Low Cost Phones Are Turning Privacy Into A Luxury Option

from the ill-communication dept

Even when you're shelling out thousands of dollars for the latest smartphone and an "unlimited" data plan for it to run on, that cost expenditure still puts you at great privacy risk. Wireless carriers, for years, have collected and sold your location and other data to a long line of dubious middlemen, and despite a lot of sound and fury on this subject, few (outside of maybe the EFF) are really doing much about it. And with the FCC recently having self-immolated at lobbyist request and any new meaningful privacy protections derailed by bickering, that's not changing anytime soon.

Less discussed is the privacy nightmare you'll find in "discounted" phones designed to help "bridge the digital divide." While numerous vendors and tech giants have cooked up lower-cost Android phones with marketing focused on helping the poor, a new study by advocacy group Privacy International found that the privacy trade offs of these devices are... potent. Not only do they usually come with outdated OS' opening the door to hackers, the phones have locked down user control to such a degree they're unable to remove apps that may also pose security risks:

"The MYA2 also has apps that can’t be updated or deleted, and those apps contain multiple security and privacy flaws. One of those pre-installed apps that can’t be removed, Facebook Lite, gets default permission to track everywhere you go, upload all your contacts, and read your phone’s calendar. The fact that Facebook Lite can’t be removed is especially worrying because the app suffered a major privacy snafu earlier this year when hundreds of millions of Facebook Lite users had their passwords exposed. Facebook did not respond to request for comment."

It's part of a broader issue in telecommunications where privacy has become a luxury available only to those who can afford it. Some telecom giants like AT&T have tried to push the barrier even further, only letting users opt out of online snoopvertising if they're willing to pay $500 more annually for telecom services. Between the apps, the phone, hackers, and your wireless carrier tracking, hacking, and monetizing your every waking moment, it's a privacy and security minefield out there for even affluent smartphone buyers.

Studies suggest low income users realize that in the modern telecom landscape there are stark privacy penalties for being poor, yet feel they have no real power in the equation:

"Yet millions of Americans who can’t afford to buy a computer or install broadband internet at home often have no choice but to use such devices, which become their sole means of accessing the internet. If they want to enjoy the same basic conveniences that people in higher socioeconomic tiers have—such as transportation directions, online bill pay, and email—they may have to give up their privacy in exchange."

The market won't stop the practice because it's profitable to hoover up every shred of data. The government won't stop this process because Congress is slathered with mountains of cross industry campaign contributions that eliminate any motivation to craft meaningful privacy guidelines with any real teeth. With 3.7 billion users expected to have their only online access come via smartphone by 2025, that might just be a problem, and making privacy a "luxury feature" will only make said problem worse.

Filed Under: luxury, mobile devices, phones, price, privacy

Two Big Patent Trolling Cases End With Whimpers Instead Of Bangs

from the deflating-trolls dept

Here's a follow up on two big patent trolling cases that we've covered a bit in the past. The first involves the world's largest patent trolling operation, Intellectual Ventures in one of its very first patent lawsuits (for years it just threatened and got companies to settle) in which it sued Motorola Mobility, as the company was in the process of being acquired by Google (which recently announced it was selling off the company while keeping the patents). Google had been an early supporters of Intellectual Ventures back when it was being presented as a "defense fund" against trolls, before Nathan Myhrvold pulled a big bait and switch. Since then Google has been a clear target for Intellectual Ventures, since the company was supportive of patent reform that would neuter IV's parasitic business model.

That big case has now ended in a mistrial after a jury couldn't decide who should prevail. A mistrial is hardly the end, as IV is already talking about a retrial (and hyping up that it still has other patent cases against Motorola), but it certainly suggests that the case isn't nearly as open and shut as IV had been suggesting in the past.

Moving on to another high profile patent troll case. For a few years now we've been covering a company called Innovatio which was threatening lots of companies, claiming that anyone who used WiFi infringed on its patents, but that (out of the kindness of its heart) it wasn't targeting individual users "at this stage." Instead, it went after a ton of small businesses, including coffee shops, grocery stores, restaurants and hotels -- exactly the type of businesses which wouldn't be interested in spending money on a costly legal battle.

A bunch of makers of WiFi access points, including Cisco, Netgear and Motorola actually teamed up in an attempt to smack Innovatio down to protect their own customers. They noted that they had all licensed the patent in question in the past, and that should cover the end users. Furthermore, the patent itself was subject to RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms which Innovatio never mentioned to people it was threatening and suing. In fact, they argued that Innovatio was actually engaged in a form of racketeering. While a judge in the case, unfortunately, didn't allow the racketeering claims to move forward, he did determine that if Innovatio was due a license, the royalty rate was less than 10 cents per device, rather than the much, much, much higher numbers Innovatio had been pushing.

Recognizing its case was going nowhere, it appears that Innovatio has agreed to settle. Innovatio admitted that over 100 million of the devices they had sent threats over were already licensed, but has agreed to "license" the remaining 85 million devices for $2.7 million, or about 3.2 cents per device. This is how lots of patent trolling lawsuits end. Innovatio was looking for a much larger payout, but $2.7 million is still pretty significant money for very questionable activity. Cisco, in reporting this, notes that it spent $13 million on the litigation (not even counting the settlement) and highlights just how ridiculous the whole thing is, and how some basic changes to patent laws might stop trolls like Innovatio from targeting end users.

