European Politicians Look To Ban WiFi In School... For The Children

from the not-this-again dept

Every so often we hear from some random city where a bunch of folks who don't understand technology or radiation claim that WiFi is making people sick and it should be stopped. However, would all of Europe go that way? Apparently there's a proposal in the EU to ban all WiFi and cellular technology in schools to "protect" the children, of course. Notably, the proposal fails to provide any actual evidence, but uses the cop-out of "well, it could be harmful." The report says that since there is still research going on, we should wait until that research is done -- as if that kind of research is ever done. Even more ridiculous are things like:

pay particular attention to "electrosensitive" persons suffering from a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network;

How many times does this claim of "electrosensitive" persons need to be debunked? There is a ton of evidence that no such thing as electrosensitivity exists. There are studies that suggest the symptoms are real -- but they are not caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields (they may be caused by the person's own brain, or they may be some third factor). But there has been no serious study that has shown, in a controlled setting, that anyone can successfully and repeatedly "sense" when there's an electromagnetic field around. And we're talking dozens of studies on this, with pretty much all turning up the same result. So why should anyone create "wave free areas" since the evidence shows it won't actually do anything.

The proposal also suggests limits on wireless technology use even in your own home, saying that "preventative thresholds" should be established.

The proposal fails to cite any significant evidence to support most of its claims, instead choosing to use circumstantial claims -- such as noting that since there's an "ongoing public debate" about this, we should block it until that's all been worked out.

Filed Under: eu, wifi, wireless

New Zealand Libraries Considering Shutting Off Public Internet Access To Avoid Three Strikes Law

from the nicely-done dept

We already saw just how confused about the basics New Zealand politicians were before rushing through a poorly thought-out, US-driven copyright law change that put in place a "three strikes" provision. And, now, some of the consequences are becoming clear. While various librarians insist they made this issue known to elected officials, the law makes no exception for operations like a library. That is, if three people in a library use the internet connection there for infringing purposes, the entire library may lose its internet access.

Thus, in order to preserve internet access for those who work at the library, many New Zealand libraries are considering turning off internet access for the public (via TorrentFreak. This is a ridiculous and unfortunate result, but it's what happens when you have politicians making decisions based on economic and technological cluelessness, driven by specific lobbying interests.

Filed Under: libraries, new zealand, three strikes, wifi, wireless

Patent Troll Lodsys: All We Want Is 0.575% Of The Entire Mobile In-App Payment Ecosystem, Is That So Wrong?

from the if-i-just-had-0.5%... dept

Following last week's news of patent troll Lodsys going after a bunch of independent or individual iOS (iPhone/iPad) developers who were making use of Apple's in-app payment offerings (as required by Apple if you want to sell within an app), the company has put up a blog FAQ where it seeks to answer a bunch of questions that people have been asking.

It's basically a compendium of ridiculous, silly and debunked arguments for why patent trolling is awesome (while also denying that Lodsys is a patent troll). There were some weakly-sourced rumors over the weekend that Lodsys was a front company for Intellectual Ventures, but there wasn't much significant evidence to support that, and Lodsys denies it. It is true that the patents in question were once owned by IV, who sold them (and it's not clear if IV still has an economic interest in the patents -- something it allegedly keeps with some of its patent sales, though it's notoriously secretive in such deals). However, Lodsys insists that IV sold all of its rights to Lodsys.

Of course, the key question is what does Lodsys want. There was some speculation that it was pushing for a license from Apple, but it notes that Apple already has a license (though, it's almost certainly from when the patents were held by IV). It also notes that Microsoft and Google hold licenses (again, potentially via IV), so it may be going after developers on other devices soon too. Of course, Lodsys pretends that the licenses from Apple, Google and Microsoft show that the patents are legit, but that's being deceptive yet again. From the details, it's almost entirely certain that all three companies got the license as a part of a blanket license from IV, and had no idea about this specific patent, nor took any interest in the details of this particular patent. For Lodsys to pretend this legitimizes their patent is yet another example of patent trolls being misleading. This patent was not considered important by Apple, Google or Microsoft. It was almost certainly included in a bulk licensing deal.

Finally, Lodsys points out that it has no interest in receiving a single lump sum from big companies, claiming that it's likely to get "the best return" by shaking down developers one-by-one-by-one. So, what does Lodsys want? Well, it appears to want at least 0.575% of the entire in-app payment market:

In the case of an Application doing an in-application upgrade (and only this scenario), Lodsys is seeking 0.575% of US revenue over for the period of the notice letter to the expiration of the patent, plus applicable past usage.

