite
$55.2 million in backing from such corporate heavyweights as Google and
BT, the former British Telecom, as well as newer enterprises like Skype
and a handful of venture capital firms, FON and Mr. Varsavsky are still
missing a crucial ingredient: scale.
At the moment, there are just 830,000 registered Foneros around the
world, and only 340,000 active Wi-Fi hotspots run FON software. Because
it’s built upon the concept of sharing Wi-Fi access, FON works well
only if there are Foneros everywhere.
And as he struggles to expand the FON network, Mr. Varsavsky faces
particular hurdles now that the Internet’s commercial side has reached
a crossroads. Born a few decades ago as an anarchic, digital version of
a barn-raising, the wireless Internet is now a battleground between two
giant technology consortiums seeking to rein in the Web’s chaotic
openness in favor of creating uniform, global access built upon
wireless data networks.
The two camps, known as WiMax and L.T.E., for “long-term evolution,”
are both top-down, highly structured approaches that will cost billions
of dollars to build and may close a door on some of the architectural
openness that led to the rapid growth of the Internet.
But their potential advantage is that closed standards can encourage
the kind of growth that offers more access to mainstream consumers and
business users, as occurred when Microsoft imposed a measure of
conformity on software development.
For his part, Mr. Varsavsky hopes that FON can offer a middle ground —
deploying the original, bottom-up strengths of the early Internet
movement and at the same time wedding them to a more formal, corporate
approach to expansion.
Although FON faces huge obstacles in realizing those ambitions, the
company also has a growing number of devotees.
“The wireless Internet market today is fragmented and complex — it can
be accessed through 3G operators, through WiMax, through private
hotspots, through paid hotspots and through corporate networks,” said
Michael Jackson, a partner at Mangrove Capital in London and a former
FON board member. “In summary, it is a nightmare for a consumer. FON
can and will change this.”
But others have their doubts.
“I know that the people at Google like this idea,” said John Saw, the
chief technology officer at Clearwire, the WiMax start-up of Craig
McCaw, which recently announced a $14.5 billion joint venture to build
a nationwide WiMax network with Sprint, Google, Intel, Comcast and
others. “But we’re skeptical.”
Undeterred, Mr. Varsavsky says that what he currently lacks in scale he
can make up for in huge cost savings, particularly because FON avoids
the expensive proposition of having to build a worldwide network of
cellular towers and Wi-Fi nodes from scratch.
“Our army of Foneros is a much more efficient way of distributing a
signal,” he says. “We believe WiMax operators will be happy to have
some customers use their services for free and save billions in
infrastructure deployment.”
MR. VARSAVSKY has worked overtime trying to line up more high-profile
partners for FON. To that end, he traveled to Cupertino, Calif., last
fall to meet with Steve Jobs, the chief executive of Apple.
During that 90-minute meeting, Mr. Varsavsky says, the two men
discussed why a partnership might make sense.
Apple has sold millions of its Wi-Fi routers to residential customers,
and its community of Wi-Fi users who share router access would be an
ideal platform for FON. For his part, Mr. Jobs had developed an
interest in Wi-Fi sharing because of the expanding number of iPhone
users who are often frustrated by locked Wi-Fi access points.
But, Mr. Varsavsky says, from the moment that he and Mr. Jobs met,
their discussion devolved into an argument. (Mr. Jobs did not respond
to requests to comment on the meeting.)
At the outset, Mr. Varsavsky recalled, Mr. Jobs asked sharply, “Who
needs your community?” and “Why should British Telecom bother to do a
deal with you, and why shouldn’t people just leave their routers open
for sharing?”
Mr. Varsavsky says he responded, “Why should you bother to do a deal
with AT&T? Shouldn’t iPhones just be connected freely with any
cellphone network?”
Mr. Varsavsky says he left the meeting with the uncomfortable feeling
that Apple might end up as a competitor rather than as a partner. But
it wasn’t only because of Mr. Jobs’s legendary stubbornness that the
Apple meeting apparently went awry. Mr. Varsavsky’s own substantial ego
also came into play — something he freely acknowledges when he talks
about how he first got into business.
“My father died and my mother was saying, ‘Martin, get a job, get a
job,’ ” he recalls. “And I would go to job interviews and they would
say, ‘How do you see yourself in five years?’ And I would say, ‘Well,
at least as your boss!’ ”
That attitude surfaced in other forums as well. In high school in
Argentina during the 1970s, he says, he persuaded classmates to open
their own office supply store to compete with a store across the street
from their school. He also declared his interest in left-leaning
politics, which he said attracted the attention of the Argentine
military junta that was purging high schools of dissidents. In the
“dirty war” of 1976-83, the government killed thousands it suspected of
being leftists.
An officer told the school to expel him, Mr. Varsavsky says, and he
left for Brazil. Around the same time, he believes, his cousin was
kidnapped and killed by the military. The Varsavsky family fled to the
United States, and Mr. Varsavsky earned his undergraduate degree in
economics and philosophy at New York University in 1981. He later
attended Columbia University, where he received graduate degrees in
international affairs and business administration.
MR. VARSAVSKY says start-ups got into his blood during graduate school,
when he made his first million in a real estate foray: renovating and
reselling lofts in New York.
After moving to Spain in the 1990s, he had three big telecommunications
and Internet successes. He says that a $200,000 investment he made to
start a long-distance company, Viatel, in 1990 was worth about $240
million when he cashed in his stake in 1999; that the 5 million euros
he used to start Jazztel in 1997 has given him a stake now worth about
150 million euros; and that the 38 million euros he used to start a
Spanish Internet service provider, Ya.com, in 1999 had grown to about
149 million euros when he sold the company the next year.
Then, after this first round of success, Mr. Varsavsky was hit with a
loss that he describes as a striking, gut-wrenching failure. His German
start-up EinsteinNet, founded in 2000 as an effort to sell software
over a private fiber optic network, collapsed in 2003, leaving him with
a personal loss of $50 million.
“I used the most money of my own in a company where I lost it all, and
I consider it my business black eye,” he recalls, saying that he also
drew a valuable lesson from the misadventure: “I don’t invest on my
own. If other people don’t want to back me, it’s a sanity check.”
TO that end, Mr. Varsavsky has become a tireless networker, traveling
the world to participate in a continuous parade of technology
conferences and cultivating a global retinue of friends and contacts.
He has also been active on the philanthropic front, earning kudos from
a onetime resident of the White House.
“Martin represents the future of entrepreneurial culture and is helping
to transform the way people give,” former President Bill Clinton says.
“He has found different ways to use his acute business sense and
creativity to improve our world and the lives of others.”
This month, Mr. Varsavsky brought together more than 70 Internet
business people and technologists from Europe, Asia, Latin America and
the United States for a conclave on his Menorca farm. Some guests
represented the more than 20 digital enterprises in which he has a
stake; others were “friends of Martin,” a loose-knit group that
comprises his informal business network around the world.
The four-day conclave featured several unscripted “tech talks” in which
entrepreneurs described problems they faced building their businesses.
Participants included Lukasz Wejchert, the chief executive of Onet,
Poland’s dominant Internet portal.
Deals with companies like Onet will be crucial if Mr. Varsavsky is to
make good on his goal of having a million FON customers on each of
three continents by 2010. The two companies recently came close to a
deal, Mr. Wejchert says, but Onet decided that it was still to early
for it to become an Internet service provider in Poland because the
regulatory environment worked against new entrants.
That major players like Onet are beginning to find FON a potentially
profitable partner is promising, and Mr. Varsavsky’s formidable
networking abilities with politicians and entrepreneurs are also a
plus. Ultimately, however, FON’s success will hinge on its strategic
soundness and operational prowess — not on Mr. Varsavsky’s skills at
working the cocktail circuit.
He likes to refer to FON as a “revolution,” but so far his crusade has
had difficulty gathering momentum because formal corporate alliances
have been slow to jell.
In Mr. Varsavsky’s approach, FON’s business is subsidized by
non-Foneros — passing Web surfers who buy time for access to the
network — which he can then share with FON’s customers. The approach is
different from that of Boingo, a Wi-Fi aggregator based in Los Angeles
that charges users a monthly fee for using hotspots while they are
traveling.
Yet both FON and Boingo have faced significant resistance from Internet
service providers that carefully restrict access to their customers,
leaving the idea of a seamless wireless Internet based on Wi-Fi
technology an unfulfilled dream so far.
Mr. Varsavsky said he initially hoped that selling $30 Wi-Fi routers
embedded with FON software would be all he needed to expand the ranks
of Foneros around the globe. But this approach failed to gain traction
fast enough, and he shifted gears. Now he is trying to steadily stack
up distribution deals with I.S.P.’s.
While some I.S.P.’s have ignored his company, Mr. Varsavsky says FON
has gained ground among I.S.P.’s that are looking for a way to attract
new customers in competitive markets as well as to compete with
high-speed wireless cellular networks.
FON now has a growing range of alliances, including ones with the BT
Group, Neuf Cegetel in France, Livedoor (a Japanese I.S.P.), and Time
Warner in the United States, as well as a recent agreement with the
city of Geneva, which is distributing hundreds of FON routers to
residents. Now strongest in Britain, France and Japan, FON has recently
made progress with new agreements with two major Japanese retailers and
a Taiwanese I.S.P. And Mr. Varsavsky said he is close to major
agreements in India and Russia.
FON’s losses have shrunk from more than a million euros a month to less
than 500,000, Mr. Varsavsky says. He also hasn’t given up his belief
that a coming generation of wireless Internet technology will
eventually give FON an even bigger boost.
The first generation of Wi-Fi technology was limited in range, making
it impractical for Foneros to share their routers widely. But a new
wireless technology, known as 802.16, which should be more widely
available to consumers over the next two years, will offer far greater
ranges.
This next generation of wireless communication, called WiMax by Intel
and others, may allow him to complete his dream — in effect making it
possible to weave together a wireless digital network in an urban area
with nothing more than an army of Foneros willing to let their routers
be used as micro cell towers.
“Why should anyone have to build their own towers?” he asks.
FON’s future, he argues, will revolve around universal access to the
wireless Internet. In the meantime, he faces a big obstacle in one of
the world’s most lucrative communications markets: the United States,
where newer cellular networks with flat-rate pricing may prove a
challenge because they will provide universal high-speed coverage.
In Europe, the Internet landscape looks more promising. The European
Commission’s decision last summer to place a price cap on voice calls —
to make cellphones more affordable for residents traveling within the
European Union — didn’t include mobile data. Recent high-speed wireless
networks introduced in Europe also use per-megabyte pricing,
discouraging the streaming of large files like video.
That leaves a potentially big opportunity for a widely accessible
sharing solution for travelers. Yet even in Europe, there are potential
roadblocks, not the least of which has been a historically inhospitable
atmosphere for entrepreneurial gambits.
“Europe has a larger market than the U.S.A., but it is culturally
fragmented and risk-averse,” Mr. Varsavsky says. “But the differences
are narrowing, and now there are European venture capitalists and a
local entrepreneurial culture.”
Yet he remains undaunted when he discusses his unfinished revolution
and FON’s prospects.
“FON,” he said, “is like a telephone company built by the people,” he
said.
Vaunted
WiMax's messy side: the spectrum grab
By
John Letzing, MarketWatch
Last Update: 10:31 AM ET Sep 29, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- In its drive to roll out a new,
cutting-edge wireless technology, Sprint Nextel Corp. has taken on
Burke County Middle School and a cast of equally unlikely opponents in
a nasty spat over the use of airwaves.
Sprint announced in July that they will team up to cover 100 million
people with WiMax networks by 2008. Sprint is placing a risky bet
on
the largely unproven technology to revive a wireless business that has
lost ground to those of rivals Verizon and AT&T, analysts say.
Upstart Clearwire, meanwhile, hopes WiMax can one day help the company
become a major telecom player.
But laying the groundwork for WiMax has involved a messy endeavor to
gather up access to necessary airwaves. Much of the spectrum is owned
by non-profits and schools, such as those in Burke County, Ga. Many
have held it for years, without assigning much value to it. Wrangling
over rights to this spectrum has pitted Sprint against a number of the
schools and non-profits, while underlining a rift with Clearwire, an
important partner in dispatching WiMax in its early stages.
Decades ago, the Federal Communications Commission allocated to schools
and non-profits much of the 2.5 gigahertz spectrum ideal for WiMax.
Classified as "EBS," it can't be owned directly by businesses. The
North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, for
example, can use it to broadcast programming such as "Prayer Talk" and
"Gift and Mystery."
Others, like the Burke County schools near Augusta, Ga., didn't even
realize they had it until Sprint came calling. General counsel for
Burke County Public Schools, James Hyder, said Sprint made an
unexpected offer early last year to lease one of the schools' two
spectrum licenses.
"We woke up one day and saw we had these," Hyder said. After a call to
a former superintendent to clear up what it was exactly Sprint was
after, the schools agreed, Hyder said.
Seeing dollar signs
The relationship took an odd turn late last year,
however, when
the Burke County schools applied to the FCC to renew a second, expired
spectrum license. Around 40 other organizations, ranging from Heartland
Community College to Connecticut Public Broadcasting, had also applied
for the renewal of expired EBS licenses which, thanks largely to WiMax,
have dramatically increased in value.
The FCC granted those requests in January, inviting a flood of hundreds
of subsequent late renewal requests. Sprint has called the development
a mushrooming threat to its network plans. It filed a petition for the
commission to reconsider the late renewals in February.
"These former licensees seek to hijack ... valuable spectrum," Sprint
said in its petition, adding that the FCC "should not be mislead into
granting new authorizations."
Clearwire, meanwhile, has sided with the schools and non-profits. The
FCC hasn't yet issued a decision on the matter.
The EBS spectrum in question was long seen as having little value
beyond broadcasting TV signals in one direction. That's changed as
companies like Sprint and Clearwire have announced plans to use it for
beaming data and voice communication among computers and phones on
WiMax networks, and as the FCC has issued rules making it easier to
lease for commercial purposes.
"These educational groups who didn't really care ... whether they had
these [licenses] or not are now seeing dollar signs," said Tim Sanders,
an analyst with research firm Maravedis Inc.
Indeed, some groups have seen handsome windfalls, thanks to the
spectrum's increased value. But the grab for airwaves has also resulted
in a series of lawsuits and a surplus of acrimony.
Pandora's box
WiMax can blast radio signals far more broadly than WiFi, thus
requiring less network equipment to cover large areas, and some believe
it also has certain technical advantages over cellular phone
technology.
But the FCC's decision to grant renewals of expired EBS licenses could
mar Sprint's WiMax rollout by cutting holes in carefully-planned
network coverage areas, the company says. Sprint would either have to
negotiate new deals for the reinstated licenses, or see them fall to
competitors. A number of educational groups with EBS
licenses have
also joined Sprint in complaining about the renewals, which they say
threaten to impinge on existing coverage areas.
"You think you have a three-bedroom house, and then all of a sudden
someone comes and says, 'hey, half the house is mine'," said Sprint
spokesman Scott Sloat. "This has opened a whole Pandora's box."
So far, at least 188 expired EBS license renewal applications have now
been filed with the FCC, Sloat said.
In a filing with the FCC posted Friday, Sprint, Clearwire and a number
of license holders put forth a proposed settlement, under which
late-renewed licenses would have slightly altered coverage areas.
The impetus for the schools' and non-profits' late renewals, Maravedis'
Sanders said, is often "someone approaching them and saying, 'we'll
lease your spectrum if you can get your license back'."
"I can't speak to their motivation other than to say spectrum is a
valuable asset, and people aware of that may see that as an opportunity
for a land grab," Sloat said.
Hyder, the Burke County schools' general counsel, said the decision to
renew their second spectrum license and seek a suitor was an easy one.
"It's the difference between getting nothing today, and something
tomorrow," Hyder said, adding that whatever the schools are offered to
lease the spectrum "doesn't have to be too significant" for a deal to
make sense.
Faster Wi-Fi in works to transfer
data
By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Sep 2, 2:43 PM ET
ATLANTA - With a wave of his hand over a homemade receiver, Georgia
Tech professor Joy Laskar shows how easily — and quickly — large data
files could someday be transferred from a portable media player to a
TV.
Poof! "You just moved a movie onto your device," Laskar says.
While Wi-Fi and Bluetooth have emerged as efficient ways to zap small
amounts of data between gadgets, neither is well suited for quickly
transferring high-definition video, large audio libraries and other
massive files.
Laskar and other scientists at the Georgia Electronic Design Center
have turned to extremely high radio frequencies to transfer huge data
files over short distances.
The high frequencies — which use the 60 gigahertz band — have been a
mostly untapped resource. Researchers say it could one day become the
conventional wireless way to zap data over short distances.
Laskar hopes it could soon become a rival to other wireless
technologies. Getting government permission to use the spectrum would
not be a problem, since that radio band, much like the one used for
Wi-Fi, is unlicensed. Because the range will likely be less than 33
feet, interference is less likely and transmissions could be more
secure.
A similar short-range technology, known as ultra-wideband, is just now
reaching the market after several years of wrangling between different
companies and engineering bodies. It exploits another unlicensed band,
reaching up to 10.3 GHz. Last month, Toshiba Corp. introduced laptops
with built-in UWB chips that can communicate wirelessly with a docking
station. Other possible uses include transmission of high-definition
video.
But the maximum current speed of UWB is about 480 megabits per second,
equivalent to a high-speed computer cable but possibly not be enough
for all applications. Use of the 60 GHz band promises much higher
speeds.
"There will be a constant pressure for speed and it will never cease,"
said M. Kursat Kimyacioglu, director of strategy and wireless business
development at the semiconductor subsidiary of Philips Electronics NV.
"We need much faster wireless data networking technologies to make much
faster downloads and back-ups and higher resolution HD video streaming
possible."
He said Philips is looking at using the technology to eliminate cable
bundles, but much more research will be needed. The signals don't
penetrate walls very well and are too easily disturbed by passing
people and pets, Kimyacioglu said.
The research is far from over, Laskar said, but he hopes those
challenges can be overcome in the next year or so. If so, the hardware
for transferring files could be available by 2009, and new TV sets
could be built with the chips the next year.
The center has already achieved wireless data-transfer rates of 15
gigabits per second from a span of 1 meter. That would mean a download
time of less than five seconds for a DVD-quality copy of "The Matrix"
or other Hollywood movies.
Specialized radios have been sending and receiving high-frequency
signals for years, but they're big and can cost tens of thousands of
dollars. The Georgia center's challenge has been to convert these
devices into tiny chips that can be slipped directly into phones and
computers. To be competitive with other technologies, Laskar's set his
sights on a $5 chip, and so far his researchers have hammered together
a few prototypes to show off the technology.
"We don't want to replace these guys," says Laskar, pointing at an HD
receiver and TV set. "We want to complement them."
A cheap chip would launch a new round of competition for the
technology, said Anh-Vu Pham, an associate professor of electrical and
computer engineering at the University of California at Davis.
"The technology is there, it just requires a little more work," he
said. "If the radio can be deployed, you'll have a lot of applications
— from HDTV to flash drives — without using any type of cable. Once you
solve that problem, you open up so many applications."
The technology could get a big boost if the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, a top international association of electrical
engineers, decides to create a standard for the spectrum. The group is
weighing the decision now and could decide by next year.
"You're talking about moving gigabits in seconds, your whole iPod
library, your whole video library," said Laskar. "This has the
potential of becoming the de facto way of moving this information on
and off the devices.
"With this type of technology, you can compete — and pretty much crush
— the wired competition."
Cities
struggle with wireless
Internet
By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer
May 21, 2007
A $3 million plan to blanket Lompoc, Calif., with a wireless Internet
system promised a quantum leap for economic development: The remote
community hit hard by cutbacks at nearby Vandenberg Air Force Base
would join the 21st century with cheap and plentiful high-speed access.
Instead, nearly a year after its launch, Lompoc Net is limping along.
The central California city of 42,000, surrounded by rolling hills,
wineries and flower fields more than 17 miles from the nearest major
highway, has only a few hundred subscribers.
That's far fewer than the 4,000 needed to start repaying loans from the
city's utility coffers, potentially leaving smaller reserves to guard
against electric rate increases.
And Lompoc isn't alone. Across the United States, many cities are
finding their Wi-Fi projects costing more and drawing less interest
than expected, leading to worries that a number will fail, resulting in
millions of dollars in wasted tax dollars or grants when there had been
roads to build and crime to fight.
More than $230 million was spent in the United States last year, and
the industry Web site MuniWireless projects $460 million will be spent
in 2007. Without revenues they had counted on to offset that
spending, elected officials might have to break promises or find money
in already-tight budgets to subsidize the systems for the low-income
families and city workers who depend on the access. Cities might end up
running the systems if companies abandon networks they had built.
The worries come as big cities like Philadelphia and Portland, Ore.,
complete pilots and expand their much-hyped networks.
"They are the monorails of this decade: the wrong technology, totally
overpromised and completely undelivered," said Anthony Townsend,
research director at the Institute for the Future, a think tank.
Municipal Wi-Fi projects use the same technology behind wireless access
in coffee shops, airports and home networks. Hundreds or thousands of
antennas are installed atop street lamps and other fixtures. Laptops
and other devices have Wi-Fi cards that relay data to the Internet
through those antennas, using open, unregulated broadcast frequencies.
In theory, one could check e-mail and surf the Web from anywhere.
About 175 U.S. cities or regions have citywide or partial systems, and
a similar number plan them, according to Esme Vos, founder of
MuniWireless. Rhode Island has proposed a statewide network,
while one in California would span dozens of Silicon Valley
municipalities. San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and Atlanta also
want one.
Because systems are just coming online, it's premature to say how many
or which ones will fail under current operating plans, but the early
signs are troubling.
"I will be surprised if the majority of these are successful and they
do not prove to be drains on taxpayers' money," said Michael Balhoff,
former telecom equity analyst with Legg Mason Inc. "The government is
getting into hotly contested services."
Most communities, including Lompoc, paid for their projects. Elsewhere,
private companies agreed to absorb costs for the chance to sell
services or ads. The vendors remain confident despite technical
and other problems. Chuck Haas, MetroFi Inc.'s chief executive, said
Wi-Fi networks are far cheaper to build than cable and DSL, which is
broadband over phone lines.
Demand could grow once more cell phones can make Wi-Fi calls and as
city workers improve productivity by reading electric meters remotely,
for instance. Balhoff, however, believes the successful projects
are most likely to be in remote places that traditional service
providers skip — and fewer and fewer of those areas exist. Cities, he
said, should focus on incentives to draw providers.
In Lompoc's case, officials say construction was delayed about a year
once they realized wireless antennas had to be packed more closely
together. Then the city learned that its stucco homes have a wire mesh
that blocks signals, making Internet service poor or nonexistent
indoors without extra equipment.
But more importantly, just as Lompoc committed to the network, cable
and telephone companies arrived with better equipment and service,
undercutting the city's offerings.
"It seemed like we announced we were going to do this and that and the
next day we got trucks from the providers doing this and that, when
we've been asking for years and nothing ever happened," Lompoc Mayor
Dick DeWees said. D.A. Taylor, who runs a software business from
her home, said Lompoc's Wi-Fi service lacks key features she gets
through DSL.
"It's a really great idea, but they didn't spend a lot of time thinking
who their target market was," Taylor said.
DeWees acknowledged that Lompoc might have to pull the plug if it
cannot boost subscriptions, but he said the city still has an
aggressive marketing push in store. Lompoc recently slashed prices by
$9, to $16 a month, for the main household plan. Just a few years
ago, these municipal wireless projects seemed foolproof.
Politicians got to tout Internet access for city workers and poorer
households — many programs include giveaways for lower-income families.
Some cities bear no upfront costs when a company pays for construction
in exchange for rights to use fixtures like lamp poles.
Vendors like EarthLink Inc. saw a chance to offset declines in dial-up
subscriptions. MetroFi, offering free service, got to join the
burgeoning market for online advertising. Google Inc. also is jumping
in for the ads, partnering with EarthLink in San Francisco, although
the city's Board of Supervisors is resisting their joint
proposal. As projects get deployed, both sides are seeing chinks
in their plans.
Many cities and vendors underestimated the number of wireless antennas
needed. MobilePro Corp.'s Kite Networks wound up tripling the access
points in Tempe, Ariz., adding roughly $1 million, or more than
doubling the costs.
"The industry is really in its infancy, and what works on paper doesn't
work that same way once you get into the real world," said Jerry
Sullivan, Kite's chief executive.
Networks like St. Cloud, Fla., and Portland, meanwhile, shared Lompoc's
difficulties penetrating building walls, requiring indoor users to buy
signal boosters for as much as $150. And when it works, service can be
slower than cable and DSL.
"There's an antenna literally at the curb of my house, but when I've
tried to log on, it cuts in and out," said Landon Dirgo, who runs a
computer repair shop in Lompoc.
One recent sunny afternoon in Portland, few could be found surfing the
Internet from the city's downtown parks. Mari Borden, a student at
Portland State, said she couldn't connect to MetroFi's free network
from several locations, even though her computer could detect a signal
(MetroFi officials say users might need stronger wireless cards to send
back a signal). The vendors insist they have been upfront with
customers about limitations. But MetroFi's Adrian van Haaften said
managing expectations can be challenging.
EarthLink said it has 2,000 customers in four markets — New Orleans;
Milpitas and Anaheim, Calif.; and Philadelphia — paying $22 or less a
month. MetroFi said it had 8,000 free users in Portland in April,
averaging 10 hours online; the city says about 1,000 use the network on
any given day. Although both companies say their numbers are good
given that their networks aren't fully built yet, they also are
realigning expectations.
MetroFi will insist that future contracts commit cities to spend a
specific amount for public safety and other municipal applications.
EarthLink, which recently suspended new bids while it focuses on
existing projects, said it would likely seek minimums, too. Glenn
Fleishman, editor of the Wi-Fi Networking News site, said vendors could
no longer afford to treat projects as testbeds and loss leaders for
winning publicity and new business.
Municipalities, meanwhile, are becoming more cautious. Applying lessons
from other municipalities, Boston plans to raise money upfront from
local groups and businesses and avoid tax dollars or a corporate
partner. Competition and expectations will only increase as DSL
and cable modems get faster. Users today are struggling with
e-mail and the Web over some wireless systems, yet video and online
games will require even more capacity.
"Most people if they are going to do serious work aren't looking to be
sitting in a park," said Eric Rabe, a spokesman for DSL provider
Verizon Communications Inc. "They want to be at a desk where they have
their papers or business records."
Lompoc's backers, though, still claim success, "even if the whole
network were to be written off tomorrow," said Mark McKibben, Lompoc's
former wireless consultant.
"Prices dropped and quality of service went up," he said. "That's the
way a lot of cities look at it. They don't look at business profits and
losses. They see it as a driver for quality of life."
US
concerned by Australian Internet
filter plan
YAHOO
By ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press Writer
29 March 2010
CANBERRA, Australia – The United States has raised concerns with
Australia about the impact of a proposed Internet filter that would
place restrictions on Web content, an official said Monday.
The concerns of Australia's most important security ally further
undermine plans that would make Australia one of the strictest Internet
regulators among the world's democracies.
"Our main message of course is that we remain committed to advancing
the free flow of information which we view as vital to economic
prosperity and preserving open societies globally," a U.S. State
Department spokesman Michael Tran told The Associated Press by
telephone from Washington.
Tran declined to say when or at what level the U.S. State Department
raised its concerns with Australia and declined to detail those
concerns.
"We don't discuss the details of specific diplomatic exchanges, but I
can say that in the context of that ongoing relationship, we have
raised our concerns on this matter with Australian officials," he added.
Internet giants Google and Yahoo have condemned the proposal as a
heavy-handed measure that could restrict access to legal information.
The plan needs the support of Parliament to become law later this year.
Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says the filter would
block access to sites that include child pornography, sexual violence
and detailed instructions in crime or drug use. The list of banned
sites could be constantly updated based on public complaints. If
adopted into law, the screening system would make Australia one of the
strictest Internet regulators among the world's democracies.
Conroy declined to comment on the U.S. concerns.
"The Australian and U.S. governments liaise regularly on a broad range
of issues. It would be inappropriate to discuss the details of these
consultations," said his spokeswoman, Suzie Brady.
Some critics of Australia's filter have said it puts the nation in the
same censorship league as China.
Technology Challenges Iran's
Censors
By New York Times News Service
Published on 6/23/2009
Shortly after Neda Agha-Soltan bled her life out on the Tehran
pavement, the man whose 40-second video of her death has ricocheted
around the world made a somber calculation in what has become the
cat-and-mouse game of evading Iran's censors. He knew that the
government had been blocking Web sites like YouTube and Facebook.
Trying to send the video there could have exposed him and his family.
Instead, he e-mailed the 2-megabyte video to a nearby friend, who
quickly forwarded it to the Voice of America, the newspaper The
Guardian in London and five online friends in Europe, with a message
that read, “Please let the world know.” It was one of those friends, an
Iranian expatriate living in the Netherlands, who posted it on
Facebook, weeping as he did so, he recalled.
Copies of the video, as well as a shorter one shot by another witness,
spread almost instantly to YouTube and were televised within hours by
CNN. Despite a prolonged effort by Iran's government to keep a media
lid on the violent events unfolding on the streets there, Agha-Soltan
was transformed on the Web from a nameless victim into an icon of the
Iranian protest movement.
At one time, authoritarian regimes could draw a shroud around the
events in their countries by simply snipping the long-distance phone
lines and restricting a few foreigners. But this is the new arena of
censorship in the 21st century, a world where cell phone cameras,
Twitter accounts and all the trappings of the World Wide Web have
changed the ancient calculus of how much power governments actually
have to sequester their nations from the eyes of the world and make it
difficult for their own people to gather, dissent and rebel.
Iran's sometimes faltering attempts to come to grips with this new
reality are providing a laboratory for what can and cannot be done in
this new media age - and providing lessons to other governments,
watching with calculated interest from afar, about what they may be
able to get away with should their own citizens take to the streets.
One early lesson is that it is easier for Iranian authorities to limit
images and information within their own country than it is to stop them
from spreading rapidly to the outside world. While Iran has severely
restricted Internet access, a loose worldwide network of sympathizers
has risen up to help keep activists and spontaneous filmmakers
connected.
The pervasiveness of the Web makes censorship “a much more complicated
job,” said John Palfrey, a co-director of Harvard's Berkman Center for
Internet and Society.
The Berkman Center estimates that about three dozen governments - as
widely disparate as China, Cuba and Uzbekistan - extensively control
their citizens' access to the Internet. Of those, Iran is one of the
most aggressive. Palfrey said the trend during this decade has been
toward more, not less, censorship. “It's almost impossible for the
censor to win in an Internet world, but they're putting up a good
fight,” he said.
Since the advent of the digital age, governments and rebels have dueled
over attempts to censor communications. Text messaging was used to
rally supporters in a popular political uprising in Ukraine in 2004 and
to threaten activists in Belarus in 2006. When Myanmar sought to
silence demonstrators in 2007, it switched off the country's Internet
network for six weeks. Earlier this month, China blocked sites like
YouTube to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square
crackdown.
In Iran, the censorship has been more sophisticated, amounting to an
extraordinary cyber-duel. It feels at times as if communications within
the country are being strained through a sieve, as the government slows
down Web access and uses the latest spying technology to pinpoint
opponents. But at least in limited ways, users are still able to tweet
and transmit video to one another and to a world of online spectators.
Because of the determination of those users, hundreds of amateur videos
from Tehran and other cities have been uploaded to YouTube in recent
days, providing television networks with hours of raw - but unverified
- video from the protests.
The Internet has “certainly broken 30 years of state control over what
is seen and is unseen, what is visible versus invisible,” said Navtej
Dhillon, an analyst with the Brookings Institution.
But taking pictures is an increasingly dangerous act in Iran. The
police in Tehran confronted citizens who were trying to film near a
memorial to Agha-Soltan on Monday.
Threatening people who have cameras is only the latest in a series of
steps by the authorities. On June 12, the day a disputed presidential
election set off the protests, the government summarily shut down all
text messaging in the country - the prime tool that government
opponents had been using to keep in touch - making newfangled tools
like Twitter and old-fashioned techniques like word-of-mouth more
important for organizing.
In the days that followed, Iran has tightened the spigot without
closing it entirely. Even before the election, the country was known to
operate one of the world's most sophisticated Web filtering systems,
with widespread blockades on specific Web sites. According to media
reports in April, some of the monitoring technology was provided by
Nokia Siemens Networks, a joint venture between Nokia, the Finnish cell
phone maker, and Siemens, the German technology giant.
The day after the election, Iran's state-controlled telecommunications
provider completely dropped off the Internet for more than an hour,
according to Renesys, an Internet monitoring company. Access was partly
restored the Monday after the election. YouTube said traffic to the
site from within Iran was down about 90 percent last week, indicating
that most - but not all - connections had been stopped or slowed.
Facebook said traffic from Iran was down by more than half since the
election.
Whether for political, social or financial reasons, Iran has been
hesitant to shut off its sterilized Internet access entirely. Some have
reasoned that a complete halt would hurt businesses.
Still, the off-and-on Web connections and government threats imposed a
kind of self-censorship on some of the population, one that is also
evident in other countries with authoritarian regimes, Palfrey said.
Some Iranians have harnessed ways to bypass the system, relying in part
on supporters around the world who are offering their computers as
so-called proxy servers, which are digital safe-houses that can be used
to make the Iranians' Internet connection anonymous so they can view
blocked Web sites. Tor, a volunteer-run tool for masking Internet
traffic that bounces Internet connections off three separate computers,
said the traffic emanating from Iran over the course of the week
increased tenfold.
Despite the crackdown, the videos and tweets indicate to many that
broadly distributed Internet tools - and the spirit of young,
tech-savvy people - cannot be completely repressed by an authoritarian
government.
”You can't take the entire Internet and try to lock it in a little box
in your country, as China continuously attempts to do,” said Richard
Stiennon, founder of IT-Harvest, a Web security research firm. “There
are just too many ways now to find paths around blockages. They would
have to ban the Internet entirely, or build their own network.”
That may not be so far-fetched. Experts say China is in its own league
for filtering. Ethan Zuckerman, a colleague of Palfrey's at the Berkman
Center, said China has “baked in the censorship” for its citizens by
building its own Web sites and tools. Recently it said it would require
so-called Green Dam filtering software to be installed on all computers
sold in the country, prompting a complaint from the U.S. government and
likely kicking off yet another round of cat-and-mouse.
Brian Stelter reported from New York,
and Brad Stone from San Francisco. Reported was contributed by Michael
Slackman from Cairo, Steven Lee Myers from Baghdad, Noam Cohen from New
York, and a New York Times employee from Tehran.
3
Net Providers Will Block Sites With
Child Sex
NYTIMES
By DANNY HAKIM
Published: June 10, 2008
ALBANY — Verizon, Sprint and Time Warner Cable have agreed to block
access to Internet bulletin boards and Web sites nationwide that
disseminate child pornography.
The move is part of a groundbreaking agreement with the New York
attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, that will be formally announced on
Tuesday as a significant step by leading companies to curtail access to
child pornography. Many in the industry have previously resisted
similar efforts, saying they could not be responsible for content
online, given the decentralized and largely unmonitored nature of the
Internet.
The agreements will affect customers not just in New York but
throughout the country. Verizon and Time Warner Cable are two of the
nation’s five largest service providers, with roughly 16 million
customers between them.
Negotiations are continuing with other service providers, Mr. Cuomo
said.
