Iranian Filmmaker Banned From Filmmaking... Makes Documentary Via His iPhone About His Plight

from the necessity-is-the-mother... dept

A little over a year ago, I asked how long it would be until we had a full, professional quality feature film filmed entirely with smartphones. This one doesn't completely qualify, but it is quite interesting. Ross Pruden points our attention to the story of This Is Not A Film, the documentary from widely respected Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi. The story behind this film is pretty crazy. Basically, Panahi was arrested and given a six-year sentence in prison, while also being barred from making films for 20 years. While he appealed the sentence, he was apparently able to remain in his Tehran apartment under house arrest... and decided to document his life as he dealt with this situation by filming it, often using iPhones to capture scenes (though not entirely). The film has been shown at various film festivals, but is hitting US theaters starting February 29th, and the trailer recently came out:

Apparently the film itself was smuggled out of Iran to Cannes by putting it on a USB key, and then baking that USB key into a cake that was shipped out of the country. In all the news coverage of this film, I haven't seen anything about how the Iranian government reacted to this film, which they must know about by now.

Either way, there's something of a statement being made here about the power of smartphone cameras these days. It really was just a few years ago that the idea of mixing cameras with phones was widely panned as a dumb idea. And now they're helping internationally renowned filmmakers who are being censored and persecuted to keep making their art. It also says something about the need for some creators to keep making their art, no matter what the challenges to doing so. That's really amazing.

Also, it starts to lead you down the path to rethinking questions about censorship and free speech limitations. Obviously, banning someone from making a film is a form of censorship and an infringement on free speech rights. And, of course, Iran does not have a particularly good reputation on free speech issues. But technology changes things. When "making a film" is as easy as clicking a button on the phone you carry at all times, it changes the equation. "Making a film" is no longer "making a film." It's just something you and anyone else can do at any time. When that happens, the very concept of banning someone from making a film... just seems silly.

82 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Congress Trying To Regulate Certain Wireless Spectrum Issues... In A Payroll Tax Bill?

from the politics-at-work dept

We've all seen how Congress sneaks controversial issues into larger "must pass" bills. The folks over at Public Knowledge are highlighting how our elected officials are trying to sneak three questionable policies -- all related to wireless technologies and access -- into a single "must pass" payroll tax bill, that has absolutely nothing to do with wireless technologies:

No Net Neutrality Protections.  Forget your feelings about the FCC’s formal Open Internet Rules.  An amendment by Rep. Marsha Blackburn would prevent any restrictions on network management, block any requirements to make connectivity available on a wholesale basis (which would increase competition), and stop the FCC from passing a rule allowing users to attach any non-harmful device to the network.  As a result, the winner of the spectrum auction would be able to throttle, block, and discriminate however it sees fit – something that runs counter to any definition of network neutrality.

No Safeguards Against Further Consolidation.  It is no secret that one of the reasons that there are only four nationwide wireless carriers (and two dominant ones) is that only a few companies control most of the available spectrum in the United States.  This amendment would prevent the FCC from making sure that new spectrum goes towards new or under-provisioned competitors instead of being further consolidated by AT&T and Verizon.   That’s probably why AT&T is pushing so hard for this amendment.

No Super-Wifi.  One of the greatest boons of the transition from analog to digital TV broadcasting was supposed to be the creation of unlicensed “whitespaces” or “super-wifi.”  This new spectrum – which is much better at communicating long distances and through walls than current wifi spectrum – would be used cooperatively by everyone and usher in a new era of wireless devices.  However, a third amendment would destroy the FCC’s power to allocate some of this great spectrum for unlicensed uses.  That means that opportunity would simply pass us by.

I'm not necessarily convinced that all three things are quite as "horrible" as described, but at the very least, I think everyone can agree that they have no business (at all) being in a payroll tax bill. If these are ideas worth considering, they should be put in a separate bill where they can be debated accordingly.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

File Sharing Without The Internet: The Saharan Bluetooth Experience

from the off-the-grid dept

A couple of months ago, Techdirt wrote about an EU politician's plan to build Internet surveillance into every operating system. As we pointed out then, this could easily be circumvented by using non-Net means for swapping files. It may not be driven by fears about spying, but it seems that communities in Western Africa are using Bluetooth connections between mobile phones to do exactly that:

Digital filesharing doesn’t need the internet. This is the case at least in Western Africa and other parts of the developing world, where computers aren’t yet consumer goods for most and, even if they were, web access isn’t exactly New York City. Lovers of music still get it done, however, sharing files between knockoff cell phones via bluetooth connections and accumulating song collections in memory cards and bitrates that would probably make most in our lossless world laugh. It’s created a music culture that’s uniquely underground, an awesome anything-goes world of No Limit-style rap marrying Megaman-synth workouts, strange new techno-folks, and various other things so far untaggable.

That's taken from a fascinating interview with Christopher Kirkley, who has put together two compilations of Saharan cell phone music (and made sure that the artists involved get a share of the profits from selling them.) As he explains:

the phones have to be right next to each other, the connections have to be "accepted" on the phone, and the transfers take at least 30 seconds. It’s not like people just wander around browsing through whatever phone is in proximity. Also, the majority of file sharing is between friends, sitting around, drinking tea and smoking cigarettes, trying to pass the time...

