Smartphone Apps Quietly Using Phone Microphones And Cameras To Gather Data

from the hush-now dept

With the rise of smartphone apps, users don't always know what features and functionality those apps may be using. Reports are coming out about various apps that use the phone's microphone (and, sometimes, camera) in somewhat surreptitious ways to gather data. Now, of course, there are certain apps that people expect to use the microphone or a camera -- such as music or TV show identification products. But it's a bit of a surprise that apps such as the massively hyped (and then quickly panned) Color (which is a sort of photo sharing/location-based info service) is making use of your microphone and camera without most users realizing it:

Color uses your iPhone's or Android phone's microphone to detect when people are in the same room. The data on ambient noise is combined with color and lighting information from the camera to figure out who's inside, who's outside, who's in one room, and who's in another, so the app can auto-generate spontaneous temporary social networks of people who are sharing the same experience.

Another app discussed is, Shopkick, which gives people rewards for walking into certain stores. While you might think it could accomplish what it needs with GPS, apparently the stores in question have special devices that emit sounds that you can't hear, the microphone on your phone can pick up, thus "confirming" that you really entered the store.

While the reasoning behind these may be benign, my guess is that most people would feel pretty creeped out about apps turning on either the microphone or camera, without explicitly warning the user and making it clear what's going on (or letting them choose to turn on those features directly). Mike Elgan, who wrote the article linked above, notes (obviously) that surreptitiously turning on your microphone can provide marketers with all sorts of useful data (ya think?), so we should expect it to happen more and more often. Of course, all this is making me think that my Android phone needs an app that warns me whenever the microphone is turned on and lets me block it... Anyone writing that app?

Filed Under: camera, microphone, smartphones, snooping
Companies: color

AT&T Wheel Of Lobbying Astroturf Fortune Lands On 'Latinos'

from the ah,-the-latinos dept

A few years back, we discussed an article by Declan McCullagh, which laid out some of the sneakier tactics of lobbyist groups to pressure the government to support some position using letterhead from various special interest groups:

"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

It looks like AT&T's lobbyists went through the list and they're back around to the top with the "Latino people." Suddenly, and for no clear reason, The Hispanic Institute and the Latino Coaltion have decided that supporting the merger of AT&T with T-Mobile is of utmost importance to them. They've put out statements with such nonsensical claims like:

The proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile holds great promise for all Americans, and especially those of Hispanic heritage.

What's in it for these groups? Money, mainly:

One DC insider informs us that rumblings on K Street suggest AT&T had called every civil rights group in the United States for support within fifteen minutes of the deal being announced. Fearful of losing AT&T donations -- most of these groups quickly got to parroting prepared AT&T statements, unconcerned about the actual impact of a T-Mobile deal. Getting funding for a new events center apparently dulls any ethical pangs felt using your organization as a hired stage prop.

It's really difficult not to be cynical when you see this kind of thing playing out. What's really depressing is that no matter how many times this rather obvious practice is exposed, it just keeps on happening.

Filed Under: latinos, lobbying, merger
Companies: at&t, t-mobile

Sorry, My Brain Accidentally Called You

from the and-you-thought-pocket-dialing-was-a-problem? dept

If you thought that accidental "pocket dialing" by your phone was a problem, just wait until everyone's hooked up to allow their brain to directly dial a phone. For years we've been hearing about various experiments with thought-controlled computers, and the latest is an experiment with the ability to dial phones using your brain. The focus is on helping severely disabled people use a phone, but there are obviously plenty of applications for everyone else as well:

For example, it could create the ultimate hands-free experience for cell-phone users, or be used to detect when drivers or air-traffic controllers are getting drowsy by sensing lapses in concentration.

Not surprisingly, it takes some practice, and some people are better at it than others. In fact, the main researcher behind this notes that he can only reach 85% accuracy, while others were able to get to practically 100% accuracy.

There have been other, similar, experiments that we've heard about in the past, so it's not clear how different this particular experiment is compared to some others. However, the article does quote one researcher who says that he's not convinced this methodology really works with mobile phones, because it involves showing numbers on a screen, with each number flashing at a slightly different frequency. It's that flashing frequency that triggers the brain sensor to dial the right number. But... those flashing numbers and frequency inputs really only work off of a large screen, rather than a small mobile phone screen.

That said, if we ever really do reach the point where we have working retinal displays, you could certainly see how this might work, where you'd flash up the number pad on your eyeball, and then be able to dial directly with your brain. I'd sign up for that.