Of course, since the power of in-app payments is that it lets you do a lot more than just app upgrades, you have to imagine Lodsys is asking for a lot more in those other cases.

And for what? For coming up with an insanely abstract idea that was a natural and obvious evolution of such apps. No one -- no one -- came up with the concept or implementation of in-app payments for mobile device apps because of this patent. And, of course, this assumes (incorrectly, of course) that this will be the only patent that someone digs up that appears to (broadly defined) cover things like in-app payments. If all such patent holders start demanding 0.575% (or more) this will put a huge burden on developers.

Lodsys talks high and mighty about "property rights" and paying those who are owed money in its blog, but those claims are laughable. First, it claims that it's Lodsys patents that are responsible for in-app payments:

The economic gains provided by the Lodsys inventions (increase in revenue through additional sales, or decrease in costs to service the customer) are being enjoyed by the business that provides the product or service that interacts with the user. Since Lodsys patent rights are of value to that overall solution, it is only fair to get paid by the party that is accountable for the entire solution and which captures the value (rather than a technology supplier or a retailer).

But that assumes, totally incorrectly, that Lodsys or even the original patent was instrumental in making this happen. It was not. This is the natural evolution of app development. But Lodsys can't let up and gets ridiculous:

As a comparative example, it is the owner of the hotel who is responsible for the overall service (value proposition) that guests pay for, not the owner of the land that the hotel may be leasing, not the travel agent that sold the reservation, not the manufacturer of tools such as hammers, nor the provider of materials such as nails or steel beams, which may be used in building the hotel; nor is it the outsourced linen washing service or the architect of the building who is responsible. Lodsys’ patent portfolio is being used as a part of an overall solution and we are seeking to be paid for the use of patent rights by the accountable party.

Except that whole first part disagrees with the conclusion Lodsys is shooting for. Yes, the owner of a hotel is responsible for its overall service, but if you went to the owner of a hotel and said "hey, I came up with the idea of putting bathrooms in hotel rooms, pay me," the owner of the hotel would laugh at you. Because that's just a basic implementation that's an obvious advance as a result of indoor plumbing. Ditto for in-app payments. That's an obvious advance in the evolution of mobile apps. Again, no one is doing in-app payments because they suddenly discovered this Lodsys patent and its vague and useless descriptions.

There's also the myth of the brilliant inventor shining the light on this concept via this patent for the rest of the world to learn from:

Dan Abelow is an independent inventor who visualized/created metaphors, documented for the world to see (in exchange for exclusivity) and created value for doing so. This ideation, as expressed in the patent, enabled a building block for others to build on and create more value.

That assumes that the people being sued actually built off of this patent. Lodsys presents absolutely no evidence to support such claims, because it almost certainly has none. Of course, Lodsys defends patent trolling and insists that people who don't like this are just freeloaders:

In aggregate, this cycle of patent licensing means that more invention can happen and it means that the economic profit pie is distributed more efficiently to suppliers of building blocks that are incorporated in the products or services.

This is false. And it's been shown false over and over and over again by various economic studies. It's based on the very false assumption that any economic activity is good economic efficiency. When the economic activity involves artificial protectionist barriers to innovation (which is what's happening here), then nearly every serious economist will point out the serious costs involved in hindering economics. To claim that this means more invention can happen is simply not supported by the evidence at all, which suggests more optimal results are found without patents getting in the way.

There are lots of bills in life that it would be preferable to not pay if one didn’t have to. Lodsys is just trying to get value for assets that it owns, just like each and every company selling products or services is, trying to do business and make a profit. Its odd that some of the companies that received notices had such a visceral reaction. Some of these companies have our favorite apps, for which we paid the asking price. We realize you have to get paid for your work and so do we.

It's not that people don't want to pay these bills. It's that they think it's ridiculous that some company that no one's ever heard of, holding some piece of paper that includes nothing of value or relevant to these developers, is suddenly demanding a cut for doing absolutely nothing. That's incredibly different than someone paying for an app that they liked.

