Blackberry CEO Gives Public One More Reason To Not Buy Its Phones By Arguing For Greater Law Enforcement Cooperation

from the the-greater-good-is-apparently-whatever-the-government-says-it-is dept

Blackberry's CEO John Chen feels the company hasn't hit rock-bottom yet. In a post for the company's blog, Chen announces that the phone favored by much of The Establishment will continue to support the hopes and dreams of The Establishment.

There will be no "going dark" at Blackberry.

For years, government officials have pleaded to the technology industry for help yet have been met with disdain. In fact, one of the world’s most powerful tech companies recently refused a lawful access request in an investigation of a known drug dealer because doing so would “substantially tarnish the brand” of the company. We are indeed in a dark place when companies put their reputations above the greater good. At BlackBerry, we understand, arguably more than any other large tech company, the importance of our privacy commitment to product success and brand value: privacy and security form the crux of everything we do. However, our privacy commitment does not extend to criminals.

Chen notably does not use Apple's name, lest it encourage potential customers to seek out a company that gives a damn about its customers' privacy. Chen claims he won't allow criminals to remain hidden from law enforcement if they're using his company's phones and services. All well and good, but that assumes the only time law enforcement will seek access to encrypted communications and data is when they've obtained a conviction, which is rarely the case.

Sometimes, these agencies are relying on a minimal showing of reasonable suspicion to obtain data/communications with subpoenas and national security letters. Other times, they're working with probable cause and actually obtaining warrants (warrants which also give them permission to seize electronics, thus ending their alleged use in criminal activity). Either way, the question of guilt is still up in the air. What Chen likely means is he won't extend his privacy commitment to people who are suspected of criminal activity, but that doesn't sound nearly as audacious and idealistic as declaring "criminals" will have no place while Chen's in charge.

When your company has been engaged in a multi-year marketshare freefall, it's pretty easy to take shots at companies who worry about possibly "tarnished reputations." Outside of the government itself, Blackberry is nobody's idea of an innovator or a viable threat. When Chen says he's on the side of the government, it's no surprise, as the government has been on his company's side for several years now.

From this self-interested take on the encryption debate, Chen moves on to making questionable assertions about the public's obligation to assist law enforcement.

We reject the notion that tech companies should refuse reasonable, lawful access requests. Just as individual citizens bear responsibility to help thwart crime when they can safely do so, so do corporations have a responsibility to do what they can, within legal and ethical boundaries, to help law enforcement in its mission to protect us.

Just to be clear, citizens are not obligated to "thwart crime." Neither is law enforcement, for that matter. Both can make reasonable efforts to deter criminal activity, but nobody's charged with "thwarting crime." This is why law enforcement agencies must use warrants and other legal paperwork to demand this information. The receiving party's obligation doesn't begin until the paperwork is in hand. Chen almost suggests private companies should be going above and beyond what is required by these court orders.

The key issue in the case Chen doesn't refer to by name is a 1789 law that the feds are using to avoid dealing with the Fifth Amendment. They want Apple to unlock a phone so they can access the contents, rather than spending any more time asking the detained suspect to do this. Apple has refused. It has also noted that, even if it does comply with this order, it will be unable to do so with its newer iPhones.

Chen thinks Apple should just comply with the order "for the greater good," apparently never considering the fact that forcing the government to actually operate within the confines of existing statutes would perhaps result in a form of "greater good" itself.

He then goes on to state his support for encryption and opposition to encryption bans or backdoors. This seems highly unlikely considering his earlier statements about granting the government access to phone contents. He notes he has pulled his products from countries that have demanded backdoors (but not all of them), but doesn't appear to be able to reconcile Blackberry's actions with his criticism of Apple's. Instead, he makes this unsupported statement:

Make no mistake: service providers bear a dual responsibility to protect customer privacy zealously and to cooperate with lawful requests for investigative assistance.