The companies have agreed to shut down access to newsgroups that
traffic in pornographic images of children on one of the oldest
outposts of the Internet, known as Usenet. Usenet began nearly 30 years
ago and was one of the earliest ways to swap information online, but as
the World Wide Web blossomed, Usenet was largely supplanted by it,
becoming a favored back alley for those who traffic in illicit material.
The providers will also cut off access to Web sites that traffic in
child pornography.
While officials from the attorney general’s office said they hoped to
make it extremely difficult to find or disseminate the material online,
they acknowledged that they could not eliminate access entirely. Among
the potential obstacles: some third-party companies sell paid
subscriptions, allowing customers to access newsgroups privately,
preventing even their Internet service providers from tracking their
activity.
The agreements resulted from an eight-month investigation and sting
operation in which undercover agents from Mr. Cuomo’s office, posing as
subscribers, complained to Internet providers that they were allowing
child pornography to proliferate online, despite customer service
agreements that discouraged such activity. Verizon, for example, warns
its users that they risk losing their service if they transmit or
disseminate sexually exploitative images of children.
After the companies ignored the investigators’ complaints, the attorney
general’s office surfaced, threatening charges of fraud and deceptive
business practices. The companies agreed to cooperate and began weeks
of negotiations.
By pursuing Internet service providers, Mr. Cuomo is trying to move
beyond the traditional law enforcement strategy of targeting those who
produce child pornography and their customers. That approach has had
limited effectiveness, according to Mr. Cuomo’s office, in part because
much of the demand in the United States has been fed by child
pornography from abroad, especially Eastern Europe.
“You can’t help but look at this material and not be disturbed,” said
Mr. Cuomo, who promised to take up the issue during his 2006 campaign.
“These are 4-year-olds, 5-year-olds, assault victims, there are animals
in the pictures,” he added. “To say ‘graphic’ and ‘egregious’ doesn’t
capture it.”
“The I.S.P.s’ point had been, ‘We’re not responsible, these are
individuals communicating with individuals, we’re not responsible,’ ”
he said, referring to Internet service providers. “Our point was that
at some point, you do bear responsibility.”
Representatives for the three companies either did not return calls or
declined to comment before the official announcement of the agreements
on Tuesday.
Internet service providers represent a relatively new front in the
battle against child pornography, one spearheaded in large part by the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Federal law
requires service providers to report child pornography to the National
Center, but it often takes customer complaints to trigger a report, and
few visitors to illicit newsgroups could be expected to complain
because many are pedophiles themselves.
Last year, a bill sponsored by Congressman Nick Lampson, a Texas
Democrat, promised to take “the battle of child pornography to Internet
service providers” by ratcheting up penalties for failing to report
complaints of child pornography. The bill passed in the House, but has
languished in the Senate.
“If we can encourage — and certainly a fine would be an encouragement —
the I.S.P. to be in a position to give the information to law
enforcement, we are encouraging them to be on the side of law
enforcement rather than erring to make money for themselves,” Mr.
Lampson said.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children collaborated on
Mr. Lampson’s bill and with Mr. Cuomo’s office in its investigation and
strategy.
“This is a major step forward in the fight against child pornography,”
Ernie Allen, the president and chief executive officer of the center,
said in a statement. “Attorney General Cuomo has developed a new and
effective system that cuts online child porn off at the source, and
stops it from spreading across the Internet.”
As part of the agreements, the three companies will also collectively
pay $1.125 million to underwrite efforts by Mr. Cuomo’s office and the
center for missing children to purge child pornography from the
Internet.
One considerable tool that has been assembled as part of the
investigation is a library of more than 11,000 pornographic images.
Because the same images are often distributed around the Web or from
newsgroup to newsgroup, once investigators catalog an image, they can
use a digital identifier called a “hash value” to scan for it anywhere
else — using it as a homing beacon of sorts to find other pornographic
sites.
“It’s going to make a significant difference,” Mr. Cuomo said. “It’s
like the issue of drugs. You can attack the users or the suppliers.
This is turning off the faucet. Does it solve the problem? No. But is
it a major step forward? Yes. And it’s ongoing.”
The most graphic material was typically found on newsgroups, the online
bulletin boards that exist apart from the World Wide Web but can be
reached through some Internet search engines. The newsgroups transmit
copies of messages around the world, so an image posted to the server
of a service provider in the Netherlands, for example, ends up on other
servers in the United States and elsewhere.
The agreement is designed to bar access to Web sites that feature child
pornography by requiring service providers to check against a registry
of explicit sites maintained by the Center for Missing and Exploited
Children. Investigators said a few providers, including America Online,
had taken significant steps on their own to address some of the
problems their competitors were being forced to tackle.
Mr. Cuomo said his latest investigation was built on agreements he and
other state attorneys general had reached with the social networking
sites Facebook and MySpace to protect children from sexual predators.
“No one is saying you’re supposed to be the policemen on the Internet,
but there has to be a paradigm where you cooperate with law
enforcement, or if you have notice of a potentially criminal act, we
deem you responsible to an extent,” he said. “This literally threatens
our children, and there can be no higher priority than keeping our
children safe.”
Study
finds 25
countries block Web sites
By
ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer
Fri May 18, 12:46 AM ET
NEW YORK - At least 25 countries around the world block Web sites for
political, social or other reasons as governments seek to assert
authority over a network meant to be borderless, according to a study
out Friday.
The actual number may be higher, but the OpenNet Initiative had the
time and capabilities to study only 40 countries and the Palestinian
territories. Even so, researchers said they found more censorship than
they had initially expected, a sign that the Internet has matured to
the point that governments are taking notice.
"This is very much the revenge of geography," said Rafal Rohozinski, a
research fellow at the University of Cambridge in England.
China, Iran, Myanmar, Syria, Tunisia and Vietnam had the most extensive
filters for political sites. Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia,
the United Arab Emirates and Yemen had the strictest social-filtering
practices, blocking pornography, gambling and gay and lesbian sites.
In some countries, censorship was narrow. South Korea, for instance,
tends to block only information about its neighboring rival, North
Korea.
Yet researchers found no filtering at all in Russia, Israel or the
Palestinian territories despite political conflicts there.
Governments generally had no mechanism for citizens to complain about
any erroneous blocking, with Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab
Emirates being among the exceptions.
The OpenNet Initiative, a collaboration between researchers at
Cambridge, the University of Oxford, Harvard University and the
University of Toronto, has previously published reports detailing
censorship in specific countries. The latest study was its attempt to
compare filtering worldwide.
The study did not attempt to chronicle the effectiveness of the
efforts. Some technical approaches are better than others in blocking
sites, but all can be bypassed with enough technical know-how to use
"proxy" techniques or special software.
The organization said the regions chosen for review should not be
considered comprehensive. It didn't include any countries in North
America or Western Europe on grounds that filtering practices there
have been better known than elsewhere. It also excluded North Korea and
Cuba for fear of risks to collaborators it would need in those
countries.
The group supplied software to volunteers in each of the countries
tested. Web sites checked include those for gambling, pornography and
human-rights abuses.
Jonathan Zittrain, professor of Internet governance and regulation at
Oxford, said filtering appeared to occur most widely in countries where
Internet penetration is higher, possibly explaining the lack of any
censorship efforts in Russia and Egypt.
Technology saves day for NH parents of
Virginia Tech students
New Hampshire Union
Leader Staff
By JOHN WHITSON
10am Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Technology can be a godsend in a crisis. When Donna Sproul of
Londonderry heard about the shootings at Virginia Tech, where her son
Jonathan goes to school, she couldn't reach him by telephone.
"My brother-in-law, who lives in Blacksburg (Va.), called me in a panic
because he couldn't get hold of him," said Sproul. After her own
initial attempts failed, she went online and there he was.
"Thank God for instant messaging," said Sproul. Michael Neverman
of Londonderry said cell phone circuits were busy when he tried to call
his daughter, Erica, a Virginia Tech freshman, yesterday morning.
Neverman then sent a text-message, sat back, and nervously waited for a
response. An unidentified person is carried out of Norris Hall at
Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va., yesterday. (AP)
►President Bush orders flags to half staff after Virginia Tech
massacre; click here for MSNBC's coverage
"About 10 minutes later she text-messaged me back saying she was OK,"
said Neverman, breathing another sigh of relief as he told the
story. Jonathan Sproul, a freshman, said the campus went into
lockdown - meaning students couldn't leave the buildings they were in -
minutes after he returned to his dormitory after a 9 a.m. class.
"Right now they're actually opening up the dining halls and we're
allowed to go to eat," said Jonathan shortly after 2 p.m.
Classes, he said, were cancelled yesterday and all day today.
Sproul said other students on campus from New Hampshire that he knows
were safe. He said he spoke with Paul Ahern of Londonderry, and another
Granite-Stater, Ashley Morgenstern of Derry, posted online messages
saying she was OK.
The lockdown order came from campus police via e-mails, said Sproul.
Once he and his roommate heard the news they turned on a TV. "We
haven't taken our eyes off it," he said. When they took time to
look outside, Sproul said police officers were everywhere. "They were
surrounding the dorm next to us, with guns drawn," he said.
The dormitory where the first shootings happened at about 7:15 a.m.,
explained Sproul, is two buildings and about 200 yards away from
his. The shootings have been the only topic of conversation
throughout the lockdown, said Sproul, but people started to relax a
little bit by afternoon. "Right now it's pretty calm," he said, "but no
one knows what to think."
Erica Neverman was in a physics class when the campus went into
lockdown. Her father said he was especially nervous because she is an
engineering major. The second round of shootings took place in an
engineering class in Norris Hall. "That was the scary part," said
Neverman.
"It's obviously frustrating when you're a long way away," he said. "You
feel so helpless."
Yesterday was actually the second day of shootings this school year at
Virginia Tech. Sproul, who is studying civil engineering, said
three people were shot on campus during the first day of school last
fall.
"I think they're random incidents," he said. "I don't see a pattern. I
don't have any thoughts of transferring."
His mother said she also finds no fault with the school itself.
"We've been going to Blacksburg forever," said Donna Sproul. "It has
been my child's dream to go to this school. It is the most beautiful
school you could ever imagine and the safest town you could ever
imagine. For this to happen is unbelievable."
Michael Neverman said uncertainty in the minutes and hours when the
shootings were first reported turned into a mixed blessing for his
household.
"I think we've discovered how blessed we are," he said, "because there
have been a gazillion e-mails and messages and calls asking about
(Erica) and sending prayers for our family."
At Home or Away, It’s Still a DVR
NYTIMES
By Eric A. Taub
June 30, 2009, 2:43 pm
DVRs, or digital video recorders, first popularized by the TiVo brand,
have become an essential part of the TV viewing experience in many U.S.
homes.
But the hardware to allow consumers to record and pause video on a hard
disk can be costly. Cablevision, the cable TV operator, came up with a
different approach: Keep the show recordings on a central server and
feed them to the viewer when they requested them. Customers could be
charged less, and capacity would no longer be an issue.
This remote recording technology came under attack from the big four TV
networks, among others, with the companies suing Cablevision claiming
copyright infringement.
The case was decided against the networks and they appealed to the
Supreme Court. Earlier this month, the U.S. Solicitor General
recommended to the Court that they not hear the case; apparently it
agreed. On Monday, the Supreme Court decided to let the lower court
ruling stand, allowing Cablevision to go ahead and offer its off-site
DVR.
The Consumer Electronics Association sung the praises of the decision,
with its CEO, Gary Shapiro, stating that “From a common-sense
standpoint, the Court’s decision was a slam-dunk. The Court has already
ruled that consumers have the right to time-shift television shows.”
Apparently, a DVR is a DVR, whether you have it in your house or it’s
located at some central location miles away.
High
Court Won't Block Remote Storage
DVR
NYTIMES
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:21 a.m. ET
June
29, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hollywood studios and television networks have lost
a Supreme Court bid to block the use of a new digital video recorder
system that could make it cheaper and easier for viewers to record
shows and watch them when they want, without commercials.
The justices, in an order Monday, say they will not disturb a federal
appeals court ruling that Cablevision Systems Corp.'s remote-storage
DVR does not violate copyright laws.
For consumers, the action means that Cablevision and perhaps other
cable system operators soon will be able to offer DVR service without
need for a box in their homes. The remote storage unit exists on
computer servers maintained by a cable provider.
Conn. says utility pole boxes need
municipal OKs
DAY
By STEPHEN SINGER, AP Business Writer
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Connecticut regulators issued a draft decision
Friday that AT&T must get permission from municipalities before
putting its large video equipment boxes on utility poles and other
properties.
The state Department of Public Utility Control issued a preliminary
ruling on a petition from Bridgeport, Danbury and Stamford. The cities
asked regulators to investigate the safety and location of the
telecommunications equipment.
The so-called VRAD cabinets, which house equipment for AT&T's video
U-Verse services and broadband, are about five feet high by four feet
wide. Fewer than 8,000 of AT&T's 800,000 utility poles in
Connecticut will be used to mount the equipment, regulators said.
AT&T "should have acted in a more responsible manner" by providing
notice to public officials and seeking informed consent from
municipalities and neighboring property owners, the state agency said.
A final decision is expected Sept. 29.
Adam Cormier, a spokesman for AT&T in New Haven, would not comment
specifically on regulators' criticism of the telecommunications company.
"It's a draft decision so we look forward to working with the
department and all the parties to bring the docket to a final
decision," he said.
Burt Rosenberg, assistant corporation counsel for Stamford, said the
city challenged AT&T because officials demanded to be informed
about where the equipment is placed. The boxes, which he said are about
the size of small refrigerators, are one foot off the ground and
present a hazard to pedestrians, bicyclists and others, Rosenberg said.
The cities said the boxes should be at least seven feet above the
ground, he said. Lawyers for the municipalities cited the federal
Americans with Disabilities Act as a basis for the complaint, arguing
that blind pedestrians or people who use wheelchairs are particularly
at risk.
Following the decision by the Department of Public Utility Control,
AT&T will inform cities of the location of the VRAD equipment and
municipal officials will meet with the telecommunications company to
voice objections, Rosenberg said.
State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal praised regulators, but said
he will ask that AT&T be ordered to seek retroactive permission
from municipalities and property owners for video equipment boxes
already installed. The draft decision requires the company to seek
permission to install boxes if property owners or municipalities had
objected, he said.
Blumenthal's
TV Change
DAY editorial
Published on 10/26/2007
It is great that Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has seen
the light and moderated his anti-competition position when it comes to
new television service technologies, but he does not go far enough.
A new state law that took effect Oct. 1 appeared to settle the matter.
It provided a format for new emerging technologies — such as AT&T's
U-verse and Verizon's FiOS — to compete with cable-TV franchises. The
consumer-friendly legislation would let competition determine prices
and drive service.
But when AT&T applied for a certificate to offer U-verse service
under the new law, Mr. Blumenthal and the Office of Consumer Counsel
opposed it. Citing a federal court decision, they argued these new
technologies should be regulated under the old monopolistic cable-TV
regulations, including forcing them to commit to providing service to
entire franchise areas.
Unfortunately, the state Department of Public Utility Control bought
their argument and, ignoring the new law, told AT&T it had to apply
for a cable-TV franchise. AT&T argued the old regulatory model made
no sense in this new age of communication. If necessary, AT&T said
it would take the $336 million it planned to invest in a Connecticut
U-verse system to other states that welcomed competition. Such a move
would also mean the loss of thousands of jobs.
Consumers have reacted with outrage. They want TV service options.
Apparently Mr. Blumenthal realized he was on the wrong side of this
issue. In a letter to AT&T Tuesday, he said he would be happy to
support a stay of the DPUC decision while the courts decide whether to
apply the old law or new law to U-verse.
While the change of heart may help Mr. Blumenthal politically (he may
run for governor in 2010), a stay wouldn't do much for AT&T or
consumers. The company is not likely to sign up new customers and build
out its system when an adverse court ruling could force it to unplug
them.
The better course of action would be for the DPUC to reverse its
decision and let the new law take effect immediately. Meanwhile, a
hearing is set for today at which AT&T will ask state Superior
Court Judge Robert F. McWeeny to force the DPUC to abide by the new
competition-friendly law. The legislature's intent to encourage
competition is clear. The Day urges Judge McWeeny to act swiftly and
order that the law be implemented.
Phone
TV Conflict Blurry; Officials
Try To Defend Choice By Denying it
By MARK PETERS | Courant Staff Writer
October 21, 2007
TV viewers might find it difficult to choose a side in the fight over
cable competition in Connecticut. Should they choose the side of
government officials who say they are representing consumers by
encouraging TV-service competition as long as everyone in the state can
benefit?
That position effectively eliminated a choice between AT&T's new
U-verse service and cable TV for as many as 150,000 consumers last week
in areas where U-verse was going to become available. Regulators told
AT&T it had to stop expanding U-verse and apply for a
franchise. Or should consumers take AT&T's side? Starting 10
months ago, the telephone giant began giving some consumers a
competitive option to the decades-old monopoly of local cable TV
franchises. U-verse delivers television programming over telephone
lines.
But AT&T is beholden first and foremost to shareholders, which is
part of the reason the company doesn't want to be required to offer TV
service to every home in its franchise area.
The legal, technical and business arguments about the new service can
be perplexing for consumers. The confusion was evident last Thursday as
union workers for AT&T rallied in downtown Hartford to support
their employer's position in the battle. A few commuters waiting nearby
for their evening bus were trying to figure out what the protesters
were shouting about.
"I thought the phone company only had Internet, and obviously, phone
service," said Sharon Griffin-Joseph, watching for both the rally and
her bus.
But inside the telecommunications industry, the fight is fierce over
how new types of TV service should be regulated.
The issue in Connecticut revolves primarily around what's known as a
universal service requirement. That regulation would require AT&T
to provide TV service to all customers in its franchise area, which
could be the whole state.
For years, the state has been divided into cable franchise areas, and
each cable company is required to offer service throughout its
franchise area. AT&T has said that if it is forced to adhere
to the universal service requirement, it will drop its more than 7,000
U-verse customers in the state and proceed with the service
elsewhere. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, government
regulators and cable companies say universal service must be a
requirement, or all consumers won't get the lower rates and other
benefits expected to come with more competition.
At stake is an additional option for consumers who have endured years
of rising rates for cable TV and the only other available choice,
satellite TV. The Federal Communications Commission, in a study
of prices for TV service, found that cable rates rose nationally by 93
percent between 1995 and 2005. In areas where effective competition
exists, prices charged by cable companies were 17 percent lower, the
same study found.
For now, unless they have the benefit of clairvoyance, Connecticut
consumers will simply have to decide which side offers the most
persuasive argument about what might happen in the future. In the
most recent skirmish last week, AT&T lost a crucial battle before
the state Department of Public Utility Control. The DPUC ruled Monday
that AT&T had to stop signing up new U-verse customers until it
followed the same franchise rules as cable companies, including the
universal service requirement.
Thomas W. Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason
University and former chief economist of the FCC, said the DPUC's
decision won't help consumers. He said challengers to cable won't
come into markets if they're required to meet the universal service
requirement. And, he asked, why would the government want to stand in
the way of increased competition and lower prices for at least some
consumers?
"You can't get 100 percent," Hazlett said. "If you can't, get 10
percent or 20 percent."
AT&T points out that universal service requirements weren't imposed
on cable companies when they began offering telephone service to
compete with AT&T's predecessor companies, SBC Communications and
Southern New England Telecommunications Corp. Also, the state has
seen this situation before. In the mid-1990s, SNET introduced its
Personal Vision product to compete with cable companies, but shut it
down in part because of what AT&T now says was a universal service
requirement.
But Blumenthal and other consumer advocates have a different view.
Competition won't benefit everyone and won't last unless AT&T - or
others - have to serve all customers, said Blumenthal and William
Vallee, a lawyer with the state Office of Consumer Counsel, which
represents cable ratepayers. They said the fear is that
competition will develop only in those areas where AT&T finds it
profitable to offer service. That would leave rural areas and,
possibly, the poorest section of cities with no competitive choices,
Blumenthal said.
He said that without statewide competition, areas without competitive
choices would see prices increase more rapidly while customer service
declines. The attorney general also predicted that after a period
of years, AT&T could become a new monopoly because of the advantage
it would have of being able to pick and choose customers. It ultimately
would replace cable TV and re-create the problem that competition is
supposed to fix.
"The government will be giving its stamp of approval to essentially a
different form of monopolistic power," Blumenthal said.
The two sides are due in court this week as AT&T challenges the
DPUC's most recent decision.
Blumenthal: Make AT&T Get Cable
License; AG asks state DPUC to reconsider its decision in wake of
federal court ruling
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 8/7/2007
Hartford — Attorney General Richard Blumenthal petitioned
the state Department of Public Utility Control Monday to force AT&T
to seek a cable license for its Internet television service, in the
wake of a federal court ruling that the new technology must be subject
to the same regulations as conventional cable.
The ruling overturned a 2006 decision by the state agency, which had
said AT&T was not required to seek a cable franchise for its
Internet protocol television (or “IPTV”) service, since it was not the
same as conventional cable.
“This service must be licensed as cable, regulated as cable,”
Blumenthal said, standing alongside attorney William L. Vallee Jr. of
the Office of Consumer Counsel, which brought the federal suit.
Blumenthal said he would urge the department to order AT&T to apply
for a cable license that would compel the company to offer its services
statewide, and would ask the department to require the company to halt
its construction of infrastructure for the service and its effort to
enroll customers until the license is granted.
A spokeswoman for the department, Beryl C. Lyons, said the agency would
take no action until the deadline for AT&T to appeal the court
ruling expires next week.
“It would be premature for us to go doing something that could just be
overturned again,” Lyons said, but added that the DPUC board would
respond if the court decision overturning the earlier ruling is upheld
on appeal.
“Then we've got a federal court ruling overturning our decision, and
then we've got to take appropriate action,” she said.
A spokesman for AT&T, Seth Bloom, called Blumenthal's action
“premature,” and said the company's IPTV service, called U-verse, was
the sort of offering specifically encouraged by a state law passed just
months ago by the legislature that was intended to spur new entries in
the state's cable market.
U-verse is already active in 30 cities and towns in Connecticut, Bloom
said, and already providing consumers with new choices for television
service.
“We're in the market today,” he said. “We've put our money where our
mouth is.”
Blumenthal
seeks 'new era in cable
competition'
By PATRICK R. LINSEY, Hour Staff Writer
August 7, 2007
REGION — Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will not be
satisfied until all state residents have a choice in their cable
television provider.
But AT&T, which is challenging traditional cable companies with its
new fiber-optic service, said Blumenthal's efforts could backfire —
stifling the very competition he hopes to create.
In the wake of a court decision last month, Blumenthal petitioned the
state Department of Public Utility Control Monday to force AT&T to
seek a traditional cable license for its television service.
"We are seeking to enforce a new era of cable competition," Blumenthal
said. "The first steps are an emergency order that would stop AT&T
from constructing new facilities and signing up new customers until it
has a franchise."
The license would require AT&T to make its fledgling U-verse
service available to all residents in the state. Blumenthal has accused
AT&T of seeking to "cherry pick," offering service in affluent
communities and not poorer cities.
The telephone company has invested millions of dollars into
infrastructure for its digital television system, which is now
available to residents in 35 Connecticut towns and cities. Included are
wealthy suburbs — like Westport and Guilford — but also cities with a
range of incomes — like Norwalk and Stamford — and Bridgeport — a city
with significant poverty.
AT&T has argued that its service is distinct from traditional cable
television and therefore does not require a cable license from the
DPUC. The DPUC agreed, ruling last summer that television services like
AT&T's do not need a cable franchise.
But the Office of Consumer Council, a public consumer group for utility
payers, and Cablevision, a traditional cable company, filed lawsuits.
Last month, a judge at the U.S. District Court in New Haven ruled that
U-verse is subject to the same regulation as traditional cable.
"The federal court's ruling provides a legal foundation for the fact
that an unequal playing field for video services is unacceptable and
illegal," Blumenthal said, "and that the legal structures already in
place in state and federal law demand balance among the service
providers."
But AT&T spokesman Seth Bloom said the judge has yet to assign a
remedy in the case and is currently taking input from all sides to
determine an appropriate resolution.
Bloom also cited a law signed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell last month that
encourages new entrants to the state's cable market. The law, which
takes effect October 1, was not a factor in the recent court decision.
AT&T has no plans to restrict its U-verse service to affluent
communities, Bloom said.
"We plan to bring U-verse to as many consumers as possible as quickly
as possible," he said. "We stand behind our strong record building out
DSL in Connecticut. With no one telling us we needed to, we got from 0-
to over 90-percent availability in the state in a short seven or eight
years."
AT&T has argued that customers in competitive cable markets pay
lower rates. But forcing statewide service dissuades new companies from
entering the market, Bloom said.
Cable service in the state is largely provided by regional monopolies.
Cablevision provides service to the great majority of cable customers
in central Fairfield County.
"For years nobody came in to offer (an alternative) service in the
cable industry," Bloom said. "They would have had to ... get a
franchise, which requires them to build out to the entire state, which
doesn't make sense when you're a new entrant dealing with a monopoly.
Nobody did and (traditional cable companies) took advantage and raised
rates whenever they wanted "
New
Law Could Nullify AT&T Ruling
By MARK PETERS | Courant Staff Writer
July 27, 2007
A federal judge ruled Thursday that AT&T must follow the same rules
as cable TV companies as the phone giant competes for customers with
its fledgling video service.
The decision by Judge Janet Bond Arterton strikes down a year-old
ruling by the state Department of Public Utility Control. The agency
had ruled that AT&T did not have to abide by cable franchise
regulations, including requirements that prevent it from offering its
service only in select markets.
But it's possible that the ruling from U.S. District Court in New Haven
will be blunted or even nullified by a recently passed state law that
establishes a new system to regulate cable TV and AT&T's video
service.
AT&T, the state's Office of Consumer Counsel and others involved in
the federal suit say they're reviewing the ruling to understand how it
might affect AT&T's U-verse service. The service, which delivers TV
programming over telephone lines, is available in parts of more than 20
Connecticut towns and cities.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Thursday that the federal
ruling was good news for consumers, but will probably be negated by the
new state law.
"Unfortunately, a new law guts the very safeguards that the court so
resoundingly affirmed," he said in a statement.
AT&T
said it's reviewing the decision, but pointed out that the
court case concerns law that has been changed.
The federal lawsuit against AT&T and the DPUC was filed last July
by the consumer counsel, which represents cable ratepayers, and the New
England Cable and Telecommunications Association, whose members include
Comcast Corp. and Cox Communications.
The trade association and consumer counsel argued that the DPUC was
giving AT&T an unfair advantage as it enters the TV market in
Connecticut. The phone company did not have to meet public access
requirements, provide service to all homes in a franchise area, or go
through the lengthy cable franchise renewal process that examines
customer service.
AT&T has argued that the cable companies are only interested in
keeping their monopoly and avoiding competition.
The cable association could not be reached for comment Thursday.
Bill Vallee, principal attorney for the state's consumer counsel, said
Thursday that Arterton's decision supports his argument that AT&T
should be treated the same as cable companies, even though the
technology is different. He said the ruling could have an effect on
AT&T's plans for other states because it is now more likely to be
treated like a cable provider wherever it goes.
But the impact of the suit here is likely to hinge on the new state
law, which legislators saw as a compromise between the cable industry
and AT&T to ensure competition in the industry.
It was widely criticized by Blumenthal and Vallee for eroding consumer
protections while continuing to give AT&T certain advantages.
AT&T
Is Cable Operator,
Says Connecticut Court
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable,
7/26/2007 3:33:00 PM
A Connecticut U.S. District Court has ruled that AT&T's Lightspeed
IPTV video service is a cable service subject to local franchising laws.
The summary judgment was a victory for the New England Cable &
Telecommunications Association, and the cable industry at large.
It was a defeat for the Connecticut Department of Public Utility
Control (DPUC), which had ruled that AT&T's service was an
information service, like other data services.
Central to the DPUC's conclusion was the way AT&T delivers its
service, which is not to deliver a channel until the subscriber's
set-top box requests it, rather than constantly delivering all the
channels. That, said DPUC, was a level of interaction that made the
service a two-way data exchange, or as DPUC put it "“[AT&T’s]
network is unique in comparison to cable operators such as it entails a
switched, two-way client server IP-based architecture designed to send
each subscriber only the programming the subscriber chooses to view and
entails a high level of subscriber interaction
The FCC defines cable service as one-way, though it includes VOD
in that definition, so the DPUC concluded AT&T's service did not
meet that definition.
The court saw it differently. Although factual findings by expert
goverment agencies are due judicial deference under the Chevron
doctrine, the court concluded that DPUC's determination that AT&T's
was a two-way system was a legal conclusion-on the appropriate
definition of "cable service"--rather than a factual finding, and a
wrong legal conclusion at that.
AT&T is a cable operator, its service is a cable service, and its
network is a cable network, said the court.
The cable industry has argued that AT&T's service should be subject
to the same franchise restrictions as their members, but the DPUC had
ruled differently.
Microsoft to change Vista after
Google complaint
REUTERS
By Peter Kaplan
Wed Jun 20, 1:07 AM ET
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) has agreed to
modify its Windows Vista operating system in response to a complaint
that its computer search function put Google Inc. (Nasdaq:GOOG - news)
and other potential rivals at a disadvantage, the Justice Department
and Microsoft said on Tuesday.
Under an agreement with the department and 17 state attorneys general
and the District of Columbia, Microsoft will build into Vista an option
to let users select a default desktop search program on personal
computers running Windows.
The function, known as "Instant Search," allows Windows users to enter
a search query and get a list of results from their hard drive that
contain the search term.
The agreement was made public as part of a joint report that the
Justice Department and Microsoft filed late on Tuesday with the court
overseeing Microsoft's compliance with a 2002 antitrust consent decree.
As part of the deal, a Microsoft official said the company also had
pledged to place links inside the Internet Explorer window and the
"Start" navigation menu to make it easier for people to access that
default desktop search service.
The changes will be introduced in a service pack, or updated version of
Windows Vista software. Microsoft said it anticipates a test version of
the Vista Service Pack 1 to be ready by the year-end.
Under the agreement, Microsoft also promised to provide additional
technical information to third-party developers, such as Google, in
order to optimize the performance of their desktop search service on
Vista.
"These remedies are a step in the right direction, but they should be
improved further to give consumers greater access to alternate desktop
search providers," David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, said
in a statement.
The changes stem from a complaint Google filed with the Justice
Department in December, in which it argued that a feature built into
Vista that allows users to search a computer's hard drive did not leave
room for competition from other desktop search applications.
Google said the feature violated the consent decree that monitors
Microsoft's conduct as part of its settlement with the government.
"We are pleased that as a result of Google's request that the consent
decree be enforced, the Department of Justice and state Attorneys
General have required Microsoft to make changes to Vista," Drummond
said.
The agreement is expected to be presented to the judge monitoring the
consent decree, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, at a June
26 court hearing.
The Microsoft consent decree, which settled the government's landmark
antitrust case against the company, is scheduled to expire in November.
However, some provisions have been extended to November 2009.
Microsoft has called Google's complaint "baseless" and said it was in
compliance with the antitrust settlement.
N E T N E U T
R A L I T Y : LWVCT the expert here!
Get
background on this vital national issue here: LWVCT FALL CONFERENCE
DEC. 1, 2007, all morning at the CAPITOL - watch it again, over
and over, here!!!
Latest reports...scroll down, or how
about libel suits for a cooling down method?
Sherrod’s suit vs. Breitbart tests
libel law in era of Web
The Washington Times
By Ben Conery
8:36 p.m., Sunday, February 20, 2011
The defamation lawsuit filed by a former Obama administration
official against conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart promises to test
the application of traditional libel laws in an emerging media
landscape in which blogs and social networking websites have taken the
place of newspapers and television broadcasts.
Media and legal observers say the case bears watching because of that,
but that it largely will hinge on well-established law and precedents
despite its high-tech setting.
"While this is one of the first high-profile blog-based libel suits,
the basic underpinning is pretty simple — was the gist of the material
posted not substantially true," Jeff Stein, a communications professor
at Wartburg College in Iowa who also is a lawyer, wrote in an e-mail to
The Washington Times. "I think she can win on that."
The lawsuit stems from a highly charged incident last summer in which
Mr. Breitbart posted a video clip of Shirley Sherrod, who is black,
delivering a speech at an NAACP event. In the video, she describes an
incident in which she was reluctant to help a poor white farmer. The
video ignited a media firestorm and ultimately led the Obama
administration to force Mrs. Sherrod's resignation as the Department of
Agriculture's Georgia state director of rural development.
Soon afterward, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People released a video of the full speech showing that Mrs. Sherrod
was describing an episode that took place more than two decades ago.
The speech was about how she overcame her initial prejudice and helped
the poor white farmer, an account the farmer corroborated. The speech's
overall message was the importance of helping the poor, regardless of
their race.
The White House apologized to Mrs. Sherrod and offered her a
higher-level position in the Agriculture Department. She declined the
offer.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. Breitbart posted the video clip in
attempt to show racism within the NAACP because he was angered by the
organization's accusations of racism against the tea party.
In a statement on his website, Mr. Breitbart expressed confidence that
he will be vindicated, even hinting that the lawsuit was filed in
retaliation for his work exposing what he called wide-ranging fraud
that relates to reparations paid to black farmers, which he suggests
involved Mrs. Sherrod.
"I can promise you this: neither I, nor my journalistic websites, will
or can be silenced by the institutional left, which is obviously
funding this lawsuit," he said. "I welcome the judicial discovery
process, including finding out which groups are doing so."
Mrs. Sherrod, in a statement sent to Media Matters, a liberal
media-watchdog group, said the lawsuit was not about politics or race.
"It is not about Right versus Left, the NAACP or the Tea Party. It is
about how quickly, in today's Internet media environment, a person's
good name can become 'collateral damage' in an overheated political
debate," she said. "I strongly believe in a free press and a full
discussion of public issues, but not in deliberate distortions of the
truth.
"Mr. Breitbart has never apologized for what he did to me and continues
— to this day — to make the same slurs about my character," she said.
Analysts told The Times that the case could be difficult for Mrs.
Sherrod to win, especially if the court determines she is a public
figure instead of a private citizen. Public figures have a higher
burden in defamation cases, having to prove "actual malice" or
"reckless disregard for the truth." A private citizen must prove only
that a media outlet was negligent.
"This has been a difficult standard to prove in most cases, since it
requires to prove some knowledge of the intent of the person who did
the publishing of the remark," Richard J. Goedkoop, a communications
professor at LaSalle University, wrote in an e-mail to The Times.
Mrs. Sherrod's attorneys argue in the lawsuit that "the extensive and
misleading nature of the defendant's edits of the video" along with the
additional text on the website show the "defendants' defamation and
disparagement of Mrs. Sherrod was done intentionally and with actual
malice."
Mrs. Sherrod has accused Mr. Breitbart, employee Larry O'Connor and the
unnamed source of the video with defamation, representing her in a
false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The
lawsuit, filed Feb. 11 in Superior Court in the District of Columbia,
seeks the removal of the video and related blog posts from Mr.
Breitbart's site and monetary compensation, including punitive damages,
to "punish the defendants' reprehensible conduct and to deter its
future occurrence.
"Defendants deliberately edited the full video of Mrs. Sherrod's
43-minute speech down to a short, highly misleading two-and-a-half
minute clip that defendants knew, or should have known, would portray
Mrs. Sherrod in a false and defamatory manner," the lawsuit stated.