Filed Under: in-app payments, patent trolls, patents
Companies: apple, google, intellectual ventures, lodsys, microsoft

Google's Internal Collision Course: Chrome vs. Android

from the android's-gonna-win dept

I spent the last couple days at Google's big developer conference, Google I/O. While officially a developer conference, the event is often a window into Google's overall thinking on where it's headed. There are a lot of new products and features shown off -- some more ready for prime time than others. The clear takeaway from the overall event is that Google doesn't just believe that we're moving to a more connected world, it's grown sick of waiting for everyone else to develop it, and is laying the groundwork itself. So much of the event was about new offerings that enable more advanced things to happen via the internet and via devices. From a standpoint of pure geekery, it's pretty cool to see that vision in action.

However, there was one other thing that became abundantly clear at the event, and it's that Google is on an internal collision course with itself. Day one of the event was all Android, all the time, and day two of the event was Chrome, Chrome and a little more Chrome (for good measure). With Android, the talk was basically about expanding Android everywhere. While Google had rushed out a separate and distinct version of Android for tablets, it is bringing the tablet version and the phone version back together and also looking to put it on other devices (e.g. Google TV will be powered by Android as well). On top of that, Google is looking to expand the overall purview of Android, by making it easier to control all sorts of hardware and devices as well. The vision, effectively, is that Android becomes the remote control for, well, everything. Others have tried similar strategies and failed, but it's ambitious, and sooner or later someone's going to figure it out, and Google has as good a chance as anyone.

On the Chrome side, the company continues to make improvements to Chrome itself, increasing performance massively, and continuing to allow people to do more with HTML 5 directly in the browser. On top of that, Google is really ramping up its "Chromebook" strategy of offering very cheap computers with the "ChromeOS" and with built-in cheap or free wireless.

Of course, this raised all sorts of questions about the fact that both strategies are on a clear collision course, and it's not obvious that Google has any plan on what to do about it. This shouldn't be a surprise. Two years ago, when Google first announced the Chrome-as-operating system strategy, our very first reaction was that it was going to lead to conflict with Android. And that was clearly on display at the event. Asking folks from either team about this odd split would lead to mumbling and dancing around the question. It seems clear that the two teams don't have much, if any, collaboration going on, and both are charting their own courses that seem to be starting to encroach on each other's territory. That's most obvious with Google TV. While the product has been slow to catch on, the original version was focused on Chrome, but it sounds like Android is now taking over.

Now, there's something to be said for some internal competition. It helps drive both groups forward, and lets them take different and experimental approaches in a new world where what's going to work is a huge unknown. Traditionally, though, if most companies allow for such competition, it's usually an upstart "skunkworks"-type operation against a legacy operation. In this case, it's two upstarts. And the risk there is what happens when they clash. The fact that there's no Chrome browser on Android (and the default Android browser is pretty bad) just seems bizarre.

At some point, Google is going to need to merge these two strategies, rather than just let them fight each other. Perhaps the big thinkers at Google think that time is further down the road, but it seems like soon would be a good time to start integrating the strategies. For now, however, it seems happy to let the two just remain on the collision course. And while I have no doubt that they believe both strategies are important, it wasn't hard to read the tea leaves as to which of these two Google is betting more on: the entire third floor of the Moscone Center was about Android. In contrast, Chrome had a much smaller section at the back of the second floor. Google may claim that it's treating the two equally, but its actions scream loudly that the big bet is on Android.

Filed Under: android, chrome, competition
Companies: google

DOJ Uses Congressional Hearings About Protecting Mobile Privacy To Suggest Mobile Users Deserve Less Privacy

from the we-want-to-track-you dept

With all the reports lately about mobile devices tracking people's whereabouts, Congress (of course) sprung into action to hold grandstanding sessions hearings about protecting privacy on mobile devices. The official title of the hearing was: "Protecting Mobile Privacy: Your Smartphones, Tablets, Cell Phones and Your Privacy." So, it would be natural to expect that most people would talk about protecting privacy on mobile devices. However, one participant went in the opposite direction. Jason Weinstein, the deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division, decided that the answer to protecting mobile privacy was to make sure there's less mobile privacy... as far as government snoops are concerned.

That is, he used the hearings to suggest a new Justice Department proposal that would require mobile phone operators to collect even more data from their customers than they do already. Yeah, this seems to be the exact opposite of the point of this particular discussion. Of course, our own Derek Kerton has been making this point repeatedly in our comments in the various discussions about Apple and Google tracking locations... and the government grandstanding about it: the government requires that mobile operators track much of this data. And what Weinstein was pitching was that they should track even more of it.