This makes Bluetooth exchanges intensely social – much more so than the anonymous acts that take place across the Internet today. So, far from damaging the culture of file sharing, even the most severe of copyright crackdowns would probably just lead to a blossoming of the offline social aspects here too - to say nothing of some amazing new music.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Verizon Wireless: Paying Online Is More Convenient, So Now You Have To Pay $2 To Do So [Updated]

from the say-what-now? dept

Phone companies are pretty notorious for their regular additions of all kinds of silly fees, and Verizon Wireless seems to be even more renowned than others for putting in place all sorts of crazy fees (and then denying those fees even exist... until they suddenly have to pay back $90 million in bogus charges). Its latest is that it's going to start charging a $2 "convenience fee" for those who pay their bills online or by the phone. The company claims it is doing so in order to provide you the "best wireless experience." At this point, you have to wonder if there are just some jokers at Verizon Wireless wondering just what they can get away with. Not that I'm a VZW customer, but perhaps some consumers could look into charging the company a reverse fee for "customer appreciation" in order to help the customer get the "best customer service experience."

Update... and backtrack. It's amazing. Does Verizon Wireless employ even semi-competent marketing people who can think through how these things happen?

57 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Verizon Wireless Violating Its Promise To Be Open By Blocking Google Wallet?

from the openness-in-name-only dept

You may recall that, back in 2007, Verizon Wireless promised to be more open with its network. In 2008, it made that commitment a bit more forcefully under the law, when it won the C-block auction for 700 Mhz spectrum. Part of the rules of that auction were that if the bidding reached a certain level (a level that Google bid to exactly), then there would be openness requirements on the network. Of course, over the years, people have watched Verizon Wireless and suggested that its promises of openness have been empty promises. But are those promises violating the law?

There was some news a few weeks ago saying that Verizon Wireless was blocking Google's mobile payment offering, Google Wallet, on its Galaxy Nexus phones, and that's prompted Stanford professor Barbara van Schewick to ask the FCC to investigate if Verizon Wireless is breaking the law.

Verizon’s conduct undermines the Commission’s general approach towards mobile Internet openness by dismantling the protections for one part of the spectrum on which the FCC’s “incremental” approach to regulation in this space is built. Without enforcement, the openness conditions are effectively moot. Verizon violated these conditions earlier this year when it blocked tethering applications. Now it is blocking Google Wallet. This emerging pattern of disregard for its license conditions challenges the FCC to follow through on its pledges in the Open Internet Order to enforce the openness conditions in the 700 MHz band and to monitor the mobile Internet space for abuses by licensees.

While I agree that this is a bad move for consumers, I'm wondering if it really makes sense for the FCC to be involved here. The FCC has always been pretty weak in sanctioning telcos for doing anything wrong and I'm not sure much would really happen here either. The more effective thing is to watch what the market is already doing -- including quickly figuring out a way to hack Google Wallet back on to the phone. On top of that, this story reflects extremely poorly on Verizon Wireless and would make me question if I'd continue to use them (if I did today, which I don't). So while I agree it's a dumb move on VZW's part, I'm not sure it's dumb enough to reach the level that the FCC should be involved.

Read More | 21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Carrier IQ Saga (So Far) -- And Some Questions That Need Answers

from the answers-we-may-never-get dept

The story so far: security researcher Trevor Eckhart exposed some very disturbing information about the "Carrier IQ" application here. This set off a small firestorm, which quickly got much bigger when Carrier IQ responded by attempting to bully and threaten him into silence. This did not go over well. After he refused to back down, they retracted the threats and apologized.

Eckhart followed up by posting part two of his research, demonstrating some of his findings on video. Considerable discussion of that demonstration ensued, for example here and here and here. Some critics of Eckhart's research have opined that it's overblown or not rigorous enough. But further analysis and commentary suggests that the problem could well be worse than we currently know. Stephen Wicker of Cornell University has explored some of the implications, and his comments seem especially apropos given that Carrier IQ has publicly admitted holding a treasure trove of data. Dan Rosenberg has done further in-depth research on the detailed workings of Carrier IQ, leading to rather a lot of discussion about Carrier IQ's capabilities -- there's some disagreement among researchers over what Carrier IQ is doing versus what it could be doing, e.g.: Is Carrier IQ's Data-Logging Phone Software Helpful or a Hacker's Goldmine?

Meanwhile, the scandal grew, questions were raised about whether it violated federal wiretap laws, a least one US Senator noticed, and Carrier IQ issued an inept press release. Phone vendors and carriers have been begun backing away from Carrier IQ as quickly as possible; there were denials from Verizon and Apple . T-Mobile has posted internal and external quick guides about Carrier IQ. Some of the denials were more credible than others. There has been some skepticism about Carrier IQ's statements, given their own marketing claims and the non-answers to some questions. There's also been discussion about the claims made in Carrier IQ's patent.

Then the lawsuits started, see Hagens Berman and Sianna & Straite and 8 companies hit with lawsuit for some details on three of them.

Attempts to figure out which phones are infected with Carrier IQ are ongoing. For example, the Google Nexus Android phones and original Xoom tablet seem to not be infected, nor do phones used on UK-based mobile networks, but traces of are present in some versions of iOS, although their function isn't entirely clear. A preliminary/beta application that tries to detect it is now available. Methods for removing it have been discussed.

Meanhile, A Freedom of Information Act request's response has indicated (per the FBI) that Carrier IQ files have been used for "law enforcement purposes", but Carrier IQ has denied this. And there seems to be a growing realization that all of this has somehow become standard practice; as Dennis Fisher astutely observes, With Mobile Devices, Users Are the Product, Not the Buyer.

Those are the details; now what about the implications?

Debate continues about whether Carrier's IQ is a rootkit and/or spyware. Some have observed that if it's a rootkit, it's a rather poorly-concealed one. But it's been made unkillable, and it harvests keystrokes -- two properties most often associated with malicious software. And there's no question that Carrier IQ really did attempt to suppress Eckhart's publication of his findings.

