DailyDirt: Does Anyone Really Want A Modular Smartphone?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The US smartphone market is currently dominated by Apple and Samsung for hardware, but that could change pretty quickly if consumers were offered something a bit more innovative than a bigger phablet. One concept that's been floating around is a modular phone that allows its owner to swap out various components -- making a customizable phone that could have a bigger battery or a better camera, depending on user preferences (instead of Apple or Samsung's upgrade cycle). If you haven't been following the modular phone projects out there, here are a few links -- if you think you can wait a year (or forever) to buy one.

• Finland has not one, but TWO startups trying to build modular smartphones. Vsenn and Puzzlephone (from Circular Devices) are both trying to launch products in 2015, and these modular phones will run on Android (if they run at all). [url]
• In 2013, Dave Hakkens released a video that demonstrated what a modular smartphone might look like. The video has inspired plenty of other folks to try to bring an open phone platform into the real world, but it's not on Kickstarter because it's not exactly easy to build a functioning prototype that actually lives up to the hype. [url]
• Motorola also introduced its Project Ara in 2013, and it had been in development for over a year by that point. The project lives on under Google’s Advanced Technology and Projects (ATAP) group -- working towards a limited market pilot launch sometime in 2015. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: atap, crowdfunding, gadgets, modular phone, phablet, phonebloks, project ara, puzzlephone, smartphone, vaporware
Companies: apple, circular devices, google, kickstarter, motorola, samsung, vsenn

Ridiculously Misinformed Opinion Piece In WSJ Asks Apple And Google To Make Everyone Less Safe

from the who-takes-these-people-seriously? dept

Former Wall Street Journal publisher L. Gordon Crovitz still gets to publish opinion pieces in the WSJ. And while I often find them interesting, any time he touches on technology in almost any manner, he seems to fall flat on his face, often in embarrassing ways -- such as the time he insisted the internet was invented by companies without government support (yes, he really argued that). Crovitz has also been strongly pro-surveillance state for years. He's attacked Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning by blatantly taking quotes out of context, and then last year, writing a column about the Snowden leaks that showed he doesn't understand even the basic facts. Crovitz tends to see the world the way he wants to see it, rather than the way it really is.

His latest is no exception, repeating a bunch of bogus or debunked claims to argue that the tech industry should happily insert back doors into technology to aid in surveillance. He kicks it off by both repeating the false claim concerning how "subway bomber" Najibullah Zazi was caught, but also totally misunderstanding the difference between encrypting data on a device and encrypting data in transit:

It’s a good thing Najibullah Zazi didn’t have access to a modern iPhone or Android device a few years ago when he plotted to blow up New York City subway stations. He was caught because his email was tapped by intelligence agencies—a practice that Silicon Valley firms recently decided the U.S. government is no longer permitted.

Apple , Google, Facebook and others are playing with fire, or in the case of Zazi with a plot to blow up subway stations under Grand Central and Times Square on Sept. 11, 2009. An Afghanistan native living in the U.S., Zazi became a suspect when he used his unencrypted Yahoo email account to double-check with his al Qaeda handler in Pakistan about the precise chemical mix to complete his bombs. Zazi and his collaborators, identified through phone records, were arrested shortly after he sent an email announcing the imminent attacks: “The marriage is ready.”

Except, no. It wouldn't have mattered if he had a modern iPhone or Android device because whether or not email is encrypted is entirely unrelated to whether or not data on the device is encrypted. What Apple and Google are promising now is to encrypt data on the device. Even if that was turned on, if you send an unencrypted email, it's still available to be viewed. Crovitz is comparing two completely different things and doesn't seem to realize it. What kind of standards does the WSJ have when it allows such false arguments to be published uncritically?

Furthermore, the fact that Zazi sent an unencrypted email via Yahoo was a different issue. And Yahoo encrypted all its email connections a while ago, and no one freaked out at the time. Even so, that's unimportant, because law enforcement and the intelligence community can and do still read emails with a warrant. And, as was made clear by many in the analysis of the Zazi case, he had been watched by law enforcement for a while. The phone encryption that Google and Apple are discussing would have had no impact whatsoever on the Zazi case. So why even bring it up, other than pure surveillance state FUD?

