T-Mobile Settles Text Message Banning Lawsuit
from the and-so-the-rest-of-us-are-left-in-the-dark dept
So just a short while after so much attention was paid to the question of whether or not it's legal for mobile operators to block text messages that contain content they don't like, the answer is... that we have no legal answer. T-Mobile and EZ Texting have settled their lawsuit without any ruling on the overall issue. Still, this could be good, in that mobile operators must now be aware that even if they do want to block certain messages, they're likely to have to go to court to defend that decision.Filed Under: free speech, text messages
Companies: ex texting, t-mobile
Starbucks Staffer Claims He Was Fired For Turning Off WiFi To Block Porn Watchers
from the or-you-could-ask-them-to-leave dept
One of the common complaints we heard in the early days of "free WiFi" in cafes, restaurants and libraries was the claim that people would "just use it to view porn." It seemed like an odd claim, because how many people really want to display to the world their porn viewing habits? There's a reason why porn magazines were delivered in brown paper wrappings. However, I'm sure that there will always be some people who do use it that way. Apparently some of them were at a Starbucks recently, and an exasperated barista decided the best response was to pull the plug on the WiFi -- an act for which he claims he was fired. Indeed. It does make you wonder why he didn't just ask them to stop surfing porn.Verizon Wireless To Pay $90 Million Back To Users For $1.99 Data Fees It Insisted It Never Wrongly Charged
from the well,-look-at-that dept
Well, well, well. For over a year now there have been widespread reports of how Verizon Wireless would charged users $1.99 for data services, even if they have data services turned off. This was happening sometimes to users with phones turned off or even batteries drained. The whole thing was incredibly questionable. Verizon customer service folks insisted that the people in question clearly accessed the internet, but there were so many reports that they had not, that this response didn't fly. Then, after the NY Times reported about it, the FCC finally woke up and asked Verizon Wireless to explain. Its response was basically a non-response, insisting that it had done nothing wrong -- and when David Pogue from the NY Times pushed the company about the over 400 accounts of it happening to his readers (and himself), Verizon Wireless' response was "I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us," repeated for every question Pogue asked.That was in December of last year. Now, ten months later, Verizon has just announced that it's going to pay back "up to" $90 million in such bogus fees that it never should have charged to about 15 million subscribers. Apparently, those claims of not having done stuff wrong... well... it looks like that wasn't the case. It looks like they incorrectly charged people to the tune of perhaps $90 million (the company apparently thinks it could be more like $50 million once they've found all the false charges). Seems like a pretty big "accident," which they denied for so long. The latest statement suggests that Verizon Wireless "just" noticed these errors while "reviewing customer accounts," but given the number of complaints, and the fact that it's been going on for so long, including massive press coverage and an FCC investigation, you would think the company would have figured this out sooner.
Speaking of the FCC, it appears that it's not entirely satisfied with this customer refund, as the head of the FCC's enforcement bureau (or some PR staffer working there) amusingly quipped that the FCC was: "gratified to see the repayment, but for millions of Americans it's a day late and a $1.99 short."
Filed Under: data fees, fees, returns
Companies: fcc, verizon wireless
Microsoft Sues Motorola For Patent Infringement... Over Android
from the well,-here-we-go... dept
Just as Microsoft is out there trying to make bad patents easier to invalidate, it's still acting like a big patent bully itself. Remember a few months back when it got HTC to license some patents, which Microsoft claimed covered Google's Android mobile operating system? Well, apparently, Motorola wasn't willing to do any sort of deal like that, so Microsoft has sued Motorola. Microsoft itself was kind enough to send us the press release, which is full of some pretty ridiculous statements from Microsoft's Horacio Gutierrez (with whom I rarely agree on anything):"We have a responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to safeguard the billions of dollars we invest each year in bringing innovative software products and services to market."Really? Please explain how suing some other company helps your customers? Amusingly, on Microsoft's own blog post about the lawsuit, nearly all of the comments are trashing Microsoft for litigating rather than innovating.
And, of course, to be extra obnoxious, rather than just suing, Microsoft is using the ITC loophole to get two cracks and forcing Motorola to pay.