The lawsuit has more wrinkles than traditional defamation cases because
it mentions the video and blog postings — including one that stated
that Mrs. Sherrod "discriminates against people due to their race" —
and cites messages Mr. Breitbart posted on the social networking site
Twitter.
"Will Eric Holder's DOJ hold accountable fed appointee Shirley Sherrod
for admitting practicing racial discrimination?" read one of his
Twitter posts, referring to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and the
Department of Justice.
The lawsuit stated: "Defendant Breitbart's Twitter message directly
illustrates his intent to accuse Mrs. Sherrod of unlawful activity and
to provoke and instigate financial and reputational damage to Mrs.
Sherrod."
Still, Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel for the Thomas
More Society, a pro-life, public interest law firm in Chicago involved
in representing conservative bloggers facing similar lawsuits in
Chicago and Quebec, told The Times that there is a strong chance the
case could be thrown out on a preliminary motion to dismiss.
In addition to the increased burden of proof Mrs. Sherrod is likely to
face, he said, Mr. Breitbart is a noted conservative who was
criticizing an Obama administration appointee, which means his
statements could be considered the sort of "hyperbolic" opinions
afforded greater protection under freedom-of-speech rights.
If the case isn't dismissed outright, Mr. Breen said, Mr. Breitbart
could face considerable difficulties, such as a judge's order to reveal
the identity of the person who provided him with the video. Mr.
Breitbart has refused to disclose that person's identity.
Should a judge make such an order, said Stuart Slotnick of the
Washington, D.C., law firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, Mr.
Breitbart could be put in the unenviable position of either disclosing
his source or risk having the judge hold him in contempt of court and
possibly rule against him automatically.
In that case, Mr. Slotnick said, the only proceedings held would be to
determine what Mrs. Sherrod would receive from Mr. Breitbart, although
her actual damages were an open question. "She effectively, as a result
of being prematurely asked to resign, got a raise and turned it down
and left herself without a salary," he said, adding that what she does
have going for her is that "she was really wronged."
"She was portrayed as a racist and the content of the statements by
Breitbart were put on the Internet, in which she can argue was meant to
be virally transmitted throughout the Internet," she said. "She was
labeled as a racist throughout the entire country when she was
criticizing racism and attempting to be above it."
© Copyright 2011 The Washington
Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
FCC chief stands by ‘net neutrality’ push
By David Eldridge, The Washington Times
2:15 p.m., Thursday, May 5, 2011
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski on
Wednesday offered a strong defense of his agency's new Internet traffic
regulations in the face of questioning from skeptical Republican
lawmakers.
"In my view, while critically important, antitrust laws alone would not
adequately preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet," the
Obama-appointed FCC head told a House Judiciary subcommittee on the
hot-button issue of "net neutrality."
The issue has led to sharp disputes between major users of the Web and
telecommunications giants such as Comcast and Verizon, which operating
the basic wiring underlying the global information network.
Led by Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, who is chairman
of the subcommittee, GOP congressmen at the hearing questioned whether
the new rules pushed through by Mr. Genachowski usurp congressional
authority and federal antitrust laws.
But Mr. Genachowski said the new regulations, first announced late last
year, are necessary.
The FCC, he said, needs to "provide enough certainty and confidence to
drive investment in our innovation future. As we heard during our FCC
proceeding, antitrust enforcement is expensive to pursue, takes a long
time and kicks in only after damage is done."
Robert McDowell, one of the two Republicans on the commission who voted
against the FCC's "Open Rules of the Road" for the Internet, disagreed
again with the FCC chairman, telling Mr. Goodlatte that the regulations
will stifle innovation in the tech sector of the American economy.
The net-neutrality rules will "disproportionately affect smaller
companies who will have to bear the adjudication costs," he said.
Net neutrality, which President Obama campaigned on before the 2008
elections, is designed to prevent the telecommunications giants from
using their gatekeeper status to impede the business of their
competitors, from Web powers such as Google down to small startup
Internet businesses.
Republicans have called the new regulations a power grab by federal
bureaucrats and a "solution in search of a problem."
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint
permission.
Google
and Verizon Near Deal on Pay
Tiers for Web
NYTIMES
By EDWARD WYATT
August 4, 2010 (we noticed this on the 5th)
WASHINGTON — Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet
service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon
to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the
content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.
The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google,
for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service
providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its
way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges
for Internet users.
Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet
policy known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored
over another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered
system, which, like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium
levels of service.
Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts
of the Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over
broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals
court decision in April.
People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak
publicly about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next
week. If completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many
Verizon wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon’s ability
to manage its broadband Internet network as it pleased.
Since the court decision, involving Comcast, in April, the F.C.C. has
been trying to find a way to regulate broadband delivery, and that
effort has been the subject of a series of private meetings at the
agency’s headquarters in recent weeks. At the meetings, officials from
the nation’s biggest Internet service and content providers, including
Google and Verizon, have tried to reach a consensus on how broadband
Internet service should be regulated in light of the decision. Those
meetings continued this week, apart from the talks between Google and
Verizon.
The court decision said the F.C.C. lacked the authority to require that
an Internet service provider refrain from blocking or slowing down some
content or applications, or giving favor to others. The F.C.C. has
since sought another way in which to enforce the concept of net
neutrality. But its proposals have been greeted with much objection in
Congress and among Internet service providers, cable companies and some
Internet content producers.
A spokesman for Verizon said that the company was still engaged in the
larger talks to reach a consensus at the F.C.C. and declined to comment
on other negotiations. A spokeswoman for Google also declined to
comment. While a deal between Google and Verizon would affect only
those two companies, it could sway the opinions of lawmakers, many of
whom have questioned the wisdom of the F.C.C.’s plans to oversee
broadband service.
At issue for consumers is how the companies that provide the pipeline
to the Internet will ultimately direct traffic on their system, and how
quickly consumers are able to gain access to certain Web content.
Consumers could also see continually rising bills for Internet service,
much as they have for cable television.
The prospect of a Google-Verizon agreement infuriates many consumer
advocates, who feel that it would concentrate in a few corporations
control of what to date has been a free and open Internet system in
which consumers decide which companies are successful.
“The point of a network neutrality rule is to prevent big companies
from dividing the Internet between them,” said Gigi B. Sohn, president
and a founder of Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group. “The fate
of the Internet is too large a matter to be decided by negotiations
involving two companies, even companies as big as Verizon and Google.”
It is not clear that the Google-Verizon talks will result in a deal, or
that any agreement would extend beyond those companies. David M. Fish,
a spokesman for Verizon, acknowledged the talks, saying, “We’ve been
working with Google for 10 months to reach an agreement on broadband
policy.”
But, Mr. Fish added, “We are currently engaged in and committed to the
negotiation process led by the F.C.C. We are optimistic this process
will reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet, and the
investment and innovation required to sustain it.”
The F.C.C. process he referred to is what is jokingly called at the
agency headquarters “the secret meeting.” At least nine times in the
last seven weeks — including Wednesday, with another meeting scheduled
for Thursday — a group that includes Google, Verizon, AT&T, Skype,
cable system operators and a group called the Open Internet Coalition
has met with top F.C.C. officials to discuss net neutrality and the
agency’s legal basis for regulating Internet service.
Cable and telephone companies want free rein to sell specialized
services like “paid prioritization,” which would speed some content to
users more quickly for a fee. Wireless companies, meanwhile, want no
restrictions on wireless broadband, which they see as a different
technology than Internet service over wires.
Many content providers — like Amazon, eBay and Skype — prefer no
favoritism on the Internet or they want to be sure that if a pay system
exists, all content providers have the opportunity to pay for faster
service.
The F.C.C., meanwhile, favors a level playing field, but it cannot
impose one as long as its authority over broadband is in legal doubt.
It has proposed a solution that would reclassify broadband Internet
service under the Communications Act from its current designation as an
“information service,” a lightly regulated designation, to a
“telecommunications service,” a category that, like telephone service,
is subject to stricter regulation.
The F.C.C. has said that it does not want to impose strict regulation
on Internet service and rates, but seeks only the authority to enforce
broadband privacy and guarantee equal access. It also wants to use
federal money to subsidize broadband service for rural areas.
While the F.C.C. is gathering public comment on its reclassification
proposal, it has convened the private talks, which are overseen by
Edward Lazarus, the chief of staff to Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C.’s
chairman.
The talks have produced some common ground among the participants on
smaller matters. But one participant, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because the group members agreed not to discuss their
deliberations publicly, said there had been little movement “on the few
big issues that are the most important.”
Frustrated with that lack of progress in the last two months, direct
talks between Google and Verizon have accelerated, according to people
close to the discussions who were not authorized to comment publicly.
Google and Verizon have their own interests at stake in negotiating
separately. The Android operating system from Google is used on many
Verizon phones, including the Droid, a competitor to the iPhone from
Apple.
Consumer groups have objected to the private meetings, saying that too
many stakeholders are being left out of discussions over the future of
the Internet.
Mr. Lazarus said the meetings “are part of our efforts to identify the
best way forward in the wake of the Comcast case to preserve the
openness and vibrancy of the Internet.”
Source:
Google, Verizon near net
neutrality plan
YAHOO
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer
Thu Aug 5, 4:04 am ET
WASHINGTON – Google Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. are close to
finalizing a proposal for so-called "network neutrality" rules, which
would dictate how broadband providers treat Internet traffic flowing
over their lines, according to a person briefed on the negotiations.
A deal could be announced within days, said the person, who did not
want to be identified because negotiations are still ongoing.
Any deal that is reached could form the basis for federal legislation
and would likely shape efforts by the Federal Communications Commission
to broker an agreement on the contentious issue, which has pitted the
nation's big phone and cable companies against many big Internet
companies.
The FCC has been holding talks with a handful of large phone, cable and
Internet companies - including Verizon and Google - to try to reach
some sort of industrywide compromise on net neutrality that all sides
can accept. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is seeking to adopt rules
that would require phone and cable companies to give equal treatment to
all broadband traffic traveling over their networks.
Public interest groups and a number of big Internet companies,
including Google and online calling service Skype, say such rules are
needed to prevent broadband providers from becoming online gatekeepers.
They are particularly concerned that the phone and cable companies
could start charging extra for priority access, or could slow or even
block Internet phone calls, online video and other Web services that
compete with their core businesses.
But the phone and cable companies argue that after investing billions
in their networks, they need to be able earn a return on their massive
investments by offering premium services. They also insist that they
need flexibility to manage network traffic so that high-bandwidth
applications don't eat up too much capacity and slow down their systems
for everyone else.
While there is consensus that broadband providers should not be allowed
to block or degrade Internet traffic, the FCC talks have yet to produce
an agreement. Two big sticking points center on whether broadband
providers should be allowed to offer premium services and whether net
neutrality rules should apply to wireless networks, which tend to have
more bandwidth constraints than landline systems.
In a statement Wednesday, Verizon said it has been in talks with Google
for nearly 10 months to try to strike some sort of compromise on net
neutrality. It added that it remains committed to the discussions
taking place at the FCC and is "optimistic this process will reach a
consensus that can maintain an open Internet and the investment and
innovation required to sustain it."
Google had no comment.
Google and Verizon are already business partners since Google's Android
operating system powers Verizon Wireless's Droid smartphone. The Droid
is the biggest competitor to Apple Inc.'s iPhone, which is available
only through AT&T Wireless in the U.S.
An FCC statement said only that "the broad stakeholder discussions
continue to actively include Google and Verizon."
AT&T Inc., which is also taking part in the FCC talks, said it is
"not a party to the purported agreement between Google and Verizon" and
remains "committed to trying to reach a consensus on this issue through
the FCC process."
Several public interest groups, meanwhile, voiced concerns that a deal
between Verizon and Google would allow broadband providers to offer
premium services and would not apply to wireless networks. Josh Silver,
founder and president of the group Free Press, warned that an agreement
would amount to "a bold grab for market power by two monopolistic
players" and would "effectively create two Internets where application
and content innovators have to ask Verizon and Google for permission to
reach mobile Internet customers."
"The point of a network neutrality rule is to prevent big companies
from dividing the Internet between them," said Gigi Sohn, president and
co-founder of the group Public Knowledge. "We do not need rules to
protect Google and Verizon, but we need a rule to protect the customers
of Google and Verizon and the competitors of Google and Verizon."
The talks at the FCC are also focused on establishing the agency's
authority to regulate broadband. The agency has been scrambling to
develop a new regulatory framework since a federal appeals court in
April cast doubt on its jurisdiction over broadband - including its
ability to mandate net neutrality - under existing rules.
FCC's neutral
net plan tough balancing act
DAY editorial
Article published May 10, 2010
Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski appears to be making
a good-faith effort to strike a balance between providing enough
regulation to maintain the creative vitality of the Internet, without
acting so heavy-handedly that he damages, rather than enhances, its
entrepreneurial potential.
It's a big challenge, but Mr. Genachowski recognizes a problem that
needs addressing.
His plan is to adopt "net neutrality" rules, assuring that Internet
providers such as Comcast and AT&T allow data to travel to
subscribers' computers without interference. Internet companies, like
Google and eBay, need unencumbered access if they are to expand
high-bandwidth services such as video and games, necessary to grow and
compete.
The danger in the absence of regulation is that Internet providers
could choke off access, slow some broadband traffic and play favorites,
ultimately reducing consumer choice and dynamic competition.
This potential problem became more than a hypothetical in April when an
appeals court ruled that the FCC had overstepped its bounds in
sanctioning Comcast Corp. for intentionally slowing some broadband
traffic in 2008. By enhancing existing FCC regulations with new
specific rule making, Mr. Genachowski wants to provide "a solid legal
foundation" for enforcing net neutrality "in the most effective and
least intrusive way."
But this will not be an easy balancing act. Internet providers warn
that strict net neutrality rules would interfere with their ability to
innovate in a constantly evolving field. And while Mr. Genachowski says
he will not require service providers to share their lines with rivals
at government-regulated rates, it is becoming increasingly difficult to
sort out rivals on the Wild West Web.
More challenging, Mr. Genachowski will be using FCC regulations adopted
during the early stages of the Internet that prevent service
discrimination, protect privacy, require reasonable rates and provide a
complaint process. While far from ideal, it is preferable to having
Congress rewriting rules, which would invite a high-level lobbying
slugfest between Internet services and providers seeking to twist rules
to their favor.
The exact outline of how this will work awaits completion of a
rule-making process that will include several months of public comment.
The goal, net neutrality, is a good one. It's not going to be easy.
Court
Says F.C.C. Cannot Require ‘Net
Neutrality’
NYTIMES
By EDWARD WYATT
April 6, 2010
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Tuesday dealt a sharp blow to
the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to set the rules
of the road for the Internet, ruling that the agency lacks the
authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all
Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
The decision, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, specifically concerned the efforts of Comcast, the
nation’s largest cable provider, to slow down customers’ access to a
service called BitTorrent, which is used to exchange large video files,
most often pirated copies of movies.
After Comcast’s blocking was exposed, the F.C.C. told Comcast to stop
discriminating against BitTorrent traffic and in 2008 issued broader
rules for the industry regarding “net neutrality,” the principle that
all Internet content should be treated equally by network providers.
Comcast challenged the F.C.C.’s authority to issue such rules and
argued that its throttling of BitTorrent was necessary to ensure that a
few customers didn’t unfairly hog the capacity of the network, slowing
down Internet access for all of its customers.
But Tuesday’s court ruling has far larger implications than just the
Comcast case.
The ruling would allow Comcast and other Internet service providers to
restrict consumers’ ability to access certain kinds of Internet
content, such as video sites like Hulu.com or Google’s YouTube service,
or charge certain heavy users of their networks more money for access.
Google, Microsoft and other big producers of Web content have argued
that such controls or pricing policies would thwart innovation and
customer choice.
Consumer advocates said the ruling, one of several that have challenged
the F.C.C.’s regulatory reach, could also undermine all of the F.C.C.’s
efforts to regulate Internet service providers and establish its
authority over the Internet, including its recently released national
broadband plan.
“This
decision destroys the F.C.C.’s authority to build broadband policy on
the legal theory established by the Bush administration,” said Ben
Scott, the policy director for Free Press, a nonprofit organization
that advocates for broad media ownership and access.
The decision could reinvigorate dormant efforts in Congress to pass a
federal law specifically governing net neutrality, a principle
generally supported by the Obama administration.
While the decision is a victory for Comcast, it also has the potential
to affect the company’s pending acquisition of a majority stake in NBC
Universal.
Members of Congress have expressed concern that the acquisition could
give Comcast the power to favor the content of its own cable and
broadcast channels over those of competitors, something that Comcast
has said it does not intend to do. Now, members of Congress could also
fret that Comcast will also block or slow down customers’ access to the
Web sites of competing television and telecommunications companies.
In a statement, the F.C.C. said it remained “firmly committed to
promoting an open Internet.” While the court decision invalidated its
current approach to that goal, the agency said, “the Court in no way
disagreed with the importance of providing a free and open Internet,
nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important
end.”
FCC to toughen
internet rules
|
By Maggie Shiels, Technology reporter, BBC News, Silicon Valley
|
Page last updated at 07:49 GMT, Friday, 18 June 2010 08:49 UK
The FCC wants all data to be treated
equally
|
The stage has been set for what many predict
will be an ugly fight over broadband plans for US citizens.
The Federal Communications Commission has taken the first
formal steps towards tougher rules for broadband.
It asked for public comment on three different plans,
igniting an expensive lobbying campaign by all sides.
The looming battle follows a court ruling questioning the
FCC's right to regulate internet service providers after one throttled
traffic to users.
That court ruling dealt a major blow to a central plank of
the FCC's broadband plan called net neutrality which demands that all
data traffic be treated equally.
The five commissioners on the FCC board were split 3-2 in
putting the proposals towards adopting new regulations for the
broadband industry out for public comment.
'Third way'
One of the three plans the public is being asked to comment
on, and which is favoured by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, is called
the "third way".
This would involve reclassifying broadband so it went from
being a lightly regulated service to one with more vigorously
oversight.
The US is rated 15th in the world for
high speed internet access
|
In return for this tightening up, Mr Genachowski has proposed
the new classification would not regulate on how much people pay for
their broadband. It would also shy away from overseeing internet
content, services, applications or electronic commerce sites.
The other two options include leaving the existing regulatory
framework in place or imposing the full force of stricter regulations.
ISPs, such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon, prefer the
status quo and have come out against the "third way" proposal.
"This is impossible to justify on either a policy or legal
basis and we remain confident that if the FCC persists in its course -
and we truly hope it does not - the courts will surely overturn their
action," said Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president
for external and legislative affairs.
Verizon said the FCC's move was "a terrible idea".
By contrast, web giants such as Google and Amazon extol the
value of free-flowing web traffic and an open internet.
"Broadband infrastructure is too important to be left outside
of any oversight," said Richard Whitt, Google's telecom and media
counsel in a blog posting.
'To the death'
The political dynamics of the FCC board, two Republicans and
three Democrats, imply that the "third way" looks almost certain to be
the plan it adopts.
Some suspect this will provoke more lobbying and may draw
legal challenges.
"There is a very big fight brewing and it's the carriers
versus everybody else," said Erik Sherman, analyst with BNET.com, part
of CBS's digital business network.
The FCC has said broadband was "the
greatest infrastructure challenge"
|
"There is little doubt it's going to be a right data
Donnybrook and I am not sure the consumers are winners in any
circumstances. These companies are not fighting for the little guy.
They are fighting for themselves and higher profit margins."
That view was echoed by Public Knowledge, a Washington based
public advocacy group.
"It's a tough road ahead and the telcos are going to fight
this to the death," communications director Art Brodsky told BBC News.
"AT&T in the first quarter of this year spent $6m on
lobbying. That is one company. One quarter. Compare that to Google
which spent $4m in the whole of last year."
The Computer and Communications Industry Association said the
"third way" option is the only realistic option.
"Without deliberate FCC action, consumers, entrepreneurs,
small businesses and non-profits will be left completely powerless
against the corporate commercial interests of their unregulated
internet access providers," said Ed Black, association president.
'Misguided'
A research paper released ahead of the FCC vote warned that
net neutrality rules could cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the
USA .
The report argued that a 10% reduction in investment by
broadband providers would cost more than 500,000 jobs before 2015.
"These regulations severely restrict the ability of network
companies to manage their own network traffic, what technology and what
techniques they will use to get a robust service and will close off
important new business models in this new world we live in," Bret
Swanson, president of technology research firm Entropy Economics told
the BBC.
Fellow author Charles Davidson of the Advanced Communications
Law & Policy Institute at New York Law School said: "With the US
economy still in a fragile state, imposing restrictive regulation on
one of the country's most dynamic sectors is misguided."
FCC
claims power over Internet
providers; Moves closer to 'neutrality'
Washington Times
By Kara Rowland
Friday, May 7, 2010
The head of the Federal Communications Commission said the agency has
the power to impose new rules on Internet service providers in a move
that lays the groundwork for "net neutrality" - a politically
contentious proposal that bars providers from giving preference to some
of the content flowing over their networks.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski pitched his approach Thursday as a
middle ground that would "preserve the Internet as a powerful platform
for innovation, free speech and job creation." But the agency's two
Republicans said it goes well beyond the powers Congress has granted
the commission and will leave businesses confused.
"It is neither a light-touch approach, nor a third way. Instead, it is
a stark departure from the long-established bipartisan framework for
addressing broadband regulation that has led to billions in investment
and untold consumer opportunities," Republican Commissioners Robert M.
McDowell and Meredith A. Baker said in a joint statement.
Supporters of net neutrality said they hope Thursday's move is the
first step toward FCC regulation preventing Internet service providers
from slowing down certain types of Web applications.
Mr. Genachowski announced his plan weeks after the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia dealt the commission a huge
blow by tossing out an order against Comcast Corp. on the grounds that
the agency lacked the power to tell the cable firm how to manage its
Web traffic. Undermining a marquee priority of the Obama
administration's FCC, that ruling set off a political firestorm among
Democrats and left-leaning activists who argue that "rules of the road"
are necessary to prevent Internet service providers from prioritizing
access to certain Web applications over others.
Responding to the decision Thursday, Mr. Genachowski, one of three
Democrats on the five-member agency, said the commission should retool
the way it classifies Internet services under the major statute from
which it draws its authority. For years, the Internet has been
classified as an "information service" and largely unregulated, unlike
"common carrier" services, which - under rules dating back to the 1930s
- subject the telephone industry to an extensive regulatory scheme.
The new approach would shift Internet services under the mantle of
common carriers, but Mr. Genachowski said the commission would apply
only a handful of those provisions to network providers and renounce
its authority over the rest.
The decision added fuel to an already intense political fight, with
lawmakers dividing along party lines.
"I have argued that under existing law the commission can and should
find that it has the authority to write and enforce rules protecting
consumers, the open Internet, and competition in the transmission of
Internet communications through the wires and over the air. This change
of classification is a moderate, pragmatic step necessary to ensure
that the FCC can keep faith with its core mission," said Sen. John
Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat and head of the Senate Commerce, Science
and Transportation subcommittee on communications, technology and the
Internet.
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner called the move a
"government takeover of the Internet."
"The success of the Internet is a perfect example of what happens when
entrepreneurship and innovation are allowed to flourish, but todays
decision will undermine its success and hurt our economy," the Ohio
Republican said.
Businesses also are divided. While Internet giants like Google Inc. and
Amazon.com Inc. have been lobbying hard in favor of net neutrality
rules, service providers have vehemently opposed them.
"We believe that the chairmans stated approach is legally unsupported.
The regulatory and judicial proceedings that will ensue can only bring
confusion and delay to the important work of continuing to build the
nations broadband future," said Tom Tauke, executive vice president of
Verizon, which has been challenging cable companies with its high-speed
FiOS service.
At the other end of the spectrum, left-leaning media activists who have
long been calling for the FCC to intervene said Mr. Genachowski's
proposal would prevent Internet service providers from picking winners
and losers, as Comcast was accused of doing to users of BitTorrent, a
bandwidth-heavy file-sharing service.
Josh Silver, president of the nonprofit Free Press, lauded the
commission for "charting a path toward a sensible broadband policy
framework that will protect consumers and promote universal access."
Comcast,
FCC take net neutrality dispute to
court
YAHOO
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer
Fri Jan 8, 2010 3:50 am ET
WASHINGTON – The Federal Communications Commission staked out new
ground nearly three months ago when it began drafting rules that would
require Internet providers to give equal treatment to all data flowing
over their networks.
Now the FCC hopes to use a dispute with the nation's largest cable TV
and Internet provider to establish its legal authority to adopt such
"network neutrality" regulations. The rules would aim to prevent phone
and cable companies from abusing their control over the market for
high-speed Internet access.
A federal appeals court was holding oral arguments Friday in Comcast
Corp.'s challenge of the FCC's 2008 order banning the company from
blocking its broadband subscribers from using an online file-sharing
technology known as BitTorrent.
The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based
its order against Comcast on a set of net-neutrality principles it
adopted in 2005 to prevent broadband providers from favoring or
discriminating against certain types of Internet traffic. Those
principles have guided the FCC's enforcement of communications laws on
a case-by-case basis.
Formally adopting those guidelines as binding regulations is a top
priority for the FCC's new Democratic chairman, Julius Genachowski. The
agency voted in October to start writing those rules.
And now, with Comcast appealing the FCC order against it, one key
question that could come up in the courtroom is whether the commission
has legal authority to mandate network neutrality. A ruling by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, expected this
spring, could bolster the FCC proceeding if the agency prevails.
"Comcast and others have challenged the FCC's authority to take action
to protect consumers and ensure their access to a free and open
Internet," FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick said. "This case provides
the court of appeals an opportunity to reject those arguments and
confirm that the commission has the power it needs to accomplish those
goals."
The policy dispute over network neutrality has pitted some of the
country's leading Internet companies, including Internet search
provider Google Inc. and the Internet calling service Skype, against
the big phone and cable operators. The Internet companies say
that
without such rules, broadband providers could become online gatekeepers
and prioritize traffic for those who can pay extra, while degrading or
blocking cheaper Internet calling services or online video sites that
compete with their core businesses.
Indeed, BitTorrent, the online file-sharing technology blocked by
Comcast, can be used to transfer large files such as online video,
something that threatens Comcast's core cable TV business.
But broadband providers such as Comcast, AT&T Inc. and Verizon
Communications Inc. argue that after pouring billions of dollars into
their networks, they should be able to offer premium services to
differentiate themselves from competitors and earn a healthy return on
their investments. They also insist they need flexibility to
manage
their systems so high-bandwidth applications such as BitTorrent don't
hog too much capacity and slow down the network for everyone else.
For its part, Comcast wants to keep its challenge to the FCC order
narrow. It argues that the order is illegal because the agency was
seeking to enforce mere policy principles, which don't have the force
of regulations or law. As a result, the Philadelphia-based cable
company says, it never had clear rules to follow and was never given
fair notice of what conduct was prohibited. In fact, Comcast insists,
the FCC proceeding to adopt the 2005 principles as formal regulations
underscores its point.
Comcast also maintains that because that proceeding is still in the
early stages, it remains unclear whether the agency even has legal
authority to mandate net neutrality obligations. This larger question,
however, should be left for another day, Comcast says. Yet that
is
exactly the question that the FCC hopes the court will address. The
commission argues that a 2005 Supreme Court ruling upholding its move
to deregulate Internet service gives it the jurisdiction it needs.
The high court upheld the FCC's decision to define broadband as a
lightly regulated information service, which is not subject to the
obligations traditional telecommunications services have to share their
networks with competitors. But a 1996 federal telecommunications law
still gives the agency authority to set rules for information services
— including, the FCC now argues, net neutrality rules.
An appeals court ruling that accepts this argument would "strengthen
the agency's hand ... and provide validation" in its broader net
neutrality proceeding, said Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press,
a leading advocate for net neutrality rules. Free Press brought
Comcast's actions to the FCC's attention after The Associated Press ran
tests and reported that the cable company was interfering with attempts
by some subscribers to share files online. But even if the court
concludes that the FCC lacks authority to adopt such regulations, it
would not necessarily be a devastating setback — just a delay — for the
commission.
That's because Congress, with a number of key Democrats in support of
net neutrality, would likely step in to give the FCC the necessary
powers. Either way, Friday's oral arguments could provide a road
map.
After all, even if the court issues a very narrow ruling, the FCC's
upcoming net neutrality regulations are likely to face a court
challenge, too.
A different
view...here.
'Net neutrality' would slow the flow
Washington Times
Sen. John McCain
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Ronald Reagan once famously said, "Government's view of the economy
could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it
keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
It appears that the former president foresaw the fate of the Internet.
When the Internet first began to catch on with consumers as a new
marketplace for purchasing books, clothes and music, state and federal
legislators stepped in and attempted to tax Americans' Internet use.
Fortunately, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress came forward
and stopped taxation of Internet usage before it could start. But as
Internet use continued to grow, the government just couldn't resist not
regulating the greatest modern invention since the light bulb
(particularly once the ability to tax it was taken away.)
On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on whether
to regulate the historically open architecture and free flow of the
Internet. The commission will seek to impose "net neutrality" rules
that would rein in the network management practices of all Internet
service providers, including wireless phone companies.
These new rules should rightly be viewed by consumers suspiciously as
another government power grab over a private service provided by
private companies in a competitive marketplace. Does this sound
familiar? It should.
Earlier this year, the government moved to control much of the auto
industry and the banking industry, so it should come as no surprise
that the government now wishes to control the technology industry by
regulating its very core: the Internet.
This government take over of the Internet will stifle innovation, which
will in turn hinder job creation. The technology industry is the
fastest-growing job market behind the health care industry.
In fact, the high-tech industry added over 77,000 new jobs in 2008
while most industries cut jobs due to the difficult economic times.
Compare these 77,000 new (and generally high-paying) jobs to the 30,000
jobs the $787 billion, taxpayer-funded stimulus program has created or
"saved," according to a report released last week by the Recovery
Accountability and Transparency Board. Maybe a better stimulus package
for this 21st-century economy would be an administration decision to
keep the Internet free of government control and regulation.
However, the administration can't resist imposing regulations on the
Internet - particularly since Google Inc. and other Internet content
providers were promised the imposition of such regulations as these
companies seek to control what consumers see and don't see on the
Internet - despite the fact that these regulations will only serve to
hurt consumers.
Last year, almost 75 percent of all Americans went online, and 55
percent of all adult Americans have a high-speed Internet connection in
their home. All of these Internet users benefited from the "fundamental
architecture of openness" that is the Internet, according to the
chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
The light-touch regulatory approach toward the Internet that was put
forth by previous administrations has brought Americans social
networking, low-cost long-distance calling, texting, telemedicine and
over 85,000 almighty "apps" for the iPhone. It also brought us Twitter,
YouTube, Hulu, Kindle, the BlackBerry and the Palm. It allowed the
Internet to change our lives forever.
The wireless industry exploded over the past 20 years, in part due to
limited government regulation. Wireless carriers invested $100 billion
in infrastructure and development over the past three years, which has
led to faster networks, more competitors in the marketplace and lower
prices in the United States compared to any other country.
Meanwhile, wired telephones and networks have become a slow-dying breed
as they are mired in state and federal regulations, universal service
contribution requirements and limitations on use.
Regulation kills innovation. Let's not kill the Internet. An open and
unfettered Internet may be the real stimulus during these difficult
economic times, and it comes without a $787 billion price tag that is
passed along to taxpayers at a significant cost for future generations.
Hurdles remain as FCC ponders Internet data
rules
YAHOO
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer -
Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:57PM EDT
WASHINGTON -
With Democrats in charge in Washington, supporters of so-called "net
neutrality" rules seem poised to finally push through requirements that
high-speed Internet providers give equal treatment to all data flowing
over their networks.
These rules — at the heart of a five-year policy debate — are intended
to guarantee that Internet users can go to any Web site and access any
online service they want. Phone and cable companies, for instance,
wouldn't be able to block subscribers from using cheaper Internet
calling services or accessing online video sites that compete with
their core businesses. Yet
making that happen is proving thorny — and
it's likely that the courts and perhaps even Congress will ultimately
get involved.
The Federal Communications Commission is set to vote Thursday on a
proposal by the agency's chairman, Julius Genachowski, to begin
crafting regulations to prohibit broadband providers from favoring or
discriminating against Internet traffic. Although Genachowski has
the
support of the other two Democrats on the five-member commission, his
proposal has run into strong opposition from the large phone, cable and
wireless companies that provide the bulk of U.S. high-speed Internet
connections.
Broadband providers such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc.
and Comcast Corp. argue that after pouring billions of dollars into
their networks, they should be able to operate those networks as they
see fit. That includes offering premium services over their lines to
differentiate themselves from competitors and earn a healthy return on
their investments. Genachowski's proposal has also encountered
misgivings among Republicans on the FCC and in Congress, who fear
network neutrality rules could discourage broadband providers from
continuing to expand and upgrade their systems.
"The risk of regulation really inhibits investment," said Republican
Commissioner Robert McDowell. Noting the agency's estimated price tag
of up to $350 billion to bring broadband connections to all Americans,
he added: "How do we pay for all that?"
One thing everyone agrees on is that the FCC will have to sort through
some tricky issues as Genachowski's plan moves forward. One
question
is how much flexibility broadband providers should have to keep their
networks running smoothly by ensuring that high-bandwidth applications
such as YouTube videos don't hog too much capacity and impede other
traffic like e-mail and online searches. In other words, when does
legitimate network management cross the line to become discrimination?
Lawrence Spiwak, president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal
& Economic Policy Studies, a think tank that promotes free-market
approaches, fears the FCC could hurt small, rural carriers that face
higher costs to build out their systems. Without the ability to manage
traffic, he said, these companies could be forced to make expensive
network upgrades they cannot afford. The FCC also needs to sort
out
how the rules would apply to wireless systems, which have less
bandwidth capacity than wire-based networks and might have greater need
for traffic management. AT&T, the exclusive U.S. carrier for Apple
Inc.'s iPhone, already is running into capacity challenges given the
popularity of the gadget and its scores of bandwidth-consuming
applications.
"There could be unintended consequences of applying net neutrality to
wireless," said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of
regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry trade
group.
Genachowski's plan calls for the agency to formally adopt four
broadband principles that have guided the FCC's enforcement of
communications laws on a case-by-case basis. Those principles state
that network operators must allow subscribers to access all online
content, applications, services and devices as long as they are legal.
The FCC relied on those guidelines last year when it ordered Comcast to
stop blocking subscribers from using an online file-sharing service
called BitTorrent, which is used to transfer large files such as online
video. Comcast is challenging the FCC ruling in court.
Genachowski
also wants the FCC to adopt two more principles. One would make it
clear that broadband providers couldn't discriminate against particular
content or applications, either by blocking them completely or by
letting other traffic jump ahead in the queue. The other would require
providers to disclose network management practices.
He is also seeking to extend all six principles to wireless systems,
which have been largely unregulated.
Thursday's vote will launch a proceeding to draft rules based on those
principles and open them to public comment. The agency would likely
adopt formal regulations by next summer. Supporters of net
neutrality
regulations want to prevent broadband companies from becoming online
gatekeepers by abusing their control over Internet networks. They warn
that a startup like YouTube or Facebook might never have a shot if
broadband providers can prioritize their own online services or those
of business partners.
"If bandwidth is disproportionately consumed by those who can pay, it
would destroy the Internet as a level playing field," said Ben Scott,
policy director for the public interest group Free Press.