But, to someone as ignorant of the basics as Crovitz, it's an opportunity to double down.

The Zazi example (he pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges and awaits sentencing) highlights the risks that Silicon Valley firms are taking with their reputations by making it impossible for intelligence agencies or law enforcement to gain access to these communications.

Except, again, that's not true. Intelligence agencies and law enforcement would still have access to communications in transit -- just not data held on his phone directly (which they wouldn't have unless they got the phone itself). Second, it still wouldn't be "impossible" to get the information. They could either crack the encryption or issue a subpoena ordering the phone's owner to unlock the data (or potentially face a potential contempt of court ruling). While there are some 5th Amendment concerns with that latter route, it's still not "impossible." And it's not about communications. Crovitz is just totally ignorant of what he's writing about.

Since then, U.S. and British officials have made numerous trips to Silicon Valley to explain the dangers. FBI Director James Comey gave a speech citing the case of a sex offender who lured a 12-year-old boy in Louisiana in 2010 using text messages, which were later obtained to get a murder conviction. “There should be no one in the U.S. above the law,” Mr. Comey said, “and also no places within the U.S. that are beyond the law.”

Again, different issue. The Louisiana case? That was debunked a day later, and it wasn't because of access to the kind of information that would now be encrypted. As noted by the Intercept:

In another case, of a Lousiana sex offender who enticed and then killed a 12-year-old boy, the big break had nothing to do with a phone: The murderer left behind his keys and a trail of muddy footprints, and was stopped nearby after his car ran out of gas.

Next thing you know, Crovitz will argue that all shoes should come pre-muddied so that law enforcement can track them. After all, how could law enforcement track down criminals who don't leave a trail of muddy footprints?

Then Crovitz shifts to his own personal worldview -- insisting that the public actually doesn't want privacy or protection from the snooping eyes of government. He insists, the truth is the public really wants to be spied on.

It looks like Silicon Valley has misread public opinion. The initial media frenzy caused by the Edward Snowden leaks has been replaced by recognition that the National Security Agency is among the most lawyered agencies in the government. Contrary to initial media reports, the NSA does not listen willy-nilly to phone and email communications.

Last week, the Senate killed a bill once considered a sure thing. The bill would have created new barriers to the NSA obtaining phone metadata to connect the dots to identify terrorists and prevent their attacks. Phone companies, not the NSA, would have retained these records. There would have been greater risks of leaks of individual records. An unconstitutional privacy advocate would have been inserted into Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court proceedings.

First off, no, the USA Freedom Act was never "a sure thing." From the very beginning, it was considered a massive long shot. And, no it would not have "created new barriers" -- it would have merely made it clear that the NSA can't simply collect everyone's data in the hopes of magically sifting through the haystack and finding connections. Also, Crovitz is flat out wrong (again!) that this would have led to a "greater risk" because the phone companies held the data. While this was the key talking point among those who voted against it, it's simply incorrect. The telcos already retain that information. The bill made no changes to what information telcos could and would retain. It only said that they shouldn't also have to ship all that data to the NSA as well. There was no increased risk. Saying so is -- once again -- trumpeting Crovitz's ignorance.

Furthermore, the idea that the public is miraculously comfortable with the government spying on them... based on the government voting against curtailing government surveillance is simply ludicrous. It doesn't even pass a basic laugh test. The Pew Research poll that tracks this issue most closely continues to show that the vast majority of people are against NSA surveillance on American data, and the numbers who feel that way have been growing consistently since the first of the Snowden revelations.

But let me repeat the assertion Crovitz made here, just to remind everyone of how idiotic it is: he's saying that the public is now comfortable with surveillance because Congress voted down surveillance reform. And he thinks this is obvious.