As for which patents are being claimed here, Gutierrez in the blog post and in the press release makes some crazy statements implying that the only way to do synchronized email, calendars and contacts, or to notify apps of battery power is to violate Microsoft's patents. Below is the list of patents that Microsoft is suing over. It's hard to pick out which one is the most ridiculous:
- 5,579,517: Common name space for long and short filenames
- 5,758,352: Common name space for long and short filenames (yes, again)
- 6,621,746: Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations
- 6,826,762: Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer
- 6,909,910: Method and system for managing changes to a contact database
- 7,644,376: Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes
- 5,664,133: Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior
- 6,578,054: Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information
- 6,370,566: Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device
Filed Under: android, patents
Companies: google, microsoft, motorola
India Upset With RIM Because Solution To Spy On Emails Doesn't Work Well
from the time-to-stop-using-your-blackberry dept
A couple years ago, the Indian government started demanding that RIM give them a backdoor to read encrypted Blackberry email messages. At the time, RIM insisted that was technically impossible due to end-user encryption (something that's been called into question due to RIM's agreements with other countries, such as Saudi Arabia). A few months after that exchange, India announced that it didn't matter any more because it had cracked the encryption, and could spy on messages at will.So it seemed a bit odd when India again demanded access to RIM Blackberry messages, leading to a standoff where RIM eventually "backed down" and offered to help India spy on users. However, the Indian government is now complaining that the solution doesn't let them spy enough:
The telecom department has rejected the interception solution offered by Canada's (RIM) for its secure corporate email service. What's more is that it has spurned RIM's technical solution for decoding all chat communication on the popular BlackBerry Messenger service...Reading between the lines, it sounds like RIM is still sticking to the fact that, thanks to end-user encryption, it simply can't reveal the message contents -- but it sounds like it agreed to offer access to other information, which the Indian government feels is not enough. Of course, for all of India's rather public admission that it wants to spy on all sorts of communications, it doesn't seem to recognize that it's scaring companies away from doing business in India, as the threat of having communications spied upon is too big a risk.
In an internal note, dated September 28, reviewed by ET, the telecom department's security wing claims security agencies have been unable to intercept or monitor secure email communication made through the (BES) in readable format. "RIM maintains that it does not have the keys that can be offered to security agencies for converting secure corporate email into readable format," said a senior DoT official with direct knowledge of the matter. The DoT internal note claims law enforcement agencies have failed to intercept chats on the BlackBerry Messenger platform, which runs counters to the home ministry's recent position that it is satisfied with the interception solution offered by RIM.
Filed Under: blackberry, emails, encryption, india, spying
Companies: rim
New Study Shows Texting Bans May Make Roads Even More Dangerous
from the unintended-consequences... dept
For many years we've questioned the wisdom of various "distracted driving" laws -- such as bans on talking while driving or texting while driving. It's not -- as some people have accused -- that we think texting or using a mobile phone is a good idea while driving. We don't. In fact, it seems to go without saying that trying to send a text message while driving is one of the dumbest things you can do, and I'm amazed that anyone even considers it. My concern has always been that I don't believe the laws work. And, now, it appears that we have some more evidence to support that. A new study has shown that state laws banning driving while texting have not reduced accidents, and in some cases may have even resulted in more accidents. How could it have increased accidents? Because people who want to text anyway -- especially unskilled young drivers -- begin holding their phones lower to avoid detection, making it that much more difficult to control the car and be aware of their surroundings. The study compared before and after stats in states that implemented texting-while-driving bans, and then also compared the findings to neighboring states that didn't have such laws.This seems like a classic case of politicians not understanding unintended consequences. Politicians love to ban stuff, but they never take into account the actual response to those bans, and just assume that if the law bans something people will stop doing it. Instead, they may continue to do the action in an even less socially acceptable way -- and that can put a lot more people in danger.
The article quotes someone who makes the point that I've been trying to make for years:
"The trouble is that texting and using a cellphone while driving is definitely hazardous. Nobody argues that. The danger in putting all the emphasis on laws is that it is being done to the exclusion of something else that would be more effective."No one is arguing that texting while driving is a good thing -- just that these laws aren't helping (and may even be making the problem worse). Instead of pretending we live in a perfect world where if something is banned by law, people will stop doing it, why not focus on looking for solutions that actually make people safer?