But even if we grant, for the purpose of argument, that it's not a rootkit and not spyware, it still has an impact on the aggregate system security of the phone: it provides a good deal of pre-existing functionality that any attacker can leverage. In other words, intruding malware doesn't need to implement the vast array of functions that Carrier IQ already has; it just has to activate and tap into them.

Which brings me to a set of questions that probably should have been publicly debated and answered before software like this was installed on an estimated 150 million phones. I'm not talking about the questions that involve the details of Carrier IQ -- because I think we'll get answers to those from researchers and from legal proceedings. I'm talking about larger questions that apply to all phones -- indeed, to all mobile devices -- such as:

• What kind of debugging or performance-monitoring software should be included?
• Who should be responsible for that software's installation? Its maintenance?
• Should the source code for that software be published so that we can all see exactly what it does?
• Should device owners be allowed to turn it off/deinstall it -- or, should they be asked for permission to install it/turn it on?
• Will carriers or manufacturers pay the bandwidth charges for users whose devices transmit this data?
• Should carriers or manufacturers pay phone owners for access to the device owners' data?
• Where's the dividing line between performance-measuring data that can be used to assess and improve services, and personal data? Is there such a dividing line?
• Will data transmission be encrypted? How?
• Will data be anonymized or stripped or otherwise made less personally-identifiable? Will this be done before or after transmission or both? Will this process be full-documented and available for public review?
• What data will be sent -- and will device owners be able to exert some fine-grained control over what and when?
• Who is is responsible for the security of the data gathered?
• Who will have access to that data?
• When will that data be destroyed?
• Who will be accountable if/when security on the data repository is breached?
• What are the privacy implications of such a large collection of diverse data?
• Will it be available to law enforcement agencies? (Actually, I think I can answer that one: "yes". I think it's a given that any such collection of data will be targeted for acquisition by every law enforcement agency in every country. Some of them are bound to get it. See "FBI", above, for a case in point.)

Lots of questions, I know. Perhaps I could summarize that list by asking these three instead: (1) Who owns your mobile device? (2) Who owns the software installed on your mobile device? and (3) Who owns your data?

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Surprise! AT&T Admits Defeat, Withdraws T-Mobile Takeover Attempt, Pays $4 Billion Breakup Fee

from the wow dept

This is definitely a surprise, but it looks like AT&T finally read all the writing on the wall, and realized it was unlikely to win its fight with the DOJ and FCC and has officially killed its plan to try to purchase T-Mobile... meaning that it now has to pay the $4 billion breakup fee. While the trend of where this was heading was becoming increasingly obvious over the past few months, it's still pretty shocking on the whole. Getting big mergers like this through had become pretty standard, and AT&T (especially) excelled at the political dealing to make such things work. However, the growing public outcry and concerns over the lack of competition that would result seemed to finally have had a real impact.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Microsoft Reminds Everyone: You Do Not Own Your Software

from the don't-hit-the-nuke-button dept

With the proliferation of smartphones and other portable electronic devices such as tablet computers and e-readers, we are often left wondering, "Do we really own the books, games and other apps we pay money for?" Now that question has spread to your computer as well. PC World has revealed that Microsoft's terms of service for its Windows 8 app store gives it the right to not only disable but also remove apps Windows 8 device owners paid money to own. In Microsoft's own words:

In cases where your security is at risk, or where we're required to do so for legal reasons, you may not be able to run apps or access content that you previously acquired or purchased a license for.

This is probably nothing new to users of the Amazon Kindle who had their copies of the book 1984 remotely deleted or to people who bought music from Rhapsody who had their DRM'ed tracks reduced to nothing over night. Nor is this unique to these businesses. As PC World also notes, both Apple and Google retain the right to remove software users of their devices "bought". Businesses have been calling to question the ownership of digital products for quite some time. If we cannot prevent the loss of legally purchased products from those which sold these products to us, how can we really claim ownership?

If it is any consolation to you, Microsoft has told PC Mag that it will refund buyers of apps it deletes. However, any data you may have saved using the app will be completely lost. So not even the work that you put into this software is yours to claim ownership.

While Microsoft claims that it will primarily remove software in the case of security violations, it also retains this power for cases of "legal or contractual requirements." This is quite the broad opening left here. With the looming threat of increased enforcement of Copyright through SOPA and PIPA, the idea that an app can be removed via a "legal requirement" creates yet another question over ownership. If an app we purchase ends up infringing some company's copyright, patent or trademark, they could theoretically use that as a tool to remove that app from our devices.

We are moving further and further into a digital landscape for everything from movies, music, books, games and software. With this transition, companies that produce these products are working overtime to remind consumers that they are not owners of these products but merely licensees. We will not have the luxury of physical media on which we can claim ownership rights for much longer. Consumers for the last few years have been clamoring for more digital content. They have been the primary drivers of this transition. The only real question left is, do they realize the consequences that come with this change, and will they demand the right to claim ownership?

78 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FBI Admits That It Uses Carrier IQ For Law Enforcement Purposes; Won't Say How

from the and-then-there's-that... dept

So remember Carrier IQ? That would be the company that is providing what's been deemed a root kit on a ton of mobile phones. While the company has sought to downplay the security and privacy risks of its software (to the point of threatening the main researcher behind the revelation), further research suggested that the software likely tracked actions down to the keystroke. Again, Carrier IQ has insisted that its only purpose was to help mobile operators get data and information to help out when users are having problems. For example, it notes the ability to highlight when and how users have dropped calls. And if this was all it really does, then the software might be slightly reasonable (though, the fact that it's hidden and almost impossible to remove represents a significant problem no matter how benign the software might be).