Filed Under: brainpower, phone calls

Is Tethering Stealing Bandwidth?

from the hell-no dept

Broadband Reports points us to the latest in silly arguments over non-existent "theft." This time it's about whether or not tethering your smartphone and using it as a hotspot or as a broadband connection for your computer/laptop is "theft of service." Two ZDNet bloggers go at it, with James Kendrick insisting that it's "theft of service," and no arguments to the contrary will persuade him. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols points out that this is complete "nonsense." In the interest of full disclosure, I'll point out that I do pay for the right to tether my mobile phone, even though I agree with Vaughan-Nichols and think Kendrick is wrong here.

If a bandwidth provider is selling you bandwidth at a particular rate, it's none of that provider's business what you then do with the bandwidth. Claiming that only certain devices can use it is silly. We had this back in the early days of WiFi when some ISPs insisted it was a terms of service violation to use WiFi or (in some cases) any router that allowed more than one computer to use the bandwidth. However, as more and more people just started doing it anyway, the ISPs all realized they were fighting a silly battle (and moved on to the next silly battle: "net neutrality.")

But, really, the ridiculous claim is Kendrick's insistence on calling people who do this "thieves," even though they're paying customers who are paying for the bandwidth they use. Vaughan-Nichols properly points out that, at worst, it's a terms of service violation that has absolutely nothing to do with "theft." He also points out that he's paying for the bandwidth:

I don't see why it matters if I use gigabytes of data on my phone or on my phone and laptop. At the end of the day, I still pay for it.

To me a data service is lot like my water line. I pay for what I use. Now I can drink that water, use it on my phone; wash clothes with it, use it on my PC; or shower with it, use it on my iPod Touch. Whatever. When all is said and done, I've still paid for the water or service and I've not stolen anything.

No, the real problem here isn't users. It's the carriers who charge us extra for the 'privilege' of deciding how we're going to use the data/water we receive from them.

Kendrick's response appears to be to just keep repeating that it's "theft of service," but can't back that up by explaining what's missing. That's because nothing is missing. It's not theft of service in any way, shape or form, and it does Kendrick a disservice to his usually excellent analysis to beat this particularly misguided drum.

Filed Under: language, stealing, tethering

Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued

from the oh-come-on dept

Looks like it may be time to update our patent thicket graphic. Another company that's not actually doing anything in the space is suing everyone who is. A company named H-W Technology apparently holds a patent (7,525,955) on an "Internet protocol (IP) phone with search and advertising capability" and has sued Apple, RIM, Google, Amazon, eBay, HTC, LG, Smasung, Microsoft, Nokia, Verizon and others for violating it. Because, you know, I'm sure no one possibly could have figured out how to put search and ads on a phone without this patent.

Filed Under: internet, patents, phones
Companies: amazon, apple, ebay, google, h-w, htc, lg, microsoft, nokia, rim, verizon

AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile Hit With Dumbest Antitrust Lawsuit Ever

from the please dept

We just wrote about how Max Davis, who's trying to create a silly and totally pointless compulsory licensing system for MMS content was more or less laughed out of court in the lawsuit he filed against the mobile operators, claiming that they were running illegal P2P file sharing programs in the form of their MMS capabilities. It apparently took him all of a few days to come up with a new, perhaps even more ridiculous strategy: he's suing AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and TracFone for supposed antitrust violations over the same basic issues. Once again, it seems clear that this is an incredibly weak (and almost certainly unproductive) attempt at getting these companies to agree to his pointless licensing scheme.

So how are these mobile operators guilty of antitrust violations? According to Davis:

Defendants purposely conspired via collusion to install themselves as the new primary gate keepers and sole beneficiaries of multimedia content sharing through their new MMS technologies.

Except, of course, that's ridiculous. These companies did agree to set up MMS systems, but that's because they're the mobile operators who run the mobile networks. That's not collusion. And it's not antitrust. The filing gets more ridiculous as it goes on. He claims that these operators do not qualify as DMCA service providers, contrary to the pretty clear language of the law and plenty of case law. The whole thing seems frivolous, and it seems likely that this lawsuit will reach a similar conclusion to the previous one.

Filed Under: antitrust, mms
Companies: at&t, sprint, t-mobile, tracfone, verizon

Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement

from the wtf? dept

Copyright lawyer Ray Dowd points out that Boston College is telling students that simply using a wireless router is a sign of copyright infringement. Take a look at the image below: The page lists out a variety of other things that are a lot more likely (but not definitely) to involve infringing -- such as using file sharing networks to share copyrighted songs, or emailing songs around. But using a wireless router? As Dowd discusses, the three federal court rulings involving copyright that mention wireless routers, all use it as a defense against infringement, because it highlights how someone else may have used the connection.

So why is Boston College telling students that simply using a wireless router is a sign of infringement?

