1) This week, the FBI had a request to surveil a suspected cybercriminal rejected by a Texas judge. It seems ordinary enough so far—the FBI wanted to place surveillance on a suspected criminal, which they probably do routinely. The judge rejected the request, which they also do routinely. The reason this raised eyebrows was that the FBI wanted to create a trojan virus, infect the suspect's computer, and gain control of his webcam to monitor him remotely. In addition to this, the FBI's trojan would also monitor his emails, instant messages, gain access to his documents, internet history, passwords, and photographs, and track his locations. If this sounds like near-criminal activity, the judge agreed. Without basis for physical location, the judge found that he, in good conscience, could not allow the request to go through because, "authorization would allow the FBI to hack any computer in the world." It is scary to think that the FBI has a cyber weapon this powerful, and wants to use it.
2) The Senate and President Obama, backed by the ALCU, have vetoed and rejected the CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) bill (which passed the House), effectively killing the bill, at least in its current form. The White House had stated previously that it would veto the bill if it lacked the necessary privacy protection for citizens.
3) And finally, as the investigation into Boston Marathon bombing begins to wind down, it is interesting to note that, arguably, this attack was truly the first U.S. terror attack of the internet age. A large amount of the information we received in the aftermath of the bombing was coming from Twitter and Facebook. For some, it was easy to ignore the speculative information coming in from Twitter and Facebook as the events unfolded, and for many others, it was not. Several lives were endangered due to faulty reporting from both Twitter and tabloids. But, after the names of the suspects had been announced, information came streaming in about the brothers on a level we have never seen before. For example, within 24 hours, users were able to extrapolate from their social accounts to figure out what their sleeping patterns were. The American public had, at its fingertips, a more complete profile of any terror suspect(s) that we had ever had before—we knew their likes, dislikes, beliefs, daily activities, family history, etc, all within hours. Within minutes of the bombing, social media had high-resolution, clear pictures of one of the bombers (taken from smartphones and CCTV cameras). At the time, he was just another face in the crowd: one of thousands seen in the photographs taken that day. These amateur investigators lacked the training and skill needed to sift through the photos and filter out the noise, and the FBI lacked the resources and sheer volume of information that social media could provide.
The single thread tying all three of these together is the way in which technology is forcing us to handle crime differently, and all three illustrate how, in nearly every way, we are unprepared for this technological wave. The FBI story shows that law enforcement, for better or worse, believes it needs more power to be able to handle crimes, to the point of nearly committing a crime themselves. The CISPA story shows that our legislators are having an extremely hard time determining how to better create laws to curb crime as it relates to technology (and rightfully so, as privacy is a hotly contested issue). And my small social-media op-ed demonstrates a huge gap in public preparedness for dealing with the techno-social ramifications in the immediate wake of a major crime/attack.
Technology is changing the world rapidly. Ten years ago, when I got my first cell phone. I remember how cool it was that there was a camera in the back with a whopping 0.3 megapixels and that with 100MB of storage, I could take nearly 200 photos. I remember thinking that it was a nice gimmick, but I could never take any useful pictures with that thing. I remember the city installing a red light camera on a busy intersection and thinking how cool and weird it was to have cameras watching you occasionally. Ten years later, I can't imagine living in city where I'm not being filmed or photographed at least once at some point during the day—surveillance cameras, red-light cameras at almost every major intersection, smartphones with double-digit megapixel ratings and high quality sensors, and social media tracking your every location. Imagine what the world will be like in 10 more years when everyone has a Google Glass device, or a smart-watch, or some other new device.
It is so interesting, yet also frightening, that law enforcement, law, and society have yet to truly adapt to these changes. We are in the stages of changing, and what we will end up being in 10 years is a complete mystery.
As for next week's topic, I think I have a basic working knowledge of media licensing, network licensing, airwave control, and such. I'd be very interested to know how this sector is on a collision course with the media entertainment/sharing topic we discussed a few weeks back.
Links:
IBT - FBI Spyware
IBT - CISPA Dead
Monday, April 29, 2013
Monday, April 22, 2013
It's Tax Season All Over Again...