The lesson of the Snowden accusations is that citizens in a democracy make reasonable trade-offs between privacy and security once they have all the facts. As people realized that the rules-bound NSA poses little to no risk to their privacy, there was no reason to hamstring its operations. Likewise, law-abiding people know that there is little to no risk to their privacy when communications companies comply with U.S. court orders.

Facts, huh? It's kind of funny that he'd argue for the facts when he seems to be lacking in many of them. And he's wrong. There is tremendous risk to privacy, as illustrated by the fact that the NSA regularly abused its powers to spy on Americans. Furthermore, he ignores (or is ignorant of the fact) that much of the data the NSA collects is also freely available to the CIA and FBI -- and that the FBI taps into it so often that it doesn't even track how many times it dips into the database.

And of course, none of this even bothers to point out that the reason why Google and Apple are increasing encryption is because it makes us all much safer from actual everyday threats -- including the very threats that the NSA and others in law enforcement keep warning us about. Making us all safer is a good thing, though, not to L. Gordon Crovitz, apparently.

Crovitz is either woefully clueless and misinformed or he's purposely misleading the American public. Neither reflects well on him or the Wall Street Journal.

Filed Under: encryption, fud, gordon crovitz, l. gordon crovitz, mobile encryption, najibullah zazi, surveillance
Companies: apple, google, wall street journal

So, If Someone Could Just Kill A Child And Let The FBI And DOJ Get Their Anti-Phone Encryption Legislation Going, That Would Be Great

from the 'terrorism'-no-longer-'motivational'-enough dept

The discussion over cellphone encryption continues, with much of the "discussion" being FBI director James Comey's insistence that Apple and Google simply can't do the very thing they're doing... and offering zero legal reasons why they can't. There have been a lot of horribles paraded around during the past few weeks, mainly of the terrorist or pedophile variety. None of it has been very persuasive to anyone not wearing a badge. The converts continue to love the preaching while those on the outside look on in bemusement.

It's not just Apple and Google at this point. Whatsapp, the messaging app Facebook recently purchased, will be providing end-to-end encryption. Twitter is fighting National Security Letter gag orders in court.

The Wall Street Journal's recent article provides a closer look at the reactions of the upper echelon of law enforcement (DOJ and FBI) but only finds more of the same.

The No. 2 official at the Justice Department delivered a blunt message last month to Apple Inc. executives: New encryption technology that renders locked iPhones impervious to law enforcement would lead to tragedy. A child would die, he said, because police wouldn’t be able to scour a suspect’s phone, according to people who attended the meeting.

"A child would die." That's the argument. That's almost the only argument.

I'd hate to have people look at me and say, 'Well how come you can't save this kid,' 'how come you can't do this thing.'" (Sept. 25)

Smartphone communication is “going to be the preferred method of the pedophile and the criminal.' [Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier] (Sept. 30)

Eric Holder: 'When a child is in danger, law enforcement needs to be able to take every legally available step to quickly find and protect the child...' (Oct 1st)

As a result, child predators, terrorists, and other criminals could go free, he [James Comey] warned. (Oct. 30)

Unsurprisingly, when the subject was first broached in this fashion, Apple reacted as any company would when faced with the insinuation that its latest feature would kill children.

The meeting last month ended in a standoff. Apple executives thought the dead-child scenario was inflammatory. They told the government officials law enforcement could obtain the same kind of information elsewhere, including from operators of telecommunications networks and from backup computers and other phones, according to the people who attended.

There are other options, but the FBI and DOJ only want the easiest route. To get it, the same argument is presented again and again. The FBI, along with other law enforcement officials, have accused Apple and Google of marketing to criminals. The companies have reasonably responded by presenting the alternatives the FBI and others are willfully ignoring. Files stored on phones are often stored elsewhere. Talk to service providers. Demand the information from the suspects themselves.

James Comey says he wants to have a "discussion," but plugs his ears and shouts about pedophiles and dead children when options other than a law enforcement-only "back door/front door" are brought up. Apple and Google have told the FBI to change the law if it doesn't like the new reality. James Comey and the DOJ's second-in-command, James Cole, know this is the route they have to take if they want to force Apple and Google to drop encryption. They also know the current backlash against government surveillance makes this pursuit anything but a foregone conclusion.