Filed Under: boston college, copyright, infringement, wifi
Companies: boston college

Replay Six Months Of A German Politician's Life Thanks To His Mobile Phone Data

from the press-play dept

Various governments have tried to claim that it's no big deal to get your location data from mobile phone providers -- with US law enforcement suggesting such information shouldn't even require a warrant at times. But it's interesting to see just how much that kind of data can reveal about someone. Shane Richmond points us to an absolutely fascinating visualization put together by the German newspaper Die Zeit. Apparently German politician Malte Spitz sued Deutsche Telekom to get access to his own location and phone data (the kind of thing that governments request all the time) and then handed it over to Zeit, who put together a stunning visualization of six months of Spitz's life. You can see where he is at all times, and Zeit cross referenced the information with other public information, including Twitter feeds, blog entries and other websites, to provide context and details as to Spitz's life. Somewhat eye-opening in how much information can be put together concerning your life with access to such phone data...

Filed Under: data, germany, malte spitz, mobile phone, privacy

Federal Courts Afraid Your Smartphone Might Be A Bomb

from the well-there-goes-that-idea dept

While a state court in Connecticut may be fine with you tweeting from the courtroom via your phone, you might not be allowed to bring your smartphone into federal courtrooms at all. Apparently the Administrative Office of the Courts is arguing that smartphones should be banned completely from federal court houses, because they might hide bombs. Really? I mean, can't we at least have a TSA style grope and scan before we write off all smartphones? David Kravets, the author of the article linked above, highlights how different federal courthouses seem to take very different views on technology these days:

At the District of Columbia federal courthouse, which is home to the lower courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals, I had to check my cellphone at the door two weeks ago. And in the Los Angeles federal courthouse, I was ordered, by a judge, to turn off the Wi-Fi signal emitted from my HTC Evo in December.

But in San Francisco, the judiciary allows Wi-Fi connected computing inside its courtrooms, from either a cellphone or a computer. Live blogging or tweeting is commonplace there.

That is the status quo with the ongoing Barry Bonds criminal trial in San Francisco. What’s more, the San Francisco federal courthouse even provides free Wi-Fi in many courtrooms.

It seems like that's going significantly overboard to claim that we should ban all smartphones just because some people might misuse them.

Filed Under: bombs, courts, smartphones

What Does It Take For Mobile Operators To Care About SMS Cramming Scams?

from the scams-pay? dept

The various mobile operators have been making tons of revenue off of premium "short code" SMS programs. These are ways to add charges for various things directly to your phone bill. For example, they've become popular with various charities, so you can support them simply by texting a message to a particular short code. Of course, in many cases, the mobile operators charge you or take a cut for allowing this. And, of course, as with anything like this, it's been left open to scammers... and those scammers have moved in. Just as we saw with phone service cramming, where charges would be added to your landline phone bill, there's been a growing set of operations cramming premium SMS offerings.

Broadband Reports highlights the saga of JAWA, a Scottsdale, Arizona-based company that's at the center of allegations of cramming. The company and a bunch of shells allegedly send text messages to people that say:

"Text back STOP if you don't want to subscribe."

Most people, of course, don't text back because they think it's a scam. What they don't realize is that even if it's a scam, it's the not replying that lets the telcos start adding fees to your bill. The big question here: why does any mobile operator allow charges to be put on your phone bill for inaction?

The blog AZDisruptors (normally about Arizona startups) has been calling attention to the company, including putting together this video explaining how the cramming works, how JAWA's CEO Jason Hope is apparently building the largest house in the US (complete with a 3-story night club), and how AT&T pretends (falsely) that it can't do anything about it: Oh yeah, Broadband Reports also notes that Hope's former blog, which was all about the Lamborghinis and other luxury cars he was acquiring, has suddenly changed to point to a page about his philanthropic work.

The thing is, JAWA has been doing its thing for quite some time. After Texas regulators began investigating, Verizon Wireless finally realized it needed to do something and sued. Amusingly, JAWA's defense to the lawsuit appears to be that it employs lots of people and is good for Scottsdale. However, it also points out that it's made Verizon Wireless tons of money, and even complains that Verizon Wireless seems to be withholding money owed.

While it's nice that Verizon Wireless has filed suit, it appears this only happened after Texas regulators began investigating, and after they made money from JAWA for a period of nearly four years. AT&T now claims that it's investigating too, but only after AZDisruptors demonstrated company representatives blatantly lying to him about whether or not they make any money from this and whether or not they can stop it.

The big question in all of this really should be why the mobile operators allowed this to happen at all. Why would they ever allow charges to be added to an account as a result of inaction, rather than through direct acceptance?

Filed Under: cramming, mobile operators, scams
Companies: at&t, jawa, verizon wireless