Colin Crowell, a senior counselor to Genachowski, described regulations
as "sensible rules of the road to preserve a free and open Internet,
which has been an economic and innovation engine for the nation."
But the service providers, along with many Republicans and even some
Democrats in Congress, say the FCC chairman has not shown a need for
more regulation given the few known examples of discrimination.
Besides Comcast's actions last year, the other major incident occurred
in 2005, when a small telecom company in North Carolina blocked
subscribers from accessing Vonage Holding Corp.'s Internet phone
service. The company reversed course after the FCC stepped in.
"The FCC has a responsibility to prove a market failure before
intervening in the market," said Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida, the top
Republican on the House subcommittee that oversees communications and
technology. "I don't think they have proven that."
McDowell, the Republican commissioner, argues that antitrust laws —
which aim to prevent companies from abusing their market power —
already provide a clear framework to handle such incidents.
Meanwhile, looming over the entire FCC proceeding are questions of
jurisdiction. In challenging the BitTorrent ruling, Comcast argued that
based on the FCC's deregulation of Internet service in 2002 — a move
the Supreme Court upheld three years later — the agency doesn't have
authority to mandate nondiscrimination rules.
A decision in the Comcast case is expected next year and if the court
rules in the company's favor, it could undermine the net neutrality
proceeding at the FCC — forcing the agency to reverse course on
deregulation or drawing Congress into the debate.
FCC chairman warns of `looming
spectrum
crisis'
YAHOO
By ELLIOT SPAGAT, AP Business Writer -
Wed Oct 7, 2009 4:01PM EDT
SAN DIEGO -
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission warns of a
"looming spectrum crisis" if the government fails to find new ways to
ensure there is enough bandwidth for mobile devices.
Julius Genachowski said at an industry conference Wednesday in San
Diego that the government is tripling the amount of spectrum available
to companies. The problem is that many experts predict wireless traffic
will increase 30 times, because of video and other bandwidth-heavy
applications.
The chairman called that gap between demand and supply "the biggest
threat" to mobile services. He announced plans for a far-reaching
review that addresses what to do about it.
The possibilities include reallocating existing spectrum that is now
used for other purposes, and encouraging development of new
technologies.
FCC begins probe of
Google Voice
YAHOO
Joelle Tessler ASSOCIATED PRESS
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Federal regulators will look into
complaints by AT&T Inc. that Google Inc.'s free messaging and
calling service, Google Voice, blocks calls to rural communities where
local phone companies charge high connection fees.
The Federal Communications
Commission on Friday sent a letter to Google requesting information
about its Voice service, which lets people sign up for one number that
can route incoming calls to cell, office or home phones. The service
also lets users place calls, including international calls, at low
rates.
As part of a broader quarrel with
Google, AT&T has complained that Google Voice blocks calls to phone
numbers in some rural communities to reduce the access charges it must
pay. So-called "common carrier" regulations prevent AT&T and other
big phone companies from blocking those same calls.
Google Voice "has claimed for itself
a significant advantage over providers offering competing services,"
AT&T said in a letter to the FCC last month. Those concerns were
echoed in a letter sent to the FCC this week by 20 members of Congress
who represent rural districts.
Among other things, the FCC is
asking Google to explain how its Voice service works, whether it blocks
calls to certain numbers and whether it informs users that it does so.
In a blog post Friday, Richard
Whitt, Google's Washington telecom and media counsel, explained that
Google Voice restricts calls to phone numbers held by companies that
"charge exorbitant termination rates for calls" and "partner with adult
sex chat lines and 'free' conference calling centers to drive high
volumes of traffic."
He said Google could not afford to
offer the service "if we paid these ludicrously high charges." Google
also maintains that its Voice service should not be subject to common
carrier laws because it is a free, Web-based software application, not
a replacement for traditional phone service.
AT&T's
complaint comes as the
FCC prepares to vote Oct. 22 on "network neutrality" rules that would
prohibit the big phone and cable companies from favoring or
discriminating against Internet traffic flowing over their broadband
networks.
That proposal has pitted Google and
other Internet companies that support net neutrality against the big
phone and cable companies, including AT&T, that want to be free of
restrictions on what they can do with their networks.
AT&T's complaint to the FCC on
Google Voice was an attempt to turn the tables on Google: AT&T
claimed that Google Voice flouts net neutrality principles by blocking
certain calling traffic.
But in his blog post on Friday,
Google's Mr. Whitt said that "despite AT&T's lobbying efforts, this
issue has nothing to do with network neutrality or rural America."
This is not the first time the FCC
has looked at Google Voice. The agency has been investigating why Apple
Inc. does not allow a Google Voice application to run on the iPhone -
which is carried exclusively in the U.S. by AT&T.
That inquiry is ongoing, but it did
prompt AT&T to reveal that under its agreement with Apple, Apple
cannot enable any Internet calling applications that use AT&T's 3G
network without AT&T's permission. AT&T reversed course on that
rule this week.
I-BBC
Page last
updated at 15:20 GMT, Monday, 21 September 2009 16:20 UK
Ethernet cable
US proposes net
neutrality rules
The US has proposed new rules that would
require internet firms to respect the principle of "network neutrality".
The head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said
that "all web traffic should be treated equally".
The new rules are intended to prevent firms throttling
bandwidth-sapping web traffic such as streaming video.
Networks
on both sides of the Atlantic have long argued for a two-tier system,
where those that can pay are given priority over those that cannot.
"There
are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than
preserving and maintaining an open and robust internet," FCC chairman
Julius Genachowski said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a
Washington think tank.
"It is vital that the internet continue to be an engine of
innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement."
It is the first time that the Chairman has spoken out on the
issue since being appointed in June.
'Extraordinary platform'
He proposed two new rules to guide the FCC's approach to
network neutrality.
The
first would prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from
discriminating against bandwidth-intensive web-content and applications
by slowing or blocking it.
"They cannot block or degrade lawful
traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favouring some content
or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes,"
he said.
"Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it
competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider."
The second would mean that ISPs would have to be more
transparent about how they manage network traffic.
The
two new rules join four previous guiding principles of the FCC, which
state that all consumers must be able to access "lawful" content,
applications, and services, and attach non-harmful devices to the
network.
"I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving
a free and open internet," Mr Genachowski said.
"This
is not about government regulation of the internet," he added. "It's
about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the
internet."
President Barack Obama backed the concept of network
neutrality in the presidential race. It also has the support of large
companies such as Google, eBay and Amazon.
However,
telecommunications firms on both sides of the Atlantic argue that
carrying high-bandwidth content, such as video, puts an extra burden on
their networks and costs them money.
They argue the cost should, in part, be borne by the websites
or the consumers.
The new rules will be formally proposed at a meeting in
October.
FCC
chairman proposes `open Internet' rules
YAHOO
By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer
Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:14AM EDT
NEW YORK -
Wireless carriers shouldn't be allowed to block certain types of
Internet traffic flowing over their networks, the chairman of the
Federal Communications Commission chairman said Monday in a speech that
figures to provoke a fight with the industry.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said wireless carriers should be
subject to the same "open Internet" rules that the agency has begun to
apply to home broadband providers.
It's unclear how the rules would apply in practice to wireless data.
For instance, carriers officially restrict how Internet-access cards
for laptops are used, but rarely enforce the rules. The government also
has been investigating Apple Inc.'s approval process for iPhone
applications, but Genachowski isn't directly addressing manufacturers'
right to determine which applications run on their phones.
Essentially, Genachowski wants to codify the principles the FCC has
already been applying to wired Internet traffic — and extend them to
wireless.
Last year, the agency sanctioned Comcast Corp. for secretly hampering
file-sharing traffic by its cable-modem subscribers. In making that
ruling, the agency relied on broad "principles" of open Internet access
that hadn't previously been put to the test. The cable company filed
suit, saying the FCC didn't have the authority to tell it how to run
its network. The case is still in federal appeals court.
The chairman is now proposing to make it a formal rule that Internet
carriers cannot discriminate against certain types of traffic by
degrading service. That expands on the principle that they cannot
"block" traffic, as articulated in a 2005 policy statement.
Internet service providers, both wired and wireless, are struggling
with the question of how to distribute network capacity among their
subscribers. Heavy users can easily overwhelm cellular toward and
neighborhood cable circuits, slowing traffic for everyone. Wireless
carriers are also likely to object to new regulation by pointing out
that their industry is intensely competitive.
At the same time, consumer advocates and Web companies like Google Inc.
want to safeguard what has been an underlying "Net Neutrality"
assumption of the Internet: that all traffic is treated equally by the
network. If the carriers can degrade or block traffic, they become the
gatekeepers of the Internet, able to shut out innovation, these critics
say.
Comcast has already changed its system to one that does not look at
what types of traffic subscribers are using. Instead, it throttles back
the speed of heavy users if there is congestion on the network.
However, there are other companies that might fall afoul of the new
principle. Cox Communications, another cable company, has been testing
a system that slows traffic that it deems less time-sensitive, like
file downloads and software updates, to keep Web pages, streaming video
and online games working faster.
In his speech Monday in Washington, which was broadcast on the
Internet, the FCC chairman also proposed to make it a formal rule that
Internet service providers have to tell customers about how they manage
traffic to handle congestion. Some companies might be managing traffic
in subtle ways without notifying customers.
Do you think
Panasonic laying off 15,000 workers and closing more than a dozen
plants had something to do with this?
House Votes to Delay Switch to
Digital Television
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:29 p.m. ET
February 4, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress voted Wednesday to give consumers four more
months to prepare for the upcoming transition from analog to digital
television broadcasting.
The House voted 264-158 to postpone the shutdown of analog TV signals
to June 12, to address growing concerns that too many Americans won't
be ready in time for the Feb. 17 deadline that Congress had set three
years ago. The Senate passed the measure unanimously last week and the
bill now heads to President Barack Obama for his signature.
The delay is a victory for the Obama administration and Democrats in
Congress, who maintain that the previous administration mismanaged
efforts to ensure that all consumers -- particularly poor, rural and
minority Americans -- will be prepared for the switchover.
The Nielsen Co. estimates that more than 6.5 million U.S. households
that rely on analog TV sets to pick up over-the-air broadcast signals
still are not ready. People who subscribe to cable or satellite TV or
have a newer TV with a digital tuner will not be affected.
"The passage of this bipartisan legislation means that millions of
Americans will have the time they need to prepare for the conversion,"
the White House said in a statement. "We will continue to work with
Congress to improve the information and assistance available to
American consumers in advance of June 12, especially those in the most
vulnerable communities."
Wednesday's vote came one week after House Republicans blocked the bill
when it was in a special fast-track vote that required two-thirds
support to pass. This time, the bill passed the House under a regular
floor vote, which only requires a simple majority.
Broadband Link to U.S. Jobs Exaggerated:
Experts
NYTIMES
By REUTERS
Filed at 4:13 p.m. ET
January 30, 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A co-author of a widely cited forecast that
nearly 300,000 U.S. jobs would be created for every percentage point
rise in high-speed Internet use said on Friday these and similar
estimates are "a gross overestimate."
"There is a great deal of overstatement in most of these studies," said
Robert Crandall, a Brookings Institution economist and co-author of the
frequently-cited paper with that estimate.
U.S. lawmakers are proposing grants between $6 billion to $9 billion
and tax credits to encourage investment in high- speed Internet, as
part of an economic stimulus plan winding its way through Congress
costing up to $900 billion. The 300,000 jobs estimate has been
used in
newspapers and cited by other publications advocating investment in
high-speed Internet, or broadband.
The Brookings Institution study, published in July 2007, is not
particularly relevant now because of differing employment and related
migration trends at the time of the study, Crandall said.
Attempting
to extrapolate it nationwide at this time is a "gross overstatement,"
he said.
Most the data on jobs and broadband is not relevant because it doesn't
apply to underserved, mostly rural and high cost areas targeted in the
stimulus package, said Shane Greenstein, a professor at Northwestern
University's Kellogg School of Management.
"The experience of Manhattan in 2005 has no relationship to the
experience in West Texas," Greenstein said.
Chris King, an investment analyst at Stifel Nicolaus said the proposals
targeting unserved rural areas are not enough to propel rural providers
to invest in any event, largely because they do not address ongoing
operating costs.
"We believe the current plans are unlikely to stimulate private sector
investment in unserved areas," King said.
King, concurring with several Wall Street analysts, said tax credits
for ultra-fast Internet speeds for underserved areas would likely only
benefit Verizon Communications Inc and perhaps some cable companies.
To see the Brookings study, go to: http://www3.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/06labor_crandall/06labor_crandall.pdf
FCC set to reconsider broadband regulations
YAHOO
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer
17 June 2010
WASHINGTON – Federal regulators are reconsidering the rules that govern
high-speed Internet connections - wading into a bitter policy dispute
that could be tied up in court for years.
The Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote Thursday to
begin taking public comments on three different paths for regulating
broadband. That includes a proposal by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski,
a Democrat, to define broadband access as a telecommunications service
subject to "common carrier" obligations to treat all traffic equally.
Genachowski's proposal is a response to a federal appeals court ruling
that has cast doubt on the agency's authority over broadband under its
existing regulatory framework.
The plan has the backing of many big Internet companies, which say it
would ensure the FCC can prevent phone and cable companies from using
their control over broadband connections to determine what subscribers
can do online.
"There is a real urgency to this because right now there are no rules
of the road to protect consumers from even the most egregious
discriminatory behavior by telephone and cable companies," said Markham
Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition. The
group's members include Google Inc., eBay Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and
online calling service Skype Ltd.
But Genachowski's plan faces stiff resistance from the broadband
providers themselves, including AT&T Inc. and Verizon
Communications Inc. They say it opens the door to onerous and outdated
regulations that would discourage them from upgrading their networks.
"This FCC proposal could call into question the business assumptions
underlying multibillion-dollar broadband investments," said Howard
Waltzman, a former Republican staffer on the House Commerce Committee
who is now representing telephone companies as a partner with Mayer
Brown LLP.
Many Republicans and even some Democrats on Capitol Hill - as well as
the two Republicans on the five-member FCC - oppose Genachowski's plan.
At least one House Republican, Rep. John Culberson of Texas, has
proposed blocking funding for the FCC if it pursues the plan.
The FCC currently defines broadband as a lightly regulated information
service. But in April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia ruled that this approach does not give the commission the
authority it needs to adopt so-called "network neutrality" mandates,
which would bar broadband providers from favoring or discriminating
against traffic traveling over their networks.
Supporters of network neutrality say such rules are necessary to
prevent phone and cable companies from blocking or degrading online
calling services, Internet video and other applications that compete
with their core businesses.
Indeed, the recent appeals court decision grew out of a challenge by
Comcast Corp. to a 2008 FCC order directing the cable company to stop
blocking subscribers from accessing an online file-sharing service.
Comcast and other broadband providers insist they need flexibility to
manage their networks and ensure that certain applications don't hog
too much bandwidth.
The court ruling also undermines the FCC's ability to act on several
key recommendations in its national broadband plan - another top
priority for Genachowski - including a proposal to expand high-speed
Internet access by tapping the federal program that subsidizes phone
service in poor and rural areas.
Genachowski says his new regulatory framework would allow the FCC to
move ahead on both fronts by placing broadband connections firmly
within the agency's jurisdiction as a telecommunications service. At
the same time, he has pledged to impose only narrow telecom rules on
broadband providers, avoiding burdensome mandates such as rate
regulations and network-sharing obligations. He has also stressed that
his approach would not impose regulations on Internet content and
services.
In outlining his proposal last month, Genachowski called it a "third
way" that respects "investment and innovation" and protects consumers
and Internet competition.
Thursday's vote will launch a proceeding to examine:
-Genachowski's proposal;
-the implications of leaving the existing regulatory frawework in place;
-and the implications of imposing the full array of traditional
telecommunications regulations on broadband providers.
If the FCC ultimately adopts Genachowski's plan, it will almost
certainly draw legal challenges from phone and cable companies that
fear any shift away from the current deregulatory approach adopted
under the Bush administration. That approach was upheld by the Supreme
Court in 2005 and a battle over any attempt to overturn it could go all
the way back to the high court.
Obama
to Select Genachowski to Lead
F.C.C.
NYTIMES
By Stephen Labaton
January 13, 2009, 8:59 am
President-elect Barack Obama intends to nominate Julius Genachowski ,
an adviser on technology issues and longtime friend, to become the next
chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, advisers to Mr.
Obama said.
Mr. Genachowski, 46, was a major fund-raiser for the Obama campaign who
also played a leading role in the campaign’s highly successful online
strategy. He remains very close to Mr. Obama—both men went to Columbia
College and Harvard Law School and the two served together on the
Harvard Law Review. They also were basketball buddies.
During the campaign, Mr. Genachowski shaped many of Mr. Obama’s telecom
policies. He advocated an open Internet in the debate over so-called
“net neutrality,’’ and media-ownership rules that promote a diversity
of voices on the airwaves.
People involved in the transition said that Mr. Genachowski was a top
candidate for both the chairmanship and a new White House position
overseeing technology issues that has not been fully defined yet.
If confirmed, one of his first challenges at the commission will be
what to do about the problems plaguing the conversion to digital
television. The Obama transition team has asked Congress to delay the
conversion, set for Feb. 17, because millions of viewers have been
unable to obtain coupons to pay for converter boxes that would enable
their sets to receive signals once all broadcasters lose their analog
signal. (The conversion will not affect viewers who subscribe to cable
or satellite television services.)
The chairmanship of the F.C.C. has played a more expansive role in
regulating the economy, particularly with the rise of the Internet and
wireless communications over the last 20 years. Now, as the new
administration plans to make the expansion of broadband and Internet
services a significant part of its stimulus package, Mr. Genachowski,
with his close ties to Mr. Obama, could wind up with an even bigger
role than his predecessors in shaping economic policy.
After graduating from law school, Mr. Genachowski clerked for federal
appeals court judge Abner J. Mikva after Mr. Obama turned down the same
job. Mr. Genachowski then clerked for Supreme Court Justice David H.
Souter. He was chief counsel to Reed Hundt, a chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission, during the Clinton administration. He then
worked for eight years as a senior executive at Barry Diller’s
IAC/Interactive Corporation. He also founded an investment and advisory
firm for digital media companies and co-founded the country’s first
commercial “green’’ bank.
Mr.
Obama’s Internet Agenda
NYTIMES Editorial
December 16, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama recently announced an ambitious plan to
build up the nation’s Internet infrastructure as part of his proposed
economic stimulus package. Upgrading the Internet is a particularly
smart kind of stimulus, one that would spread knowledge, promote
entrepreneurship and make this country more competitive globally.
The United States has long been the world leader in technology, but
when it comes to the Internet, it is fast falling behind. America now
ranks 15th in the world in access to high-speed Internet connections. A
cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s agenda is promoting universal, affordable
high-speed Internet.
Mr. Obama, who had notable success with online fund-raising and voter
turnout, spoke during the presidential campaign about the
transformative power of the Internet to improve Americans’ quality of
life. He argued that it could, among other things, reduce health care
costs, create jobs and make it easier for citizens to participate in
government decision-making.
In a speech this month about his economic stimulus plan, he said that
he intends to ensure that every child has a chance to get online and
that he would use some of the stimulus money to connect libraries and
schools. It is a critical goal. Children trapped on the wrong side of
the digital divide are deprived of a fair chance to educate themselves
and to compete for high-skill, high-paying jobs.
Mr. Obama has also been a strong supporter of “network neutrality,” the
principle that Internet service providers should not be able to
discriminate against any of the information that they carry. Net
neutrality laws are necessary to ensure that Internet service providers
do not block content they disagree with or give financial breaks to big
tech companies, squeezing out smaller competitors and stifling
innovation.
Mr. Obama will need to work with Congress — and fight against corporate
lobbyists — to accomplish some of his goals. Some he can achieve on his
own. With the right appointments to the Federal Communications
Commission, he should be able to get good net neutrality regulations.
“This is the Eisenhower Interstate highway moment for the Internet,”
argues Ben Scott, policy director of the media reform group Free Press.
Restoring America to its role as the world’s Internet leader could be
an important part of Mr. Obama’s presidential legacy.
Free
Broadband Plan Stirs Debate on Filtering
NYTIMES
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:23 p.m. ET
December 14, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) -- M2Z Networks' proposal to build a free wireless
broadband network is not the only controversial part of its business
plan. Just as contentious is its intention to filter the content
delivered over that network to block any material deemed inappropriate
for children.
Free-speech advocates on the left and right have expressed alarm at
M2Z's plans to build a family-friendly network that would weed out
objectionable sites by blocking particular Internet domain names.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin took up that
idea in his proposal to auction off a chunk of spectrum that would be
used in part to deliver a basic broadband service over the nation's
airwaves. It would ultimately be up to the FCC to decide exactly how
any filtering mandate would work, including whether the filters would
be located on the network or on user devices.
M2Z co-founder John Muleta says any company that offers a free
broadband service that is available to everyone must figure out how to
protect children from illegal and unlawful material -- much as
television networks must do with over-the-air TV broadcasts.
Yet this component of M2Z's plan has stirred a long-running debate
about who should determine what constitutes ''appropriate'' content and
about how effective content filters truly are. Critics say filters
often make mistakes and block legitimate sites, including resources
about health and sexual education.
John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy &
Technology, believes Martin's content-filtering rule would be
unconstitutional because it would violate the First Amendment rights of
people whose Web sites are blocked, and because parents already have
access to a range of online tools to control what their children see on
the Internet.
Indeed, the latter argument was one point cited by the Supreme Court in
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, a landmark 1997 ruling that
struck down a federal law regulating explicit material on the Internet.
To address these concerns, Martin's spectrum proposal would require the
winning bidder to allow adults to opt out of content filtering.
But this raises a different problem, according to Berin Szoka, a fellow
at the Progress & Freedom Foundation. That's because one benefit of
a broadband service open to all is that it offers the potential for
anonymity. The only way to allow adults to opt out of content
filtering, however, would be to have users authenticate themselves,
Szoka said. And that, he said, would sacrifice anonymity.
Casting
a Wider Net
NYTIMES
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: June 25, 2008
Several leading lights of the Internet world believe that access to
broadband is a civil right, like water, roads and sewage treatment, and
have renewed their call for making such access a national priority. To
further their goal, they have introduced a Web site,
internetforeveryone.org.
They banded together Tuesday in New York to make their pitch to the
media, saying that broadband access is so essential — to education,
commerce and public discourse — that it is no longer a luxury but a
necessity.
They want to raise awareness of the digital divide so that every home
and business in America has access to high-speed Internet and they want
to encourage competition among providers so that the price goes down.
The cause of universal Internet access is, of course, an old one, and
over the last decade it has stirred little response among the powers
that be. While it has languished, the United States has fallen further
behind the rest of the world in making broadband available. Since 2001,
the country has slipped from having the 4th highest percentage of homes
with broadband per capita in the world to 15th.
Much of this has to do with the increasing price of broadband in the
United States, where customers pay an average of $636 a year for a
subscription.
Americans pay among the highest prices for some of the slowest speeds,
and only about half the country is wired. The average broadband
offering in Japan is 10 times faster than the average service available
to Americans and at half the cost.
The telecommunications companies have resisted going into rural areas
with small population densities and difficult terrains, according to a
federal GAO report two years ago. They also point to the lack of
“anchor” points around which to build broadband infrastructures, like a
large government agency or health-care facility. In some cases, local
municipalities have tried setting up their own wireless Internet access
in areas not served by the big providers.
The advocates of internetforeveryone.org, who spoke Tuesday at the
fifth annual Personal Democracy Forum, which was examining the
intersection of technology and politics, included: Jonathan Adelstein,
a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission; David All,
co-founder of Slatecard.com and TechRepublican.com; Brad Burnham, a
partner with Union Square Ventures; Vint Cerf, chief technology
“evangelist” for Google; Robin Chase, chief executive officer of Meadow
Networks and the co-founder of Zipcar; Van Jones, president of Green
For All; Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Stanford; Josh Silver,
executive director of Free Press; Michael Winship, president of the
Writers Guild of America-East; Timothy Wu, a law professor at Columbia,
and Jonathan Zittrain, a professor at Harvard Law School.
While they backed the cause, it was not clear what further action they
might take to advance it.
Mr. Silver said that the group did not want to push any particular
piece of legislation at this point but instead wanted to build
political and popular will around four basic principles: providing
every home and business in America with access to a high-speed,
world-class communications infrastructure; ensuring that people have an
array of choices in their broadband providers; fostering openness so
that consumers can practice free speech and commerce when online, and
promoting innovation so the Internet can create jobs and foster
economic growth.
He said the group planned to hold four public forums across the country
to gather information from consumers about what they want in a national
broadband policy. (No dates have been scheduled, but they will be
announced on internetforeveryone.org.)
Mr. Adelstein of the F.C.C. expressed some frustration with the lack of
movement by the government.
“It’s clear what we’re doing in Washington isn’t working,” he said,
noting that he had a stack of proposals on his desk for a national
broadband policy. “What we’re lacking is the leadership to implement
them,” he said. “We need coordination.”
He added that the F.C.C. hasn’t made “any effort to involve the
public,” and that the majority of the commission doesn’t think a
national policy is necessary. The commission is, however, considering
freeing up a portion of the wireless spectrum to be used for free
wireless services.
Mr. Lessig, of Stanford, who serves as a technology advisor to the
presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama, said it was no
coincidence that the sluggish level of broadband penetration in the
United States, relative to the rest of the world, had occurred during
the Bush administration.
“The attitude of the last eight years has been, ‘let the private sector
take care of this, we don’t have any obligation to do anything,’” Mr.
Lessig said in an interview. “It was a hands-off attitude by the
government, and the consequence has been, as predicted 10 years ago,
radical increase in concentration over access to this essential
infrastructure, and as concentration has gone up, price has gone up and
quality has gone down.”
He added: “The existing companies that have the most power in Congress
— telecomm being the most powerful — have a natural antipathy to types
of government policy that would be necessary to build out and support
the Internet.”
Internetforeveryone’s plan is to rally sufficient support among a broad
range of interest, then perhaps seek legislation.
“This is a movement-building step,” Mr. Lessig said. “Once we have an
administration that’s committed to doing it, then we can talk about the
details.”
Here are some interesting factoids, supplied by
internetforeveryone.org, about the digital divide:
• Not surprisingly, broadband access correlates closely with income: 82
percent of homes with household income over $75,000 are wired; only 19
percent of those with incomes below $15,000 have broadband.
• While rural Americans have equal access to telephone service and
television, they do not have equal access to broadband. Nearly 20
million people live in rural areas that are not served by a single
broadband provider.
• Of households in rural areas, 39 percent have broadband; in cities,
54 percent have broadband.
• The most-wired ethnic group in the United States is Asians (69
percent of households have broadband). Whites (non-Hispanics) are next,
with 55 percent of households wired; next are blacks (36 percent);
Hispanics (35 percent) and American Indians (30 percent).
• Broadband access in the United States is more expensive than in 21
other countries. The average monthly subscription in the United States
is $53.06; Finland pays the least ($31.18).
• Broadband download speeds in the United States are slower than in 13
other countries (8.9 mbps, compared with 93.7 in Japan, the fastest).
Coalition
seeks federal nudge for broadband
DAY
Published on 6/25/2008
New York (AP) - One of the Internet's founding fathers and a
commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission joined forces
Tuesday in renewing calls for the U.S. government to more actively
expand broadband service.
They and other members of a new coalition promised hearings across the
country and set up a Web site at InternetForEveryone.org to outline
principles such as universal access and competition to ensure lower
prices and faster Internet connection speeds.
But the group offered few specifics, including any proposed
legislation. Josh Silver, executive director of the Free Press advocacy
group, said that given the complexities of broadband policy, the new
coalition was focusing on raising awareness and establishing ideas for
the next administration to consider.
The United States lags behind South Korea and other nations in
high-speed Internet access despite being the Internet's birthplace. In
many rural areas, broadband services aren't available at all or come
from a sole provider.
Vint Cerf, a Google Inc. executive who had co-developed the Internet's
core communications protocols in the 1970s, said a nudge from the
government would be crucial because the Internet's benefits are so
broad.
Jonathan Adelstein, one of two Democrats on the five-member FCC, said
the coalition was hoping to mobilize the public to force his fellow
policy makers to act.
Otherwise, he said, many Americans would be denied opportunities to
remotely attend classes at a distant universities, or access resources
at larger libraries and museums. Doctors wouldn't be able to confer
with specialists over the Internet, and employees wouldn't be able to
save energy by telecommuting.
Other members of the coalition include leading Internet scholars
Lawrence Lessig and Jonathan Zittrain; Michael Winship, president of
the Writers Guild of America-East, which recently battled Hollywood
over online rights; and Robin Chase, co-founder of the Zipcar
automobile-rental service.
Charging
by the Byte to Curb Internet
Traffic
NYTIMES
By BRIAN STELTER
Published: June 15, 2008
Some people use the Internet simply to check e-mail and look up phone
numbers. Others are online all day, downloading big video and music
files.
For years, both kinds of Web surfers have paid the same price for
access. But now three of the country’s largest Internet service
providers are threatening to clamp down on their most active
subscribers by placing monthly limits on their online activity.
One of them, Time Warner Cable, began a trial of “Internet metering” in
one Texas city early this month, asking customers to select a monthly
plan and pay surcharges when they exceed their bandwidth limit. The
idea is that people who use the network more heavily should pay more,
the way they do for water, electricity, or, in many cases, cellphone
minutes.
That same week, Comcast said that it would expand on a strategy it uses
to manage Internet traffic: slowing down the connections of the
heaviest users, so-called bandwidth hogs, at peak times.
AT&T also said Thursday that limits on heavy use were inevitable
and that it was considering pricing based on data volume. “Based on
current trends, total bandwidth in the AT&T network will increase
by four times over the next three years,” the company said in a
statement.
All three companies say that placing caps on broadband use will ensure
fair access for all users.
Internet metering is a throwback to the days of dial-up service, but at
a time when video and interactive games are becoming popular, the
experiments could have huge implications for the future of the Web.
Millions of people are moving online to watch movies and television
shows, play multiplayer video games and talk over videoconference with
family and friends. And media companies are trying to get people to
spend more time online: the Disneys and NBCs of the world keep adding
television shows and movies to their Web sites, giving consumers
convenient entertainment that soaks up a lot of bandwidth.
Moreover, companies with physical storefronts, like Blockbuster, are
moving toward digital delivery of entertainment. And new distributors
of online content — think YouTube — are relying on an open data spigot
to make their business plans work.
Critics of the bandwidth limits say that metering and capping network
use could hold back the inevitable convergence of television, computers
and the Internet.
The Internet “is how we deliver our shows,” said Jim Louderback, chief
executive of Revision3, a three-year-old media company that runs what
it calls a television network on the Web. “If all of a sudden our
viewers are worried about some sort of a broadband cap, they may think
twice about downloading or watching our shows.”
Even if the caps are far above the average users’ consumption, their
mere existence could cause users to reduce their time online. Just ask
people who carefully monitor their monthly allotments of cellphone
minutes and text messages.
“As soon as you put serious uncertainty as to cost on the table,
people’s feeling of freedom to predict cost dries up and so does
innovation and trying new applications,” Vint Cerf, the chief Internet
evangelist for Google who is often called the “father of the Internet,”
said in an e-mail message.
But the companies imposing the caps say that their actions are only
fair. People who use more network capacity should pay more, Time Warner
argues. And Comcast says that people who use too much — like those who
engage in file-sharing — should be forced to slow down.
Time Warner also frames the issue in financial terms: the broadband
infrastructure needs to be improved, it says, and maybe metering could
pay for the upgrades. So far its trial is limited to new subscribers in
Beaumont, Tex., a city of roughly 110,000.
In that trial, new customers can buy plans with a 5-gigabyte cap, a
20-gigabyte cap or a 40-gigabyte cap. Prices for those plans range from
$30 to $50. Above the cap, customers pay $1 a gigabyte. Plans with
higher caps come with faster service.
“Average customers are way below the caps,” said Kevin Leddy, executive
vice president for advanced technology at Time Warner Cable. “These
caps give them years’ worth of growth before they’d ever pay any
surcharges.”
Casual Internet users who merely send e-mail messages, check movie
times and read the news are not likely to exceed the caps. But people
who watch television shows on Hulu.com, rent movies on iTunes or play
the multiplayer game Halo on Xbox may start to exceed the limits — and
millions of people are already doing those things.
Streaming an hour of video on Hulu, which shows programs like “Saturday
Night Live,” “Family Guy” and “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,”
consumes about 200 megabytes, or one-fifth of a gigabyte. A
higher-quality hour of the same content bought through Apple’s iTunes
store can use about 500 megabytes, or half a gigabyte.
A high-definition episode of “Survivor” on CBS.com can use up to a
gigabyte, and a DVD-quality movie through Netflix’s new online service
can eat up about five gigabytes. One Netflix download alone, in fact,
could bring a user to the limit on the cheapest plan in Time Warner’s
trial in Beaumont.
Even services like Skype and Vonage that use the Internet to transmit
phone calls could help put users over the monthly limits.
Time Warner would not reveal how many gigabytes an average customer
uses, saying only that 95 percent of customers use under 40 gigabytes
each in a month.
That means that 5 percent of customers use more than 50 percent of the
network’s overall capacity, the company said, and many of those people
are assumed to be sharing copyrighted video and music files illegally.
The Time Warner plan has the potential to bring Internet use full
circle, back to the days when pay-as-you-go pricing held back the Web’s
popularity. In the early days of dial-up access, America Online and
other providers offered tiered pricing, in part because audio and video
were barely viable online. Consumers feared going over their allotted
time and bristled at the idea that access to cyberspace was billed by
the hour.
In 1996, when AOL started offering unlimited access plans, Internet use
took off and the online world started moving to the center of people’s
daily lives. Today most Internet packages provide a seemingly unlimited
amount of capacity, at least from the consumer’s perspective.
But like water and electricity, even digital resources are finite. Last
year Comcast disclosed that it was temporarily turning off the
connections of customers who used file-sharing services like
BitTorrent, arguing that they were slowing things down for everyone
else. The people who got cut off complained and asked how much
broadband use was too much; the company did not have a ready answer.
Thus, like Time Warner, Comcast is considering a form of Internet
metering that would apply to all online activity.
The goal, says Mitch Bowling, a senior vice president at Comcast, is
“ensuring that a small number of users don’t impact the experience for
everyone else.”
Last year Comcast was sued when it was disclosed that the company had
singled out BitTorrent users.
In February, Comcast departed from that approach and started
collaborating with the company that runs BitTorrent. Now it has shifted
to what it calls a “platform agnostic” approach to managing its
network, meaning that it slows down the connection of any customer who
uses too much bandwidth at congested times.
Mr. Bowling said that “typical Internet usage” would not be affected.
But on the Internet, “typical” use is constantly being redefined.
“The definitions of low and high usage today are meaningless, because
the Internet’s going to grow, and nothing’s going to stop that,” said
Eric Klinker, the chief technology officer of BitTorrent.
As the technology company Cisco put it in a recent report, “today’s
‘bandwidth hog’ is tomorrow’s average user.”
One result of these experiments is a tug-of-war between the Internet
providers and media companies, which are monitoring the Time Warner
experiment with trepidation.
“We hate it,” said a senior executive at a major media company, who
requested anonymity because his company, like all broadcasters, must
play nice with the same cable operators that are imposing the limits.