And, so, Comey and Cole exhume the corpses of child victims and give them lead roles in their pathetic, ghoulish puppet show -- something they perform for any halfway-sympathetic audience. Comey and others in law enforcement know what it will take to pass legislation or amendments in their favor.

[Deputy Attorney General James] Cole predicted that [law change] would happen, after the death of a child or similar event.

So, it would appear that both sides of the argument are waiting for a watershed event to prove their respective points. Apple's Tim Cook believes "something major" will happen that will prove to customers that his company's decision to provide encryption by default was the right one. The DOJ and FBI, on the other hand, are apparently waiting for something much more tragic: the severe abuse and/or death of a child at the hand of criminal in possession of an encrypted phone.

One side is waiting for a horrible event their customers are shielded from. The other side is waiting for a horrible event to convert into legislative currency. If the side looking to exploit a tragedy strikes first, the second watershed event -- the one Tim Cook posits -- will have no positive outcome. The FBI isn't just willing to use dead children to achieve its aims. It's also willing to sacrifice the public's privacy and security at the same time.

Filed Under: children, doj, encryption, fbi, fud, james comey, legislation, mobile encryption
Companies: apple, google

Demonizing Strong Encryption: Welcome To The Crypto Wars 2.0

from the paedophiles,-murderers-and-terrorists dept

Recently Techdirt wrote about the extraordinary tirade by the new GCHQ boss, Robert Hannigan, which boiled down to: "however much we spy and censor online today, it's still not enough." It was so full of wrong-headed and dangerous ideas that it was hard to capture it all in one post. Here's one thing we didn't have room for last time:

Isis also differs from its predecessors in the security of its communications. This presents an even greater challenge to agencies such as GCHQ. Terrorists have always found ways of hiding their operations. But today mobile technology and smartphones have increased the options available exponentially. Techniques for encrypting messages or making them anonymous which were once the preserve of the most sophisticated criminals or nation states now come as standard. These are supplemented by freely available programs and apps adding extra layers of security, many of them proudly advertising that they are "Snowden approved". There is no doubt that young foreign fighters have learnt and benefited from the leaks of the past two years.

Leaving aside the rather pathetic dig at Snowden at the end there, and the unsubstantiated statement that terrorists have benefited from his leaks, the key message here is that strong encryption is now used routinely by the wrong people, and that it presents an "even greater challenge" to the world's security services. If that lament sounds familiar, it's because suddenly, over the last few weeks, it has become the persistent refrain of law enforcement agencies in both the US and UK.

First we had the FBI Director James Comey talking about his agency's fears about things "going dark" because of encryption; then we heard from NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton about how encryption "does a terrible disservice to the public"; a couple of weeks later, former NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker suggested the reason Blackberry had failed was because it used "too much encryption".

Now it seems that the baton has been passed to the UK. The day after Hannigan led the way with his piece in the Financial Times, the head of London's Metropolitan Police added his voice to the chorus of disapproval, as the London Evening Standard reports:

London's police chief today warns society against letting parts of the internet become a "dark and ungoverned" space populated by paedophiles, murderers and terrorists.

In a call for action, Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe says encryption on computers and mobile phones is frustrating police investigations, meaning parts of the web are becoming "anarchic places".

What's particularly interesting is that as part of his visit to New York to make this speech, Hogan-Howe was also planning to meet all the senior US officials who had just voiced their concerns about encryption in precisely the same terms:

Sir Bernard has spent several days in talks with New York and Washington police chiefs about the threat of terrorism and what he calls "the challenges and opportunities" of technology. Today he was meeting FBI director James Comey.

He was also telling law enforcement experts behind closed doors at the New York police department that the internet is now a safe haven for criminality, adding: "Privacy is important but in my view the security of communications methods and devices is growing beyond what any genuine domestic user could reasonably require."