Earlier this week, I received an email from Ebay regarding S.743, the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, a Senate bill otherwise known as the 'internet sales tax bill.' The email urged its readers to sign a petition to Congress to have the bill defeated. The bill, along with its House counterpart, H.R.684, is still in its preliminary stages, and is just beginning to be debated in Congress. It would require states to collect sales tax from online sales purchases from any non-exempt seller where the final sale destination is within that state. In other words, inter-state online sales tax.
Currently, sellers have to charge sales tax in a state if they have nexus within that state (they must have an actual physical presence in the state). For example, take Newegg.com and Tigerdirect.com. Newegg has a physical presence in CA (it is headquartered in SoCal), while Tigerdirect does not (it is headquartered in Miami, and has warehouses in the midwest/south). If a Californian were to purchase the same computer component from both sites, they would be charged sales tax by Newegg, but not by Tigerdirect. All else equal, this presents a huge incentive for people to buy from Tigerdirect.
The current system is essentially an honor system. If you purchase something in-state, online, you will be charged sales tax. However, if you live in a state that charges sales tax, and you purchase something online from an out-of-state seller who doesn't charge you tax, you are supposed to calculate the sales tax, report it, and pay it yourself. No one does this. It's an immense hassle, and as the world goes digital, it seems remarkably backwards to expect people to do their taxes the old fashioned way for electronic sales.
Overall, I think the basic idea behind the bill is sound, but I'm worried that the implementation might not be. As it stands, the bill contains exemption clauses for small business, and there is debate on what to do for states that don't charge sales tax. It's possible that this bill would simply complicate an already convoluted tax code. I also think that the directionality of the sales tax is wrong. The sales tax is being charged for the buyer state, not the seller state. This seems counter-intuitive to what we experience everyday. The state where the transaction takes place determines the amount of sales tax to be charged. This bill would reverse it, and would charge the sales-tax for online sales based on the destination/buyer state. A change this big and this sweeping could change the e-commerce landscape drastically.
Links:
Library Of Congress - S.743
Library Of Congress - H.R.684
Ebay - Petition To Congress
CNET - Internet Sales Tax Bill
Currently, sellers have to charge sales tax in a state if they have nexus within that state (they must have an actual physical presence in the state). For example, take Newegg.com and Tigerdirect.com. Newegg has a physical presence in CA (it is headquartered in SoCal), while Tigerdirect does not (it is headquartered in Miami, and has warehouses in the midwest/south). If a Californian were to purchase the same computer component from both sites, they would be charged sales tax by Newegg, but not by Tigerdirect. All else equal, this presents a huge incentive for people to buy from Tigerdirect.
The current system is essentially an honor system. If you purchase something in-state, online, you will be charged sales tax. However, if you live in a state that charges sales tax, and you purchase something online from an out-of-state seller who doesn't charge you tax, you are supposed to calculate the sales tax, report it, and pay it yourself. No one does this. It's an immense hassle, and as the world goes digital, it seems remarkably backwards to expect people to do their taxes the old fashioned way for electronic sales.
Overall, I think the basic idea behind the bill is sound, but I'm worried that the implementation might not be. As it stands, the bill contains exemption clauses for small business, and there is debate on what to do for states that don't charge sales tax. It's possible that this bill would simply complicate an already convoluted tax code. I also think that the directionality of the sales tax is wrong. The sales tax is being charged for the buyer state, not the seller state. This seems counter-intuitive to what we experience everyday. The state where the transaction takes place determines the amount of sales tax to be charged. This bill would reverse it, and would charge the sales-tax for online sales based on the destination/buyer state. A change this big and this sweeping could change the e-commerce landscape drastically.
Links:
Library Of Congress - S.743
Library Of Congress - H.R.684
Ebay - Petition To Congress
CNET - Internet Sales Tax Bill
Monday, April 15, 2013
DISH Sprinting To Their Goals
DISH recently announced a planned acquisition of Sprint. Dish is currently one of two major satellite TV providers in the US (the other being DirecTV), and Sprint is the third largest mobile phone and data service in the US, and only one of two CDMA providers (the other being Verizon). Sprint was in the process of being acquired by Softbank, a Japanese telecomm company. Now DISH's offer could start a bidding war.