However, Michael Morisy over at the site Muckrock, decided he might try a different angle to learn about Carrier IQ and whether it was used for surveillance: he filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI to find out if and how it uses Carrier IQ data. Not too surprisingly, the FBI won't provide him any details, but the way in which it turned him down was actually quite telling. Rather than just saying there were "no responsive documents," it instead said that it did have responsive documents "but they were exempt under a provision that covers materials that, if disclosed, might reasonably interfere with an ongoing investigation." That may imply, contrary to Carrier IQ's suggestions, that its software isn't for monitoring and spying, that the FBI views it quite differently, and already makes use of some Carrier IQ data. Of course, Morisy notes that there is another possible explanation: the FBI could be investigating Carrier IQ itself following these allegations, and it won't reveal the data for fear of compromising that investigation. Either way, it at least raises some significant new questions concerning Carrier IQ and how its data is being used.

Update: Carrier IQ has come out with a response insisting that it has never given out info to the FBI. I would imagine that's true, but it's besides the point. The issue is whether or not the FBI uses Carrier IQ data that it receives via the mobile operators.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Senator Briefly Brings Fake Driver's License App To The Public Eye Before Having It 'Taken 'Round Back And Shot'

from the i-hate-this-therefore-no-one-else-can-have-it dept

Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania has taken virtual pen in hand and crafted a letter to Tim Cook, Apple's new CEO, in order to provide free advertising for warn him about a possibly "rogue" app that allows iPhone users to create phony drivers' licenses.

He has a lot to say in his full page ad overly concerned email concerning "Drivers License" and waxes effusively about all the fun terrible things that could possibly happen should the app fall into the wrong hands. It's not simply a matter of a couple of kids going on a beer run. No, the "Drivers License" app could quite possibly tear down this great nation. From the inside.

Dear Mr. Cook:

I write to express my concern with "License" by DriversEd.com, an application available for download in Apple's App Store which can be used to create counterfeit identity documents. I believe this application poses a threat to public safety and national security, and I request that you remove it from the App Store immediately.

Sure, to the average iPhone user (who, until today, had most likely never even heard of this app), this piece of software looks like a clever little distraction that could be used to crank out replica IDs, only with cleavage, buttocks or buttock cleavage in place of the usual mug shot. Or perhaps the average user might whip up a couple of fake IDs for their 10-year-old twins in the interest of making them easier to tell apart.

Bob Casey sees it another way. The only purpose this app serves is to grease the wheels of a multitude of criminal and terrorist enterprises.

By downloading "License", anyone with an iPhone or iPad can easily manufacture a fake driver's license by taking a photo and inserting it into one of fifty state driver's licenses' templates. Users then have a high quality image resembling an actual driver's license which they can easily print, laminate, and use for any number of illegal and fraudulent activities.

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. ... what?

"Laminate?"

I may not have done any actual research on this, but I'm fairly sure laminated state IDs went the way of the mimeograph machine and the Fourth Amendment. I'm guessing the only place a laminated ID is valid is at the community college book store and even then, the student discount does not apply to textbooks.

Today's typical state ID is a modern marvel, chock-full of holograms, magnetic strips and a thinly disguised Mark of the Beast.* It takes a bit more than some purloined office supplies to create a passable fake these days and your average inkjet just isn't up to the task.
*Bible Belt only.

Moving on:

While DriversEd.com markets the app as a fun game, it can also be used in a way that allows criminals to create a new identity, steal someone else's identity, or permit underage youth to purchase alcohol or tobacco illegally.

Once again, if a laminated fake is out there living your life in a ways you only dreamt possible, your beef is with those who accepted a laminated printout as a legitimate form of identification, not with the app that helped create this faux-you that went out skydiving/dynamite purchasing. This includes the staff at the bottle shop who have just become both everyday heroes and easy marks for hundreds of thirsty (and previously smoke-free) teenagers.

But the real issue here (among several other equally real issues, except that this is truly the REAL issue) is the threat this app poses to America!

National security systems depend on the trustworthiness of driver's licenses, yet with a counterfeit license created by this app, a terrorist could bypass identity verification by the Transportation Security Administration, or even apply for a passport.

Good lord! This isn't an app! It's an all-in-one terrorist creation kit! Your (probably) non-local terrorist need do nothing more than sign a 2-year contract with a cell phone company, download and install the app, take a couple of headshots, take a couple more headshots with Instagram for old-time lulz and then it's off to the explodey races!

But Bob isn't done yet. It's back to the original "real" problem:

By assisting in the creation of counterfeit driver's licenses, "License" threatens to ease deception by criminals and contribute to the rising problem of identity theft. Given these risks, I request that you remove this application from the App Store immediately, as well as any other available applications that allow users to create, steal or alter false identities.

So... all photo apps need to be deleted? Any photo editing software? Anything that could pull up a template or reference image for photo IDs? Like say, browser software? How about the built-in camera, Bob? Should that be removed as well? After all, it does take pictures, and as we have seen, a facial photo is the gateway drug to corrupting minors, racking up Mom's JC Penny card and attempting to detonate underwear bombs.

The best part about this overwrought letter? Thousands of people who had no idea something this much fun/trouble was available in the app store are now being informed that yes, such a thing exists and here's the link to purchase it. [No longer available. See below.] Does it ever occur to people like Senator Casey that maybe, just maybe, if no one else is worked up about something that maybe the best thing you could do, as a person in a position of power, is just let it go? Otherwise, Sen. Barbra, this is the sort of thing that happens. Everyone thinks you're ridiculous and the app in question enjoys a spike in popularity.

The lesson is: if you want to see something you'd like to get rid of go viral instead, just throw your weight around and start cranking out blustery emails to corporate CEOs.