It's hard not to see this as part of a concerted and organized counter-attack against growing calls to rein in US and UK surveillance in the wake of Snowden's revelations. The common line on both sides of the Atlantic is that encryption has gone too far -- that "the security of communications methods and devices is growing beyond what any genuine domestic user could reasonably require". The clear implication is that only "paedophiles, murderers and terrorists" would want strong crypto, and that for law-abiding citizens with nothing to hide, crypto with backdoors is good enough.

But it isn't, of course. Law-abiding citizens with nothing to hide have a perfect right to real privacy online, just as they have a right to use doors, walls and curtains to screen off their private lives from the world's gaze. As Techdirt has noted before, placing backdoors in nominally secure systems simply makes them completely insecure, since there is no way to stop the bad people from using them too. Moreover, weakening crypto would not only make the Internet vastly less secure for billions of users, it would also undermine millions of online businesses and thus the economies with which they are now so deeply intertwined.

We can expect more of these blatant attempts to demonize strong cryptography, and to paint its mere use as a sure sign of terrorism and depravity. But we have been here before. During the 1990s the US government tried to introduce backdoors into secure communications using the Clipper chip. Civil society won those first Crypto Wars; now it needs to gird its loins to fight and win Crypto Wars 2.0.

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

Filed Under: bernard hogan-howe, crypto wars, demonized, encryption, james comey, mobile encryption, robert hannigan, stewart baker
Companies: apple, google

Are Apple, Google, Microsoft And Mozilla Helping Governments Carry Out Man-In-The-Middle Attacks?

from the and-what-can-they-do-about-it? dept

Back in September, we reported on the Chinese authorities using man-in-the-middle attacks to spy on citizens who carry out Google searches over encrypted connections. That's done by using a fake security certificate to redirect traffic to a server where the traffic is decrypted, analyzed, and blocked if necessary. A new post on the Greatfire.org Web site points out that this approach can only work if the user's computer trusts the certificate's issuing authority, in this case the China Internet Network Information Center, and that it's curious that browsers from the West do so quite so readily:

Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla among others, trust CNNIC (China Internet Network Information Center) to protect your communications on their platforms by default, regardless of whether or not you are in China. CNNIC has implemented (and tried to mask) internet censorship, produced malware and has very bad security practices. Tech-savvy users in China have been protesting the inclusion of CNNIC as a trusted certificate authority for years. In January 2013, after Github was attacked in China, we publicly called for the the revocation of the trust certificate for CNNIC. In light of the recent spate of man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks in China, and in an effort to protect user privacy not just in China but everywhere, we again call for revocation of CNNIC Certificate Authority.

Although the logic of revoking CNNIC as a trusted certificate authority might seem inarguable, the consequences of doing so are likely to be serious. For example, the Chinese government might decide to ban the use of any browser that did not include CNNIC. That's hard to police, but the threat alone would be enough to dissuade any software company from removing CNNIC's certificate from its browser.

Perhaps the best solution is simply making users aware of the issue, and explaining how they can remove any certificate authority they have doubts about. And not just for China: these problems can arise in any country where a local trusted certificate authority is under the direct -- or indirect -- control of the government.

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

Filed Under: certificate authorities, china, man in the middle attacks, security, trust
Companies: apple, cnnic, google, microsoft, mozilla

Russian Law Demanding User Data Remain On Russian Soil Could Turn Into A Ban On Apple Products

from the old-man-rattles-saber-at-cloud dept

The Russian government's efforts to carve out its own internet continue. It's never been shy about its interest in accessing (and censoring) internet users' activity and data, what with its required registration for bloggers, demands for US-based companies to hand over user data and threats to block content stored on foreign servers -- and that's just since the beginning of this year.

A law outlawing the use of offshore servers to store Russian internet users' data and content goes into effect at the beginning of 2015. That means popular products like Apple's iPhone and iPad will all be technically violating Russian law with their automatic iCloud syncing.

This legislation can be partially blamed on the actions of Russia's most famous guest.