Of course, Weinstein uses the same old excuse for why everyone should have less privacy -- to make his job easier:

Weinstein said, "when this information is not stored, it may be impossible for law enforcement to collect essential evidence.... Many wireless providers do not retain records that would enable law enforcement to identify a suspect's smartphone based on the IP addresses collected by Web sites that the suspect visited."

But, of course, that totally misses the point. We have protections from government for a reason. There is no right for law enforcement's job to be easy. In fact, the rights go in the other direction. Individuals have a right of privacy from the government because we, as a society, supposedly decided that such rights were more important than an all-powerful government. That's what we thought the 4th Amendment was about, but I understand that's been excised from the document lately...

Filed Under: congress, justice department, mobile data, privacy, tracking

Chicago Politicians Say Mobile Phones Should Block Kids From Texting While Driving

from the technological-realities dept

A few years back, there were some reports of tools that would "block" people from texting while driving by simply disabling the feature if the phone was moving over a certain speed. It was targeted at parents to put on their kids' phones, but we haven't seen much of an indication that it's gained any traction. No worries, politicians to the rescue. Gregil10 points us to the news that "an influential group of Chicago aldermen," are pushing for a law that would require such software be placed on any mobile phone sold in Chicago, which could then be enabled by the parents (or, I guess, by the user themselves).

Of course, the same problems that we discussed a few years back apply (and haven't been solved). If you think kids won't figure out how to get around such things, you haven't seen kids and their mobile phones lately. They understand the devices better than parents. Even if a parent can figure out how to enable the software, you can bet kids will figure out how to disable it.

An even bigger issue is that blocking texting based on the speed of travel is a really broad brush for trying to stop texting while driving. Speed of travel isn't a very good proxy for whether or not someone is driving. It may be a good indication that someone is travelling in a vehicle, but that hardly means they're controlling the vehicle. And, it really doesn't make sense to block texting for passengers. In fact, allowing passengers to communicate in this way often serves as a good way to stop drivers from texting, because they can ask a passenger to handle the texting instead. Or if someone's on a bus or a train, should they really be stopped from texting? Often, that's when people use such functionality the most, letting others (such as parents!) know that they got on the bus or train and would be arriving on time/late/early/etc.

I certainly recognize the risks of texting and driving. And it's no secret that many, many kids do engage in this incredibly risky and stupid behavior. But laws like this don't solve the real problem. Instead, they just create even more problems.

Filed Under: blocks, chicago, driving, kids, mobile phones, texting

Trying To Limit Net Access, Dutch Telcos Accidentally Force Government To Speak Out On Net Neutrality

from the backfire? dept

Although the below image has been circulating the internet as a satirical warning for some time now, Dutch telco KPN recently announced that it's actually going to implement something like this due to declining revenue.

The company stated that starting this summer it will be blocking chat-messaging applications such as WhatsApp (competes with SMS), VoIP services (competes with calls) and heavy streaming services. All these services will get their own price tag, just like what is currently the case with calling and text messaging. The problem with that logic of course is that calling and SMS are actually different services that the telco offers; but in the case of creating pay packages for internet services, probably none of the services are from the telco itself. Some other telcos, such as Vodafone, already stated that it, too, is interested in plans like these (Vodafone is already blocking VoIP and selling access to VoIP services for 5 EUR per month).

Unfortunately for KPN, this plan might actually backfire. The majority of the Dutch parliament has spoken out against the plans and have urged the Minister to protect net neutrality. Currently the Dutch Telecommunications Law does not provide a good safe harbor for net neutrality, but it soon might... because of this. One parliament member who is part of a ruling coalition party even suggested that if telcos are going to charge more for usage, perhaps the tariffs for normal phone calls should be lowered. Sadly, the Minister is less outspoken and has claimed that "mobile internet is really something different than an internet connection at home".

It will be interesting to see what happens next. Will service providers like Wikipedia start charging telcos for "using their content for free?" Will Skype start demanding royalties? As we've said before: "it's a pipedream for [...] some mobile operators, but the likelihood of it actually becoming the norm seems pretty damn low."