Very idealistic, but whether or not Apple wins this particular battle (and loses more of Chen's respect, whatever that's worth), it will make no difference in the future. Blackberry offers encryption, but Chen's post contains no details about his company's ability to decrypt to comply with law enforcement orders. Blackberry's early implementation of encrypted communications actually led to a former NSA official claiming this was the reason for its downfall. So, unless Blackberry is creating escrow keys, it will be no more cooperative than Apple when the government comes asking for access to communications.

And this is nothing new for Chen. He's been claiming there's some mythical middle ground that will serve both phone manufacturers and the government since a few weeks after the Charlie Hebdo attack. Several months later, his message remains unchanged. There's a balance here, and it must be tipped in favor of law enforcement… for the "greater good."

Filed Under: backdoors, encryption, going dark, john chen, privacy
Companies: at&t, blackberry

Mother Blames Daughter's Suicide On WiFi Allergy

from the phantom-pain dept

For many years now we've discussed the unflagging belief on some fronts that WiFi is capable of making people sick, despite no scientific evidence supporting this belief. Getting some shouldn't be hard, yet the "electromagnetically sensitive" have yet to prove they're capable of even detecting the presence of WiFi signals during double blind studies. That hasn't stopped many of them from flinging lawsuits about, suing schools for making their kids sick, or even forcing school districts to eliminate WiFi entirely.

Every time I write something highlighting the absurdity of this behavior I'm accosted by individuals wielding "proof" of WiFi's disastrous impact on the human body in the form of lengthy pdf lists of new age websites and aggressively-unscientific "studies." It's enough to, like, totally pollute my aura.

And once again, WiFi allergies have stumbled into the headlines, with one UK mom's claim that a WiFi allergy drove her 15-year-old daughter to suicide. The girl was found dead in a wooded area near the family's home after sending a text message to her friend warning her of the suicide. The tragedy has been compounded by the mother's decision to blame the WiFi at her daughter's school for the death of the child:

"As soon as Jenny walked away from a router she felt instantly better so she was almost hunting out areas of the school which weren't covered by WiFi just to do her work. "I remember saying to the school 'if someone had a peanut allergy you wouldn't make them work surrounded by peanuts'. "Just because WiFi is new and all around us doesn't mean it is safe. WiFi and children do not mix. Much more research needs to be done into this because I believe that WiFi killed my daughter."

Unsurprisingly the coroner couldn't find medical evidence of any such sickness. And overall scientific evidence still doesn't support the narrative of WiFi illness. As the World Health Organization has noted, nobody claiming to suffer from such a disorder has been able to show they can actually detect radio frequency fields, which, given the seemingly common nature of the complaint, would have happened at this point. None of this is to pretend that the medical profession is infallible (as controversy surrounding prolonged Lyme disease symptoms clearly illustrates), but the science supporting WiFi-caused illness just isn't there.

More often than not the "tiredness, headaches and bladder problems" have other causes, ranging from a miserable diet and lack of exercise to mold or other more subtle disorders and diseases. Making entire school systems less productive because your gut believes WiFi poses a fatal threat remains categorically absurd, no matter how unfortunate the tragedy or understandable the grief.

Filed Under: allergies, blame, wifi, wireless

T-Mobile Exempts Video Streams From Wireless Data Caps, Sets A Horrible Precedent

from the tap-dancing-around-neutrality dept

As rumored, T-Mobile has unveiled its latest attempt to kick the nation's wireless duopoly in the shins: exempting video services from the company's wireless broadband usage caps. According to the company's latest press release, T-Mobile customers will soon be able to stream video from 24 participating partners without it counting against user usage allotments. The initial list of participating companies includes most of the usual suspects, with T-Mobile stating any notable omissions (like YouTube and Amazon Prime Streaming) will be added in time.

With @TMobile - we want you to stop watching your data, and start watching your shows. Introducing #BingeOn. pic.twitter.com/wVyAFxlD8c

— John Legere (@JohnLegere) November 10, 2015

It's an obvious extension of the company's existing Music Freedom effort, which makes select music services cap exempt. That effort caused a bit of a net neutrality kerfuffle at launch, given that initially only the most popular music services (dictated by T-Mobile customer votes) were cap exempt. As is the problem with most zero rating programs, that immediately creates an unlevel playing field for smaller nonprofits and independents that aren't big enough to get onto T-Mobile's radar and be whitelisted.