PREPRESS UPDATE:

And Apple has killed the app. I suppose with millions of other apps still for sale there's no reason to make a stand for a single app. That doesn't make it any less disappointing to find out that with the right name signed to the bottom of a misguided letter is all it takes to get someone else's craftwork killed. I guess the real lesson is: if you want to see something you'd like to get rid of go viral instead, just throw your weight around and start cranking out blustery emails to corporate CEOs.

Senator Casey takes a moment to congratulate himself over at his website:

"I urged Apple to take the responsible step of removing this dangerous app, and I'm pleased that the app is no longer available in the store," Senator Casey said. "As Pennsylvania and states across the country deal with the rising problem of identity theft, tools that facilitate breaking the law should not be available to potential criminals."

Roughly translated:

"I overreacted to something and now it is gone. We still have our work cut out for us dealing with the rising problem of identity theft and I am sure that pulling this app has done little to nothing towards fighting that problem. Instead, it has given the office of the Senator the appearance of Having Done Something, and in the end, isn't that what really matters?"

 

60 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Security Researcher Shows That -- Despite Carrier IQ's Claims To The Contrary -- CarrierIQ Records Keystrokes

from the now-that's-kind-of-scary dept

Remember Carrier IQ? This was the company whose software was installed on a ton of phones out there (mainly from Verizon and Sprint), supposedly to record things like if there are dropped calls or problems or whatnot, but which actually appeared to be a rootkit that could track all sorts of info? Then, remember how, rather than respond professionally to this, Carrier IQ threatened researcher Trevor Eckhart with a copyright lawsuit over this? CarrierIQ eventually backed down... and again insisted that the claims of keystroke logging were simply not true.

Yeah. So. Don't piss off a security researcher. Eckhart is back with a video showing how CarrierIQ's software does track keystrokes and sends them to a central server. He demonstrates it recording and sending data, even though Eckhart is logging into something using HTTPS. Of course, when the software is local and tracking keystrokes, HTTPS is meaningless.

Dave Kravets at Wired highlights what's really scary about all of this:

By the way, it cannot be turned off without rooting the phone and replacing the operating system. And even if you stop paying for wireless service from your carrier and decide to just use Wi-Fi, your device still reports to Carrier IQ.

It’s not even clear what privacy policy covers this. Is it Carrier IQ’s, your carrier’s or your phone manufacturer’s? And, perhaps, most important, is sending your communications to Carrier IQ a violation of the federal government’s ban on wiretapping?

And even more obvious, Eckhart wonders why aren’t mobile-phone customers informed of this rootkit and given a way to opt out?

I would imagine that lawyers are furiously drawing up a pretty massive class action lawsuit as we speak (if it hasn't already been filed).

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

May The Dolphin Be Unflogged: Paskistani Government Censors Texting

from the ignorant-sh*t dept

The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority has taken a bold new step in the censorship arena, compiling a list of words and phrases deemed "inappropriate" for texting. This list has been forwarded to the nation's mobile operators, making a brief appearance as a publicly-available Google doc. Although the public permission has been rescinded, a version of the list appears here (very probably NSFW, especially if someone is reading over your shoulder or if you tend to read everything aloud).

According to a mobile operator representative:

"There are more than 1,600 words in the list including indecent language, expletives, swear words, slang etc, which have to be filtered. The filtering is not good for the system and may degrade the quality of network services-plus it would be a great inconvenience to our subscribers if their SMS was not delivered due to the wrong choice of words"

To give you the gist of the forbidden texts, imagine George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can Never Say on TV," attach nearly any other imaginable word to those seven, add a couple hundred euphemisms for masturbation, some drug slang and a slew of misspellings and you'll be in the general neighborhood. It's what's lying on the outskirts of this neighborhood where things get weird.

Athletes Foot. Defecate. Deposit. (Yes, I know, but I would imagine some Pakistanis still use a banking system.) Do Me is thwarted by removing a space, leaving Pakistanis with no word for "enclosed arena." G Unit. God Damed Motha Fucka. I'm saddened to see "sexwhore" is no longer permissible, as it has become my go-to texting phrase, especially when contacting immediate family members.

Famous STD gonorrhea narrowly avoids the ban, thanks to an apparent lack of reference material ("gonorrehea"). Of course, infection tends to lead to a burning sensation that also makes the "no-go" list: "smagma."

Got Jesus. (It's cool, though. "Satan" is banned as well.) Hobo. Hoser. Idiot and "idoit." Juggalo. Kmart. Kotex. Lotion.

Inveterate masturbators will be thrilled to learn that many variations have been banned (mastabater, masterbate, mastrabator) but the original, correctly spelled version lives on. Sadly, inveterate jokesters will have to make do without their precious, um, "pun tang."

Neon Deon. Rae Carruth. (Apparently, the Pakistani government has something against flashy/homicidal football players, not to mention the defunct XFL ("he hate me/hehateme")).

"Tongue" gets twisted as well, appearing on the list as "tonge," "toung" and "tounge." #1072-1074 are apparently intentionally left blank.

All in all, a very dirty and plentiful list. One can almost imagine the censoring group giggling childishly long into the night while coming (I KNOW) up with this list.

Many Pakistanis have taken to the internet to express their displeasure with having their constitutional free speech rights violated. Of course, officials are quick to point out that this censorship is "for the children."

Mohammad Younis, a PTA spokesman claims the ban was a "result of numerous meetings and consultations with stakeholders," and went on to point out that "nobody would like this happening to their young boy or girl."

(Oddly enough, "Wuutang Clan" is forbidden, despite the fact that they are sporting an additional "u" and are distinctly "for the children.")

The spokesman also points out that they never thought they'd get caught:

Mr. Younis also added that the list was never intended to be distributed publicly and was only intended to be used for testing purposes.