Filed Under: broadband, holland, net neutrality
Companies: kpn

Lawsuits Filed Against Twitter, Facebook & MySpace For Confirming That A User No Longer Wanted Text Messages

from the frivolous-lawsuits dept

Ah, class action lawsuits in action. If you want an idea of how the class action lawsuit process is often used for completely ridiculous purposes, just take a look at three separate lawsuits filed by a bunch of California lawyers. Each lawsuit is separate (and embedded below), and all three were pointed out by Eric Goldman. The lawsuits are against Twitter, Facebook and MySpace, and all are basically identical, other than the plaintiff. They're all attempts to file class actions against these companies for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which is supposed to block unsolicited contact to mobile phone lines. In all three cases, the plaintiffs were people who willingly turned on a feature in early April to receive text messages from each of these services. At some later date (probably a few days), each plaintiff chose to no longer receive those text messages, and responded to a message received by texting back "stop." As is quite typical, each of these services sent a message back to confirm that the person no longer wanted to receive such text messages. This is a completely standard procedure. And yet, these lawsuits claim that those messages broke the law, because the second the "stop" message was sent, any and all future messages, even the confirmation message, were unsolicited:

Plaintiff continued to receive text message notifications from Defendant. At some point Plaintiff decided that he no longer wanted to receive text message notifications on his cellular telephone from Defendant.
Plaintiff then responded to Defendant’s last text message notification by replying “stop.”

At this point, Plaintiff withdrew any type of express or implied consent to receive text message notification to his cellular telephone.

In response to receiving this revocation of consent, Defendant then immediately sent another, unsolicited, confirmatory text message to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.

I can't see any of these lawsuits getting very far, and one would think there should be some sort of sanctions for setting up a situation like this solely for the purpose of filing a class action lawsuit. A confirmation message that the service provider is not to contact you again is hardly an unsolicited contact. It seems like it should be easy to argue that it was very much solicited by the individual issuing the "stop" command. That this law firm filed all three of these identical lawsuits at about the same time, also suggests that the message was very much solicited in that this law firm wanted to receive the confirmation message, solely for the purpose of filing a silly class action lawsuit (or three). The thing is, if this lawsuit goes anywhere, it'll create more of a hassle. Many of us like receiving a confirmation that we've been unsubscribed from something. This is clearly not the intent of the law, and one hopes that the courts will slap this down quickly.

Filed Under: class action, spam, tcpa, text messaging, unsolicited
Companies: facebook, myspace, twitter

Verizon Wireless' Solution To Tracking Fears: A Warning Sticker You'll Ignore

from the but-we're-doing-something! dept

With the new questions being raised about how much tracking data is being recorded (and potentially sent to others) from your mobile phone, Verizon Wireless has come up with a solution that allows it to wipe its hands of the problem: warning labels. Yes, the ever-popular liability minimizing trick of affixing a warning label has made its way into this debate: I'm sure that will settle everyone's concerns.

Filed Under: privacy, tracking, warning sticker
Companies: verizon wireless

As People Realize That There's Tons Of Mobile Phone Tracking Data Out There, Fingers Start Pointing

from the don't-blame-us,-blame-them dept

While there's been plenty of concern in the past couple weeks about Apple's iPhone/iPad location data, followed by Google's Android location data, plenty of people pointed out from the beginning that what both companies have done completely pales in comparison to the sort of data that mobile phone operators regularly collect on you. Even as lawsuits have been filed against both Apple and Google, few of the people who are really upset about those two companies seem to recognize that what the operators have is much, much more complete. The mobile operators, apparently fearing that people may start to realize this, have become a bit proactive and are trying to convince everyone that the real problems are elsewhere -- specifically with apps on phones, not with the service providers. You see, don't worry about all the data we collect. Just look at what those apps are doing:

AT&T noted it “plays no role” in what kind of information smartphone apps collect, while T-Mobile pointed out the ways in which that data can be used.

Sprint lamented “consumers no longer can look to their trusted carrier with whom they have a trusted relationship to answer all of their questions,” particularly on privacy.

And Verizon Wireless called out smartphone app makers directly on the issue, stressing “location-based applications and services (whether provided by us or third parties such as Google) should give customers clear and transparent notice” and control.

This was in response to questions from Congressional Reps. Ed Markey and Joe Barton, leading all of the operators to also admit that they collect such data as well, but really, apps. Apps are a bigger issue. Just focus on the apps. Really. Apps.

Filed Under: privacy, tracking
Companies: apple, at&t, google, sprint, t-mobile, verizon