As the adoptive home of Edward Snowden, Russia is all too aware that many of its citizens' communications are stored on servers owned by the scary giants of Silicon Valley. Ultimately, the Kremlin is likely to be worried that cloud services offer the NSA a way to snoop on Russian citizens, state apparatchiks and perhaps even high ranking politicians.

The Russian government isn't that concerned about its citizens being spied on by foreign agencies. It probably just hates the competition. But even acts of unbridled self-interest (state apparatchiks, high ranking politicians) occasionally result in net gains for the otherwise ignored public.

This ban will affect all US tech companies, but local coverage seems to imply that iPhone users will be the first to feel the results. The law effectively bans Apple's products unless it switches iCloud services off for Russian users or decides to rent some space on local servers.

This is more Russian government control wearing the outward trappings of NSA backlash. As The Register notes, earlier this year the Russian government demanded Apple and SAP turn over source code, presumably to check it over for surveillance backdoors.

Other countries have announced their intention to purchase network technology and services from non-US companies in the wake of Snowden's revelations, but much of the noise was there to deflect attention away from their own domestic surveillance programs. But in Russia's case, its surveillance/control desires lay much closer to the surface, if not out in the open completely. This law doesn't look much like NSA backlash. It looks like a convenient excuse for government expansion.

Filed Under: cloud, localization, russia, surveillance
Companies: apple

James Comey Again Demands Tech Companies Do As He Says And Grant The FBI Complete Access To Whatever It Wants

from the please-please-please-let-me-get-what-I-want dept

FBI director James Comey -- (again) citing no legal authority or precedent -- is demanding Google and Apple hand over the keys to their default phone encryption.

The director of the FBI on Monday doubled down on demands that Silicon Valley giants cooperate in the course of criminal investigations, saying that tech companies such as Apple and Google have to unlock cellphones, if authorities request it.

And what has all this "demanding" and "doubling down" netted Comey? Nothing really. He still needs a compliant legislative body to oblige his fantasies of subservient tech companies opening wide for fat-fingered g-men.

Comey's latest attempt to sell the government's plan to exchange fear for all-access mobile phone passes came at a counterterrorism conference hosted by Fordham University. And, once again, Comey followed up his baseless demands with a whole lot of nothing.

Comey didn't specify what he wants Apple and Google to do but said that to find a solution requires an "honest debate."

"I don't want to tell people what to do," he said. "But I want to try to foster a national conversation about this."

"There has to be some solution that will allow us with lawful authority to be able to have the company unlock the device," he added.

There's nothing honest about Comey's approach and walking around claiming that phone encryption will lead to new highs in terrorist attacks and pedophilia is only part of the dishonesty. Comey claims he doesn't want to "tell people what to do," apparently completely unaware that throwing around the weight of his agency and position and demanding phone makers play by his rules is the very definition of "telling people what to do."

Unfortunately for Comey, throwing around this weight just isn't enough anymore. No one in the tech world is going to be cowed into obeisance. Not anymore. Now, everyone wants to stick it to The Man, even many of those that worked in close proximity with government agencies over the past several years. Why? Because the nation's intelligence and investigative agencies are always hungry. They always want more.

The "solution" Comey's looking for runs through Congress. Historically, legislators have almost always come down on the side of law enforcement. The twin specters of terrorism and child molestation have resulted in plenty of government expansion and law enforcement leeway over the years. But maybe even the legislators are beginning to realize that this is something that can never be satiated. You can give and give and give and the same people will return over and over again, asking for just a little more. The government is -- and has been for years -- a mixture of junkies and their enablers.

Maybe we're at the point that a certain number of enablers have become sick of the constant need. Maybe they'll cut Comey and his ilk off and put up with the keening, inarticulate sounds of their withdrawal. Or maybe they'll meet them out back and slip them a fix when they think no one's looking. As I've said before, the voices out front are claiming the FBI will find no assistance here. It's the large number of those who've offered no opinion we need to keep an eye on. Law enforcement's emotional blackmail has worked for years. It may have recently lost its edge, but it's still too powerful to count out completely.