It was just a few weeks ago that DISH had revealed it intended to purchase T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom. T-Mobile, instead, announced a merger with MetroPCS, a growing cell phone provider, but announced that they would remain open to an acquisition by DISH after the MetroPCS deal went through. Not willing to wait, DISH seems to be signaling with this announcement that they are very eager to get into the telecomm business, and are unwilling to wait even a little bit. It would lead one to believe that they have big plans for such an acquisition. It will be interesting to see how they go forward with the integration of the two services. AT&T and Verizon, two of Sprint's competitors, both offer TV service, but those two fledgling services were started by the companies themselves. Sprint is a fully-realized telecomm company, and DISH is a fully-realized TV provider. A merger of this kind, if it goes through, would essentially be unprecedented.
Overall, this marks a growing trend amongst companies to provide an all-in-one service. Verizon began with cell-phone service, but now offers TV, internet, and home phone service. AT&T began as a home phone service, but expanded into providing TV, cell phones, and internet. Cable companies began providing internet, and some have merged with content-providers, like NBC-Universal's merger with Comcast. As I mentioned previously in another post, numerous tech companies are trying to find a way into the ISP and TV business, most notably Google Fiber's new service. It all points to a consolidation of these services under one roof.
In the near future, we might get all our media and interconnectivity from one provider. If a single company can give us home phone and internet, mobile phone and internet, as well as TV/content, and all at the right price, there is little incentive to go elsewhere.
As far as this week's topic, I'm familiar with a lot of online learning services, like Khan Academy, EDX, UDACITY, CourseRA, etc... MOOCs (massive open online courses) are getting a lot of attention lately, specifically because major universities are beginning to use them (San Jose State, Stanford, and Berkeley are currently using some form of MOOC). It certainly brings into question the cost of tuition, as well as the efficacy of the traditional teaching model.
Links:
BI - Dish & Sprint
It was just a few weeks ago that DISH had revealed it intended to purchase T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom. T-Mobile, instead, announced a merger with MetroPCS, a growing cell phone provider, but announced that they would remain open to an acquisition by DISH after the MetroPCS deal went through. Not willing to wait, DISH seems to be signaling with this announcement that they are very eager to get into the telecomm business, and are unwilling to wait even a little bit. It would lead one to believe that they have big plans for such an acquisition. It will be interesting to see how they go forward with the integration of the two services. AT&T and Verizon, two of Sprint's competitors, both offer TV service, but those two fledgling services were started by the companies themselves. Sprint is a fully-realized telecomm company, and DISH is a fully-realized TV provider. A merger of this kind, if it goes through, would essentially be unprecedented.
Overall, this marks a growing trend amongst companies to provide an all-in-one service. Verizon began with cell-phone service, but now offers TV, internet, and home phone service. AT&T began as a home phone service, but expanded into providing TV, cell phones, and internet. Cable companies began providing internet, and some have merged with content-providers, like NBC-Universal's merger with Comcast. As I mentioned previously in another post, numerous tech companies are trying to find a way into the ISP and TV business, most notably Google Fiber's new service. It all points to a consolidation of these services under one roof.
In the near future, we might get all our media and interconnectivity from one provider. If a single company can give us home phone and internet, mobile phone and internet, as well as TV/content, and all at the right price, there is little incentive to go elsewhere.
As far as this week's topic, I'm familiar with a lot of online learning services, like Khan Academy, EDX, UDACITY, CourseRA, etc... MOOCs (massive open online courses) are getting a lot of attention lately, specifically because major universities are beginning to use them (San Jose State, Stanford, and Berkeley are currently using some form of MOOC). It certainly brings into question the cost of tuition, as well as the efficacy of the traditional teaching model.
Links:
BI - Dish & Sprint
Monday, April 8, 2013
IP Law Is Only Going To Get Uglier
A startup company, Unified Patents, formed with the intentions of gaining backing from smaller startups and larger companies in an effort to curb "patent trolling." Patent trolling is the practice of buying inexpensive, relatively obscure, borderline-invalid patents, then pursuing companies that are in violation of the patents through litigation. Generally, the "troll" is a larger company, and the company unknowingly in violation is a smaller company. Because the cost of litigation is much greater to the smaller company, they are usually forced to either settle, or simply close up shop. Unified Patents is now backed by Google, and hopes to gain more backers over the coming months. With the combined resources of all the participating companies, they hope to make it more difficult and costly for a patent troll to pursue litigation. In return, all backing companies enjoy an increased level of protection from the coalition. Unified Patents will charge a membership fee.