Now that some television shows are viewed millions of times online, the
executive said, any impediment would hurt the advertising model for
online video streaming.
Mr. Leddy of Time Warner said that the media companies’ fears were
overblown. If the company were to try to stop Web video, “we would not
succeed,” he said. “We know how much capacity they’re going to need in
the future, and we know what it’s going to cost. And today’s business
model doesn’t pay for it very well.”
Coming down from the cloud?
Pay TV industry loses
record number of
subscribers
YAHOO
By PETER SVENSSON - AP Technology Writer
10 August 2011
NEW YORK (AP) — The weak economy is hitting Americans where they spend
a lot of their free time: at the TV set. They're canceling cable
and satellite TV subscriptions in record numbers, according to an
analysis by The Associated Press of the companies' quarterly earnings
reports. The U.S. subscription-TV industry first showed a small
net loss of subscribers a year ago. This year, that trickle has turned
into a stream. The chief cause appears to be persistently high
unemployment and a housing market that has many people living with
their parents, reducing the need for a separate cable bill.
But it's also possible that people are canceling cable in favor of
cheap Internet video. Such a threat has been hanging over the industry.
If that's the case, viewers can expect more restrictions on online
video, as TV companies and Hollywood studios try to make sure that they
get paid for what they produce.
In a tally by the AP, eight of the nine largest subscription-TV
providers in the U.S. lost 195,700 subscribers in the April-to-June
quarter. That's the first quarterly loss for the group, which
serves about 70 percent of households. The loss amounts to 0.2 percent
of their 83.2 million video subscribers.
The group includes four of the five biggest cable companies, which have
been losing subscribers for years. It also includes phone companies
Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. and satellite
broadcasters DirecTV Group Inc. and Dish Network Corp. These four have
been poaching customers from cable, making up for cable-company losses
— until now.
The phone companies kept adding subscribers in the second quarter, but
DirecTV and Dish combined lost them, a first for the U.S. satellite TV
industry.
The AP's tally excludes Cox Communications, the third-largest cable
company, and a bevy of smaller cable companies. Cox is privately held
and does not disclose subscriber numbers.
Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett estimates that the
subscription-TV industry, including the untallied cable companies, lost
380,000 subscribers in the quarter. That's about one out of every 300
U.S. households, and more than twice the losses in the second quarter
of last year. Ian Olgeirson at SNL Kagan puts the number even higher,
at 425,000 to 450,000 lost subscribers.
The second quarter is always the year's worst for cable and satellite
companies, as students cancel service at the end of the spring
semester. Last year, growth came back in the fourth quarter. But
looking back over the past 12 months, the industry is still down, by
Moffett's estimate. That's also a first.
The subscription-TV industry is no longer buoyed by its first flush of
growth, so the people who cancel because they're unemployed are
outweighing the very small number of newcomers who've never had cable
or satellite before. Dish CEO Joe Clayton told analysts on a conference
call Tuesday that the industry is "increasingly saturated."
But like other industry executives, Clayton sees renewed growth around
the corner. Though his company saw the biggest increase in subscriber
flight compared with a year ago, he blamed much of that on a strategic
pullback in advertising, which will be reversed before the end of the
year.
Other executives gave few indications that the industry has hit a wall.
For most of the big companies, the slowdown is slight, hardly
noticeable except when looking across all of them. Nor do they believe
Internet video is what's causing people to leave. Glenn Britt,
the CEO of Time Warner Cable Inc. said the effect of Internet video on
the number of cable subscribers is "very, very modest," in fact, so
small that it's hard to measure.
SNL Kagan's Olgeirson said the people canceling subscriptions behind,
or never signing up, are an elusive group, difficult to count. Yet he
believes the trend is real, and he calls it the "elephant in the room"
for the industry.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that young, educated people who aren't
interested in live programs such as sports are finding it easier to go
without cable. Video-streaming sites like Netflix.com and Hulu.com are
helping, as they run many popular TV shows for free, sometimes the day
after they air on television. In June, The Nielsen Co. said it
found that Americans who watch the most video online tend to watch less
TV. The ratings agency said it started noticing last fall that a
segment of consumers were starting to make a trade-off between online
video and regular TV. The activity was more pronounced among people
ages 18-34.
Olgeirson expects programmers to keep tightening access to shows and
movies online. A few years ago, Olgeirson said, "they threw open the
doors," figuring they'd make money from ads accompanying online video
besides traditional sources such as the fees they charge cable
companies to carry their channels. But if looks as if online video
might endanger revenue from cable, which is still far larger, they'll
pull back.
"Are they really going to jeopardize that? The answer is no," Olgeirson
said.
Already, News Corp.'s Fox broadcasting company is delaying reruns on
Hulu by a week unless the viewer pays a $8-a-month subscription for
Hulu Plus or subscribes to Dish's satellite TV service. Other
subscription-TV providers may join in the future. TV producers and
distributors want to discourage people from dropping their
subscriptions. Moffett believes it's hard to separate the effect
of the economy from that of Internet video. Subscription-TV providers
keep raising rates because content providers such as Hollywood studios
and sports leagues demand ever higher prices. That's causing a
collision with the economic realities of American households.
"Rising prices for pay TV, coupled with growing availability of lower
cost alternatives, add to a toxic mix at a time when disposable income
isn't growing," Moffett said.
Cable
Prices Keep Rising; Customers
Keep Paying
NYTIMES
By MATT RICHTEL
Published: May 24, 2008
Americans discouraged by higher gas prices and airline fares may decide
to spend more vacation time at home, perhaps watching television.
But
that, too, will cost them more than ever.
Cable prices have risen 77 percent since 1996, roughly double the rate
of inflation, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported this month.
Cable customers, who typically pay at least $60 a month, watch only a
fraction of what they pay for — on average, a mere 13 percent of the
118 channels available to them. And the number of subscribers keeps
growing.
The resiliency of cable is all the more remarkable because the Internet
was supposed to change all things digital. Technology has led to more
choices and lower prices for news and music as well as cellphone and
landline minutes — not to mention computers, cameras, music players and
phones themselves.
Yet here is a rare instance where Silicon Valley has failed to break a
traditional media juggernaut. And not for lack of trying.
Technology companies keep insisting they will provide new low-cost ways
to get video into the home, but so far their efforts have created more
black boxes to stash under the TV, not real competition for cable that
could bring prices down.
“A couple of years ago, there was a thesis that we were at the twilight
of Comcast as the gatekeeper,” said Craig Moffett, a cable industry
analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company. “That thesis still
titillates some. But technologically and economically, it’s probably
not going to happen.”
So why hasn’t technology had a bigger impact? One answer is the
alliance between cable companies and Hollywood producers of content to
sell channels in bundles, rather than letting consumers pay only for
the channels they want.
The producers of cable television content share $15 billion to $20
billion a year in fees from cable subscribers, roughly equal to the $20
billion they receive in advertising revenue, Mr. Moffett said.
Without those fees, the cable companies say, prices would go up.
“If each channel depended on individual consumers electing to pay
individually for it, this would slash potential viewership and
seriously hurt the ability of most channels to attract their current
level of advertising dollars,” said Jenni Moyer, a spokeswoman for
Comcast. “Lost ad revenue would have to be replaced by higher license
fees.”
The industry says the digital era has brought its customers better
image quality, more on-demand services and solid value through packages
that combine cable, phone and Internet service. It also says consumers
are actually getting more viewing value for their dollar, at least
relative to inflation. The National Cable & Telecommunications
Association says that from 1998 to 2006, the price consumers paid for
each viewing hour was essentially flat.
The chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission, Gregory
S. Crawford, disagrees, saying the industry is not factoring in the
real cost of the programming that subscribers are watching. By his
analysis, the increase has been around 50 percent from 1997 to 2005.
The F.C.C. and some politicians have been in a pitched battled with the
cable industry, trying to get it voluntarily to offer so-called
à la
carte pricing. But cable companies insist that this is not economically
feasible.
Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the F.C.C., said in an interview that
since 1996, when Congress increased competition in telecommunications,
prices have dropped for many other services.
“We’ve seen the opposite occur in the cable industry,” he said. “The
dramatic increases in pricing we’ve seen are one of the most troubling
issues from a consumer point of view.”
In 2007, average monthly revenue for each Cablevision subscriber was
$75, up from $65 in 2005, according to SNL Kagan, a research company.
At Time Warner it was $64, up from $54.50.
The cable industry has never felt the pricing pressures the music
industry is feeling. The most obvious reason is that Internet speeds
have not been fast enough to permit easy downloading of movies and
other video material.
That is changing, though. People are viewing millions of videos online
each month — albeit mostly short video clips, and not Hollywood movies.
At the same time, the use of file-sharing tools like BitTorrent to
download illegally popular movies and television shows is growing.
Another factor helping the cable industry is the difficulty of
getting video from the computer onto the TV. That may not be a
deterrent for those who have grown accustomed to watching movies on
their laptop. But the last thing many consumers want to do is hook up
wires or program a new box before sitting back to relax and watch TV.
In that sense, the lure of cable appears to have a sociological
component. In a stress-filled life, cable television is easy to use.
“I work eight hours a day facing a computer. When I come home, the last
thing I want to do is mess with another computer,” said Eric Yu, 24, a
college student in San Francisco who pays around $80 a month for cable.
Mr. Yu said he watches only a handful of channels, including some in
high definition like National Geographic. But to get them, he has to
pay for a premium package. “I just pay the bill and try to forget about
it,” he said. “It lessens the pain.”
Evelyn Tan, 22, a friend of Mr. Yu, takes a different approach. She
pays Comcast $33 a month for Internet access and does not get cable
television — but she does watch TV programming.
In fact, she watches ABC shows like “Desperate Housewives” and “Gray’s
Anatomy,” which are free on the Web. When she wants to watch shows or
movies that are not readily available online, she says she easily
pirates them. “I would not pay for cable TV at all,” she said.
Broadcast networks like ABC, NBC and Fox are starting to put their
programming on the Internet. But most cable channels do not because
they depend on subscriber revenue.
Albert Cheng, executive vice president for digital media at the
Disney-ABC Television Group, said the industry was trying to prepare
for an era in which more video is watched on computers.
“It wasn’t lost on us what happened to the music industry,” Mr. Cheng
said. Even though the audience is growing for ABC shows online, he
said, this is supplementing, rather than undercutting, the television
audience.
Enter Silicon Valley. It is trying to marry the content people want
with their preferred setting for viewing it. There is a host of new
set-top boxes and consumer devices aimed at bringing video and other
content from the Internet to the TV.
Apple’s iTunes store offers 20,000 episodes of some 800 shows at
typically $1.99 or $2.99 an episode, effectively creating an à
la carte
option. But consumers must either watch on their computers, wire the
computer to the television or get an Apple TV.
This week Roku, a Silicon Valley start-up, began selling a $99 box that
streams movies from Netflix straight to the TV. And this summer
Hewlett-Packard is expected to introduce a device called the MediaSmart
Connect, a sleek box connecting computer and TV that lets users watch
Internet videos as well as rent or buy some 6,000 movies through
CinemaNow, an H.P. partner.
But the box will also demonstrate how much of a gap still separates the
computer screen and the TV screen.
Carlos Montalvo, vice president for marketing of connected
entertainment at H.P., said the MediaSmart Connect and similar devices
would not offer much of the programming provided over cable, or even
programming that content companies allow to be delivered over the
Internet to computers. The reason, he said, is that this content is
licensed to be shown only on a computer, not delivered via computer to
a TV.
“Simply because the technology is there doesn’t mean that the large
opus of content — both television and movies — that is available on the
two-foot screen can move automatically to the large-screen TV,” he
said.
Rell, Blumenthal push to
assure Internet privacy
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Brian Lockhart, Staff Writer
Published December 29 2007
Gov. M. Jodi Rell and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal want to make
Internet privacy a priority in the 2008 legislative session.
The officials are proposing separate initiatives they hope will protect
residents' personal information from being posted online for anyone
with computer access. Rell announced she wants to create a
registry residents could join to remove some or all of their private
information from Internet search sites, credit card solicitations and
direct mail lists.
The registry would be modeled on the state's Do Not Call List,
established in 2001 for residents seeking to limit unwanted telephone
solicitations.
"Anyone who goes to white-pages.com or 411.com will find personal
information published that many people may want protected," Rell said
in a statement. "With a few clicks of the keyboard, anyone can find the
age and gender of a person, where they live, where they work,
birthdates and other identifying information. This is a safety and
security issue - particularly for our elderly citizens who too often
are targeted by scam artists."
Sites such as whitepages.com also provide links to sponsors who, for a
fee, conduct more exhaustive searches, such as reunion.com and
ussearch.com.
Rell said she was prompted to make the proposal in response to several
complaints from concerned constituents. State Sen. Andrew
McDonald, D-Stamford, whose Judiciary Committee is likely to view any
proposal, said it is worth considering but questioned whether Rell's
goal is realistic. Web sites typically obtain personal data from
public documents, he said.
"Voter registration cards have a lot of this information," McDonald
said. "This presents some challenging legal hurdles that I'm not
certain the governor has researched or resolved."
Rell spokesman Christopher Cooper acknowledged that the governor has
asked the Department of Consumer Protection to research her proposal
and has not secured a legal opinion.
"We're exploring this," he said. "There are a lot of public documents
where that information always would be available."
Cooper said Rell is concerned that Internet companies may combine the
information to create a one-stop profile.
"I think the real key thing is giving the individual some control over
the kind of information out there about themselves," he said.
McDonald said he also wonders how Connecticut could legislate the
activities of Internet sites managed in other states.
University of Connecticut professor David Atkin, who has a background
in communication technology and its impact on society, gave Rell credit
for making Internet privacy a priority.
"I think probably (residents') hair would curl if they did see how much
is out there," Atkin said. But he also questioned how far Connecticut
could go to protect residents in the computer age.
"I don't know if it's a bit quixotic - like sticking a finger in a
rising floodgate," Atkin said.
He said Rell's proposal could face some First Amendment hurdles because
she is looking to restrict Internet access to public information.
Blumenthal agreed.
"There would have to be a great deal of care and attention to detail in
this proposal," he said. Rell's plan is "vague on exactly what
information she has in mind or how she would prevent it from being
distributed and who would be prevented (from distributing it),"
Blumenthal said.
He proposed allowing residents to join a registry to ban the tracking
of their visits to Internet sites.
"There are means that are used to note sites people visit, where they
make purchases and where they get information to see their spending
habits and other characteristics. Marketers very much prize that
information," Blumenthal said. "It is as if someone followed you from
one store to another in the mall and then compiled that information and
sold it without your consent."
He said his proposal, modeled on one used in Canada, will face far
fewer legal hurdles than Rell's.
"It's not absolutely black and white, but one involves use of public
information and the other involves creation of information as a result
of shadowing or tracking someone on the Internet," Blumenthal said.
"Tracking, following or monitoring someone without their consent raises
many fewer free speech issues, if any."
Atkin said he hopes the proposals raise public awareness about issues
pertaining to personal privacy and the Internet.
"Although concerns like 'identity theft' are now beginning to attract
attention in the media, my sense is that the public is generally
unaware of the extent to which their movements - financial and
otherwise - are tracked in cyberspace and in the larger information
society," Atkin said. "People need to be more militant about
questioning private as well as public operatives about the need to
record personal information from one's driver's license, etc. as part
of any routine transaction."
Comcast
blocks some Internet traffic
By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer
October 19, 2007
NEW YORK - Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of
its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that
runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic
equally.
The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through
nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data
discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company
computers masquerading as those of its users.
If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would
be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella
file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of
copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is
emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.
The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by
proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations.
Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans,
now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential
treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.
Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive
way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from
swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of
other subscribers.
Comcast, the nation's largest cable TV operator and No. 2 Internet
provider, would not specifically address the practice, but spokesman
Charlie Douglas confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep
Net connections running smoothly.
"Comcast does not block access to any applications, including
BitTorrent," he said.
Douglas would not specify what the company means by "access" — Comcast
subscribers can download BitTorrent files without hindrance. Only
uploads of complete files are blocked or delayed by the company, as
indicated by AP tests.
But with "peer-to-peer" technology, users exchange files with each
other, and one person's upload is another's download. That means
Comcast's blocking of certain uploads has repercussions in the global
network of file sharers.
Comcast's technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one
BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user.
Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes
from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither
message originated from the other computer — it comes from Comcast. If
it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator
breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the
other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."
Matthew Elvey, a Comcast subscriber in the San Francisco area who has
noticed BitTorrent uploads being stifled, acknowledged that the company
has the right to manage its network, but disapproves of the method,
saying it appears to be deceptive.
"There's the wrong way of going about that and the right way," said
Elvey, who is a computer consultant.
Comcast's interference affects all types of content, meaning that, for
instance, an independent movie producer who wanted to distribute his
work using BitTorrent and his Comcast connection could find that
difficult or impossible — as would someone pirating music.
Internet service providers have long complained about the vast amounts
of traffic generated by a small number of subscribers who are avid
users of file-sharing programs. Peer-to-peer applications account for
between 50 percent and 90 percent of overall Internet traffic,
according to a survey this year by ipoque GmbH, a German vendor of
traffic-management equipment.
"We have a responsibility to manage our network to ensure all our
customers have the best broadband experience possible," Douglas said.
"This means we use the latest technologies to manage our network to
provide a quality experience for all Comcast subscribers."
The practice of managing the flow of Internet data is known as "traffic
shaping," and is already widespread among Internet service providers.
It usually involves slowing down some forms of traffic, like
file-sharing, while giving others priority. Other ISPs have attempted
to block some file-sharing application by so-called "port filtering,"
but that method is easily circumvented and now largely ineffective.
Comcast's approach to traffic shaping is different because of the
drastic effect it has on one type of traffic — in some cases blocking
it rather than slowing it down — and the method used, which is
difficult to circumvent and involves the company falsifying network
traffic.
The "Net Neutrality" debate erupted in 2005, when AT&T Inc.
suggested it would like to charge some Web companies more for
preferential treatment of their traffic. Consumer advocates and Web
heavyweights like Google Inc. and Amazon Inc. cried foul, saying it's a
bedrock principle of the Internet that all traffic be treated equally.
To get its acquisition of BellSouth Corp. approved by the Federal
Communications Commission, AT&T agreed in late 2006 not to
implement such plans or prioritize traffic based on its origin for two
and a half years. However, it did not make any commitments not to
prioritize traffic based on its type, which is what Comcast is doing.
The FCC's stance on traffic shaping is not clear. A 2005 policy
statement says that "consumers are entitled to run applications and
services of their choice," but that principle is "subject to reasonable
network management." Spokeswoman Mary Diamond would not elaborate.
Free Press, a Washington-based public interest group that advocates Net
Neutrality, opposes the kind of filtering applied by Comcast.
"We don't believe that any Internet provider should be able to
discriminate, block or impair their consumers ability to send or
receive legal content over the Internet," said Free Press spokeswoman
Jen Howard.
Paul "Tony" Watson, a network security engineer at Google Inc. who has
previously studied ways hackers could disrupt Internet traffic in
manner similar to the method Comcast is using, said the cable company
was probably acting within its legal rights.
"It's their network and they can do what they want," said Watson. "My
concern is the precedent. In the past, when people got an ISP
connection, they were getting a connection to the Internet. The only
determination was price and bandwidth. Now they're going to have to
make much more complicated decisions such as price, bandwidth, and what
services I can get over the Internet."
Several companies have sprung up that rely on peer-to-peer technology,
including BitTorrent Inc., founded by the creator of the BitTorrent
software (which exists in several versions freely distributed by
different groups and companies).
Ashwin Navin, the company's president and co-founder, confirmed that it
has noticed interference from Comcast, in addition to some Canadian
Internet service providers.
"They're using sophisticated technology to degrade service, which
probably costs them a lot of money. It would be better to see them use
that money to improve service," Navin said, noting that BitTorrent and
other peer-to-peer applications are a major reason consumers sign up
for broadband.
BitTorrent Inc. announced Oct. 9 that it was teaming up with online
video companies to use its technology to distribute legal content.
Other companies that rely on peer-to-peer technology, and could be
affected if Comcast decides to expand the range of applications it
filters, include Internet TV service Joost, eBay Inc.'s Skype
video-conferencing program and movie download appliance Vudu. There is
no sign that Comcast is hampering those services.
Comcast subscriber Robb Topolski, a former software quality engineer at
Intel Corp., started noticing the interference when trying to upload
with file-sharing programs Gnutella and eDonkey early this year.
In August, Topolski began to see reports on Internet forum
DSLreports.com from other Comcast users with the same problem. He now
believes that his home town of Hillsboro, Ore., was a test market for
the technology that was later widely applied in other Comcast service
areas.
Topolski agrees that Comcast has a right to manage its network and slow
down traffic that affects other subscribers, but disapproves of their
method.
"By Comcast not acknowledging that they do this at all, there's no way
to report any problems with it," Topolski said.
Dodd To Block Bill That Would Protect
Telecoms; Senator Says AT&T, Others Are
Complicit In Spying Programs
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 10/19/2007
Sen. Chris Dodd announced Thursday that he will block a Senate bill
aimed at reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, saying he
is concerned that the measure grants immunity to telecommunications
companies that participated in a federal warrantless-surveillance
program.
Dodd, a Democrat of Connecticut and a candidate for the party's
presidential nomination, made the announcement just hours after the
leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee reportedly reached a deal
with the Bush administration on the bill. The compromise would
shield
telecom companies from civil liability for their participation in
administration surveillance programs on the grounds that they believed
them to be legal. Critics of the warrantless surveillance, including
Dodd, have questioned the program's legality.
“The president has no right to secretly eavesdrop on the conversations
and activities of law-abiding American citizens, and anyone who has
aided and abetted him in these illegal activities should be held
accountable,” Dodd said Thursday in a written statement. “It is
unconscionable that such a basic right has been violated, and that the
president is the perpetrator.
“I will do everything in my power to stop Congress from shielding this
president's agenda of secrecy, deception and blatant unlawfulness.”
Dodd announced his intention to block the FISA reform using a power
afforded to individual senators, and often used in secret: the
placement of a “hold” that blocks a full Senate vote on a bill until it
is lifted. The senator alerted Majority Leader Harry Reid,
D-Nev., of
his decision in writing on Thursday, his office said, even as the
Intelligence Committee prepared to begin a markup of the FISA bill. The
bill must clear both the Intelligence and Judiciary committees before
reaching the Senate floor.
The move set off another constitutional showdown between President
Bush, who has threatened to veto any bill that does not include
liability protection for the telecom industry, and Democratic lawmakers
who are concerned that the administration's surveillance practices
erode civil liberties. Rather than wait until the measure hit the
floor, as is customary, Dodd went on the offense and sent personal
e-mails announcing his intention to thwart the bill — despite support
for the measure from his own party.
By blocking the bill, Dodd said he was making good on his promise to
restore constitutional safeguards he believes have been eroded since
Bush took office. Dodd's hold may not even be necessary to stop
the
bill, as Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, also criticized the compromise with the White House Thursday.
Discussing the FISA reforms during confirmation hearings for Michael
Mukasey, Bush's nominee for attorney general, Leahy said that “the
Intelligence Committee is about to cave on this,” The Hill newspaper
reported.
The administration's leaders knew their surveillance programs were
“illegal conduct,” the paper quoted Leahy as saying, “and that there is
no saving grace for the president to say, 'Well, I was acting with
authority.' Otherwise there wouldn't be so much pressure on us to
immunize illegal conduct by either people acting within our government
or within the private industry.”
Top Republicans predicted that the telecom industry would ultimately
win legal protection from lawsuits for helping the administration track
terrorists.
“I predict Congress will give them immunity,” said Rep. Lamar Smith,
R-Texas, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, which has
oversight over the bill in that chamber. The telecommunications
industry should be applauded for helping intelligence agencies protect
the country, Smith said.
But Dodd won instant praise from civil liberties groups, which have
alleged in federal courts around the country that AT&T, Verizon and
other telephone companies violated the privacy rights of customers by
participating in the surveillance program without a court warrant from
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required by law.
Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy-rights group
based in San Francisco, and the American Civil Liberties Union say the
telecom giants illegally participated in the president's
warrantless-eavesdropping program at the expense of the public's
constitutional rights.
“Senator Dodd is clearly on the right side of this issue,” said
Caroline Fredrickson, executive director of the ACLU's Washington
legislative office. “It would be wrong for the Senate to legalize
warrantless surveillance of Americans on American soil. It would be
wrong for the Senate to let administration officials off the hook for
illegally spying on Americans. It would be wrong for the U.S. Senate to
let telecom companies off the hook for selling private information to
the government.”
Information
superhighway indeed!
More like "power play?"
Agency urges caution on net neutrality
Associated Press
June 27, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday urged
policymakers to proceed cautiously on any regulation of high-speed
Internet traffic.
The agency issued a report addressing the controversial subject of
network neutrality, which is the notion that all online traffic should
be treated equally by Internet service providers.
The issue pits consumer groups and content providers such as Google
Inc. against large telecommunications companies, such as AT&T Inc.
and Comcast Corp. The latter group wants the option of charging
customers more for transmitting certain content, including live video,
faster or more reliably than other data.
FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras said that without evidence of
"market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be
particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area." The
Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice have
jurisdiction over high-speed Internet access, while Congress has
considered legislation that would mandate network neutrality.
The agency also said that certain practices that would discriminate
among Internet traffic, such as prioritizing some data or providing
exclusive deals to content providers, "can benefit consumers."
CAUCASUS MILITARY
ATTACK AND THE ATTACK OF THE BOTNET BEGINS...OTHER
MILITARY
THREATS; SPAM AT FIRST THEN IT GETS
POLITICAL; Crooks.
The types of Internet attack, according to I-BBC report: Denial
of service, hacking, espionage (China) and online
financial fraud (Brazil). Some compromised locations (click
here).
How about "Anonymous?"
Report
published in NYTIMES "OP-ED" June 3, 2012 by the United States attorney
for the Southern District of New York.
Definitely worth reading!
“The attacks have changed
from espionage to destruction...”
Chinese Hackers Resume Attacks on U.S. Targets
By DAVID E. SANGER and NICOLE PERLROTH, NYTIMES
May 19, 2013
WASHINGTON — Three months after hackers working for a cyberunit of
China’s People’s Liberation Army went silent amid evidence that they
had stolen data from scores of American companies and government
agencies, they appear to have resumed their attacks using
different techniques, according to computer industry security experts
and American officials.
The Obama administration had bet that “naming and shaming” the groups,
first in industry reports and then in the Pentagon’s own detailed
survey of Chinese military capabilities, might prompt China’s new
leadership to crack down on the military’s highly organized team of
hackers — or at least urge them to become more subtle.
But Unit 61398, whose well-guarded 12-story white headquarters on the
edges of Shanghai became the symbol of Chinese cyberpower, is back in
business, according to American officials and security companies.
It is not clear precisely who has been affected by the latest attacks.
Mandiant, a private security company that helps companies and
government agencies defend themselves from hackers, said the attacks
had resumed but would not identify the targets, citing agreements with
its clients. But it did say the victims were many of the same ones the
unit had attacked before.
The hackers were behind scores of thefts of intellectual property and
government documents over the past five years, according to a report by
Mandiant in February that was confirmed by American officials. They
have stolen product blueprints, manufacturing plans, clinical trial
results, pricing documents, negotiation strategies and other
proprietary information from more than 100 of Mandiant’s clients,
predominantly in the United States.
According to security experts, the cyberunit was responsible for a 2009
attack on the Coca-Cola Company that coincided with its failed attempt
to acquire the China Huiyuan Juice Group. In 2011, it attacked RSA, a
maker of data security products used by American government agencies
and defense contractors, and used the information it collected from
that attack to break into the computer systems of Lockheed Martin, the
aerospace contractor.
More recently, security experts said, the group took aim at companies
with access to the nation’s power grid. Last September, it broke into
the Canadian arm of Telvent, now Schneider Electric, which keeps
detailed blueprints on more than half the oil and gas pipelines in
North America.
Representatives of Coca-Cola and Schneider Electric did not return
requests for comment on Sunday. A Lockheed Martin spokesman said the
company declined to comment.
In interviews, Obama administration officials said they were not
surprised by the resumption of the hacking activity. One senior
official said Friday that “this is something we are going to have to
come back at time and again with the Chinese leadership,” who, he said,
“have to be convinced there is a real cost to this kind of activity.”
Mandiant said that the Chinese hackers had stopped their attacks after
they were exposed in February and removed their spying tools from the
organizations they had infiltrated. But over the past two months, they
have gradually begun attacking the same victims from new servers and
have reinserted many of the tools that enable them to seek out data
without detection. They are now operating at 60 percent to 70 percent
of the level they were working at before, according to a study by
Mandiant requested by The New York Times.
The Times hired Mandiant to investigate an attack that originated in
China on its news operations last fall. Mandiant is not currently
working for The New York Times Company.
Mandiant’s findings match those of Crowdstrike, another security
company that has also been tracking the group. Adam Meyers, director of
intelligence at Crowdstrike, said that apart from a few minor changes
in tactics, it was “business as usual” for the Chinese hackers.
The subject of Chinese attacks is expected to be a central issue in an
upcoming visit to China by President Obama’s national security adviser,
Thomas Donilon, who has said that dealing with China’s actions in
cyberspace is now moving to the center of the complex security and
economic relationship between the two countries.
But hopes for progress on the issue are limited. When the Pentagon
released its report this month officially identifying the Chinese
military as the source of years of attacks, the Chinese Foreign
Ministry denied the accusation, and People’s Daily, which reflects the
views of the Communist Party, called the United States “the real
‘hacking empire,’ ” saying it “has continued to strengthen its network
tools for political subversion against other countries.” Other Chinese
organizations and scholars cited American and Israeli cyberattacks on
Iran’s nuclear facilities as evidence of American hypocrisy.
At the White House, Caitlin Hayden, the spokeswoman for the National
Security Council, said Sunday that “what we have been seeking from
China is for it to investigate our concerns and to start a dialogue
with us on cyberissues.” She noted that China “agreed last month to
start a new working group,” and that the administration hoped to win
“longer-term changes in China’s behavior, including by working together
to establish norms against the theft of trade secrets and confidential
business information.”
In a report to be issued Wednesday, a private task force led by Mr.
Obama’s former director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, and
his former ambassador to China, Jon M. Huntsman Jr., lays out a series
of proposed executive actions and Congressional legislation intended to
raise the stakes for China.
“Jawboning alone won’t work,” Mr. Blair said Saturday. “Something has
to change China’s calculus.”
The exposure of Unit 61398’s actions, which have long been well known
to American intelligence agencies, did not accomplish that task.
One day after Mandiant and the United States government revealed the
P.L.A. unit as the culprit behind hundreds of attacks on agencies and
companies, the unit began a haphazard cleanup operation, Mandiant said.
Attack tools were unplugged from victims’ systems. Command and control
servers went silent. And of the 3,000 technical indicators Mandiant
identified in its initial report, only a sliver kept operating. Some of
the unit’s most visible operatives, hackers with names like “DOTA,”
“SuperHard” and “UglyGorilla,” disappeared, as cybersleuths scoured the
Internet for clues to their real identities.
In the case of UglyGorilla, Web sleuths found digital evidence that
linked him to a Chinese national named Wang Dong, who kept a blog about
his experience as a P.L.A. hacker from 2006 to 2009, in which he
lamented his low pay, long hours and instant ramen meals.
But in the weeks that followed, the group picked up where it had left
off. From its Shanghai headquarters, the unit’s hackers set up new
beachheads from compromised computers all over the world, many of them
small Internet service providers and mom-and-pop shops whose owners do
not realize that by failing to rigorously apply software patches for
known threats, they are enabling state-sponsored espionage.
“They dialed it back for a little while, though other groups that also
wear uniforms didn’t even bother to do that,” Kevin Mandia, the chief
executive of Mandiant, said in an interview on Friday. “I think you
have to view this as the new normal.”
The hackers now use the same malicious software they used to break into
the same organizations in the past, only with minor modifications to
the code.
While American officials and corporate executives say they are trying
to persuade President Xi Jinping’s government that a pattern of theft
by the P.L.A. will damage China’s growth prospects — and the
willingness of companies to invest in China — their longer-term concern
is that China may be trying to establish a new set of rules for
Internet commerce, with more censorship and fewer penalties for the
theft of intellectual property.
Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google, said Friday that while there was
evidence that inside China many citizens are using the Web to pressure
the government to clean up industrial hazards or to complain about
corruption, “so far there is no positive data on China’s dealings with
the rest of the world” on cyberissues.
Google largely pulled out of China after repeated attacks on its
systems in 2009 and 2010, and now has its Chinese operations in Hong
Kong. But it remains, Mr. Schmidt said, a constant target for Chinese
cyberattackers.
David E. Sanger reported from
Washington, and Nicole Perlroth from San Francisco.
Cyberattacks Seem Meant to Destroy, Not
Just Disrupt
By NICOLE PERLROTH and DAVID E. SANGER, NYTIMES
March 28, 2013
American Express customers trying to gain access to their online
accounts Thursday were met with blank screens or an ominous ancient
type face. The company confirmed that its Web site had come under
attack.
The assault, which took American Express offline for two hours, was the
latest in an intensifying campaign of unusually powerful attacks on
American financial institutions that began last September and have
taken dozens of them offline intermittently, costing millions of
dollars.
JPMorgan Chase was taken offline by a similar attack this month. And
last week, a separate, aggressive attack incapacitated 32,000 computers
at South Korea’s banks and television networks.
The culprits of these attacks, officials and experts say, appear intent
on disabling financial transactions and operations.
Corporate leaders have long feared online attacks aimed at financial
fraud or economic espionage, but now a new threat has taken hold:
attackers, possibly with state backing, who seem bent on destruction.
“The attacks have changed from espionage to destruction,” said Alan
Paller, director of research at the SANS Institute, a cybersecurity
training organization. “Nations are actively testing how far they can
go before we will respond.”
Security experts who studied the attacks said that it was part of the
same campaign that took down the Web sites of JPMorgan Chase, Wells
Fargo, Bank of America and others over the last six months. A group
that calls itself the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters has claimed
responsibility for those attacks.
The group says it is retaliating for an anti-Islamic video posted on
YouTube last fall. But American intelligence officials and industry
investigators say they believe the group is a convenient cover for
Iran. Just how tight the connection is — or whether the group is acting
on direct orders from the Iranian government — is unclear. Government
officials and bank executives have failed to produce a smoking gun.
North Korea is considered the most likely source of the attacks on
South Korea, though investigators are struggling to follow the digital
trail, a process that could take months. The North Korean government of
Kim Jong-un has openly declared that it is seeking online targets in
its neighbor to the south to exact economic damage.
Representatives of American Express confirmed that the company was
under attack Thursday, but said that there was no evidence that
customer data had been compromised. A representative of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation did not respond to a request for comment on the
American Express attack.
Spokesmen for JPMorgan Chase said they would not talk about the recent
attack there, its origins or its consequences. JPMorgan has openly
acknowledged previous denial of service attacks. But the size and
severity of the most recent one apparently led it to reconsider.
The Obama administration has publicly urged companies to be more
transparent about attacks, but often security experts and lawyers give
the opposite advice.
The largest contingent of instigators of attacks in the private sector,
government officials and researchers say, remains Chinese hackers
intent on stealing corporate secrets.