But with Binge On, T-Mobile was obviously more prepared for the inevitable net neutrality criticism that somehow caught the company off guard last time.

This is "not a net neutrality problem,” T-Mobile US CEO John Legere was quick to proclaim during the announcement. "It’s free, the providers don’t pay, the customers don't pay. Most importantly...you can shut it off, it’s complete customer choice," he added. Users who enable the service enjoy "optimized" 480p video streams that don't count against their caps. Turn it off, and users will view standard, higher-resolution streams that will erode their usage allotments. Legere also promised that any company "can meet our technical criteria" (said criteria hasn't yet been specified) can participate.

As far as zero rated programs go, it's not an apparently awful implementation, and it's going to appeal to a lot of customers. The problem continues to be precedent. The simple act of accepting wireless carriers as middlemen fit to determine what should or shouldn't be allowed past arbitrary usage restrictions paves the way for a very uncertain future, as the Verge rather hysterically worries:

"Binge On is bad because it gives T-Mobile too much power. It’s really that simple. And yes, it’s bad for net neutrality. If net neutrality has a core idea, it’s that regular people ought to be in charge of the internet — especially since the internet is mostly just people. That means companies like T-Mobile shouldn’t be picking winners and losers, even if customers appear to be winning in the short term. And there are definitely going to be losers. Legere insists that anybody who wants to be a part of Binge On can be, as long as they meet T-Mobile’s technical specifications. It’s not clear what those specifications are yet, though Legere used words like "optimized video" and "DVD quality or better." But that just sounds a lot like another type of managed network: cable television."

Consumer groups like Free Press also make the solid point that if you realize that caps are entirely arbitrary in the first place (untied to neither financial or network necessity), letting select services bypass them quickly loses its majesty:

"T-Mobile wants to suggest it’s saving customers by exempting video from its data caps. But we have to remember that T-Mobile imposed these caps in the first place. It’s a cheap sales trick: First you fabricate a problem for customers; then you make that problem go away and act like you’ve done them a huge favor."

And not everybody is as consumer-friendly and disruptive as T-Mobile. Allowing T-Mobile to inject itself into the data stream in this fashion encourages other wireless carriers to do so, and you can be damn certain that AT&T and Verizon's vision of zero rating will be notably more ham-fisted and problematic. Even if you admire T-Mobile's particular implementation of zero rating, small independents still have to reach out for T-Mobile's permission to be placed on the same, level playing field as their larger counterparts. Many may not even realize they're in such a position.

You'll probably see countless reports suggesting that T-Mobile's move is sure to "invite scrutiny by the FCC," but that's highly unlikely. T-Mobile's done a fantastic job of selling a potentially problematic precedent as consumer empowerment. Meanwhile, the FCC has made it abundantly clear it sees usage caps and zero rating as creative pricing experimentation, in the process opening the door wide to a lopsided vision of the Internet many will naively be cheering for.

Filed Under: broadband caps, data caps, john legere, net neutrality, video, zero rating
Companies: t-mobile

No, The FCC Is Not (Intentionally) Trying To Kill Third-Party Wi-Fi Router Firmware

from the unintended-consequences dept

For a few months now a rumor has been circulating that the FCC is intentionally planning to ban third-party custom router firmware. Wi-Fi hobbyists (and people who just like a little more control over devices they own) have long used custom, open source firmware like DD-WRT or Open-WRT to bring some additional functionality to their devices, with the added bonus of replacing clunky router GUIs. Custom firmware is also handy in an age when companies like to force firmware upgrades that either eliminate useful functionality, or add cloud-features and phone-home mechanisms a user may not be comfortable with.

But at last July's BattleMesh 8 event, Wi-Fi enthusiasts noticed the clunky wording of an FCC NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking) discussing the FCC's plan to modify the rules governing RF devices. The NPRM in question (pdf), like all NPRMs, is basically the FCC's way of fielding questions about potential rule changes. It's important to understand no rules have actually been passed yet before committing gadget-nerd seppuku.