Filed Under: distractions, driving, texting, unintended consequences
Bank Teller Caught Texting Bank Robber Right Before Robbery
from the inside-job dept
Criminals generally aren't known for being all that intelligent. Following a bank robbery in Arlington, Texas, police caught the bank robber, but became suspicious that it was an inside job, after realizing that the first teller who the robber went to had stayed after his shift... and was apparently seen on video furiously text-messaging on his phone immediately prior to the robbery. So they checked his phone and discovered some rather self-incriminating text messages to the bank robber right before the robbery took place. According to the court documents, the teller and the bank robber had a rather revealing conversation:"Don't forget yo sunglasses," court documents quoted Lightner as texting Franklin.According to that same report, from the local NBC affiliate, police are now investigating an earlier bank robbery that involved the same teller at a different bank, and a suspect who matches the description of the guy who robbed this bank. Apparently, in that case the teller was "taken hostage and forced into a vault."
Franklin responded: "Alrite."
Surveillance photos show the robber was wearing sunglasses.
Later, they talk in code, the FBI said in a criminal complaint against the two.
"Mom just got home," Lightner texted.
Agents said he appeared to refer to an off-duty officer who had arrived to work at the bank.
"So turn around?" Franklin asked.
"No...hurry," the teller responded.
Lightner also appeared to give Franklin a refresher on the layout of the bank and where the drive-through area was located.
"Just in case u don't remember, just go in the front and walk straight... then u will see this hallway and my closet will be to the left," Lightner is quoted as texting.
In another message, the FBI said Lightner warned about a co-worker who "screams at scary movies, so be calm."
Whatever did scammers do in the age before SMS?
Either way, it does make you wonder if they didn't realize that it was possible to find this stuff on their phones, or if they just assumed they had the whole thing planned so well that they figured the police would never bother to check the text messages.
Filed Under: bank robbery, texting
Ontario Premier Says Cellphones In Class Could Be Useful
from the smart-comments-from-politicians? dept
With schools, cell phones and a politician in the same headline, you'd think the story would be about another attempt to ban technology, but in Ontario, Premier Dalton McGuinty is telling schools to be open to uses for cellphones in the classroom.
McGuinty, who won't even let his ministers keep the devices during cabinet meetings, said he understands they can be a major distraction, but there is a "right way" to use them in class.
"Telephones and BlackBerrys and the like are conduits for information today, and one of the things we want to do is to be well-informed," he said. "And it's something that we should be looking at in our schools.
The issue came up in light of the Toronto District School Board rethinking its blanket ban, and "exploring ways to make [mobile devices] more acceptable."
Political opponents are already mocking McGuinty, and his government does have a really mixed track record on technology... but the comments here are actually quite reasonable. There's room between the "discipline theater" approach of a total ban and the teacher's nightmare scenario of a total free-for-all. A good acceptable use policy would attempt to reduce distractions while not precluding ways in which mobile technology can be helpful in the classroom.
I attended a strict private high school in Toronto from 2001-2005, and we had a blanket ban on electronic devices... but teachers were smart enough to know when it made sense to ignore the ban. I used my PDA to take notes and manage homework in every class, and another student in my year often used a tablet computer. The ban was eventually lifted after I graduated, acknowledging the fact that more and more students were using laptops and mobile devices in ways that helped them learn, while I'm sure they still have a no nonsense policy for students goofing off or distracting others. Rules are needed to minimize bad uses, but that shouldn't prevent people from exploring good uses.
So, good for McGuinty for recognizing that we're better off exploring applications for mobile technology in the classroom than simply trying to ban it.
Filed Under: canada, classroom, education, mobile phones, ontario
Is It Legal For Mobile Operators To Ban Text Messages They Don't Like?
from the we're-about-to-find-out... dept
How would people feel if they found out that their ISP wouldn't let them send emails about a subject they didn't like? I'm sure most people would cry foul. Yet, what about with SMS text messaging? Apparently T-Mobile blocked a company, EZ Texting, from sending text messages for a client that were about legal medical marijuan dispensaries in California, and now there's a legal dispute over the issue. Of course, this isn't quite as cut and dried as either side would like it to be. Unlike email, the SMS system really isn't using the public internet, but the private networks of carriers, who have worked out deals with each other to exchange SMS messages across network barriers. So you can make an argument that they can do whatever they want. Of course, they're also using spectrum from the government, which comes with certain restrictions about how it can be used. Either way, perhaps the bigger question is why T-Mobile should even want to block some messages that people want? All it's going to do is drive away customers...Filed Under: neutrality, text messages
Companies: ex texting, t-mobile