The American and South Korean attacks underscore a growing fear that
the two countries most worrisome to banks, oil producers and
governments may be Iran and North Korea, not because of their skill but
because of their brazenness. Neither country is considered a superstar
in this area. The appeal of digital weapons is similar to that of
nuclear capability: it is a way for an outgunned, outfinanced nation to
even the playing field. “These countries are pursuing cyberweapons the
same way they are pursuing nuclear weapons,” said James A. Lewis, a
computer security expert at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies in Washington. “It’s primitive; it’s not top of the line, but
it’s good enough and they are committed to getting it.”
American officials are currently weighing their response options, but
the issues involved are complex. At a meeting of banking executives,
regulators and representatives from the departments of Homeland
Security and Treasury last December, some pressed the United States to
hit back at the hackers, while others argued that doing so would only
lead to more aggressive attacks, according to two people who attended
the meeting.
The difficulty of deterring such attacks was also the focus of a White
House meeting this month with Mr. Obama and business leaders, including
the chief executives Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase; Brian T. Moynihan
of Bank of America; Rex W. Tillerson of Exxon Mobil; Randall L.
Stephenson of AT&T and others.
Mr. Obama’s goal was to erode the business community’s intense
opposition to federal legislation that would give the government
oversight of how companies protect “critical infrastructure,” like
banking systems and energy and cellphone networks. That opposition
killed a bill last year, prompting Mr. Obama to sign an executive order
promoting increased information-sharing with businesses.
“But I think we heard a new tone at this latest meeting,” an Obama aide
said later. “Six months of unrelenting attacks have changed some views.”
Mr. Lewis, the computer security expert, agreed. “The Iranian attacks
have tilted private sector opinion,” he said. “Hence the muted reaction
to the executive order versus squeals of outrage. Companies are much
more concerned about this and much more willing to see a government
role.”
Neither Iran nor North Korea has shown anywhere near the subtlety and
technique in online offensive skills that the United States and Israel
demonstrated with Olympic Games, the ostensible effort to disable
Iran’s nuclear enrichment plants with an online weapon that
destabilized hundreds of centrifuges, destroying many of them. But
after descriptions of that operation became public in the summer of
2010, Iran announced the creation of its own Cyber Corps.
North Korea has had hackers for years, some of whom are believed to be
operating from, or through, China. Neither North Korea nor Iran is as
focused on stealing data as they are determined to destroy it, experts
contend.
When hackers believed by American intelligence officials to be Iranians
hit the world’s largest oil producer, Saudi Aramco, last year, they did
not just erase data on 30,000 Aramco computers; they replaced the data
with an image of a burning American flag. In the assault on South Korea
last week, some affected computers displayed an ominous image of skulls.
“This attack is as much a cyber-rampage as it is a cyberattack,” Rob
Rachwald, a research director at FireEye, a computer security firm,
said of the South Korea attacks.
In the past, such assaults typically occurred through a
denial-of-service attack, in which hackers flood their target with Web
traffic from networks of infected computers until it is overwhelmed and
shuts down. One such case was a 2007 Russian attack on Estonia that
affected its banks, the Parliament, ministries, newspapers and
broadcasters.
With their campaign against American financial institutions, the
hackers suspected of being Iranian have taken that kind of attack to
the next level. Instead of using individual personal computers to fire
Web traffic at each bank, they infected powerful, commercial data
centers with sophisticated malware and directed them to simultaneously
fire at each bank, giving them the horsepower to inflict a huge attack.
As a result, the hackers were able to take down the consumer banking
sites of American Express, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo
and other banks with exponentially more traffic than hit Estonia in
2007.
In the attack on Saudi Aramco last year, the culprits did not mount
that type of assault. Instead, they created malware designed for the
greatest impact, coded to spread to as many computers as possible.
Likewise, the attacks last week on South Korean banks and broadcasters
were far more sophisticated than coordinated denial-of-service attacks
in 2009 that briefly took down the Web sites of South Korea’s president
and its Defense Ministry. Such attacks were annoyances; they largely
did not affect operations.
This time around in South Korea, however, the attackers engineered
malware that could evade popular South Korean antivirus products,
spread it to as many computer systems as possible, and inserted a “time
bomb” to take out all the systems at once for greatest impact.
The biggest concern, Mr. Lewis said: “We don’t know how they make
decisions. When you add erratic decision making, then you really have
something to worry about.”
27 March 2013 Last updated at 09:03 ET
Global internet slows after 'biggest
attack in history'
By Dave Lee Technology reporter, BBC News
The internet around the world has been slowed down in what security
experts are describing as the biggest cyber-attack of its kind in
history. A row between a spam-fighting group and hosting firm has
sparked retaliation attacks affecting the wider internet. It is
having an impact on popular services like Netflix - and experts worry
it could escalate to affect banking and email systems.
Five national cyber-police-forces are investigating the attacks.
Spamhaus, a group based in both London and Geneva, is a non-profit
organisation which aims to help email providers filter out spam and
other unwanted content. To do this, the group maintains a number
of blocklists - a database of servers known to be being used for
malicious purposes. Recently, Spamhaus blocked servers maintained
by Cyberbunker, a Dutch web host which states it will host anything
with the exception of child pornography or terrorism-related material.
Sven Olaf Kamphuis, who claims to be a spokesman for Cyberbunker, said,
in a message, that Spamhaus was abusing its position, and should not be
allowed to decide "what goes and does not go on the internet".
Spamhaus has alleged that Cyberbunker, in cooperation with "criminal
gangs" from Eastern Europe and Russia, is behind the attack.
Cyberbunker has not responded to the BBC's request for comment.
'Immense job'
Steve Linford, chief executive for Spamhaus, told the BBC the scale of
the attack was unprecedented.
"We've been under this cyber-attack for well over a week.
"But we're up - they haven't been able to knock us down. Our engineers
are doing an immense job in keeping it up - this sort of attack would
take down pretty much anything else."
Mr Linford told the BBC that the attack was being investigated by five
different national cyber-police-forces around the world.
He claimed he was unable to disclose more details because the forces
were concerned that they too may suffer attacks on their own
infrastructure.
The attackers have used a tactic known as Distributed Denial of Service
(DDoS), which floods the intended target with large amounts of traffic
in an attempt to render it unreachable. In this case, Spamhaus's
Domain Name System (DNS) servers were targeted - the infrastructure
that joins domain names, such as bbc.co.uk, the website's numerical
internet protocol address. Mr Linford said the attack's power
would be strong enough to take down government internet infrastructure.
"If you aimed this at Downing Street they would be down instantly," he
said. "They would be completely off the internet."
He added: "These attacks are peaking at 300 gb/s (gigabits per second).
"Normally when there are attacks against major banks, we're talking
about 50 gb/s."
Clogged-up motorway
The knock-on effect is hurting internet services globally, said Prof
Alan Woodward, a cybersecurity expert at the University of Surrey.
"If you imagine it as a motorway, attacks try and put enough traffic on
there to clog up the on and off ramps," he told the BBC.
"With this attack, there's so much traffic it's clogging up the
motorway itself."
Arbor Networks, a firm which specialises in protecting against DDoS
attacks, also said it was the biggest such attack they had seen.
"The largest DDoS attack that we have witnessed prior to this was in
2010, which was 100 gb/s. Obviously the jump from 100 to 300 is pretty
massive," said Dan Holden, the company's director of security research.
"There's certainly possibility for some collateral damage to other
services along the way, depending on what that infrastructure looks
like."
Spamhaus said it was able to cope as it has highly distributed
infrastructure in a number of countries. The group is supported
by many of the world's largest internet companies who rely on it to
filter unwanted material. Mr Linford told the BBC that several
companies, such as Google, had made their resources available to help
"absorb all of this traffic".
The attacks typically happened in intermittent bursts of high activity.
"They are targeting every part of the internet infrastructure that they
feel can be brought down," Mr Linford said.
"Spamhaus has more than 80 servers around the world. We've built the
biggest DNS server around."
Victory Spurs Speculation on Bharara’s
Next Move
By AZAM AHMED and PETER LATTMAN, NYTIMES
June 15, 2012, 10:10 pm
With the conviction of Rajat K. Gupta, the United States attorney in
Manhattan, Preet Bharara, has now secured the biggest scalp yet in the
government’s broad campaign against insider trading on Wall Street.
A victory in a case that relied almost entirely on circumstantial
evidence is sure to embolden prosecutors in their pursuit of hedge fund
traders and their tippers.
The government built its case against Mr. Gupta on evidence like the
timing of phone and trading records, showing that incriminating
wiretaps — like those used to powerful effect in the trial of Raj
Rajaratnam, the hedge fund manager who received the tips from Mr. Gupta
and who was convicted of insider trading last year — were not a
requisite to convince a jury of guilt.
But after nearly five years of investigations and 60 convictions of
hedge fund traders and corporate executives, a question looms for Mr.
Bharara and his team of federal prosecutors:
Is it time to move on?
Several top prosecutors have done just that. Christopher L. Garcia, who
helped lead the government’s widespread crackdown of insider trading,
left in February. Jonathan R. Streeter, the lead prosecutor in the case
against Mr. Rajaratnam, left earlier this year, as did Andrew
Michaelson, who was crucial in bringing and prosecuting the Galleon
case.
And the Gupta trial is expected to be the last for the prosecutor Reed
Brodsky, who also prosecuted Mr. Rajaratnam.
Mr. Bharara himself appears to have shifted his focus — at least
publicly — away from the prosecution of financial fraud. In recent
months, cybercrime has become a top concern, with Mr. Bharara
mentioning the subject with increasing frequency in articles and
speeches, just as he had in past years with insider trading. Indeed,
even as his office was busy trying Mr. Gupta, Mr. Bharara wrote an
op-ed article in The New York Times, saying that he had “come to worry
about few things as much as the gathering cyberthreat.” At a
cybersecurity conference in January, he listed it as his top concern.
“Of all the issues I face as United States attorney — and there are
many, many things that I have to deal with that are scary — cyberthreat
in all of its breadth, variety and complexity is what worries me the
most, the absolute most,” he told attendees.
So far, his office has brought just a handful of such cases, and not
all have been home runs. In January, prosecutors charged two Russians
with stealing personal and financial information from United States
citizens through the use of computer programs. Last year, an appeals
court vacated the conviction of a Goldman Sachs computer programmer
accused of stealing trading programs from the investment bank.
It is unlikely, however, that insider trading investigations will grind
to a halt anytime soon. Several cases remain outstanding, including the
prosecution of Anthony Chiasson, a co-founder of the once-prominent
hedge fund Level Global Investors. And examinations of other hedge
funds continue, as the remnants and offshoots of the Rajaratnam
investigation wend their way through the pipeline.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has also indicated there could be
much more to come, potentially placing those inquiries at odds with Mr.
Bharara’s office. Top investigators at the bureau recently said the
agency could pursue insider trading for the next five years. After
spending years to crack the surface of Wall Street, authorities say
they have a vast network of sources embedded among the inner circles of
high finance that they can tap for new leads.
At the same time, the Securities and Exchange Commission continues to
bring civil cases, no matter how small. The agency recently charged a
paralegal and her father in Montana who made $67,000 trading off
confidential information.
The crackdown on insider trading in recent years has drawn some
criticism from those who question why big bank executives have not been
charged over their actions in the financial crisis. While federal
authorities have started investigations of the large banks, few have
materialized into major criminal cases. Mr. Bharara, who became the
United States attorney in Manhattan in 2009 after serving as chief
counsel to Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, has
bristled at such criticism, arguing that while the banks may have been
irresponsible, that does not make their actions criminal.
Whatever his plans now, insider trading prosecutions have served Mr.
Bharara well during his tenure. When he arrived at the office,
prosecutors were already preparing charges against Mr. Rajaratnam, the
result of a sprawling, multiyear investigation into one of the world’s
most prominent hedge fund managers. Many of the charges brought by Mr.
Bharara have been an outgrowth of that case.
The successful prosecutions have created a glow of media attention
around Mr. Bharara, who follows a long line of prominent people in the
office, including Rudolph W. Giuliani. A Time magazine cover in
February featured a close-up of Mr. Bharara with the headline “This Man
Is Busting Wall Street” superimposed on it. The cover ruffled feathers
among colleagues at the United States attorney’s office and at the
F.B.I., who felt Mr. Bharara was taking too much credit.
Many inside the office do not expect Mr. Bharara to remain in his
current position much longer. Some suspect he will soon follow his
colleagues to a corporate law firm, where he would very likely command
a multimillion-dollar salary. And there is speculation that he could
find himself on the short list of candidates to replace Eric H. Holder
Jr., the United States attorney general, if President Obama is
re-elected and Mr. Holder leaves.
Mr. Bharara, for his part, has said that he has the best job in the
world and intends to keep it.
U.S. seen as Iran
‘cyberarmy’ target
Specialists to testify about
threat
By Shaun Waterman, The Washington Times
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Iran is recruiting a hacker army to target the U.S. power grid,
water
systems and other vital infrastructure for a cyberattack in a future
confrontation with the United States, security specialists will warn
Congress on Thursday.
"Elements of the [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps] have openly sought
to pull hackers into the fold" of a religiously motivated cyberarmy,
according to Frank J. Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security
Policy Institute at George Washington University.
Lawmakers from two House Homeland Security subcommittees will hold a
joint hearing Thursday about the cyberthreat posed by Iran – as
tensions over Tehran's nuclear program continue at a high level and as
a possible Israeli strike against it looms.
The Washington Times obtained advance copies of witnesses' prepared
testimony.
In his remarks, Mr. Cilluffo says that, in addition to the recruiting
by the Revolutionary Guards, another extremist militia, the Basij, "are
paid to do cyberwork on behalf of the regime, [and] provide much of the
manpower for Iran's cyber-operations."
Both militias are thought to be under the control of Iran's clerical
leadership, headed by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Two
Revolutionary Guard leaders have been indicted by U.S. prosecutors in
connection with a suspected plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's
ambassador to the United States by bombing a prominent Washington
restaurant.
"Over the past three years, the Iranian regime has invested heavily in
both defensive and offensive capabilities in cyberspace," states
testimony from Ilan Berman, vice president of the hawkish American
Foreign Policy Council, in his remarks for Thursday's hearing.
Estimates of the skill level of Iran's hacker army vary, but Mr.
Cilluffo points out that a veritable "arms bazaar of cyberweapons" is
accessible through the Internet hacker underworld.
"Adversaries do not need capabilities, just intent and cash," he states.
Mr. Cilluffo was recruited by President Bush on Sept. 12, 2001, the day
after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
He helped set up the Office of Homeland Security in the White House and
left for George Washington University in 2003.
In 2009, Iran's nuclear program was attacked by a cyberweapon called
Stuxnet. Although there is no definitive evidence of Stuxnet's origins,
Iran has blamed the United States and Israel and has been girding for a
conflict in cyberspace ever since.
"For the Iranian regime the conclusion [drawn from Stuxnet] is clear:
War with the West, at least on the cyberfront, has [already] been
joined, and the Iranian regime is mobilizing," states Mr. Berman.
The tensions between Iran and the West have taken unconventional forms
besides cyberwarfare.
Iran claimed this month that it has been able to copy sensitive
technology from a U.S. drone that crashed over its territory. It also
has accused the United States and Israel of killing several of its
nuclear scientists.
In a statement released Wednesday night, Rep. Dan Lungren, California
Republican and chairman of the cybersecurity, infrastructure
protection, and security technologies subcommittee said that "if recent
reports are accurate that Tehran is investing $1 billion to expand
their cyberwarfare capabilities, Iran will be a growing cyber threat to
our U.S. homeland."
The congressional testimony will be presented as the world waits for
the next round of talks about Iran's nuclear program – which Tehran
insists is for peaceful purposes – next month in Iraq.
The United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council are
pushing Iran to end its program of uranium enrichment. In exchange,
trusted third-party countries would provide fuel for its civilian
nuclear program. Enriched uranium can be used as fuel, but it can also
be further enriched quickly and used in a nuclear weapon.
"Tensions between the West and Iran are increasing over Iran's illicit
nuclear program, making the potential for an Iranian cyberattack
against the homeland a real possibility," said Rep. Patrick Meehan,
Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the counterterrorism and
intelligence subcommittee, the other panel at Thursday's hearing.
As negotiators prepare for the next round of talks, the tightening
screw of international sanctions and the looming threat of an Israeli
military strike against Iran's nuclear sites have provoked threats from
leading figures in the Revolutionary Guards.
Mr. Cilluffo notes that "Iran is not monolithic: command and control
there is murky, even within the [Revolutionary Guards], let alone what
is outsourced."
He notes that the Lebanese-based militant Hezbollah movement – which
Iran has frequently used as a terrorist proxy – has begun recruiting
its own cybermilitia of skilled hackers.
"Iran has a long history of demonstrated readiness to employ proxies
for terrorist purposes," Mr. Cilluffo's testimony states.
"There is little, if any, reason to think that Iran would hesitate to
engage proxies to conduct cyberstrikes against perceived adversaries."
Those proxies could make it hard to prove that Iran was behind the
attacks.
Mr. Berman's testimony notes that an extremist newspaper affiliated
with the Revolutionary Guards last year warned the United States to
"worry about 'an unknown player somewhere in the world' attacking a
section of [U.S.] critical infrastructure."
In 2009 and 2010, a hacker group calling itself the Iranian Cyber Army
attacked Twitter and the Chinese search engine Baidu, as well as
Iranian websites belonging to the opposition Green Movement.
"In the event of a conflict in the Persian Gulf," attacks like that on
Twitter "could provide Iran an avenue for psychological operations
directed against the U.S. public," states Mr. Cilluffo.
Such operations would aim at sowing fear and confusion by attacking
systems Americans use in their daily lives.
In a Persian Gulf military standoff, Iran also might combine
computer-network attacks against U.S. military information and
communications systems with more conventional jamming techniques "to
degrade U.S. and allied radar systems, complicating both offensive and
defensive operations," Mr. Cilluffo adds.
Some parts of the federal government, such as U.S. Strategic Command
and the State Department's Nonproliferation Bureau, have begun to pay
attention to the Iranian threat of a cyberattack, but no one in the
administration is "tasked with comprehensively addressing the Iranian
cyberwarfare threat," Mr. Berman warns.
"The U.S. government, in other words, has not yet even begun to get
ready for cyberwar with Iran," he concludes.
Government Lab Victim of Sophisticated
Cyber Attack
YAHOO
By REUTERS
July 6, 2011
BOSTON (Reuters) - The government's Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory shut down Internet access to the facility after it suffered
a cyber attack.
"PNNL is experiencing an Internet outage due to a cyber attack," the
laboratory said in a voice mail message at the lab's office of public
affairs.
The voice mail of spokesman Greg Koller described it as "a
sophisticated" cyber attack.
Officials with the laboratory, which conducts research on behalf of the
Department of Energy, could not immediately be reached to elaborate on
the recorded messages.
It comes in the wake of a cyber attack that shut down Internet access
at the government's Oak Ridge National Laboratory in April.
I.M.F. Reports Cyberattack Led to
‘Very Major Breach’
NYTIMES
By DAVID E. SANGER and JOHN MARKOFF
June
11, 2011
WASHINGTON — The International Monetary Fund, still struggling
to find a new leader after the arrest of its managing director last
month in New York, was hit recently by what computer experts describe
as a large and sophisticated cyberattack whose dimensions are still
unknown.
The fund, which manages financial crises around the world and is the
repository of highly confidential information about the fiscal
condition of many nations, told its staff and its board of directors
about the attack on Wednesday. But it did not make a public
announcement.
Several senior officials with knowledge of the attack said it was both
sophisticated and serious. “This was a very major breach,” said one
official, who said that it had occurred over the last several months,
even before Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the French politician who ran the
fund, was arrested on charges of sexually assaulting a chamber maid in
a New York hotel.
Asked about the reports of the computer attack late Friday, a spokesman
for the fund, David Hawley, declined to provide details or talk about
the scope or nature of the intrusion. “We are investigating an
incident, and the fund is fully functional,” he said.
Because the fund has been at the center of economic bailout programs
for Portugal, Greece and Ireland — and possesses sensitive data on
other countries that may be on the brink of crisis — its database
contains potentially market-moving information. It also includes
communications with national leaders as they negotiate, often behind
the scenes, on the terms of international bailouts. Those agreements
are, in the words of one fund official, “political dynamite in many
countries.” It was unclear what information the attackers were able to
access.
The concern about the attack was so significant that the World Bank, an
international agency focused on economic development, whose
headquarters is across the street from the I.M.F. in downtown
Washington, cut the computer link that allows the two institutions to
share information.
A World Bank spokesman said the step had been taken out of “an
abundance of caution” until the severity and nature of the cyberattack
on the I.M.F. is understood. That link enables the two institutions to
share nonpublic data and conduct meetings, but users of the system say
that it does not permit access to confidential financial data.
Companies and public institutions are often hesitant to describe
publicly the nature or success of attacks on their computer systems,
partly for fear of providing information that would be useful to the
individuals or countries mounting the efforts. Even so, Google has
recently been aggressive in announcing attacks and, in one recent case,
of declaring that its origin was China, an accusation the Chinese
government quickly denied.
But in the case of the I.M.F., officials declined to say where they
believe the attack originated — a delicate subject because most nations
are members of the fund.
The attacks were likely to have been made possible by a technique known
as “spear phishing,” in which an individual is fooled into clicking on
a malicious Web link or running a program that allows open access to
the recipient’s network. It is also possible that the attack was less
specific, a case in which an intruder was testing the system merely to
see what was available.
The fund said that it did not believe that the intrusion into its
systems was related to a sophisticated digital break-in at RSA Security
that took place in March, which compromised some information that
companies and governments use to control access to their most sensitive
computer systems. RSA notified its clients of the loss of its data, and
last month hackers attempted to use the information stolen from RSA to
gain access to computers and networks at the Lockheed Martin
Corporation, the nation’s largest military contractor.
After that attack, the World Bank briefly shut down external access to
its most sensitive systems, for fear that the stolen information could
make it a target. But it quickly resumed its normal operations and says
it has seen no evidence of any attacks.
Spain Arrests 3 in PlayStation
Cyberattacks
NYTIMES
By DAVID JOLLY and RAPHAEL MINDER
June 10, 2011
PARIS — The Spanish police said Friday that they had arrested three
suspected computer hackers in connection with recent cyberattacks on
Sony’s PlayStation Network as well as corporate and government Web
sites around the world.
The arrests have dismantled the local leadership of the shadowy
international network of computer hackers known as Anonymous, which has
claimed responsibility for a wide variety of attacks, the National
Police said in a statement.
According to the statement, Anonymous is made up of people from various
countries organized into cells that share common goals. The activists
operate anonymously, but in a coordinated fashion.
One of the “hacktivist” detainees, a 31-year-old man, was arrested in
the southern city of Almería sometime after May 18, the police
said. He had a computer server in his apartment in the northern port
city of Gijón, from which the group attacked the Web sites of
the Sony PlayStation online gaming store.
The same computer was also employed in coordinated cyber-attacks
against two Spanish banks, BBVA and Bankia, the Italian energy company
Enel, as well as government sites in Spain, Egypt, Algeria, Libya,
Iran, Chile, Colombia and New Zealand, the police said.
The police opened their investigation last October, after hackers
overwhelmed the Spanish Ministry of Culture’s Web site to protest
Spanish legislation increasing punishments for illegal downloads.
The two other suspects were arrested in Barcelona and Valencia. The
statement did not make clear the timing of those arrests.
It was not immediately clear if the group had been the sole, or even
the main, perpetrator of the recent attacks on Sony. About a dozen Sony
Web sites and services around the world have been hacked, with the
biggest breaches forcing the Tokyo-based company to shut down its
popular PlayStation Network for a month beginning in April.
The Japanese company has acknowledged that hackers compromised personal
data for tens of millions of user accounts. Earlier this month, a
separate hacker collective called Lulz Security said it had breached a
Sony Pictures site and released vital source codes. Sony has
estimated that the hacker attacks will cost it at least 14 billion yen,
or $173 million, in damages, including information technology spending,
legal costs, lower sales and free offers to lure back customers.
Mami Imada, a Sony spokeswoman in Tokyo, said she had no information on
the arrests and declined to comment.
The police said that they had analyzed more than 2 million lines of
chat logs since October, as well as Web pages used by the group to
identify the leadership in Spain “with the capacity to make decisions
and direct attacks.”
Anonymous members made use of a computer program called LOIC to crash
Web sites by flooding them with denial of service attacks, the police
said. Among recent attacks, the hackers also brought down the
site of the Spanish National Electoral Commission last month before
regional and municipal elections. It was that attack, on May 18, that
led to the arrest in Almería. The movement against the
anti-piracy law has been closely linked to the broader youth-led
political movement that have occupied Puerta del Sol in Madrid and
other city squares since May 15.
These protests have called for a complete overhaul of Spain’s political
system — and the laws targeting illegal downloading.
Raphael Minder reported from Madrid.
Hiroko Tabuchi contributed reporting from Tokyo.
#1line hed
Two top Australian banks are replacing the “SecurID” electronic keys of
customers as banks beef up security after a string of cyber attacks on
high-profile global companies, Reuters reported Friday from Sydney.
Westpac Banking Corp. and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group said
they were replacing the electronic keys even though their systems had
not been compromised. The keys, issued by the RSA Security
division of EMC, are used primarily by institutional and corporate
clients. ANZ said it had 50,000 such keys with 4,000 used internally.
EMC this week offered to replace millions of the electronic keys after
hackers used data stolen from its RSA division to break into Lockheed
Martin’s network.
US largely ruling out NKorea in
2009 cyberattacks
YAHOO
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer 3 July 2010
WASHINGTON – U.S. officials have largely ruled out North Korea as the
origin of a computer attack last July that took down U.S. and South
Korean government websites, according to cybersecurity experts.
But authorities are not much closer than they were a year ago to
knowing exactly who did it — and why.
In the days after the fast-moving, widespread attack, analysis pointed
to North Korea as the likely starting point because code used in the
attack included Korean language and other indicators. Experts now say
there is no conclusive evidence that North Korea, or any other nation,
orchestrated it.
The crippling strikes, known as "denial of service" attacks, did not
compromise security or breach any sensitive data or critical systems.
Officials and experts say the agencies are better prepared today. But
they acknowledge that many government and business sites remain
vulnerable to similar intrusions.
The incidents underscore the increasing threats posed by computer-based
attacks, and how they can disrupt service as well as inflame political
tensions.
Pinpointing the culprits for such attacks is difficult or even
impossible, officials say. Some suggest the July 4 weekend attacks a
year ago may have been designed as a political broadside. These
officials point suspicions at South Koreans, possibly activists, who
are concerned about the threat from North Korea and would be looking to
ramp up antagonism toward their neighbor. Several experts familiar with
the investigation spoke on condition of anonymity because the results
are not final.
According to U.S. officials and private computer analysts, the attacks
were largely restricted to vandalizing the public Web pages of about a
half dozen federal agencies, including the Treasury Department and the
Federal Trade Commission. About three dozen other sites were targeted,
including some private companies and a number of South Korean
government sites, which reportedly had the most damage. While the
questions of who did it and why are unanswered, many investigators and
experts now do not consider it a critical case.
"It's about as frightening as someone driving around the block blowing
their horn a lot," said James Lewis, cybersecurity expert and a senior
fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "A lot of
people could have done it, and it doesn't leave a lot of clues to their
identity."
To Don Jackson, director of threat intelligence for Atlanta-based
SecureWorks, a computer security consulting company, "it's a dead end
as far as who did it. I don't think we've ever gone past that."
Those responsible, he said, "pulled it off so well, managed it so well
— this was someone who has experience at running these types of
attacks."
Jackson, whose company was among several private firms that studied the
codes after the attack, said one possibility is that hackers in South
Korea were the culprits. South Korean sources had a mission and
may have "wanted someone blamed for it," said Jackson. "It would
further the point that North Korea has elite squads" of hackers
targeting Seoul.
South Korean officials have pointed to North Korea as the suspected
assailant, and experts agree that it is within the North's abilities to
wage cyberattacks. More recently, however, a government-run website in
South Korea was hit with a similar — although smaller — denial of
service attack that officials said was traced to China.
"There are a number of national intelligence agencies who are creating
cybercapabilities. It's a natural area of exploration," said retired
Gen. Wesley Clark (editorial
remark: a blast from the past). "I wouldn't underestimate
North Korea's potential in this space."
Denial of service attacks, Lewis said, don't leave detailed forensic
clues that a more directed intrusion, such as an effort to breach a
sensitive government program, might leave.
Still, officials worry that even a large, well
executed attack against critical controlling computer servers could
interrupt service if directed at a power company or utility. A strike
could disrupt financial markets if directed at Wall Street or hinder
travel if aimed at transportation sectors.
Those systems tend to be more heavily protected. But an attack against
a bank's website could prevent customers from having online access to
their accounts and prevent them from paying bills. Such attacks can
prove lucrative as an extortion tool, when hackers take down popular
gambling sites and demand payment to end the disruption.
Despite the lack of a clear culprit, there are things investigators do
know about last year's denial of service attack.
The malicious computer code was distributed through nine main control
servers in four countries. It fanned out to infect about 60,000
computers around the world. Those computers — likely on the desktops of
innocent victims — were linked together in what is called a botnet, and
they flooded government websites with traffic, knocking them offline or
slowing them down over the Independence Day holiday weekend.
Altogether, 43 sites were targeted, and the size of the attack
suggested it required several people to carry it out. While some
Treasury, FTC and State Department sites were slowed or shut down by
the software attack, others such as the White House and Department of
Homeland Security were able to fend it off with little disruption.
Other targets included Nasdaq and New York Stock Exchange, Voice of
America, U.S. Postal Service, and Amazon and Yahoo.
Government officials and analysts say there has been some improvements
in dealing with future strikes. Private contractors, such as the web
hosting giant Akamai, has a redundant system that will move government
sites to other servers if one is seeing an unusual or massive flow of
traffic.
Agencies are now better prepared.
But, Jackson said, "as far as any better capability in tracking down
actors or in attributing attacks to any individual or group, I don't
know that we're any further along. I would seriously doubt it."
New
cyberattacks in
SKorea; sites suffer no damage
YAHOO
Sat Jun 12, 5:02 am ET
SEOUL, South Korea – Two South Korean government websites were struck
by the second cyberattack in a week, but suffered no major damage, the
government said Saturday.
Most of the computers trying to access the websites were traced to
China, the Ministry of Public Administration and Security said in a
statement.
The Korean Culture and Information Service and the Justice Ministry
were the targets of the so-called denial of service attacks on Friday,
in which large numbers of computers try to connect to a site at the
same time to overwhelm the server, the statement said.
The security ministry said it quickly blocked access by 274 computers
with Internet Protocol addresses — the Web equivalent of a street
address or phone number — mostly in China.
On Wednesday, similar attacks originating from China occurred on a site
run by the security ministry.
The statement said it was investigating who was behind the attacks.
Last year, government websites in South Korea and the U.S. were
paralyzed by similar cyberattacks that South Korean officials believed
were conducted by North Korea.
South Korean media have reported that North Korea runs an Internet
warfare unit aimed at hacking into U.S. and South Korean military
networks to gather information and disrupt service.
The two Koreas are still technically at war because the three-year
Korean War ended in 1953 with an cease-fire, not a peace treaty.
Academic Paper in China Sets Off Alarms
in U.S.
NYTIMES
By JOHN MARKOFF and DAVID BARBOZA
March 20, 2010
It came as a surprise this month to Wang Jianwei, a graduate
engineering student in Liaoning, China, that he had been described as a
potential cyberwarrior before the United States Congress.
Larry M. Wortzel, a military strategist and China specialist, told the
House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 10 that it should be concerned
because “Chinese researchers at the Institute of Systems Engineering of
Dalian University of Technology published a paper on how to attack a
small U.S. power grid sub-network in a way that would cause a cascading
failure of the entire U.S.”
When reached by telephone, Mr. Wang said he and his professor had
indeed published “Cascade-Based Attack Vulnerability on the U.S. Power
Grid” in an international journal called Safety Science last spring.
But Mr. Wang said he had simply been trying to find ways to enhance the
stability of power grids by exploring potential vulnerabilities.
“We usually say ‘attack’ so you can see what would happen,” he said.
“My emphasis is on how you can protect this. My goal is to find a
solution to make the network safer and better protected.” And
independent American scientists who read his paper said it was true:
Mr. Wang’s work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way
could be used to take down a power grid. The difference between
Mr. Wang’s explanation and Mr. Wortzel’s conclusion is of more than
academic interest. It shows that in an atmosphere already charged with
hostility between the United States and China over cybersecurity
issues, including large-scale attacks on computer networks, even a
misunderstanding has the potential to escalate tension and set off an
overreaction.
“Already people are interpreting this as demonstrating some kind of
interest that China would have in disrupting the U.S. power grid,” said
Nart Villeneuve, a researcher with the SecDev Group, an Ottawa-based
cybersecurity research and consulting group. “Once you start
interpreting every move that a country makes as hostile, it builds
paranoia into the system.”
Mr. Wortzel’s presentation at the House hearing got a particularly
strong reaction from Representative Ed Royce, Republican of California,
who called the flagging of the Wang paper “one thing I think jumps out
to all of these Californians here today, or should.”
He was alluding to concerns that arose in 2001 when The Los Angeles
Times reported that intrusions into the network that controlled the
electrical grid were traced to someone in Guangdong Province, China.
Later reports of other attacks often included allegations that the
break-ins were orchestrated by the Chinese, although no proof has been
produced. In an interview last week about the Wang paper and his
testimony, Mr. Wortzel said that the intention of these particular
researchers almost did not matter.
“My point is that now that vulnerability is out there all over China
for anybody to take advantage of,” he said.
But specialists in the field of network science, which explores the
stability of networks like power grids and the Internet, said that was
not the case.
“Neither the authors of this article, nor any other prior article, has
had information on the identity of the power grid components
represented as nodes of the network,” Reka Albert, a University of
Pennsylvania physicist who has conducted similar studies, said in an
e-mail interview. “Thus no practical scenarios of an attack on the real
power grid can be derived from such work.”
The issue of Mr. Wang’s paper aside, experts in computer security say
there are genuine reasons for American officials to be wary of China,
and they generally tend to dismiss disclaimers by China that it has
neither the expertise nor the intention to carry out the kind of
attacks that bombard American government and computer systems by the
thousands every week.
The trouble is that it is so easy to mask the true source of a computer
network attack that any retaliation is fraught with uncertainty. This
is why a war of words, like the high-pitched one going on these past
months between the United States and China, holds special peril, said
John Arquilla, director of the Information Operations Center at the
Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.
“What we know from network science is that dense communications across
many different links and many different kinds of links can have effects
that are highly unpredictable,” Mr. Arquilla said. Cyberwarfare is in
some ways “analogous to the way people think about biological weapons —
that once you set loose such a weapon it may be very hard to control
where it goes,” he added.
Tension between China and the United States intensified earlier this
year after Google threatened to withdraw from doing business in China,
saying that it had evidence of Chinese involvement in a sophisticated
Internet intrusion. A number of reports, including one last October by
the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, of which Mr.
Wortzel is vice chairman, have used strong language about the worsening
threat of computer attacks, particularly from China.
“A large body of both circumstantial and forensic evidence strongly
indicates Chinese state involvement in such activities, whether through
the direct actions of state entities or through the actions of
third-party groups sponsored by the state,” that report stated.
Mr. Wang’s research subject was particularly unfortunate because of the
widespread perception, particularly among American military contractors
and high-technology firms, that adversaries are likely to attack
critical infrastructure like the United States electric grid.