Supposedly the final version will be much shorter, leaving Pakistani texters only "partially censored" which is better than "completely censored" but still much, much worse than enjoying their right to free speech. Citing Pakistani court precedent, the Pakistani government representative helpfully pointed out that, like many "unlimited" data plans, constitutionally-protected free speech isn't "without restrictions."

All in all, this move sounds like a nanny-state circle****, presided over by officious ***hats with too much free time and way too much power.

47 Comments | Leave a Comment..

CarrierIQ Fails At The Internet: Threatens Security Researcher With Copyright Infringement Claim Over His Research [Update]

from the dear-barbra-streisand dept

Last week, we wrote about some research by security researcher Trevor Eckhart, detailing how software from CarrierIQ had all the qualities of a rootkit, was installed on a ton of phones from Verizon Wireless and Sprint, and could potentially reveal all sorts of info about what you do on your phone. Much of Eckhart's report came from a training manual explaining the features of CarrierIQ's system, which he found left free and open on CarrierIQ's website. These kinds of stories show up every so often, and the usual thing is for the company either to admit it wasn't careful enough on security or to deny the specific allegations... and everyone moves on. But CarrierIQ apparently doesn't get how the internet works, has never heard of the Streisand Effect, and decided to not just deny the allegations in the report (we got one of those notices), but to threaten Eckhart with copyright infringement for his posting of their training manual.

Oops. Cue Streisand Effect.

Eckhart, via the EFF, has rejected CarrierIQ's requests... and has called a lot more press attention to the original reports (which had died down pretty quickly). CarrierIQ didn't do itself any favors either, by having its marketing manager talk to Wired and stubbornly defend the copyright infringement claim by saying:

“Whatever content we distribute we want to be in control of that,” he said. “I think obviously, any company wants to be responsible for the information that gets distributed.”

What "any company wants" and what is the law are often two different things. It might have helped for CarrierIQ employees to familiarize themselves with the law first. Of course, the EFF's letter attempts a quick crash course in the subject:

With respect to your allegations of copyright infringement, Mr. Eckhart’s analysis and publication of Carrier IQ’s training materials is a classic fair use and, therefore, non-infringing. 17 U.S.C. § 107 (“the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting . . . or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”). Courts generally consider four factors in a fair use analysis: 1) the purpose and character of the use, 2) the nature of the copyrighted work, 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and 4) the effect of the use on the potential market for the work. Id.; Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569, 577 (1994). Each of these factors favors Mr. Eckhart.

CarrierIQ is also claiming false allegations (i.e., defamation) over Eckhart's claims of its software being a rootkit. But, once again, the EFF and Eckhart are explaining the details of the law. Just because you don't like someone's opinion of what you do, or you don't like someone describing factually what you do, doesn't mean you get to accuse them of defamation:

You also claim that Mr. Eckhart published “false allegations” that are “without substance,” “untrue,” and that Carrier IQ considers “damaging to [its] reputation and the reputation of [its] customers.” We have repeatedly asked you to specify the statements you believe are actionable. You have failed to do so, and have instead merely repeated your broad accusations. We believe you are not able to substantiate your allegations because Mr. Eckhart’s factual findings are true. If you are able to specify any statement that you believe is false, Mr. Eckhart will be happy to provide you with the documentation of that finding.

Moreover, your client is a public figure. Under well-established Supreme Court precedent, commentary and criticism regarding Carrier IQ’s professional activities receive additional protections under the First Amendment, because there is a heightened public interest in facilitating such speech. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964); Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

And, of course, now we get another round of people paying attention to the allegations regarding CarrierIQ.

Update: And... commence groveling. Just received the following:

As, of today, we are withdrawing our cease and desist letter to Mr. Trevor Eckhart. We have reached out to Mr. Eckhart and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to apologize. Our action was misguided and we are deeply sorry for any concern or trouble that our letter may have caused Mr. Eckhart. We sincerely appreciate and respect EFF’s work on his behalf, and share their commitment to protecting free speech in a rapidly changing technological world.

The company also reiterates that its software doesn't track a bunch of stuff and that it's really designed to make networks and phones perform better...

Read More | 17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Innovation In Wireless: The Disruption In Connectivity

from the data-everywhere dept

This post is part of an Intel-sponsored series of posts we'll be doing here at Techdirt on the topic of innovation. Posts in the series consist of a video interview of myself (which you'll see below), the post, and another video interview with an Intel representative and others. That second video, obviously, is content from Intel, but my video and what I've written here was done with complete and total editorial independence. We hope you enjoy the content and take part in the overall discussion, either via the comments or through the interactive ad unit to the right of the post.

When most people think about wireless technologies today, they think about the fact that it makes it easier for them to connect their computers without having to plug in. Or that it lets data flow to their smartphones. But the overall impact can be seen as being much more profound. First up, here's a short video of me talking about the impact of wireless technologies:

I think it has become easy for many of us to take for granted the power of wireless connectivity. It's almost difficult to remember what life was like before we had data at our fingertips anywhere, at any time on any device. And, yet, it wasn't that long ago that this wasn't true at all. WiFi has only been around for about a dozen years. Mobile cellular data (at any reasonable bandwidth) is much more recent. And, yet it's become so embedded in our lives. The idea that you can get directions anywhere, pull up information about any shop or restaurant, or even access any content at all is so powerful, yet almost feels mundane already.

But think about just how powerful it is in areas that were barely connected at all in the past. We've read stories about communities in developing nations where small players, who only used to have access to the nearest market, can suddenly reach out to others, and actually allow for competition for their products. That can be a massive change, in that it gets rid of a monopsony situation, allowing the poor in developing countries to get out of a never-ending cycle of poverty.