But that expenditure would not have been necessary if Innovatio had met its obligations to license on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, and had come to Cisco seeking a reasonable license first rather than targeting our customers and those of other manufacturers. And, if our laws included provisions requiring those who target innocent third party users of products to register their claims at the FTC and make sure users know they can take their claims to manufacturers like Cisco, it seems unlikely Innovatio would have engaged in its letter-writing shakedown against end users. And if they thought they might be on the hook for the $13M we had to spend, they might have thought twice about the way they approached their licensing scheme. Provisions to deal with this problem, and with the problem of lawsuits that target users of products rather than those who develop and sell the products, were included in legislation that overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House of Representatives recently. We hope the Senate will act quickly as well.

In the meantime, we hope the “Innovatio” outcome will cause others who are undertaking similar efforts to step back and rethink their strategy.

Trolling behavior has become so pervasive in the patent arena that anyone denies that it's a problem is either lying or in deep, deep denial. However, it's good to see that a couple of big trolls aren't having quite as easy a time of it as they likely expected.

Filed Under: mobile devices, patent trolling, patents, wifi
Companies: cisco, google, innovatio, intellectual ventures, motorola, netgear

Apple Sued For Patent Infringement Over One Of The Broadest Patents You'll Ever See

from the take-a-gander dept

So we see bizarre and ridiculous patent claims all the time, but this one really seems to go beyond any level of ridiculous, and I can't wait to see how patent system defenders explain this one. A company called NetAirus has sued Apple for patent infringement over a patent it applied for in 1999 and received in 2006 for a wireless handset communication system (patent 7,103,380) that is so broad and so generic, it's hard to see how it could possibly have been approved. Patents are supposed to be for specific implementations, not the idea, but if you read through the claims (there are just 14 of them), they seem to all cover very generic concepts that describe putting a mobile phone and a PDA on the same device -- a concept that was widely discussed in the mid-90s when everyone was using their PalmPilots, and wondering when they'd merge into mobile phones. It's really quite stunning that a patent so broad got approved. Please, patent system defenders, explain how the claims on this patent make sense.

In the meantime, though, this lawsuit really highlights the difference between an idea and execution. Having an idea and getting a patent is pretty meaningless if you don't actually build something. Apple built a product -- and not just the vague product described in the patent: they built something really impressive. Ideas mean little in the long run. Execution is everything. But when we allow companies to patent basic ideas and sue the companies that actually execute? You've set up a market that hinders true innovation.

Filed Under: iphone, mobile devices, patents
Companies: apple, netairus

New Innovations Show How Mobile Devices Can Be Helpful To Learning... Just Not In Pennsylvania

from the no-progress-in-the-keystone-state dept

While some politicians in Pennsylvania are trying to push a law that would put an outright ban on most portable devices, such as mobile phones, in schools, not too far away, in Washington, DC, this week, there was an entire conference on how such mobile devices were increasingly useful in the classroom to help in the education process. Apparently, some politicians in Pennsylvania would rather block out that opportunity, just because the devices might also be occasionally misused.

Filed Under: education, mobile devices

Bill Introduced In Pennsylvania To Ban All Portable Gadgets In School

from the seems-a-bit-extreme,-right? dept

We've seen various schools or school teachers/administrators try to ban bringing mobile devices into schools, and the whole concept seems backwards. It's perfectly reasonable to have rules within the classroom where students are told not to use the phones during class time, but a full ban makes little sense. In fact, many parents have protested such rules, as they feel safer when their kids have mobile phones. However, it looks like some politicians in Pennsylvania are going even further. Dan Callahan, a 6th grade teacher in Pennsylvania wrote in to let us know that a state legislator has introduced legislation for a blanket ban on students having portable electronic devices in schools:

The possession by students of telephone paging devices, commonly referred to as beepers, cellular telephones and portable electronic devices that record or play audio or video material shall be prohibited on school grounds, at school sponsored activities and on buses or other vehicles provided by the school district.

Callahan points out how ridiculous this is, referring to it as the Luddite Bill (though, in fairness, it would just be one of many such bills). He notes that his school does already have a ban on phones (which he's helped enforce), but notes that there should be flexibility -- especially for the school to decide. He also notes that mobile devices may present a great learning opportunity for smart teachers who learn to make use of them:

A few years ago, I wouldn't have thought this a big deal, but to take away the option of teachers allowing cell phone use in their classrooms to me now seems ludicrous. Right now we stand on the brink of a major shift in computing resources available to students in their pockets, with phones as powerful as a computer from only a few years ago.... Honestly, if you think we really want you to take away more teaching options from us, you're sorely mistaken.

And this isn't far out thinking either. The NY Times this weekend ran an article about the idea of smart phones as teaching tools, creating the ability to bring impressive computing power into the classroom at a much lower price point. But, apparently, some politicians in Pennsylvania would rather keep such things out of the classroom entirely.

Filed Under: mobile devices, pennsylvania, schools