It's also important to note the FCC's motivation here is primarily safety, not to be a bureaucratic hardware-enthusiast buzzkill factory. The FAA found some illegally modified equipment operating in the unlicensed bands was interfering with terrestrial doppler weather radar (TDWR) at airports, and pushed the FCC to update its rules governing radios accordingly. But with many routers having systems-on-a-chip (SOC) where the radio isn't fully distinguishable from other hardware, Wi-Fi hobbyists are worried that a ban on modifying a device's radio could result in a blanket ban on modifying the device:

"Like all government regulations, the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head, and the proposed rules effectively ban Open Source router firmware. The rules require all relevant devices to implement software security to ensure the radios of devices operating in this band cannot be modified. Because of the economics of cheap routers, nearly every router is designed around a System on Chip – a CPU and radio in a single package. Banning the modification of one inevitably bans the modification of the other, and eliminates the possibility of installing proven Open Source firmware on any device.

And these concerns aren't entirely unjustified, thanks to a few troubling phrases buried in both the NPRM itself, and previous FCC guidance (pdf), which asks vendors questions like:

"What prevents third parties from loading non-US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.

So yes, it's understandable that sloppy FCC engineer wording has some people nervous. But as folks like Stanford lawyer and software engineer Jonathan Mayer have noted, shitty wording during a conversation about potential rules does not automatically equate to shitty rules. Meanwhile, one needs to apply some common sense, and ask if an agency on a uncharacteristic pro-consumer tear -- fresh from a battle over one of the most important open platform fights of our time (net neutrality) -- would seriously think that banning all personal hardware freedom is a nifty follow up.

Curiously nobody seems to have asked the FCC what they think about all of this. So I asked, and the FCC offered me this admittedly clunky statement (note the underlined bit):

"(FCC rules) require that the devices must ensure that under all circumstances they comply with the rules. The majority of the devices have software that is used to control the functionality of the hardware for parameters which can be modified and in turn have an impact on the compliance of devices. Our rules do permit radios to be approved as Software Defined Radios (SDRs) where the compliance is ensured based on having secure software which cannot be modified. The (FCC's) position is that versions of this open source software can be used as long as they do not add the functionality to modify the underlying operating characteristics of the RF parameters. It depends on the manufacturer to provide us the information at the time of application on how such controls are implemented. We are looking for manufacturers of routers to take more responsibility to ensure that the devices cannot be easily modified."

So in essence the FCC is saying that third-party firmware is just fine, just as long as it's not pushing the radio outside of legally-mandated parameters and causing a safety hazard. I also talked a little bit about the FCC's plan with Public Knowledge lawyer and FCC wireless policy guru Harold Feld, who spends more time wading through FCC NPRMs and telecom policy wonkery than any expert I know. Feld agrees that killing custom firmware isn't the FCC's intentional goal. That said, he's also quick to note there's still reason for concern if the rules aren't crystal clear:

"This is, of course, why the FCC does notices of proposed rulemaking and seeks comment from the parties and affected stakeholders. Especially on technical engineering matters like this, it isn't a matter of something being baked already. The FCC is responding here to a real world issue: we had problems with illegally modified equipment interfering with terrestrial doppler weather radar (TDWR) at airports. Naturally the FAA freaked out, and the FCC responded to this actual real world concern.

But at the same time, we don't want the FCC to accidentally write rules that are over-broad or subject to misinterpretation by companies. The real concern here is not some government conspiracy to wipe out open source or mandate encryption. The real worry is that major chip manufacturers will respond by saying "the easiest thing for us to do is lock down all the middleware rather than worry about where to draw the line." That would potentially kill a lot of innovation and valuable uses."

The nifty part? This being an open conversation, the FCC is fielding comments on the proposed rule changes. And if you're a hardware owner looking to protect your right to modify devices you own, you can head here to comment on the NPRM at the FCC website. You can also file a comment in the Federal Register, but need to do so before midnight, September 8.