Similarly, wireless technology alone is enabling new careers and new types of businesses. There are the famous stories of women (and it's almost always women) in certain rural villages, who have built careers out of carrying around mobile phones that can be brought to different farmers, and used on a time-share-like system. This allows those farmers to have access to data and connectivity, but also has provided a way for those women to build up a career for themselves.

And think, then, about what begins to happen as the vast richness of data and information, that we now take for granted, reaches further and further into the far corners of the globe. The ability to do more, to build more and to connect more is going to reshape the lives of the many billions of underprivileged people of the world in ways that we can't even begin to fathom. The world just reached an astounding 7 billion people -- most of whom don't have access to many of the things we in the west take for granted -- including information. Wireless technologies have a chance to change that equation, and what comes out of it may be completely unexpected, but tremendously powerful. The idea that people who in the past may never have had an impact on the world may now be able to reach out and share their ideas and innovations with everyone is a revolution that is destined to bring powerful new ideas to the entire world.

Below you can see a video Intel put together, discussing how powerful wireless technologies can be.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Says Warrantless Mobile Phone Tracking Is Unconstitutional

from the well-that-could-make-things-interesting dept

In an amazingly short and to the point ruling (embedded below), a judge in a district court in Southern Texas, Lynn Hughes, ruled that letting the government get mobile phone data without a warrant was unconstitutional:

When the government requests records from cellular services, data disclosing the location of the telephone at the time of particular calls may be acquired only by a warrant issued on probable cause. U.S. Const., amend. 4. The records show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made. These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion. The standard under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d), is below that required by the Constitution.

Of course, there are a number of cases out there that have ruled on similar issues... and come to different conclusions. This is one of those issues that will continue to bounce around until the Supreme Court clarifies. Still, there's something nice about seeing a court ruling of this nature, where the judge doesn't waste any time at all, and basically just says, "Hey, 4th Amendment! Next!"

Read More | 19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Barnes & Noble Revealing Microsoft's 'Secret' Patents, Which It Believes Cover Android

from the trivial-patents dept

Earlier this year, Microsoft continued its shakedown war against all things Android by suing Barnes & Noble for patent infringement over the Nook. As we discussed, B&N is fighting back in a big way, claiming that Microsoft's shakedown tactics are an antitrust violation. As that effort moves forward, it's beginning to reveal a ton of useful info. While Microsoft continues to try to keep the patents it's using in these shakedowns "secret," B&N has been revealing them. Groklaw has the details:

The patents, we read, "cover only arbitrary, outmoded and non-essential design features" and yet Microsoft is demanding "prohibitively expensive licensing fees", in effect asserting "veto power" over Android's features. One aspect of the license, Barnes & Noble tells us, was a demand to control design elements, requiring designers to adhere to specific hardware and software specifications in order to obtain a license. That, Barnes & Noble says, is "oppressive and anticompetitive". I think it's accurate to say that the company believes it is illegal.

Barnes & Noble asserts that Microsoft is attempting "to use patents to drive open source software out of the market," saying it, in essence, is acting like a patent troll, threatening companies using Android with a destructive and anticompetitive choice: pay Microsoft exorbitant rates for patents, some trivial and others ridiculously invalid or clearly not infringed, or spend a fortune on litigation.

Beyond revealing more of the patents, the company, in its filings, makes it clear what it believes Microsoft is doing:

Instead of focusing on innovation and the development of new products for consumers, Microsoft has decided to invest its efforts into driving open source developers from the mobile operating systems market. Through the use of offensive licensing agreements and the demand for unreasonable licensing fees, Microsoft is hindering creativity in the mobile operating systems market.... Through the use of oppressive licensing terms that amount to a veto power over a wide variety of innovative features in Android devices of all kinds, as well as its prohibitively expensive licensing fees, Microsoft is attempting to push open source software developers out of the market altogether.

Seems like a pretty accurate summary from what we've seen. It's really pretty sad when the focus of your business is hindering others, rather than innovating yourself.

52 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Do Tons Of Sprint And Verizon Phones Contain A Rootkit, Potentially Tracking All Sorts Of Info?

from the privacy,-what's-that? dept

Security researcher Trevor Eckhart has put out a report suggesting that a ton of Sprint and Verizon Wireless mobile phones have what is effectively a rootkit installed on them. Specifically, he's talking about CarrierIQ, a bit of software intended to monitor device usage, supposedly for the purpose of understanding problems that a user might be having and helping to troubleshoot remotely. The description of the software seems mostly innocuous:

Carrier IQ is used to understand what problems customers are having with our network or devices so we can take action to improve service quality.

It collects enough information to understand the customer experience with devices on our network and how to devise solutions to use and connection problems. We do not and cannot look at the contents of messages, photos, videos, etc., using this tool

However, in digging into the details of the software, Eckhart realized that it can easily track all sorts of info, including what websites people are visiting and what keypresses they make. The software can also surreptitiously report where the phone is located. He further notes that the software is purposely hidden on a bunch of devices, and on many it appears that you simply can't turn it off.

Now, I don't think anyone is suggesting anything nefarious here. There are reasons why operators like to collect this kind of data and, in the aggregate, it seems useful. But, as Eckhart looked in more detail at training materials for the software, he realized it could easily be used to track at a much more granular level, down to individuals. The potential for abuse seems pretty high. Again, it's obvious why this software is installed, but it raises questions about what carriers are doing to make sure the software isn't being abused. It's also somewhat troubling that the carriers aren't all that straightforward about how this software is monitoring their users...