This could be a big step towards patent law reform and the end of the so-called "patent wars." With enough companies backing it, Unified Patents (founded and run largely by lawyers) could make a case for major revisions to patent law that would prevent frivolous lawsuits and faster recognition of invalid patent claims. A lot of tech companies have been hampered by patent trolling, especially in the recent years as new markets have opened up. Frivolous and invalid claims waste time and resources, and can stunt progress for any company - it's just that smaller companies take the hit much harder than larger ones.
I found this interesting, since I'm just getting into designing software outside of school. It's really amazing the sheer number of useless patents there are (most famously, Apple patenting a rectangle with rounded corners, US Patent no. D670,286). Last week, I spoke in class of Oracle suing Google over misuse of the headers in their API, effectively trying to patent mathematical functions and computer algorithms. It's unsettling to think that a developer or company, at any time, might unknowingly violate some obscure, extremely broad patent, and lose everything, despite not explicitly doing anything wrong. It's my hope that within the next few years, or at least the decade, that some major reform will take place regarding patent laws.
As for mobile devices, I would consider myself an Android enthusiast, and I closely follow ULV notebook technology, but apart from that (is there anything else?), I don't have much else knowledge.
Links:
CNET - Unified Patents
This could be a big step towards patent law reform and the end of the so-called "patent wars." With enough companies backing it, Unified Patents (founded and run largely by lawyers) could make a case for major revisions to patent law that would prevent frivolous lawsuits and faster recognition of invalid patent claims. A lot of tech companies have been hampered by patent trolling, especially in the recent years as new markets have opened up. Frivolous and invalid claims waste time and resources, and can stunt progress for any company - it's just that smaller companies take the hit much harder than larger ones.
I found this interesting, since I'm just getting into designing software outside of school. It's really amazing the sheer number of useless patents there are (most famously, Apple patenting a rectangle with rounded corners, US Patent no. D670,286). Last week, I spoke in class of Oracle suing Google over misuse of the headers in their API, effectively trying to patent mathematical functions and computer algorithms. It's unsettling to think that a developer or company, at any time, might unknowingly violate some obscure, extremely broad patent, and lose everything, despite not explicitly doing anything wrong. It's my hope that within the next few years, or at least the decade, that some major reform will take place regarding patent laws.
As for mobile devices, I would consider myself an Android enthusiast, and I closely follow ULV notebook technology, but apart from that (is there anything else?), I don't have much else knowledge.
Links:
CNET - Unified Patents
Monday, April 1, 2013
Streaming TV Chugs Along Slowly
Intel is in current negotiations with major media companies in an effort to obtain programming for it's planned online TV-streaming service. They are currently in negotiations with Time Warner, NBC Universal, and plan on entering negotiations with News Corp, CBS, and Disney soon. This is a small step in an otherwise large plan for Intel (and other tech companies) to become content providers.
This move marks the entrance of another major player into a continuing trend of streaming premium content. Currently, services like Netflix and Amazon, and to a lesser extent, Redbox, Streampix, and Verizon, offer a large backlog of TV content long after it has aired on TV. Hulu, an ad-based provider, offers some recently aired content, but with some limitations, including subscription and limited access to past episodes. Many content provider websites also offer clips or even full episodes of recently aired programming, but with quality or backlog content access limitations. Traditional TV providers , in recent years, have been ratcheting down their services, or raising premiums, in additional to lacking on-demand content like Netflix or Hulu. There is a large void in the industry for a single, competitively-priced provider with access to both on-demand and live content.
The future seems to be moving towards a premium streaming pay-TV model, and we could very well see the looming end of the traditional cable/satellite model. Google currently has its Google Fiber service deployed in Kansas, offering 1 gigabit fiber internet and pay TV for a competitively-priced $120 (similar plans from Comcast, owned by NBC Universal, or Time Warner, cost at least the same, with significantly lower internet speeds). Microsoft had plans to bring similar pay-TV to its XBox, and Apple is rumored to bring pay-TV it it's iTV.