"In one way or another, our entire lives — our social lives, our work lives — reside online and on these devices," Comey said. "And that's a great thing. But that's also where the bad guys are."

Yeah. As in "real life" itself. I guess we should expect him to ask for "golden key" access to every front door in America. As long as he's transparent about it, what's there to be concerned about? Comey just wants to keep America safe. Who are we to deny complete access to our "entire lives?"

Filed Under: back doors, encryption, fbi, front door, james comey, mobile encryption
Companies: apple, google

Former NSA Lawyer Says Reason Blackberry Failed Was 'Too Much Encryption' Warns Google/Apple Not To Make Same Mistake

from the give-it-a-rest,-stew dept

There are times that I wonder if former NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker is just trolling with his various comments, because they're so frequently out of touch with reality, even though he's clearly an intelligent guy. His latest is to join in with the misguided attacks on Apple and Google making mobile encryption the default on iOS and Android devices, with an especially bizarre argument: protecting the privacy of your users is bad for business. Oh really? Specifically, Baker engages in some hysterically wrong historical revisionism concerning the rise and fall of RIM/Blackberry:

Baker said encrypting user data had been a bad business model for Blackberry, which has had to dramatically downsize its business and refocus on business customers. “Blackberry pioneered the same business model that Google and Apple are doing now - that has not ended well for Blackberry,” said Baker.

He claimed that by encrypting user data Blackberry had limited its business in countries that demand oversight of communication data, such as India and the UAE and got a bad reception in China and Russia. “They restricted their own ability to sell. We have a tendency to think that once the cyberwar is won in the US that that is the end of it - but that is the easiest war to swim.”

While it's true that some countries, like India, demanded the right to spy on Blackberry devices, the idea that this was the reason for the company's downfall is ludicrous. First of all, RIM gave in to some of those demands anyway. But, more importantly, the reason that Blackberry failed was because the company just couldn't keep up from an innovation standpoint -- and that's because early on it made the decision to focus onenforcing patents, rather than truly innovating. RIM got fat and lazy by getting an early lead and then focusing on protecting it, rather than keeping up with the market. And... one of the reasons it got that early lead was because companies were willing to buy into the Blackberry in part because of its strong encryption.

The idea that encryption was bad for business because China and Russia couldn't spy on people is not only ridiculous and silly, but it appears to be Baker supporting authoritarian states spying on its citizenry. What the hell, Stewart?

Beyond that, Baker insists that, really, the public doesn't want encryption anyway, and if people only knew what was really going on with the "bad guys," we'd all be willing to give up our privacy:

Baker said the market for absolute encryption was very small, and that few companies wanted all their employees’ data to be completely protected. “There’s a very comfortable techno-libertarian culture where you think you’re doing the right thing,” said Baker.

“But I’ve worked with these companies and as soon as they get a law enforcement request no matter how liberal or enlightened they think they are, sooner to later they find some crime that is so loathsome they will do anything to find that person and identify them so they can be punished.

Right. And that's what basic police and detective work is for. It doesn't mean that you need to weaken the security and privacy of everyone else. Anyway, let's see if Baker goes out and shorts Apple and Google's stock now that he believes encryption and protecting the privacy of their users is really so bad for business.

Filed Under: blackberry, china, cryptowars, encryption, india, nsa, russia, stewart baker, surveillance
Companies: apple, blackberry, google, rim

Russia Dismantles Steve Jobs Memorial, Fearing That Tim Cook's Homosexuality Might Be Contagious

from the an-extra-dose-of-bigotry-for-good-measure dept

By now you've probably noticed that Russian President Vladimir Putin and his political compatriots aren't particularly enlightened fellows, whether it's their hypocrisy on surveillance or the country's increasingly abysmal record when it comes to free speech. This narrow-mindedness was made even more painfully evident when in 2013 Putin and friends supported the passage of the country's national "LGBT propaganda" law, designed to protect minors from the terrifying menace presented by "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships" while upholding "family values" through discrimination.