Update: It appears the FCC decided to begin Labor Day weekend backend system upgrades shortly after this story was posted, meaning their public comment system is offline until next week. Fortunately it appears that the comment deadline had previously been extended, and users concerned about the FCC's upcoming rules regarding third party open source firmware have until October 9 to make their voices heard.

Filed Under: dd-wrt, fcc, firmware, open-wrt, router, wifi

Parents Sue School, Claim Wi-Fi Made Son Sick

from the shaky-science dept

For years now we've noted how some people are absolutely positive that Wi-Fi is making them sick, despite a lack of any substantive evidence on that front. Still, schools have repeatedly found themselves on the receiving end of lawsuits for simply installing and using Wi-Fi, and in some cases have been forced to remove the technology for the supposed benefit of the "electromagnetically sensitive." The majority of double-blind studies conducted indicate that, contrary to claims of the afflicted, these individuals cannot accurately state when they're in the presence of stronger electromagnetic fields.

Regardless, a lack of science hasn't stopped parents in Massachusetts from suing their local private school, claiming the school installed new Wi-Fi gear in 2013 that triggered "headaches, nosebleeds, nausea, and other symptoms" in their thirteen-year-old child. The suit hopes to have "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome" classified under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the lawsuit (pdf), the child's mother, after "much research and study," concluded that it was the Wi-Fi making the child sick, something family doctors were willing to substantiate.

Justifiably, the school brought in EMF analysis experts to document the specific EMF hazard being posed (spoiler, there wasn't any):

"Isotrope found that the combined levels of access point emissions, broadcast radio and television signals, and other RFE emissions on campus ‘were substantially less than one ten-thousandth (1/10,000th) of the applicable (FCC) safety limits."

The family was also annoyed when the school district wanted to use their own doctors, who in about ten minutes (at least according to the parents) came to the conclusion that whatever is ailing the kid, it wasn't Wi-Fi radiation:

"The family was also unhappy after officials at Fay asked them to have G see another physician, who after speaking to G for 10 minutes and not conducting any tests “pronounced that in his view there was not enough study yet done to link Wi-Fi emissions to symptoms such as those G is experiencing at Fay School,” they say in the complaint. "This doctor stated in essence that he does not believe in EHS,” the lawsuit says. “Yet he made no alternate diagnosis."

All told, the parents demanded the school run Ethernet to classrooms their child attends, lower the overall power of Wi-Fi transmissions in the school, and provide $250,000 in settlement funds. A new, updated report suggests that a preliminary settlement with the school may have already been reached. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like these disputes could be settled very easily (and without hindering the school's coffers or other student's capacity for learning) by having the electromagnetically-sensitive participate in a blinded study requiring they clearly illustrate their ability to detect electromagnetic fields.

While there are countless diseases that constantly illustrate we certainly don't know as much as we think we do (Lyme Disease, for example), if EMF exposure really is having that dramatic of an impact on certain individuals, this is surely reproducible and provable, right? Right?

Filed Under: electromagnetic sensitivity, lawsuit, sickness, wifi, wifi sensitivity

T-Mobile CEO Vows To Hunt Down 'Thieves' And 'Clever Hackers' That 'Abuse' Company's Unlimited Data Plans

from the unlimited-is-limited dept

For more than a decade now wireless carriers have struggled with this rather simple definition:

unlimited, adjective

1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.

2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.

3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

While carriers have long insisted they offer "unlimited" data, they go to great lengths to avoid offering said advertised product when the gluttonous masses inevitably come calling to partake in the all-you-can-eat buffet. Countless companies have had their wrists slapped for the failure to disclose that their "unlimited" plans are in fact quite limited. Verizon settled a lawsuit from NY's AG back in 2007 for advertising capped and throttled services as unlimited. When Verizon and AT&T later ditched all unlimited plans, they both still waged a quiet war on unlimited users, again throttling or otherwise restricting their data consumption.