The challenge these companies face is a premium licensing fee due to being new entrants into the industry. Because of this, these companies will need to find other ways of monetizing their service to lower prices and maintain a profit. Apart from Google and Verizon, who are ISPs themselves, these companies also risk competing with traditional ISPs. Intel (and Microsoft, if they decide to bring back their plans for pay-TV) would still be limited by ISPs. Slow speeds, such as that found on DSL, is barely adequate for high quality content. Cable and fiber offer better speeds, but many ISPs have bandwidth limitations that would severely limit content consumption with a streaming pay-TV model - notably, Comcast and AT&T, who are also players in the traditional pay-TV industry.
Next week's topic: I know a little bit about security and privacy, mostly from reading news articles, but the technical aspects of security and privacy are largely lost on me.
Links:
Tom's Hardware - Intel Close to Landing Deals
This move marks the entrance of another major player into a continuing trend of streaming premium content. Currently, services like Netflix and Amazon, and to a lesser extent, Redbox, Streampix, and Verizon, offer a large backlog of TV content long after it has aired on TV. Hulu, an ad-based provider, offers some recently aired content, but with some limitations, including subscription and limited access to past episodes. Many content provider websites also offer clips or even full episodes of recently aired programming, but with quality or backlog content access limitations. Traditional TV providers , in recent years, have been ratcheting down their services, or raising premiums, in additional to lacking on-demand content like Netflix or Hulu. There is a large void in the industry for a single, competitively-priced provider with access to both on-demand and live content.
The future seems to be moving towards a premium streaming pay-TV model, and we could very well see the looming end of the traditional cable/satellite model. Google currently has its Google Fiber service deployed in Kansas, offering 1 gigabit fiber internet and pay TV for a competitively-priced $120 (similar plans from Comcast, owned by NBC Universal, or Time Warner, cost at least the same, with significantly lower internet speeds). Microsoft had plans to bring similar pay-TV to its XBox, and Apple is rumored to bring pay-TV it it's iTV.
The challenge these companies face is a premium licensing fee due to being new entrants into the industry. Because of this, these companies will need to find other ways of monetizing their service to lower prices and maintain a profit. Apart from Google and Verizon, who are ISPs themselves, these companies also risk competing with traditional ISPs. Intel (and Microsoft, if they decide to bring back their plans for pay-TV) would still be limited by ISPs. Slow speeds, such as that found on DSL, is barely adequate for high quality content. Cable and fiber offer better speeds, but many ISPs have bandwidth limitations that would severely limit content consumption with a streaming pay-TV model - notably, Comcast and AT&T, who are also players in the traditional pay-TV industry.
Next week's topic: I know a little bit about security and privacy, mostly from reading news articles, but the technical aspects of security and privacy are largely lost on me.
Links:
Tom's Hardware - Intel Close to Landing Deals
Monday, March 18, 2013
Andy Rubin Steps Down
Earlier this week, Andy Rubin, the original developer of Android and the man in charge of the Android division at Google since Google purchased Android from him, announced he is stepping down from his position. Replacing him is Sundar Pichai, the head of Chrome development. Rubin is still expected to remain at Google to work on other projects. Many take this as a sign that Google plans to eventually merge Chrome OS and Android OS.
While Google have stated that they are comfortable with having two competing products on similar platforms, ultimately, most industry experts view it as a necessary move to have one product to avoid fragmentation, like that which occurred with Android 2 for phones and Android 3 for tablets. Having Chrome OS on low power notebooks and Android on powerful phones and tablets would be performing the same fragmentation that plagued Android in its early incarnations.
A potential merger could signal Google's refocusing on web search, and a plan to center all their products more heavily around web search and advertising. As of now, Android likely makes Google very little money in comparison to their web search revenue, but Android is popular due to a large development community and manufacturer backing. Chrome OS, on the other hand, is much more conducive to web search than Android, but lacks the necessary third-party development to allow it to become popular with consumers. Merging the two could bring the best of both worlds together—a web search conducive OS that have a large following and development community—or it could result in a product with the worst of both worlds—a primitive, clunky OS with little development and third-party support.