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Find A Vulnerability In Apple Software; Lose Your License As An Apple Developer

from the kill-the-messenger dept

It appears that Apple is the latest company to take a "kill the messenger" approach to security vulnerabilities. Hours after security researcher Charlie Miller found a huge vulnerability in iOS, which would allow malicious software to be installed on iOS devices, Apple responded by taking away his developer's license.

The obvious implication: don't search for security vulnerabilities in Apple products, and if you do find them, keep them to yourself.

First off, here's Miller explaining the security hole:

To be fair, Miller did get Apple to approve an app that he was using to demo the security flaw. However, kicking him out of its developer program is exactly the wrong response. Miller, clearly, was not looking to use the code maliciously -- just demoing a problem with their system. In other words, he was helping Apple become more secure, and they punished him for it. The message seems to be that Apple doesn't want you to help make their system more secure. Instead, they'd rather let the malicious hackers run wild. As Miller noted to Andy Greenberg at Forbes (the link above):

“I’m mad,” he says. “I report bugs to them all the time. Being part of the developer program helps me do that. They’re hurting themselves, and making my life harder.”

And, no, this is not a case where he went public first either. He told Apple about this particular bug back on October 14th. Either way, this seems like a really brain-dead move by Apple. It's only going to make Apple's systems less secure when it punishes the folks who tell it about security vulnerabilities.

78 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apps Letting You Stream Your Own Music From The Cloud Being Pressured Over 'Licensing'

from the you-don't-own-what-you-thought-you-own dept

When Google, Amazon and Apple all entered the "cloud music" space at about the same time, we pointed out that we seemed to be missing the real point of the cloud. That was, that all of the services required the storage provider's own client app to play the music stored there. As I noted, that's not what the promise of the cloud is. It should be about being able to store data in the cloud and then let any relevant app access that data through an API. It's positively ridiculous that the (all legal, by the way) music I have is stored in multiple places in the cloud. For years, I've backed it up with a person Amazon S3 account. But when Amazon launched its cloud music player, I couldn't just point the player to my S3 storage, but had to re-upload. Then when Google launched its Music Beta... re-upload. The best player in the space may be MP3Tunes, who is the most open and willing to let third parties in. But most of the big guys are limited.

So it's interesting to see that some folks are writing third party apps to access music in Google and Amazon's cloud... but apparently Amazon flipped out about the aMusic iPhone app and, as sent in by Jeffrey Nonken, politely asked the developer to kill the app, noting that since Apple doesn't have licenses that "allow" third party access, he has to wait until they have such licenses.

This is, to put it mildly, stupid. If I have legally obtained files, and I put them in a locker where only I have the legal access to them, why shouldn't I be able to point any app I want at it. This would be like saying that if I had a cllient side app playing music on my hard drive, I couldn't then get another app to play the same files... unless the hard drive maker got the right "licenses" from the record labels. How does that make any sense at all?

This is definitely a big problem with "cloud" services these days however, where folks like the record labels think they retain ownership and control of files that people think they legally "own," limiting how they can listen to them. That seems to give the labels much greater rights than are reasonable granted under copyright law... just because the files are stored at a data center, rather than on a local hard drive.

51 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Real Issue With Apple's 'Slide-To-Unlock' Patent: Double Patenting & Bogus Continuations

from the don't-stop-'til-you-get-enough dept

Lots of folks sent in variations on the story last week that Apple was able to get a patent on the "slide to unlock" feature. Most of the submissions were outraged that this patent was granted, with many pointing to prior art from before the patent was filed. What most people missed was that this patent, 8,046,721 is actually a continuation patent from an earlier patent, 7,657,849.

The real issue here isn't just that Apple was able to patent something as simple as "slide to unlock," but how it shows the evils of double patenting and the use of continuation patents. We've pointed to problems with continuation patents in the past, in that they have been used to "submarine" legitimate inventions. You could just watch what others were doing in the space, and file a later "continuation" patent on your earlier patent, and have an earlier priority date, despite actually copying the work from others.

The M-CAM document linked above looks deeply at the patents in question, noting how the claims in Apple's original patent were completely rejected three separate times. For whatever reason, the USPTO refuses to really issue final rejections. So those desiring patents, can just keep adjusting and adjusting. The document also is left wondering how come the original claims were rejected while the final claims somehow made it through, noting that the changes seem meaningless:

As the report notes: "Evidently, restating the purpose of the patent – that one touches and drags the image continuously – makes it novel and nonobvious after three rejections."

M-CAM's analysis highlights the massive failure of the USPTO examiner here:

First, there are over eight hundred relevant patents that precede the ‘721 by a year, that both Apple and Mr. Gutierrez fail to cite, though 38 of these are owned by Apple themselves. The entities in this relevant space are displayed visually to the right.

In addition, we have a list of 120 related patents, with priority dates of a year before both slide-to-unlock patents, that are in the public domain (read: this technology is FREE TO USE and NOT PATENTABLE AGAIN). A sample of these can be found in Appendix A.

But we’re not done. Going back to the patents the examiner used as evidence to reject the claims of the ‘721 patent – the Tokkonen patent, which is owned by Nokia, and the Gauthey patent, which is owned by Asulab (the R&D division of Swatch Group) – we see that they both deal with either inputting a security code or controlling lock functions. We look at one patent that is never acknowledged by Apple (though it’s been cited by IBM, Microsoft and Nokia in their touch-screen patents), U.S. 6,209,104 which actually provides context for the innovations that the examiner thought to be relevant against Apple – patents that include but are far from limited to the patents the examiner actually considered.

In other words, this patent never should have been granted, and it used the almost always questionable "continuation" process to patent something fairly common, with lots of prior art. Good thing the patent reform bill that recently passed doesn't touch on any of this stuff.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..