Since then, interpretation of what constitutes an erosion of said family values has been hysterically and disturbingly broad, and the law in some cases has been used to justify violent, vigilante behavior against the country's LGBT community. Taking interpretation of that law to an entirely new level of ridiculousness, the Russian government this week dismantled a cell-phone-shaped Steve Jobs memorial constructed in 2013 by a coalition of companies in downtown St. Petersburg. Why? Apparently the government was concerned that passers by might contract homosexuality from a statue paying homage to one of the world's most significant technology visionaries:

"In Russia, gay propaganda and other sexual perversions among minors are prohibited by law," ZEFS said, noting the memorial had been "in an area of direct access for young students and scholars". "After Apple CEO Tim Cook publicly called for sodomy, the monument was taken down to abide to the Russian federal law protecting children from information promoting denial of traditional family values."

Of course Cook also said nothing of the sort in his recent Bloomberg piece, only stating he's "proud to be gay" and that the struggles he's faced over the course of his lifetime have made him both tougher and more empathetic. That's a message apparently missed by St. Petersburg City Councilman Vitaly Milonov, who not-so-gracefully stated he'd like to see the CEO of one of the world's most successful technology companies banned from entering the country:

"Shortly after Cook’s announcement, conservative St. Petersburg City Councilman Vitaly Milonov called for Cook to be banned from entering the country because of his sexual orientation. "What could he bring us? The Ebola virus, AIDS, gonorrhea?" Milonov said during an interview with the website FlashNord."

As it stands, Milonov might want to be less concerned with students catching homosexuality from slabs of steel and concrete, and a little more concerned with them catching a severe and incurable case of the stupid.

Update: A story by RT seems to rather vaguely suggest the whole thing was a hoax, though at least one St. Petersburg local in the story's comment section disputes the RT story's take.

Filed Under: lgbt, russia, tim cook
Companies: apple

Payment Wars: How Merchants And Carriers Are Trying To Block Payment Systems They Can't Track

from the dangeorus dept

Over the weekend, it came out that two giant pharmacy chains, Rite Aid and CVS, had started blocking Apple Pay, the massively hyped new payment system from Apple that has received much praise for its ease of use. The product had worked for about a week before the two companies started blocking such near field communication (NFC) payments (which also takes out other NFC payment options like Google Wallet). While Rite Aid gave a vague and slightly ridiculous explanation -- that it is "still in the process of evaluating our mobile payment options" -- pretty much everyone knows the truth. A bunch of retailers, led by Walmart, have been creating their own mobile payment system called CurrentC, which cuts out the credit card companies. But, it also builds in all the tracking and spying features of store loyalty cards, expanded across all merchant partners. Apple Pay lets people remain anonymous.

In short: CurrentC lets merchants (1) cut out credit card transaction fees and (2) get more and more data on shoppers. No wonder they want to block out other options.

But this isn't the start of such fights. Last year, mobile carriers like T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T sought to block Google Wallet in favor of a similar consortium of mobile operators, looking to create their own NFC payment system, which was unfortunately named ISIS until world events led the consortium to change its name to Softcard.

All of these moves should be concerning. They're clearly not being done with the consumer in mind. Nearly everyone who's played with Apple Pay has agreed that the system is a huge leap ahead for mobile payments in terms of ease of use. Instead, we're seeing giant organizations looking to team up to keep competitors out of the market. At the very least, this should raise serious antitrust issues. But it also demonstrates, in a different sphere, why net neutrality is such a concern. When you have large companies that can effectively collude to block or kill certain powerful and useful apps and services, it hinders and blocks important innovations, leaving consumers significantly worse off. Not only are they left with fewer choices and lower quality apps and services, but it also pushes consumers into services -- like CurrentC -- that take away their privacy.

Filed Under: apple pay, collusion, control, credit cards, currentc, google wallet, mobile payments, nfc, operators, payment, retailers, softcard, wireless payments
Companies: apple, at&t, cvs, google, rite aid, softcard, t-mobile, verizon