As for next week's topic, I know a little bit about cloud computing, like the basic idea behind it, EC2, and Hadoop, but not sure how it fits into an enterprise environment.
Links:
Tech Radar - Andy Rubin Steps Down
Techland - The Coming Merger
While Google have stated that they are comfortable with having two competing products on similar platforms, ultimately, most industry experts view it as a necessary move to have one product to avoid fragmentation, like that which occurred with Android 2 for phones and Android 3 for tablets. Having Chrome OS on low power notebooks and Android on powerful phones and tablets would be performing the same fragmentation that plagued Android in its early incarnations.
A potential merger could signal Google's refocusing on web search, and a plan to center all their products more heavily around web search and advertising. As of now, Android likely makes Google very little money in comparison to their web search revenue, but Android is popular due to a large development community and manufacturer backing. Chrome OS, on the other hand, is much more conducive to web search than Android, but lacks the necessary third-party development to allow it to become popular with consumers. Merging the two could bring the best of both worlds together—a web search conducive OS that have a large following and development community—or it could result in a product with the worst of both worlds—a primitive, clunky OS with little development and third-party support.
As for next week's topic, I know a little bit about cloud computing, like the basic idea behind it, EC2, and Hadoop, but not sure how it fits into an enterprise environment.
Links:
Tech Radar - Andy Rubin Steps Down
Techland - The Coming Merger
Monday, March 11, 2013
Acronyms Galore - GOWEX NYC WIFI
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the potential "Super WiFi" network that could be built upon the FCC freeing up bandwidth. With enough free bandwidth, a private company could potentially set up a network across the nation and monetize it. Consumers would be given another choice for wireless and mobile data. This week, news came out that GOWEX, a wireless communications company, has activated a free, city-wide WiFi network in New York City, stretching across all 5 boroughs. The network is monetized through advertising, and users are given up to 1 MB of bandwidth per session, enough to checks emails, browse mobile sites, and read text news. The network is supported by 1,953 hotspots, spread out throughout the city. GOWEX plans to implement similar networks in at least two more locations in the U.S. before the end of the year.
With this plan, GOWEX might be creating the blueprint for Super WiFi networks. Their current implementation is more than likely using the ubiquitous 2.4 GHz band, but 5 GHz could be implemented just as easily (though at a higher cost, due to 5 GHz being short range), and if the FCC releases the unused bands as planned, we could potentially see similar city-wide networks running on the longer-range 300-400 MHz bands, using nearly the exact same layout as GOWEX is currently using. A larger telecom company could easily come in and invest in city-wide networks in major metropolitan areas, then eventually connect all those city networks with long range towers to create a robust national network.
Although it's in its infant stages right now, and severely limited in bandwidth with very large security concerns, this network could change the way people communicate, especially in a large metropolitan area like NYC. No longer would you have to seek out a WiFi hotspot in a coffee bar, or restaurant, just to check a website or an email. People can be, and probably will be, expected to be connected at all times. Whether that's a good thing or not, remains to be seen.
Links:
Engadget - GOWEX Free Wifi In NYC
With this plan, GOWEX might be creating the blueprint for Super WiFi networks. Their current implementation is more than likely using the ubiquitous 2.4 GHz band, but 5 GHz could be implemented just as easily (though at a higher cost, due to 5 GHz being short range), and if the FCC releases the unused bands as planned, we could potentially see similar city-wide networks running on the longer-range 300-400 MHz bands, using nearly the exact same layout as GOWEX is currently using. A larger telecom company could easily come in and invest in city-wide networks in major metropolitan areas, then eventually connect all those city networks with long range towers to create a robust national network.
Although it's in its infant stages right now, and severely limited in bandwidth with very large security concerns, this network could change the way people communicate, especially in a large metropolitan area like NYC. No longer would you have to seek out a WiFi hotspot in a coffee bar, or restaurant, just to check a website or an email. People can be, and probably will be, expected to be connected at all times. Whether that's a good thing or not, remains to be seen.
Links:
Engadget - GOWEX Free Wifi In NYC
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)