Mr. Wang said in the interview that he chose the United States grid for
his study basically because it was the easiest way to go. China does
not publish data on power grids, he said. The United States does and
had had several major blackouts; and, as he reads English, it was the
only country he could find with accessible, useful data. He said that
he was an “emergency events management” expert and that he was “mainly
studying when a point in a network becomes ineffective.”
“I chose the electricity system because the grid can best represent how
power currents flow through a network,” he said. “I just wanted to do
theoretical research.”
The paper notes the vulnerability of different types of computer
networks to “intentional” attacks. The authors suggest that certain
types of attacks may generate a domino-style cascading collapse of an
entire network. “It is expected that our findings will be helpful for
real-life networks to protect the key nodes selected effectively and
avoid cascading-failure-induced disasters,” the authors wrote.
Mr. Wang’s paper cites the network science research of Albert-Laszlo
Barabasi, a physicist at Northeastern University. Dr. Barabasi has
written widely on the potential vulnerability of networks to so-called
engineered attacks.
“I am not well vested in conspiracy theories,” Dr. Barabasi said in an
interview, “but this is a rather mainstream topic that is done for a
wide range of networks, and, even in the area of power transmission, is
not limited to the U.S. system — there are similar studies for power
grids all over the world.”
Admiral
Blair
Glad we have an admiral incharge of the "Cyber Pearl
Harbor" defense.
Intelligence
Chief Says Cyberattack Threat Is
Growing
NYTIMES
By MARK MAZZETTI
February 3, 2010
WASHINGTON — The threat of a crippling attack on computer and
telecommunications networks is growing, America’s top intelligence
official told lawmakers on Tuesday, as an increasingly sophisticated
group of enemies has “severely threatened” the sometimes fragile
systems undergirding the country’s information systems.
“Sensitive information is stolen daily from both government and private
sector networks, undermining confidence in our information systems, and
in the very information these systems were intended to convey,” Dennis
C. Blair said in his prepared remarks to a Senate committee.
“Malicious cyber activity is occurring on an unprecedented scale with
extraordinary sophistication,” he said.
The decision by Mr. Blair to begin his annual testimony before Congress
with the cyber threat points up the concerns among American
intelligence officials about the potentially devastating consequences
of a coordinated attack on the nation’s technology apparatus, sometimes
called a “Cyber Pearl Harbor.”
The spy chief’s assessment of the terrorism threat was somewhat starker
than last year’s testimony, when he cited considerable progress in the
campaign to debilitate al Qaeda and its affiliates. Last February, Mr.
Blair reported that the global economic meltdown, rather than the
prospect of a major terrorist attack, was the “primary near-term
security concern of the United States.”
In another departure from last year’s testimony, Admiral Blair is
appearing alongside other top intelligence officials, including the
heads of the C.I.A., F.B.I. and Defense Intelligence Agency. Last year,
the intelligence director sat alone before the committee, a partly
symbolic gesture intended to demonstrate the authority of the Director
of National Intelligence, an office that has long been criticized for
commanding little power over America’s 16 intelligence agencies.
The decision was interpreted by some lawmakers as hubris, as Mr. Blair
had only been in the job a matter of weeks.
Survey Finds Growing Fear of Cyberattacks
NYTIMES
By JOHN MARKOFF
February
2, 2010
A survey of 600 computing and computer-security executives in 14
countries suggests that attacks on the Internet pose a growing threat
to the energy and communication systems that underlie modern
society.
The findings, issued Thursday by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and the computer-security company McAfee, echoed
alarms raised this month by Google after it experienced a wave of
cyberattacks.
“One of the striking things we determined is that half of the
respondents believe they have already been attacked by sophisticated
government intruders,” said the study’s director, Stewart A. Baker. “It
tells us that this is a serious problem right now.”
More than half of the executives called their own nation’s laws
inadequate for deterring cyberattacks. Half identified the United
States as one of the three most vulnerable countries; the others were
China and Russia. Moreover, the United States was identified most
frequently as a potential source of cyberattacks.
“When they were asked which country ‘you worry is of greatest concern
in the context of network attacks against your country/sector,’ 36
percent named the United States and 33 percent China — more than any
other country on a list of six,” the report said.
China’s security measures also came in for praise from the executives.
“It was striking how much of an outlier China is on a number of
measures,” said Mr. Baker, a Washington lawyer who formerly served as
assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security
and as general counsel for the National Security Agency. “They have
confidence in their government, and they are adopting security measures
at a higher rate than other countries.”
The report focuses on “critical infrastructure” — essential networks
and services that include the financial system, transmission lines for
gas and electricity, water supply, and voice- and data-communication
networks. At the heart of these systems are networks known as Scada
systems, which are the basis for manufacturing, power generation,
refining and other basic operations in advanced economies. (The acronym
stands for supervisory control and data acquisition.)
The increasing use of Internet-based networks “creates unique and
troubling vulnerabilities,” the report says. In the past, the data used
by such industrial systems was largely carried on proprietary networks
that were often better insulated from the outside world. The
advantage
of the Internet lies largely in the lower cost of developing systems
because of the low cost of commodity products. But the report’s authors
stopped short of calling for a complete separation between those
systems and the open Internet.
“Remote access to control systems poses a huge danger,” said Phyllis
Schneck, McAfee’s vice president for threat intelligence. “We must
either protect it appropriately or move it to more private networks and
not use the open Internet.”
The report found considerable pessimism among the executives, whose
responses were anonymous.
“Remarkably, two-fifths of these I.T. executives expected a major
cybersecurity incident (one causing an outage of ‘at least 24 hours,
loss of life or ... failure of a company’) in their sector within the
next year,” the report said. “All but 20 percent expected such an
incident within five years. This pessimism was particularly marked in
the countries already experiencing the highest levels of serious
attacks.”
Obama to Name Chief of
Cybersecurity
NYTIMES
By JOHN MARKOFF
December 22, 2009
Nearly seven months after highlighting the vulnerability of banking,
energy and communications systems to Internet attacks, the White House
on Tuesday is expected to name a technology industry veteran to
coordinate competing efforts to improve the nation’s cybersecurity in
both military and civilian life...full
story here, along with what we
searched on the Internet via Google.
Obama ready to announce cybersecurity chief
guardian.co.uk
Bobbie Johnson, San Francisco
Tuesday 22 December 2009 09.23 GMT
Barack Obama is due to name a senior adviser to take control of
America's cybersecurity efforts, nearly seven months after first
declaring that protecting the country from internet attacks was a
"national security priority".
Reports suggest that Howard Schmidt, a government veteran who
previously served as an adviser to President Bush, will be named as the
White House's cybersecurity coordinator on Tuesday - with
responsibility for overseeing the online defences provided by the
Pentagon and intelligence agencies.
The job of bringing together the disparate groups is seen by some as an
impossible task - particularly since the various agencies often battle
against each other for political gain - but some Obama administration
officials see it as a vital role.
The announcement is likely to head off criticism that the White House
has failed to follow through on its own plans to establish a new office
to deal with cybersecurity, which were announced in the summer.
In one of his earliest acts on taking office, President Obama ordered a
lightning review of US internet security. When the results were
published in May, the president urged a major revision of the way
American defence, security and intelligence agencies worked to protect
the country's computer systems, calling hacking a "weapon of mass
disruption".
"Cyberspace is real, and so is the risk that comes with it," he said,
adding that it is "one of the most serious economic and national
security challenges we face".
The
issue became even more pressing after a series of reports suggested
that a string of major attacks on US institutions had taken place -
including the country's electricity grid and computers containing
information on the Joint Strike Fighter programme, a $300bn project
being conducted by the Pentagon and other governments around the world.
The continuing lack of an appointment to the post had caused some
concern in Washington - but while officials said that delays in making
an appointment were merely part of the process, reports suggested a
number of candidates had turned the job down.
As a result, the appointment of Schmidt is seen by many as a decision
to put the task in safe - if familiar - hands.
Schmidt, who worked for eBay and Microsoft after retiring from
government in 2003, previously held the role of special adviser on
cyberspace security for two years during George W Bush's first term in
office.
His career has given him significant pull in the technology community,
but some elements - including a controversially delayed scheme to
introduce new ID cards for federal employees - have been criticised in
the past.
He may find the winds in his favour, however. Last weekend it emerged
that Russian and American officials had been meeting to discuss
potential collaboration over internet security and cyberdefence - a
move which could mark a significant breakthrough in the often-frosty
relations between the two countries online.
Rod Beckstrom, the former director of the US Cybersecurity Center, told
the Guardian that he had met with Russian officials too - and had
encouraged such collaborations while working to a brief that is similar
to Schmidt's.
"We do see international collaboration improving," said Beckstrom, who
now runs the internet administration body Icann. "We are pleased to
hear that superpowers such as Russia and the US are addressing these
topics."
Drone
Breach Stirs Calls to Fill Cyber Post
By SIOBHAN GORMAN, YOCHI DREAZEN and AUGUST COLE
DECEMBER 19, 2009
U.S. lawmakers called on the White House to quickly fill vacant
cybersecurity posts in the wake of revelations that Iraqi insurgents
have learned to intercept video feeds from unmanned military
drones.
Lawmakers also expressed frustration that no action was taken until
this year, even though the vulnerability of the video feeds had been
known since the 1990s. The story was first reported Thursday by The
Wall Street Journal.
"It outrages me that this vulnerability was known since the 1990s, and
they never fixed the problem," said Rep. James Langevin, a Rhode Island
Democrat and a member of the intelligence and armed services
committees. "It makes them look like a bunch of Keystone Kops. Who else
had access to these video feeds?"
Rep. Langevin said he would press for answers when Congress returns in
the New Year: "They're going to get both barrels when I return to D.C."
Revelations that militants intercepted key military intelligence using
inexpensive software available on the Internet dogged the top U.S.
military officer Friday as he traveled to Iraq. Adm. Mike Mullen,
the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed that insurgents in
Iraq had intercepted Predator drone feeds. He told reporters the breach
hadn't caused significant military damage, and the signals have since
been secured. He gave no further details.
The news cast a spotlight on the vacancy for a cyberchief at the White
House, a position announced by President Barack Obama six months ago.
"That revelation obviously raises great concern about the state of our
security," said Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who co-chaired
a cybersecurity commission with Rep. Langevin. "It's time for action"
on the White House cybersecurity post, he said.
The administration has considered dozens of candidates and been "turned
down innumerable times," said James Lewis, a cybersecurity specialist
who advises the administration. "The president is personally committed
to finding the right person for the cybersecurity coordinator job; a
rigorous selection process is well under way," said White House
spokesman Nick Shapiro.
Without a central figure in the White House to set priorities, the
administration could miss security gaps like the unprotected drone
videos, said J.R. Reagan, who heads the cybersecurity practice at
Deloitte Consulting. "It underscores why it's so important that we get
this position filled."
A White House chief would be responsible for ensuring cybersecurity
competes with priorities like health care and the economy, said Billy
O'Brien, a cybersecurity aide in the Bush White House.
The top contenders are Franklin Kramer, a former assistant defense
secretary in the administration of President Bill Clinton, and Howard
Schmidt, a former top security officer at eBay Inc. While the
White
House search continues, the Pentagon's new Cyber Command has gotten off
the ground slower than expected because of congressional uncertainty
about its scope and mission. The Pentagon had said the entity --
designed to gather all the military's cyber defense and cyber offense
programs under a single rubric -- would be operational by October.
Nearly three months later, the command doesn't yet have a chief. Lt.
Gen. Keith Alexander, the current head of the National Security Agency,
has been tapped to run the command, but his nomination has been held up
on Capitol Hill. It may be months before the general receives his
confirmation hearing. A spokesman for Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who
chairs the panel, said Friday that "no date has been set and I don't
anticipate it will take place anytime soon."
A recent Pentagon briefing document said Lt. Gen. Alexander was
expected to be confirmed in January, but people familiar with the
deliberations said it might not happen until March.
Cybersecurity remains a major focus for the defense industry. While
some companies are concerned the administration's attention has waned,
executives are investing on a bet the market will grow next year with
billions of dollars in new government spending.
The biggest companies, such as Raytheon Co., Northrop Grumman Corp.,
Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. continue to acquire cybersecurity
firms to bolster their expertise. They are also spending millions of
dollars to tout their expertise in advertising campaigns.
Russia and US in secret talks to fight net crime
guardian.co.uk
Daniel Nasaw in Washington and Bobbie Johnson in San Francisco
Sunday 13 December 2009 20.06 GMT
American officials have been holding secret talks with Russia and the
United Nations in an attempt to strengthen internet security and rein
in the growing threat of cyberwarfare.
The effort, first reported in the New York Times, is a virtual version
of the nuclear arms talks being held between the two nations in Geneva
– but rather than focusing on bombs and missiles, the discussions are
aimed at curbing the increasing level of attacks taking place online.
With a rising tide of strikes by hackers on major institutions –
including banks, businesses, government agencies and the military –
diplomats are attempting to forge an international consensus on how to
deal with cybersecurity problems.
"Both sides are making positive noises," James Lewis, a senior fellow
at the centre for strategic and international studies and a cyber
security expert, told the Guardian. "We've never seen that before."
The potential for online warfare has become a hot topic in recent
years, after a string of major incidents. Large-scale cyberattacks took
place during last year's conflict between Russia and Georgia while the
Estonian government came grinding to a halt after an internet assault
in 2007.
Critics have said the scale and impact of such incidents may be
overstated, but experts accept there are serious dangers from criminal
gangs operating online – as well as the rapid growth of state-sponsored
espionage conducted over the internet.
Earlier this year, some of the plans for a new £2bn fighter
aircraft
being developed by the US, UK, Netherlands and Israel were stolen when
hackers broke into American computers. Two years ago, it was revealed
that hackers thought to be linked to the Chinese People's Liberation
Army had breached computer security systems at the Pentagon and
Whitehall.
The latest discussions are thought to be an attempt to broker some sort
of cross-border agreement over a number of issues related to internet
security. Russia is said to be seeking a disarmament treaty for
cyberspace, while the US hopes to use the talks to foster greater
international cooperation on cybercrime.
Lewis confirmed that a Russian delegation met with officials from the
US military, state department and security agencies in Washington about
five weeks ago. Two weeks later, the White House agreed to meet
representatives from the UN committee on disarmament and international
security, the New York Times reported.
There are numerous sticking points however, not least the fact both the
US and Russia – as well as most advanced militaries around the world –
have sophisticated cyber warfare capabilities they are reluctant to
document. Although the dangers of virtual conflicts are recognised,
neither country is keen to hinder any future deployment by revealing
the technologies they have developed, Lewis said.
Despite that, the talks mark a distinct turnaround from the approach of
the Bush administration, which had resisted engaging with Russia and
the UN over the prospect of a treaty on cyber weapons. Instead, it
focused on dealing with cyber threats by economic and commercial means,
rather than through the military.
Earlier this year, however, President Barack Obama identified cyber
attacks as a "national security priority" and pledged to appoint a
top-level White House adviser to co-ordinate responses..
"Cyberspace is real, and so is the risk that comes with it," he said in
May. "From now on, our digital infrastructure will be treated as a
strategic asset."
However, the post remains unfilled six months after the announcement.,
with disagreement inside the administration over how to coordinate the
appropriate level of response. While some presidential advisers want
the White House to take oversight of the issue, other top Obama aides
prefer to let the commercial market handle cybersecurity. The US
military and intelligence officials, meanwhile, prefer to pursue their
own security programmes without direction from the White House.
Many American experts are more concerned with the financial threat of
cybercrime and internet-based fraud, particularly since international
enforcement efforts have been weakened by an inability to track and
arrest the hackers responsible, many of whom are based in Russia and
China.
Online crime is now a multibillion pound business worldwide, with
criminal gangs across the globe conducting sophisticated cyber attacks
to steal money from banks and disrupt commercial websites.
Last year, hackers broke into the Royal Bank of Scotland, using
information gathered from to create cloned bank cards that were then
used to withdraw more than £5m from cash machines in dozens of
cities.
This August, an American man, Albert Gonzalez, pled guilty to his role
in an attack that netted millions when an international hacking ring –
largely based in Russia and the Ukraine - stole 130 million credit and
debit card numbers from some of America's biggest retailers.
Despite knowing the identities of several individuals linked to
Gonzalez, however, the lack of international cooperation means that the
other culprits remain beyond the reach of US prosecutors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyberwar: Defying Experts,
Rogue Computer Code Still Lurks
NYTIMES
By JOHN MARKOFF
August 27, 2009
It is still out there.
Like a ghost ship, a rogue software program that glided onto the
Internet last November has confounded the efforts of top security
experts to eradicate the program and trace its origins and purpose,
exposing serious weaknesses in the world’s digital infrastructure.
The program, known as Conficker, uses flaws in Windows software to
co-opt machines and link them into a virtual computer that can be
commanded remotely by its authors. With more than five million of these
zombies now under its control — government, business and home computers
in more than 200 countries — this shadowy computer has power that
dwarfs that of the world’s largest data centers.
Alarmed by the program’s quick spread after its debut in November,
computer security experts from industry, academia and government joined
forces in a highly unusual collaboration. They decoded the program and
developed antivirus software that erased it from millions of the
computers. But Conficker’s persistence and sophistication has squelched
the belief of many experts that such global computer infections are a
thing of the past.
“It’s using the best current practices and state of the art to
communicate and to protect itself,” Rodney Joffe, director of the
Conficker Working Group, said of the malicious program. “We have not
found the trick to take control back from the malware in any way.”
Researchers speculate that the computer could be employed to generate
vast amounts of spam; it could steal information like passwords and
logins by capturing keystrokes on infected computers; it could deliver
fake antivirus warnings to trick naïve users into believing their
computers are infected and persuading them to pay by credit card to
have the infection removed.
There is also a different possibility that concerns the researchers:
That the program was not designed by a criminal gang, but instead by an
intelligence agency or the military of some country to monitor or
disable an enemy’s computers. Networks of infected computers, or
botnets, were used widely as weapons in conflicts in Estonia in 2007
and in Georgia last year, and in more recent attacks against South
Korean and United States government agencies. Recent attacks that
temporarily crippled Twitter and Facebook were believed to have had
political overtones.
Yet for the most part Conficker has done little more than to extend its
reach to more and more computers. Though there had been speculation
that the computer might be activated to do something malicious on April
1, the date passed without incident, and some security experts wonder
if the program has been abandoned.
The experts have only tiny clues about the location of the program’s
authors. The first version included software that stopped the program
if it infected a machine with a Ukrainian language keyboard. There may
have been two initial infections — in Buenos Aires and in Kiev.
Wherever the authors are, the experts say, they are clearly
professionals using the most advanced technology available. The program
is protected by internal defense mechanisms that make it hard to erase,
and even kills or hides from programs designed to look for botnets.
A member of the security team said that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation had suspects, but was moving slowly because it needed to
build a relationship with “noncorrupt” law enforcement agencies in the
countries where the suspects are located.
An F.B.I. spokesman in Washington declined to comment, saying that the
Conficker investigation was an open case.
The first infections, last Nov. 20, set off an intense battle between
the hidden authors and the volunteer group that formed to counter them.
The group, which first called itself the “Conficker Cabal,” changed its
name when Microsoft, Symantec and several other companies objected to
the unprofessional connotation.
Eventually, university researchers and law enforcement officials joined
forces with computer experts at more than two dozen Internet, software
and computer security firms.
The group won some battles, but lost others. The Conficker authors kept
distributing new, more intricate versions of the program, at one point
using code that had been devised in academia only months before. At
another point, a single technical slip by the working group allowed the
program’s authors to convert a huge number of the infected machines to
an advanced peer-to-peer communications scheme that the industry group
has not been able to defeat. Where before all the infected computers
would have to phone home to a single source for instructions, the
authors could now use any infected computer to instruct all the others.
In early April, Patrick Peterson, a research fellow at Cisco Systems in
San Jose, Calif., gained some intelligence about the authors’
interests. He studies nasty computer programs by keeping a set of
quarantined computers that capture and observe them — his “digital zoo.”
He discovered that the Conficker authors had begun distributing
software that tricks Internet users into buying fake antivirus software
with their credit cards. “We turned off the lights in the zoo one day
and came back the next day,” Mr. Peterson said, noting that in the
“cage” reserved for Conficker, the infection had been joined by a
program distributing an antivirus software scam.
It was the most recent sign of life from the program, and its silence
has set off a debate among computer security experts. Some researchers
think Conficker is an empty shell, or that the authors of the program
were scared away in the spring. Others argue that they are simply
biding their time.
If the misbegotten computer were reactivated, it would not have the
problem-solving ability of supercomputers used to design nuclear
weapons or simulate climate change. But because it has commandeered so
many machines, it could draw on an amount of computing power greater
than that from any single computing facility run by governments or
Google. It is a dark reflection of the “cloud computing” sweeping the
commercial Internet, in which data is stored on the Internet rather
than on a personal computer.
The industry group continues to try to find ways to kill Conficker,
meeting as recently as Tuesday. Mr. Joffe said he, for one, was not
prepared to declare victory. But he said that the group’s work proved
that government and private industry could cooperate to counter
cyberthreats.
“Even if we lose against Conficker,” he said, “there are things we’ve
learned that will benefit us in the future.”
Professor Main Target of Assault on
Twitter
NYTIMES
By JENNA WORTHAM and ANDREW E. KRAMER
August 8, 2009
The cyberattacks Thursday and Friday on Twitter and other popular Web
services disrupted the lives of hundreds of millions of Internet users,
but the principal target appeared to be one man: a 34-year-old
economics professor from the republic of Georgia.
During the assault — the latest eruption in a yearlong skirmish between
nationalistic hackers in Russia and Georgia — unidentified attackers
sent millions of spam e-mail messages and bombarded Twitter, Facebook
and other services with junk messages. The blitz was an attempt to
block the professor’s Web pages, where he was revisiting the events
leading up to the brief territorial war between Russia and Georgia that
began a year ago.
The attacks were “the equivalent of bombing a TV station because you
don’t like one of the newscasters,” Mikko Hyppönen, chief research
officer of the Internet security firm F-Secure, said in a blog post.
“The amount of collateral damage is huge. Millions of users of Twitter,
LiveJournal and Facebook have been experiencing problems because of
this attack.”
The blogger, a refugee from the Abkhazia region, a territory on the
Black Sea disputed between Russia and Georgia, writes under the name
Cyxymu, but identified himself only by the name Giorgi in a telephone
interview. Giorgi, who said he taught at Sukhumi State University,
first noticed Thursday afternoon that LiveJournal, a popular blogging
platform, was not working for him. “I decided to go to Facebook,” he
said. “And Facebook didn’t work. Then I went to Twitter, and Twitter
didn’t work. ‘How strange,’ I thought, ‘What a coincidence they all
don’t work at once.’ ”
Security experts say that it is nearly impossible to determine who
exactly is behind the attack, which disrupted access to Twitter,
Facebook, LiveJournal and some Google sites on Thursday and continued
to affect many Twitter users into Friday evening.
But Beth Jones, an analyst with the Internet security firm Sophos, said
the assault occurred in two stages.
Early Thursday, the attackers sent out a wave of spam under the name
Cyxymu, which is a Latin transliteration of the Cyrillic name of the
capital of Abkhazia, Sukhumi. This technique, a “joe job,” is intended
to discredit a Web user by making him appear to be the source of a
large amount of junk e-mail. “These hackers wanted to make him look
responsible for millions of spam e-mails,” said Ms. Jones.
The messages contained links to Giorgi’s accounts on several social
networks and Web sites, including Twitter.
The next leg of the attack, Ms. Jones said, was a distributed denial of
service, or D.D.O.S., attack aimed at knocking Giorgi off the Web. The
hackers used a botnet, a network of thousands of malware-infected
personal computers, to direct huge amounts of junk traffic to Cyxymu’s
pages on Twitter, LiveJournal, YouTube and Facebook in an attempt to
disable them, Ms. Jones said.
The junk messages overwhelmed the services, slowing them, and in the
case of Twitter and LiveJournal, shutting them down entirely for a time.
Giorgi said his pages were providing a place for refugees from Abkhazia
to exchange memories of their home. The Twitter page had a sepia
photograph of a palm-lined city street. “It was nostalgia,” he said.
This week, he began posting day-by-day accounts of the run-up to the
conflict that drew partly on posts from his readers inside of Abkhazia,
who he said had been describing how the Russian army staged its forces
in the region in early August 2008.
“I feel a bit ashamed for the people who lost service because my blog
was blocked,” said Giorgi.
The hundreds of millions of Internet users affected were simply
“collateral damage,” said Ms. Jones.
The attacks and their aftermath show just how vital Web tools and
services are becoming to political discourse — and how vulnerable they
are to disruption.
“They aren’t set up to play the role of a global communications
network, but very quickly they’ve come to represent that,” said John
Palfrey, a law professor and co-director of Harvard University’s
Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
The attacks that felled Twitter shed light on the fragility of the
popular microblogging service, especially compared to its competitor
Facebook, which quickly recovered from the pummeling, said Stefan
Tanase, a researcher at Kaspersky Lab, an Internet security firm.
Twitter, a small San Francisco company, has been struggling to improve
its security even as it tries to manage hypergrowth in the number of
users and messages it handles.
But, Mr. Tanase said, “Twitter is definitely a company that is learning
fast and reacting fast.”
The outage frustrated many Twitter users. Some migrated over to
better-functioning social networks like Facebook and FriendFeed to send
messages and follow conversations, said Jeremiah Owyang, an analyst at
Forrester Research and a prolific tweeter.
“If Twitter goes down or shuts down permanently, the conversation just
shifts somewhere else,” he said.
For others, solving the problem wasn’t quite as simple.
Soren Macbeth, founder and chief executive of StockTwits, a service
that lets investors trade news and information about companies, said
his service, which is built on Twitter’s infrastructure, was offline
Thursday and still hadn’t fully recovered Friday.
“Having the service be intermittent is almost worse than having it be
totally down,” he said. “It makes it seem more like our issue, a
problem with our service.”
Mr. Macbeth said the service, which receives as many as 10,000 postings
a day, had been at Twitter’s mercy since its inception. “It’s very
challenging to run a business on top of Twitter,” he said. The
difficulties of working with Twitter had already prompted StockTwits to
begin developing a stand-alone platform, which the company plans to
introduce on Sept. 1.
But for most businesses, Twitter is merely a supplemental marketing
tool.
Ben Van Leeuwen, who runs trucks that serve scoops of ice cream to
customers around New York City, said he didn’t even notice the service
was down. “Sales were the same yesterday as they were the day before,”
he said.
Aaron Magness, who heads up new business development and marketing at
Zappos.com, an online shoe retailer with a sizable following on
Twitter, said in an e-mail message that the outage didn’t affect the
company.
“Twitter is one of many communication tools we utilize,” he said.
“Luckily, we love talking to our customers and Twitter going down
doesn’t impact our phones."
I-BBC
Page last updated at 14:33 GMT, Friday, 7 August
2009 15:33 UK
Web attack 'aimed
at one blogger'
A "massively co-ordinated" attack on
websites including Google, Facebook and Twitter was directed at one
individual, it has been confirmed.
Facebook told BBC News that the strike was aimed at a
pro-Georgian blogger known as Cyxymu.
The attack caused a blackout of Twitter for around two hours,
while Facebook said its service had been "degraded".
Google said it had defended its sites and was now working
with the other companies to investigate the attack.
"[The]
attack appears to be directed at an individual who has a presence on a
number of sites, rather than the sites themselves," a Facebook
spokesman told BBC News.
"Specifically, the person is an
activist blogger and a botnet was directed to request his pages at such
a rate that it impacted service for other users."
Botnets are networks of computers under the control of
hackers.
The machines were used to mount a so-called denial-of-service
(DOS) attack on Thursday.
DOS attacks take various forms but often involve a company's
servers being flooded with data in an effort to disable them.
"Attacks
such as this are malicious efforts orchestrated to disrupt and make
unavailable services such as online banks, credit card payment gateways
and, in this case, Twitter, for intended customers or users," wrote
Twitter co-founder Biz Stone on his blog.
Writing on his blog,
Graham Cluley of security firm Sophos said: "This raises the
astonishing thought that a vendetta against a single user caused
Twitter to crumble, forcing us to ask serious questions about the
site's fragility."
Silencing tactic
It is still not known who perpetrated the attack or why they
may have targeted Cyxymu and his accounts.
However, in an interview with the UK's Guardian newspaper,
the blogger blamed Russia.
"Maybe it was carried out by ordinary hackers but I'm certain
the order came from the Russian government," he said.
The
blogger has previously criticised Russia over its conduct in the war
over the disputed South Ossetia region, which began one year ago.
A
previous statement by Facebook said that the attack on the websites
where he held accounts was "to keep his voice from being heard".
Other sites such as Live Journal, where Cyxymu has his blog,
were also targeted in the attack on Thursday.
Only Google seems to have escaped unscathed from the attack.
"Google systems prevented substantive impact to our
services," the company said in a statement.
The
company has not confirmed which services were targeted in the attack,
but it is thought that its e-mail service Gmail and video site YouTube
were under fire.
"We are aware that a handful of non-Google
sites were impacted by [an]... attack this morning, and are in contact
with some affected companies to help investigate this attack," the
company said.
Protest tool
All of the affected services were keen to stress that users'
data had not been put at risk in the attacks.
"Please note that no user data was compromised in this
attack," wrote Twitter's Biz Stone.
"This activity is about saturating a service with so many
requests
that it cannot respond to legitimate requests thereby denying service
to intended customers or users."
Twitter has had a meteoric rise since its launch in 2006.
A ComScore study suggests that Twitter had about 45 million
users worldwide as of June 2009.
However,
as many users interact with the service through mobile phones or
third-party software, the actual number of users is likely to be
higher.
However, that pales in comparison to Facebook, which claims
to have 250m active users worldwide.
Both
sites recently garnered worldwide attention when they were used by
Iranians to co-ordinate demonstrations following the disputed election
of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president.
Many protesters believed there was electoral fraud and that
opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi should have won.
Twitter chose to delay upgrade work during the protests to
allow communication to continue.
In a BBC interview, co-founder Evan Williams denied the move
had been a response to a US state department request.
Op-Ed Contributor
Defend America, One Laptop at a Time
By JACK GOLDSMITH
Cambridge, Mass.
July 2, 2009
OUR economy, energy supply, means of transportation and military
defenses are dependent on vast, interconnected computer and
telecommunications networks. These networks are poorly defended and
vulnerable to theft, disruption or destruction by foreign states,
criminal organizations, individual hackers and, potentially,
terrorists. In the last few months it has been reported that Chinese
network operations have found their way into American electricity
grids, and computer spies have broken into the Pentagon’s Joint Strike
Fighter project.
Acknowledging such threats, President Obama recently declared that
digital infrastructure is a “strategic national asset,” the protection
of which is a national security priority.
One of many hurdles to meeting this goal is that the private sector
owns and controls most of the networks the government must protect. In
addition to banks, energy suppliers and telecommunication companies,
military and intelligence agencies use these private networks. This is
a dangerous state of affairs, because the firms that build and run
computer and communications networks focus on increasing profits, not
protecting national security. They invest in levels of safety that
satisfy their own purposes, and tend not to worry when they contribute
to insecure networks that jeopardize national security.
This is a classic market failure that only government leadership can
correct. The tricky task is for the government to fix the problem in
ways that do not stifle innovation or unduly hamper civil liberties.
Our digital security problems start with ordinary computer users who do
not take security seriously. Their computers can be infiltrated and
used as vehicles for attacks on military or corporate systems. They are
also often the first place that adversaries go to steal credentials or
identify targets as a prelude to larger attacks.
President Obama has recognized the need to educate the public about
computer security. The government should jump-start this education by
mandating minimum computer security standards and by requiring Internet
service providers to deny or delay Internet access to computers that
fall below these standards, or that are sending spam or suspicious
multiple computer probes into the network.
The government should also use legal liability or tax breaks to
motivate manufacturers — especially makers of operating systems — to
improve vulnerability-filled software that infects the entire network.
It should mandate disclosure of data theft and other digital attacks —
to trusted private parties, if not to the public or the government — so
that firms can share information about common weapons and best
defenses, and so the public can better assess which firms’ computer
systems are secure. Increased information production and sharing will
also help create insurance markets that can elevate best security
practices.
But the private sector cannot protect these networks by itself any more
than it can protect the land, air or water channels through which
foreign adversaries or criminal organizations might attack us. The
government must be prepared to monitor and, if necessary, intervene to
secure channels of cyberattack as well.
The Obama administration recently announced that it would set up a
Pentagon cybercommand to defend military networks. Some in the
administration want to use Cybercom to help the Department of Homeland
Security protect the domestic components of private networks that are
under attack or being used for attacks. Along similar lines, a Senate
bill introduced in April would give the executive branch broad
emergency authority to limit or halt private Internet traffic related
to “critical infrastructure information systems.”
President Obama has tried to soothe civil liberties groups’
understandable worries about these proposals. In the speech that
outlined the national security implications of our weak digital
defenses, the president said the government would not monitor private
sector networks or Internet traffic, and pledged to “preserve and
protect the personal privacy and civil liberties we cherish as
Americans.”
But the president is less than candid about the tradeoffs the nation
faces. The government must be given wider latitude than in the past to
monitor private networks and respond to the most serious computer
threats.
These new powers should be strictly defined and regularly vetted to
ensure legal compliance and effectiveness. Last year’s amendments to
the nation’s secret wiretapping regime are a useful model. They
expanded the president’s secret wiretapping powers, but also required
quasi-independent inspectors general in the Department of Justice and
the intelligence community to review effectiveness and legal compliance
and report to Congress regularly.
Many will balk at this proposal because of the excesses and mistakes
associated with the secret wiretapping regime in the Bush
administration. These legitimate concerns can be addressed with
improved systems of review.
But they should not prevent us from empowering the government to meet
the cyber threats that jeopardize our national defense and economic
security. If they do, then privacy could suffer much more when the
government reacts to a catastrophic computer attack that it failed to
prevent.
Jack Goldsmith, a professor at
Harvard Law School who was an assistant attorney general from 2003 to
2004, is writing a book on cyberwar.
Khamenei Calls for Inquiry as Demonstrators Defy Ban
NYTIMES
By ROBERT F. WORTH and NAZILA FATHI
June 16, 2009
TEHRAN — The Iranian opposition leader, Mir Hussein
Moussavi, appeared publicly on Monday for the first time in more than
two days to call for calm as state media repeatedly broadcast a report
that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had called for a
high-level inquiry into accusations of election irregularities.
But more than half a million protesters massed in the streets of Tehran
to renew the challenge to the outcome of the vote., and demonstrations
were reported in other cities as well, despite the continued blocking
of text-messaging services and disruption of Web sites and some cell
phone networks.
Mr. Moussavi met with the supreme leader on Sunday night, several news
agencies quoted state television as reporting. Ayatollah Khamenei then
asked that the powerful Guardian Council “precisely examine” Mr.
Moussavi’s charges of irregularities, state media said.
The council will make its findings known in 10 days, according to the
state media reports.
The ayatollah’s call appeared to be a shift in his public position that
the vote, which gave President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an overwhelming
victory, had been fair. But it was unclear whether the aim was quelling
protests or a genuine reexamination of an election whose official
results he had already approved.
The protesters gathered in Tehran despite a government ban on further
demonstrations, and at one point Mr. Moussavi apparently called off the
rally. As originally planned, the rally was to begin at Tehran
University and reach Azadi Square several miles away.