In recent years T-Mobile has taken advantage of this shift and marketed itself as one of the last companies that truly embraces unlimited data. Well, sort of. If you sign up for an unlimited T-Mobile smartphone plan, T-Mobile's website will quietly inform you that by "unlimited" T-Mobile actually means 21 GB, after which (provided you're on a congested tower), you'll have your speeds "de-prioritized" for the remainder of your billing cycle. Customers that sign up for unlimited data are also greeted with this notice, usually down below the advertisement:So under T-Mobile's "unlimited" plans, unlimited smartphone use may actually be somewhere around 21 GB, while data consumed when tethering the phone as a modem or hotspot is throttled after 7 GB of consumption. Now to be fair, those allotments are pretty generous. And as carriers are quick to argue, the fact that you can still use data beyond those limits (albeit at reduced speeds) still technically means the connection is "unlimited." But the industry's still playing it a little loose with what is a clearly-defined term (I've underlined the key synonyms above if any confused carriers are reading).

For a while now, T-Mobile customers that install third-party ROMs have been able to skirt the 7GB tethering throttling limit. This has, apparently, greatly annoyed T-mobile CEO John Legere, who has taken to the company's blog to declare he's now hunting down data "thieves" for the benefit of all mankind:

"...These violators are going out of their way with all kinds of workarounds to steal more LTE tethered data. They’re downloading apps that hide their tether usage, rooting their phones, writing code to mask their activity, etc. They are “hacking” the system to swipe high speed tethered data. These aren't naive amateurs; they are clever hackers who are willfully stealing for their own selfish gain."

According to Legere these "clever hackers" only comprise around 1/100 of a percent of the company's 59 million customers, and a few of them have been eating as much as two terabytes a month of data. So why is T-Mobile making so much noise about a small number of customers it could easily shove to metered plans privately? T-Mobile's trying to get out ahead of media criticism for imposing limits on "unlimited" data, and to avoid the FCC's net neutrality and transparency rules by clearly stating intent (even if the T-Mobile FAQ on the issue doesn't really offer technical specifics).

It should be noted that every ISP on the planet has to deal with a small subset of extremely heavy users. This is nothing new, and if T-Mobile had said nothing, people probably wouldn't have given a damn. But after insulting his userbase, Legere proceeds with false bravado to pretend that the perfectly ordinary practice of protecting the network from gluttons somehow makes T-Mobile an industry leader:

These abusers will probably try to distract everyone by waving their arms about throttling data. Make no mistake about it – this is not the same issue. Don’t be duped by their sideshow. We are going after every thief, and I am starting with the 3,000 users who know exactly what they are doing...I won't let a few thieves ruin things for anyone else. We’re going to lead from the front on this, just like we always do. Count on it!

Good job I guess? To be clear: outside of its wishy-washy net neutrality stance I like T-Mobile, and think the company has done some great things to nudge the industry forward (like killing subsidies and reducing overseas roaming costs). I also think these allotments are more than fair for the price being paid, and T-Mobile has every right to police its network, since two terabytes of mobile consumption is gluttonous by any standard. That said, acting like it's the pinnacle of "clever hacking" and villainy to modify a device you own to get a service advertised as unlimited is a tad specious and theatrical. And Legere's decision to subsequently bicker with users on Twitter for the rest of the day wasn't the "uncarrier's" finest PR hour:

@LEVST3R as I said the abusers will try to confuse the issue and this is one of the ways..nice try

— John Legere (@JohnLegere) August 31, 2015

Snark, fanboys and fisticuffs aside, the core of the problem continues to be the use of the word unlimited to sell products that simply aren't. Since the first time the term was marketed it has confused the hell out of users who don't understand that in the age of finite spectrum, intelligent network management and hungry bean counters, there really is no such thing. If you're not willing to offer truly unlimited data (and frankly no spectrum-constrained wireless carrier truly is), stop advertising unlimited data, put your next-best offer clearly on the table, and stop molesting the god-damned dictionary.

Filed Under: john legere, streaming, tethering, unlimited
Companies: t-mobile