Some Iranian Web sites and telephone lines appeared to be disrupted.
Earlier, Reuters said stick-wielding supporters of Mr. Ahmadinejad
clashed with marching backers of Mr. Moussavi. Other reports said some
of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s followers paraded outside the British and French
Embassies in Tehran following remarks by political leaders in London
and Paris casting doubt on the Iranian leadership’s conduct.
Opposition Web sites reported that security forces raided a dormitory
at Tehran University and 15 people were injured. Between 150 and 200
students were arrested overnight, by these accounts, but there was no
immediate confirmation of the incident from the authorities. There were
also reports of official action against students in the cities of
Esfahan, Shiraz and Tabriz.
In Moscow, meanwhile, an official at the Iranian Embassy said that Mr.
Ahmadinejad had delayed a visit to Russia that was to have started
Monday. The meeting, in Yekaterinburg, is of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization that includes Russia, China and four Central Asian
countries. He now plans to travel on Tuesday, the official said.
As concern about the vote spread among Western governments, the
European Union’s 27 member states planned to issue a joint call on Iran
to clarify the election outcome, Reuters reported. The French
government summoned the Iranian ambassador to register concern about
the fairness of the vote, and Germany planned to follow suit.
The Spanish foreign minister, Miguel Ángel Moratinos, told
reporters in Luxembourg, “There is a need to clarify the situation and
to express our concern that a sector of the population are having
difficulties in expressing its opinion.” In Berlin, Chancellor Angela
Merkel of Germany called for a “transparent examination” of reports of
irregularities.
The developments followed a weekend of growing tension. On Sunday, word
spread that more than 100 prominent opposition members had been
detained; riots erupted in Tehran and other cities; and the triumphant
incumbent hinted that his top challenger risks punishment for
questioning the result.
At the same time, two of the three opposition candidates and a clerical
group issued fresh statements requesting an annulment of Friday’s
ballot, which gave a lopsided victory to Mr. Ahmadinejad, a
conservative who has become a polarizing figure at home and abroad.
It was unclear how much further Mr. Ahmadinejad’s adversaries were
willing or able to go in challenging the result. But supporters of the
opposition candidates skirmished with baton-wielding riot police
officers on the edges of a government-organized victory rally in
Tehran. There were also reports of riots in other Iranian cities, and
the protests were echoed by Iranians demonstrating against the election
results in Washington and in several European capitals.
Mr. Ahmadinejad dismissed the opposition’s allegations of fraud, saying
that the victory had given him a bigger mandate than ever. He
criticized Mr. Moussavi, the main opposition candidate — who remained
at home on Sunday with security forces closely monitoring his movements
— in a veiled statement that many here saw as a threat.
“He ran a red light, and he got a traffic ticket,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said
of his rival during a news conference at the presidential palace.
Those resisting the election results gained a potentially important new
ally on Sunday when a moderate clerical body, the Association of
Combatant Clergy, issued a statement posted on reformist Web sites
saying that the vote was rigged and calling for it to be annulled. The
statement warned that “if this process becomes the norm, the republican
aspect of the regime will be damaged and people will lose confidence in
the system.”
Mr. Moussavi called for the clergy to join his protest in an open
letter late Saturday. It is difficult to say how influential the
statement by the association, made up of 27 moderate clerics, will be
in Iran’s complex and opaque power structure, but Ayatollah Khamenei,
who has the last word on many important matters, is sensitive to
clerical opinion.
Iran’s Interior Ministry announced on Saturday that Mr. Ahmadinejad had
won about 63 percent of the vote, after a hard-fought election campaign
and the rise of a broad reform-oriented opposition that clearly had
rattled Iran’s ruling elite. Opposition leaders have catalogued a list
of what they call election violations and irregularities in the vote,
which most observers had expected to go to a second-round runoff.
The opposition members arrested late Saturday and Sunday were from all
the major factions opposed to Mr. Ahmadinejad and included the brother
of a former president, Mohammad Khatami, opposition Web sites reported.
Some were released after several hours.
Mr. Ahmadinejad called the opposition protesters “unimportant,”
comparing them to disappointed soccer fans after a match. He suggested
the accusations of fraud were the work of foreign agitators and
journalists.
He also seemed to be demanding affirmation of his election’s legitimacy
from other nations, saying, “We are now asking the positions of all
countries regarding the elections, and assessing their attitude to our
people.”
The international reaction that trickled out Sunday was anything but a
resounding affirmation, however. In the United States, Vice President
Joseph R. Biden Jr. said there appeared to be “some real doubt” about
the results. But he said the United States would press on with its
effort to engage the Iranian government. The official IRNA news agency
reported that President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela had
congratulated the incumbent. Some Arab governments, notably Syria and
Qatar, also welcomed Mr. Ahmadinejad’s re-election.
Clifford J. Levy contributed
reporting from Moscow, Alan Cowell from Paris and Victor Homola from
Berlin.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19312679
FWIW
- Buenos dias...
WikiLeaks and Free Speech
NYTIMES
By MICHAEL MOORE and OLIVER STONE
August 20, 2012
WE have spent our careers as filmmakers making the case that the news
media in the United States often fail to inform Americans about the
uglier actions of our own government. We therefore have been deeply
grateful for the accomplishments of WikiLeaks, and applaud Ecuador’s
decision to grant diplomatic asylum to its founder, Julian Assange, who
is now living in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.
Ecuador has acted in accordance with important principles of
international human rights. Indeed, nothing could demonstrate the
appropriateness of Ecuador’s action more than the British government’s
threat to violate a sacrosanct principle of diplomatic relations and
invade the embassy to arrest Mr. Assange.
Since WikiLeaks’ founding, it has revealed the “Collateral Murder”
footage that shows the seemingly indiscriminate killing of Baghdad
civilians by a United States Apache attack helicopter; further
fine-grained detail about the true face of the Iraq and Afghanistan
wars; United States collusion with Yemen’s dictatorship to conceal our
responsibility for bombing strikes there; the Obama administration’s
pressure on other nations not to prosecute Bush-era officials for
torture; and much more.
Predictably, the response from those who would prefer that Americans
remain in the dark has been ferocious. Top elected leaders from both
parties have called Mr. Assange a “high-tech terrorist.” And Senator
Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, has demanded that he be prosecuted under the
Espionage Act. Most Americans, Britons and Swedes are unaware that
Sweden has not formally charged Mr. Assange with any crime. Rather, it
has issued a warrant for his arrest to question him about allegations
of sexual assault in 2010.
All such allegations must be thoroughly investigated before Mr. Assange
moves to a country that might put him beyond the reach of the Swedish
justice system. But it is the British and Swedish governments that
stand in the way of an investigation, not Mr. Assange.
Swedish authorities have traveled to other countries to conduct
interrogations when needed, and the WikiLeaks founder has made clear
his willingness to be questioned in London. Moreover, the Ecuadorean
government made a direct offer to Sweden to allow Mr. Assange to be
interviewed within Ecuador’s embassy. In both instances, Sweden refused.
Mr. Assange has also committed to traveling to Sweden immediately if
the Swedish government pledges that it will not extradite him to the
United States. Swedish officials have shown no interest in exploring
this proposal, and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt recently told a legal
adviser to Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks unequivocally that Sweden would
not make such a pledge. The British government would also have the
right under the relevant treaty to prevent Mr. Assange’s extradition to
the United States from Sweden, and has also refused to pledge that it
would use this power. Ecuador’s attempts to facilitate that arrangement
with both governments were rejected.
Taken together, the British and Swedish governments’ actions suggest to
us that their real agenda is to get Mr. Assange to Sweden. Because of
treaty and other considerations, he probably could be more easily
extradited from there to the United States to face charges. Mr. Assange
has every reason to fear such an outcome.The Justice Department
recently confirmed that it was continuing to investigate WikiLeaks, and
just-disclosed Australian government documents from this past February
state that “the U.S. investigation into possible criminal conduct by
Mr. Assange has been ongoing for more than a year.” WikiLeaks itself
has published e-mails from Stratfor, a private intelligence
corporation, which state that a grand jury has already returned a
sealed indictment of Mr. Assange. And history indicates Sweden would
buckle to any pressure from the United States to hand over Mr. Assange.
In 2001 the Swedish government delivered two Egyptians seeking asylum
to the C.I.A., which rendered them to the Mubarak regime, which
tortured them.
If Mr. Assange is extradited to the United States, the consequences
will reverberate for years around the world. Mr. Assange is not an
American citizen, and none of his actions have taken place on American
soil. If the United States can prosecute a journalist in these
circumstances, the governments of Russia or China could, by the same
logic, demand that foreign reporters anywhere on earth be extradited
for violating their laws. The setting of such a precedent should deeply
concern everyone, admirers of WikiLeaks or not.
We urge the people of Britain and Sweden to demand that their
governments answer some basic questions: Why do the Swedish authorities
refuse to question Mr. Assange in London? And why can neither
government promise that Mr. Assange will not be extradited to the
United States? The citizens of Britain and Sweden have a rare
opportunity to make a stand for free speech on behalf of the entire
globe.
Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are
Academy Award-winning filmmakers.
British
Court Clears Way
for Extradition of WikiLeaks Founder
By JOHN F. BURNS and RAVI SOMAIYA, NYTIMES
May 30, 2012
LONDON — Britain’s highest court ruled on Wednesday that the WikiLeaks
founder, Julian Assange, should be deported to Sweden to face
allegations of sexual abuse there, but Mr. Assange’s lawyers won an
immediate stay of at least two weeks before British officials can
initiate the final steps to hand him over to Swedish authorities for
questioning in Stockholm.
In what had been billed as the culmination of an 18-month legal battle,
the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-2 vote to reject Mr. Assange’s appeal
against extradition. The decision was delivered in a court hearing
lasting barely 10 minutes by Nicholas Phillips, the 74-year-old
president of the court, in one of his last major decisions before
retirement this fall.
The ruling turned on whether the Swedish prosecutor who made the
extradition request was a competent “judicial authority” under the
terms of the European extradition treaty. Judge Phillips, who voted
with the majority, said the question “has not been easy to resolve,”
but that the court majority’s finding that the Swedish prosecutor was a
competent authority had resulted in the decision that the extradition
request “has been lawfully made.”
Mr. Assange, who was delayed by heavy traffic, was not present for the
decision, but there was an audible sigh of disappointment from
WikiLeaks supporters in the court as the ruling was read. That anxiety
appeared to relent somewhat as Dinah Rose, one of Mr. Assange’s
lawyers, rose to request a two-week delay in implementation of the
decision, saying the court appeared to have made its ruling on a fine
point of European law that had not been raised by either side at an
earlier Supreme Court hearing on the case.
In granting that request, the court effectively opened, at least for
now, a fresh opportunity for Mr. Assange to delay — and what legal
experts said was a narrow and improbable chance to avoid — his forcible
removal to Sweden. By agreeing to consider a fresh submission from Mr.
Assange’s lawyers within the two-week deadline and then review the case
again, the court appeared to have put off the moment when the WikiLeaks
founder could be extradited to Sweden for at least several weeks.
The delay in settling the extradition case in Britain appeared likely
to put back indefinitely any moves the United States may have in hand
to open a new round of extradition hearings — in Britain, Sweden or in
Mr. Assange’s native Australia — to bring Mr. Assange to the United
States to face charges for his role in overseeing the release by
WikiLeaks over the last two years of hundreds of thousands of secret
American military and diplomatic cables.
There have been frequent but unconfirmed reports for much of that time
that a secret grand jury hearing in Alexandria, Va., has been
considering a Justice Department bid to charge Mr. Assange with
espionage. Leaked e-mails from the global intelligence company Stratfor
earlier this year suggested that a sealed indictment is ready to be
made public when American officials judge that legal proceedings
against Mr. Assange in Britain and Sweden are coming to a close.
For now, the British case will continue. Gareth Peirce, one of Mr.
Assange’s lawyers, said after the hearing on Wednesday that once the
Supreme Court had considered a new argument on a point of law the
Assange team will put to the court, his lawyers would have seven days
to formulate an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg, France. At that point, legal experts said, only a stay from
the European court, which is considered unlikely but not impossible,
would prevent Mr. Assange from being extradited. If the European court
rejected a new hearing, Mr. Assange would likely be on plane to
Stockholm within days, the experts said.
Ms. Peirce said outside the court that the Assange legal team would
“put in a written submission on the fact that the majority of judges
have decided on a basis that was never argued in court by anyone,”
referring to the citation the judges made of the interpretation of the
words “judicial authority” in the Vienna Convention.
Barely 12 hours before the Supreme Court’s ruling, WikiLeaks issued a
statement asserting that Mr. Assange could face moves by the United
States to extradite him on espionage charges from Britain, Sweden or
Australia, depending on Mr. Assange’s whereabouts.
“WikiLeaks is under serious threat,” the WikiLeaks statement said. “The
U.S., U.K., Swedish and Australian governments are engaging in a
coordinated effort to extradite its editor in chief, Julian Assange, to
the United States to face espionage charges for journalistic
activities.”
The statement cited the reports that the Obama administration has
obtained a sealed indictment charging Mr. Assange with espionage, as
well as a range of other activities that WikiLeaks said pointed to
plans to move against Mr. Assange as soon as the British court
proceedings were completed.
It said the preparations included special task forces at the Pentagon,
the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and the State Department, and secret subpoenas it said had been served
on Google, Twitter and other online services to obtain the “private
data” of WikiLeaks’s staff and supporters.
In effect, the four-page WikiLeaks statement depicted the decision in
London as a prelude to a much grimmer challenge awaiting Mr. Assange
than the sex abuse charges. Lawyers in Sweden have said that he would
likely face a stiff fine or at the most a brief prison term if he were
convicted on the Swedish charges.
But extradition to the United States — involving what would almost
certainly be another lengthy legal battle, whether in Britain, Sweden
or Australia, Mr. Assange’s native country — would confront him with
the potential for a much harsher punishment. If found guilty on
espionage charges, he could face a life sentence in a maximum-security
prison.
The WikiLeaks document was speculative, since the Obama administration
has never said how it planned to act once a final British court ruling
was handed down. The United States ambassador to Britain, Louis B.
Susman, has said that the Justice Department would “wait to see how
things work out in the British courts,” and there have been reports in
the past year of confidential meetings between American officials and
representatives of Britain, Sweden and Australia concerning the Assange
case.
Mr. Assange has repeatedly said that he regarded the Swedish sex
allegations as a prelude to an American attempt to extradite him to the
United States and he has expressed anxiety about what, if any, option
he would have of finding sanctuary elsewhere in the world where he
would be beyond the reach of American law even if he were cleared of
the charges in Sweden.
That fear found expression in the WikiLeaks statement ahead of the
court decision in London. It said that Mr. Assange had been unable “to
take steps” to avoid extradition to the United States — a phrase that
appeared to mean that he could not leave Britain to seek a safe haven
elsewhere because he had been detained for over 500 days under what
amounted to house arrest in Britain.
The British Supreme Court took nearly four months to consider Mr.
Assange’s final appeal, the latest in a string of high-profile actions
he has taken to avoid being returned to Sweden where two former
WikiLeaks volunteers accuse him of “four offenses of unlawful coercion
and sexual misconduct including rape,” according to the court’s account.
The charges refer to 10 days during August 2010, when Mr. Assange, then
in the midst of releasing hundreds of thousands of classified United
States military and diplomatic documents, by his own admission he had
sexual relations with the two women in Stockholm and a nearby town. The
women subsequently made complaints that suggested what began as
consensual encounters turned non-consensual. Mr. Assange appeared for
an initial interview with the police there that month, but fled to
London before further questioning could be completed, a court here was
subsequently told. He was briefly jailed in December 2010 when Swedish
authorities issued a European arrest warrant for his return. He has
since been under tight bail conditions that have included a curfew,
travel restrictions, regular reports to local police and electronic
tagging.
The activist and hacker, who will turn 41 in July, has always
maintained his innocence and has railed at the allegations with
characteristic defiance in a series of interviews and messages on
Twitter. Sweden, he has said, is the “Saudi Arabia of feminism,” and
his lawyers have spoken darkly of a “honey trap,” perhaps intended to
thwart Mr. Assange’s ambition to leak further government documents.
WikiLeaks has not released any significant material for more than a
year, since a spate of defections weakened its submission and
processing systems, and action taken under American government pressure
by American credit card and online payment companies effectively
starved WikiLeaks of what had been a global flow of donations.
Mr. Assange has recently begun broadcasting a talk chat-show on the
international Russia Today network, which is financed by the Russian
government. His guests have included the Hezbollah leader Hassan
Nasrallah.
WikiLeaks founder Assange can be extradited to Sweden in sex case
NYPOST
Last Updated: 8:25 AM, May 30, 2012
Posted: 6:21 AM, May 30, 2012
LONDON — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Wednesday lost his legal
fight at Britain's Supreme Court against extradition to Sweden.
The London court announced its judgement in a hearing at around 9:15
a.m.
The 40-year-old Australian is wanted in Sweden to face questioning over
alleged sex crimes against two women.
He has now exhausted all his legal options in Britain, but could still
make a last-ditch appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Assange lodged his appeal against extradition with the Supreme Court in
February, with his lawyers arguing the European arrest warrant used to
seek his extradition was not valid as the Swedish prosecutor did not
have sufficient authority to order the extradition.
This was rejected by a majority of five to two by the Supreme Court
justices.
Attorneys for Assange secured a two-week stay however, arguing the
decision by the judges was based on a point of law that was not
discussed in court. Dinah Rose QC said the majority of members of the
Supreme Court panel had made their decision based on the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties -- which was never brought up at the
time. She may decide to challenge the validity of Wednesday's ruling on
that basis.
Assange will not be extradited until that two-week period is completed.
Once in Sweden, he would then be tried behind closed doors as rape
trials in the country are held in "secret."
Assange fears that if he is sent to Sweden he will then be extradited
to the US for prosecution over charges associated with his WikiLeaks
website, which released hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic
cables that revealed a mass of US secrets.
Don't you see a resemblance between young Brad
(l) and somewhat older
Julian? In disguise, all a-Twitter,
Julian puts on shades to avoid Interpol. Movie from 1995.
The
WIKIleaks.
24 February 2011 Last updated at 08:38 ET
Wikileaks' Julian Assange to be
extradited to Sweden
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face
sexual assault allegations, a judge has ruled.
At Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in south London, District Judge Howard
Riddle said the extradition would not breach Mr Assange's human
rights. Mr Assange will appeal against the court ruling. He
denies three allegations of sexual assault and one of rape last August
in Stockholm. He believes the claims are politically motivated
because of Wikileaks' work. Mr Assange has been released on bail
on the same terms he was granted in December. His supporters had put up
money as security.
The whistle-blowing website has made headlines worldwide with the
publication of sensitive material - including leaked US diplomatic
cables - from governments and high-profile organisations.
'Public enemy number one'
Judge Riddle dismissed the argument that Mr Assange would not receive a
fair trial in Sweden that had been made by his lawyers during the
two-and-a-half-day hearing earlier this month. They had argued
that criticism by Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt had made Mr
Assange "public enemy number one" in Sweden.
But delivering his ruling on Thursday, the judge said: "The defence
refer to the alleged denigration of the defendant by the Swedish prime
minister
"For this reason and other reasons it is said Mr Assange will not
receive a fair trial. I don't accept this was the purpose of the
comment or the effect."
Mr Assange's lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson QC, had also argued that rape
trials in Sweden were regularly "tried in secret behind closed doors in
a flagrant denial of justice".
Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities, told the hearing that
evidence from a trial would be heard in private but the arguments would
be made in public. Judge Riddle said that did not mean the trial
would be unfair or breach human rights.
Death penalty
Dismissing further arguments made by Mr Assange's lawyers, the judge
found:
* The allegations against Mr Assange were
extradition offences
* The prosecutor who issued the European Arrest
Warrant for Mr Assange had been suitably qualified
* The warrant was issued for the purpose of
prosecution and not simply for questioning
Mr Assange was arrested on 7 December and spent nine days in Wandsworth
prison in London before being released on bail.
During the hearing two weeks ago, Mr Robertson said his client could
later be extradited to the US on separate charges relating to Wikileaks
- and could face the death penalty there.
In response, Ms Montgomery said Sweden provided "protection against
that sort of threat and violation" taking place.
The European Court of Human Rights would intervene if Mr Assange was to
face the prospect of "inhuman or degrading treatment or an unfair
trial" in the US, she said.
8 January 2011 Last updated at 05:36 ET
US wants Twitter details of Wikileaks activists
The US government has subpoenaed the social networking
site Twitter for personal details of people connected to Wikileaks,
court documents show. The US District Court in Virginia said it
wanted
information including user names, addresses, connection records,
telephone numbers and payment details. Those named include
Wikileaks
founder Julian Assange and an Icelandic MP.
The US is examining possible charges against Mr Assange over the
leaking of 250,000 classified diplomatic cables.
Reports indicate the Department of Justice may seek to indict him on
charges of conspiring to steal documents with Private First Class
Bradley Manning, a US Army intelligence analyst.
Mr Manning is facing a court martial and up to 52 years in prison for
allegedly sending Wikileaks the diplomatic cables, as well military
logs about incidents in Afghanistan and Iraq and a classified military
video.
'Given a message'
According to the court order issued on 14 December by the District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the US Attorney's Office
has provided evidence to show that the information held by Twitter is
"relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation".
Analysis
Rory
Cellan-Jones Technology correspondent, BBC News
As the
Wikileaks saga has unfolded,
Twitter has been one of the main forums where supporters and opponents
of the whistle-blowing site have debated the issues. Now the social
network has been dragged into the affair, as the US authorities pursue
a case against Wikileaks.
This leaves
Twitter executives in a very difficult position. Like all social
networks, they have been keen to stress that they comply with local
laws, especially when it comes to tracking down criminals. But they
have also been eager to promote Twitter's role as a forum for free
expression in countries like Iran.
If
confidential details of overseas Twitter users are disclosed to the US
authorities, how keen will an international audience be to trust this
or other American social networks in future?
The San Francisco-based website was given three days to respond was
also told not to disclose that it had been served the subpoena, or the
existence of the investigation. However, the same court removed
those
restrictions on Wednesday and authorised Twitter to disclose the order
to its customers. The subpoena requested the details of Mr
Assange,
Pfc Manning and Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir, as well as Dutch
hacker Rop Gonggrijp and US programmer Jacob Appelbaum, both of whom
have previously worked with Wikileaks.
The information sought includes mailing addresses and billing
information, connection records and session times, IP addresses used to
access Twitter, email accounts, as well as the "means and source of
payment".
Mr Assange condemned the court order on Saturday, saying it amounted to
harassment.
"If the Iranian government was to attempt to coercively obtain this
information from journalists and activists of foreign nations, human
rights groups around the world would speak out," he said in a statement.
The order was unsealed "thanks to legal action by Twitter", he added.
Twitter has declined comment on the claim, saying only: "To help users
protect their rights, it's our policy to notify users about law
enforcement and governmental requests for their information, unless we
are prevented by law from doing so."
Ms Jonsdottir, who until recently was a vocal supporter of Wikileaks,
revealed on Friday that the Department of Justice had asked Twitter for
her personal details and all of her tweets since November 2009.
She
said she had 10 days to appeal against the subpoena.
Ms Jonsdottir wrote on her Twitter feed: "USA government wants to know
about all my tweets and more since 1 November 2009. Do they realise I
am a member of parliament in Iceland?"
She said that she would call Iceland's justice minister to discuss the
request.
"I think I am being given a message, almost like someone breathing in a
phone," she said.
Ms Jonsdottir was the chief sponsor of the Icelandic Modern Media
Initiative (IMMI) law, which made Iceland an international haven for
investigative journalism and free speech. She has said she helped
to
produce a video for Wikileaks showing a US Apache helicopter shooting
civilians in Iraq in 2007. The classified video, released by
Wikileaks
last April, brought the whistle-blowing website to the world's
attention.
The website's founder, Julian Assange, is currently fighting
extradition from the UK to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning
as part of an inquiry into alleged sex offences.
Ms Jonsdottir reportedly left Wikileaks late last year after she argued
unsuccessfully that Mr Assange should take a low-profile role until his
legal troubles were resolved.
Swedish
Police Report Details Case Against Assange
NYTIMES
By JOHN F. BURNS and RAVI SOMAIYA
December 18,
2010
LONDON — Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks who was released from
a British jail late last week, is facing a new challenge: the leak of a
68-page confidential Swedish police report that sheds new light on the
allegations of sexual misconduct that led to Mr. Assange’s legal
troubles.
The Swedish report traces events over a four-day period in August when
Mr. Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, had what he has described as
consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women. Their accounts,
which form the basis of an extradition case against Mr. Assange, state
that their encounters with him began consensually, but became
nonconsensual when he persisted in having unprotected sex with them in
defiance of their insistence that he use a condom.
The case has prompted widespread controversy, with supporters of Mr.
Assange alleging that he is the victim, and the women are complicit, in
an American-inspired vendetta seeking to punish WikiLeaks for posting
hundreds of thousands of secret American documents on the Internet.
The conspiracy, supporters of Mr. Assange have said, hinges on what
they have described as an improbable coincidence: that he is facing
potential criminal charges in a sex case just as he is challenging the
United States government. These critics have also pointed to possible
political manipulation of the Swedish prosecutor’s office, which had
dropped the most serious allegations against Mr. Assange, but later
revived them, listing the allegations that prosecutors wished to
question him on as “rape, sexual molestation and forceful coercion.”
But the details in the police report and dozens of interviews in recent
months with people in Sweden linked to the case suggest that the
Swedish case could be less flawed than Mr. Assange’s supporters have
claimed. As for the prosecutors’ actions, interviews with legal experts
suggest that it would not be abnormal for such a high-level case to
move up the hierarchy of prosecutors, with disagreements over how to
apply Sweden’s finely calibrated laws on sexual misconduct.
Still, the police report also provides support for a claim made by Mr.
Assange’s supporters that the women involved seemed willing to continue
their friendships with Mr. Assange after what they described as sexual
misbehavior. The women did not decide to go to the police, the report
shows, until they discovered by talking to each other that they had
both been sexually involved with him and, by their accounts, had
similar experiences.
The British newspaper The Guardian broke the news of the report on
Saturday, and quoted extensively from what it said was an unredacted
copy. The New York Times later obtained a redacted form of the report
in Swedish from another source. The report is a preliminary summary of
the evidence taken by investigators in August after their initial
interviews with the two women and with Mr. Assange, who left Sweden for
Britain in early October but subsequently refused to return to Sweden
for further questioning.
Mr. Assange has told friends in Britain that he concluded that the
Swedish case was being driven by a desire to punish him for WikiLeaks’
disclosures, and to fatally weaken the organization.
The Swedish document traces the accounts given by the two women of
their intimate encounters with Mr. Assange. As previously reported,
both women say that Mr. Assange first agreed to use a condom and then
refused, in the first instance by continuing with sex after the condom
broke, and in the second by having sex without using a condom with a
woman who was asleep.
Mr. Assange himself has declined to publicly address the women’s
accounts directly, both before his Dec. 7 arrest on the Swedish
extradition warrant and since he was released from a 10-day period in a
London jail on Thursday after posting $310,000 bail. But he has
vehemently denied any wrongdoing, and has long insisted that he is the
victim of a political conspiracy. On Friday, he told the BBC that the
case presented in the London courts was “a smear attempt,” and that the
impending publication of the Swedish police report amounted to “another
smear attempt.”
Mr. Assange told the BBC that he did not know “precisely who is behind”
the “conspiracy” against him, although his supporters have flooded the
Internet with charges that the C.I.A. is working to discredit him. But
he added, “It’s the case of any organization that’s exposing major
powers, and has major opposition, that they will be attacked.”
And in his police interview, he said the women’s accounts included
“incredible lies.”
The two women have been referred to in the British courts only as Ms. A
and Ms. W. Ms. A, according to the police report and to Swedish
friends, is a left-wing activist in her early 30s who was Mr. Assange’s
point of contact when he flew to Stockholm from London on Aug. 11 to
give a speech at a gathering hosted by the Swedish Association of
Christian Social Democrats on Aug. 14. Her friends say her political
leanings suggest she would not want to harm WikiLeaks, which is
dedicated to revealing states’ secrets.
Ms. W, who has worked part-time in a Stockholm museum, has told friends
that she is a strong supporter of WikiLeaks, a description supported by
the lawyer who was represented the two women in Swedish courts.
Ms. A told the police that arrangements had been made for Mr. Assange
to begin his visit to Sweden by staying at her Stockholm apartment for
a few days while she was out of town. But the report said she returned
Aug. 13, sooner than expected and, over dinner with Mr. Assange, agreed
to allow him to stay in the apartment.
The details of their sexual encounter that night were redacted from the
copy of the police report obtained by The Times. But The Guardian
reported Saturday that Ms. A told the police that Mr. Assange had
stroked her leg, then pulled off her clothes and snapped her necklace.
The report quotes her as saying that she “tried to put on some articles
of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange
ripped them off again.”
According to The Guardian, Ms. A told the police that Mr. Assange
pinned her arms and legs to stop her from reaching for a condom.
Eventually one was used — but, she told her police interviewer, he
appeared to have “done something” with it, resulting in its tearing.
Ms. W, 25, lives in the town of Enkoping, about 30 miles north of
Stockholm. A few weeks before Mr. Assange arrived in Sweden, she saw
him on television, according to the police interview in The Times’s
version of the police report, and found him “interesting, brave and
worthy of admiration.” When she discovered that he would be speaking in
Stockholm, she contacted Ms. A to volunteer her help.
Her offer was not taken up, but she decided to attend the lecture
anyway, where she met Ms. A in person. After the speech, she told the
police, she sat next to Mr. Assange at a group dinner. He flirtatiously
fed her bread and cheese, she said, and put his arm around her.
The group dispersed after dinner, leaving Mr. Assange and Ms. W alone,
the police report said. They decided to go to a movie, where, the
report said, the couple began caressing, then moved to a back row,
where they continued. Two days later, Ms. W and Mr. Assange met again
and walked around the city’s old town together, according to the police
report. It said they decided to go by train to Enkoping after Mr.
Assange balked at staying in a Stockholm hotel. Ms. W then bought his
rail ticket, for about $16, after Mr. Assange told her that he did not
have any money, and that he feared he could be traced if he used a
credit card.
The unredacted police report obtained by The Guardian says that after
arriving at her apartment the two had sex using a condom. In the
report, she described waking up to find him having sex with her again,
without a condom. Later that morning, Ms. W told the police, Mr.
Assange “ordered her to get some water and orange juice for him.” She
said “she didn’t like being ordered around in her own home but got it
anyway.”
The assertion that Mr. Assange initiated sex without a condom while Ms.
W was asleep led the prosecutors to list rape among the allegations
they wanted to explore with Mr. Assange, according to testimony in a
London court. Swedish legal experts have said that the section of the
Swedish penal code involved in the allegation refers to the third and
least serious of three categories of rape, known as “less severe,”
commonly invoked when men in relationships use threats or mild degrees
of force to have sex with partners against their will. The maximum
penalty for the offense is four years.
From Enkoping, Mr. Assange returned to Ms. A’s apartment, despite what
she describes as a deteriorating relationship in the light of their
previous sexual encounter. Then, the following day, according to the
statements the prosecution has made in the British courts, Mr. Assange
tried to initiate sex by rubbing himself against her. The Guardian
suggests that he was naked from the waist down. This, lawyers for the
Swedish government have said in court, is the grounds for one of the
allegations of “sexual molestation.”
Later the same week, according to the police report, Ms. W got in touch
with Ms. A to try to seek out Mr. Assange, after he had failed to keep
a promise she said he had made to call her. In the conversation, the
report said, the two women discovered that both had had sex with Mr.
Assange without a condom. A friend of Ms. A’s said in an interview this
summer that the two women then decided to insist that Mr. Assange have
a test for sexually transmitted diseases.
At around this time, Ms. A asked Mr. Assange to leave her apartment,
according to a friend. The police report says he did so on Aug. 20. On
that day, when he had not taken the test, the two women went to
Stockholm’s Klara police station, where, according to the police
report, they “wanted to get some advice” and were “unsure of how they
should proceed.” By that time, acquaintances of the two women have said
in interviews that both women had already confided similar details of
their experiences with Mr. Assange to friends.
After the two women were interviewed at the police station, prosecutors
issued an arrest warrant within hours. Mr. Assange said at the time he
did not know who his accusers were. “Their identities have been made
anonymous so even I have no idea who they are,” he said to the Swedish
newspaper Aftonbladet.
The police report quotes lengthy passages from Mr. Assange’s interview
with investigators, which occurred when he voluntarily submitted to
questioning in Stockholm, before the prosecutors’ office allowed him to
return to Britain. Throughout the interview, he insisted that he had
committed no offenses in his sexual encounters with the two women,
while declining in many instances to respond to detailed police
questioning about sexual details. Speaking of his relationship with Ms.
A, the report quoted him as saying that “I had no reason to suspect
that I would be accused of something like this.” He added that the
complaints made against him included “a number of false statements” and
“a bunch of incredible lies.”
Mr. Assange’s suspicions of political interference in the case were
confirmed, he has said in recent days, by the decision of the Swedish
prosecutors to drop the initial arrest warrant, and to downgrade the
investigation to one of “molestation,” a minor offense. Those decisions
were reversed in late August when the chief state prosecutor, Marianne
Ny, overruling a subordinate prosecutor in Stockholm, Eva Finne,
restored the original allegations, saying that rape was the appropriate
charge for the evidence on file with the prosecutors.
Legal experts in Sweden have said that the decision was not unusual
given the success that the women’s movement in Sweden has had over the
last 30 years in recasting Sweden’s criminal laws on sexual issues,
making them extremely protective of women’s rights.
But Mark Stephens, Mr. Assange’s lead lawyer in London, has repeatedly
said, without providing details, that “a senior political figure”
worked to have the case reopened.
The reference appears to have been to Claes Borgstrom, the lawyer for
the two Swedish women, who is Sweden’s former equal opportunities
ombudsman, and the spokesman on gender equality issues for the Social
Democratic Party, the main opposition group in the Swedish Parliament.
In an interview in Stockholm, Mr. Borgstrom, 66, said it was common
under Sweden’s rape laws for men who force sex on women without a
condom to face prosecution. “It’s a violation of sexual integrity, and
it can be seen as rape,” he said.
By presenting the case as a vendetta, he said, Mr. Assange and his
legal team were misrepresenting a justice system that required approval
from Sweden’s highest appeals court before the extradition warrant was
approved. “Those who say that the judges in our court of appeal were
influenced by pressure from the United States don’t know what they’re
talking about,” he said. “It’s absurd.”
He added that by presenting the allegations against him as part of a
political conspiracy, Mr. Assange had made “victims” of the two women,
who now faced vilification on the Internet and regular death threats.
“There are three persons who know for a fact that this has nothing to
do with WikiLeaks, the C.I.A. or the Obama administration, and they are
Julian Assange and my two clients,” Mr. Borgstrom said.
Christina Anderson contributed
reporting from Stockholm.
9 December 2010 Last
updated at 12:35 ET
Amazon site unaffected by
pro-Wikileaks attack
Attempts by online activists to bring
down online retailer Amazon's website appear to have failed. The
group
Anonymous had pledged to to attack the site at 1600 GMT but the site
seems to be functioning normally.
The site was targeted because it withdrew services from whistle-blowing
website Wikileaks
The tool through whic
