The newest version of Gmail for Android (8.5.20) allows you to control what will happen with a left or right swipe from the screen. Gmail has long allowed you to archive or delete messages with a swipe but now either the left or the right (or both) swipe can be programed to archive, delete, mark as read/unread, move to, snooze or nothing.
You can program both left and right swipe for different actions. I programmed right swipe to snooze, so that I can deal with messages later — perhaps when I’m back at my PC — and have programmed left swipe to mark as read or unread (it toggles between the two). The “move to” command can be used to move the message to a different folder.
Here are the options for right swipe, which are the same as for left swipe.
I see a connection between today’s ruling giving the go ahead for the AT&T/Time Warner merger and yesterday’s official end to net neutrality.
While the decisions themselves were unrelated, the results could be very connected when you consider that AT&T, which is a major broadband, mobile and TV provider, will now own a major content conglomerate with brands including HBO, Warner Brothers and TBS.
One of the big concerns of net neutrality advocates is the fear that ISPs could discriminate for or against certain content providers and now AT&T is both an ISP and a content provider. At first it will probably seem very pro-consumer, such as exempting certain content from data caps or making sure your HBO stream is lightning fast. But could it have some negative long-term implications such as favoring T-W content over competing content or even slowing down competing content.
I should add that Comcast — also a major broadband provider — owns NBC/Universal and that Verizon is snapping up content companies as well so we’re seeing the merger of distributors and content companies across the board.
A friend of mine posted on Facebook that he was involved in a head-on collision with a drunk teenage driver that seriously injured him and his wife and killed a passenger in the teen’s car. In addition to his injuries, my friend was also dealing with the nagging question of what went wrong, even though the police had pretty much assured him it wasn’t his fault. Fortunately, he had a web camera in his car. After reviewing the footage, he was convinced that he wasn’t to blame. That provided him some psychological relief along with some solid evidence for the police.
A few weeks before reading his post, I was testing out a Vava Dash Cam in my own car but removed it because I didn’t feel that I needed it. After learning of my friend’s ordeal, I changed my mind.
In the interest of trying out another product, I installed a Drive HD Dash Camera from Cobra. Both are priced at just over $100 and do what any dash cam must do — record what’s taking place in front of the car and save those recordings long enough to review should the need arise. I checked on Amazon and found several other small dash cameras starting at under $50.
Vava dash cam
The Vava Dash Cam has more features than the Cobra model, but it’s also larger. Personally, I wasn’t interested in the Vava’s ability to swivel around and record what’s happening inside my vehicle, nor the ability to see what the camera sees in real time from my smart phone. The camera’s appeal to “share your road trips over social media” seemed kind of cool when I was installing it, but I actually never got around to using that feature. Another feature — a remote button that lets you take still snapshots of what’s out your window also seemed cool at first, yet, even though I did snap a few pictures, I never got around to viewing them.
I wasn’t interested in trying the camera’s ability to record “carpool karaoke singing moments.” What I really wanted was a small unit to sit there and simply record.
Cobra dash cam
The Cobra HD Dash Cam 2208 is small enough to almost hide itself. I attached it to the inside of the windshield in front of my rear-view mirror. The mirror hides most of it, which means that it isn’t interfering with my view of the road. It’s one of those “set it and forget it” devices, though it does remind me when it’s on by chirping when I start the engine.
Unless I turn it off, its screen shows me what it’s recording, which I find slightly distracting so I try to remember to turn off that feature when I start my car.
Both cameras come with a removable cord that plugs into the car’s power port (formerly the cigarette lighter socket) with a MicroUSB plug. The Vava unit comes with a longer cord that allowed me to run it below the floor mats and to the backseat area where I have an extra plug. The Cobra’s plug is shorter, but longer cords are available online starting at about $5.00.
For a relatively clean installation, I routed the cord under headliner and weather stripping so it was pretty much out of the way. Both cameras come with little clips the help you attach the wires
These and many other dash cams record to MicroSD cards and keep recording till the card fills up and then records over old videos. The Cobra comes with an 8GB card, which is more than enough to capture an incident. If you want to use it to record road trips, you should probably buy a larger card.
The Cobra allows you to review the video on its own screen. The Vava sends the video to your smartphone, which you connect via WiFi. In both cases, you can remove the MicroSD card to view or copy the video to a computer.
The Cobra has a few other bells and whistles that I never use. It has both a collision warning and lane departure alerts, but both gave me false positives and are not as accurate as the sensors built into my relatively new car. The Vava has a built-in 320mAh battery that allows the camera to record footage when the car is parked, which — in theory — could detect a break-in if you remember to point the camera toward the door. I never remembered.
I hope I’ll never have to review the video, but I am glad it is collecting information. Of course, evidence could be a double-edge sword and used against you if it proves an accident is your fault and the other party or the police are aware that you have footage.
As we inch our way toward more sophisticated and, ultimately, self-driving vehicles, I’d like to see front-facing cameras built into cars and a mechanism so that the rear camera — that many cars already have — records what’s happening behind you, which would be important if you’re rear-ended.
One of my doctors recently reminded me that “sitting is the new smoking,” a mantra repeated by many in the medical community. He suggested I cut back the time in my chair. So, when a PR person from iMovR suggested I try out the company’s ZipLift desk converter, I was happy to try it.
The device came and I immediately realized it was well crafted and designed. But, aside from the fact that it’s big and heavy, the problem was — in sitting position — it raised my monitor by at least 6 1/4 inches. In standing mode it was fine, but I’m not planning on standing all the time. I need a solution that also works for sitting.
I reached out to the company via its website and someone got back to me right away, recommending I raise my chair, if possible (mine is already at its maximum height) or to get monitor arm like the ones iMovR offers or cheaper versions on Amazon.
Improvised solutions
But I had another idea. As it turns out my PC has a wireless mouse and keyboard but, even if it didn’t, a combo wireless mouse/keyboard set can be purchased online for as little as $13.49.
So, I took a small tray table (a so called “TV tray”), put a box on it to raise it to the right height and am using it to prop up my mouse and keyboard. It’s not as elegant a solution but it’s not only cheaper than a $349 desk converter, it’s also more versatile, and can be easily moved to the side when I’m not using it. Of course, this requires I stand a little further from my monitor, but it’s easy to increase the type size and angle the monitor back, so that I only have to look down slightly which actually puts less strain on my neck than looking up to a monitor that’s too high.
If you use a laptop, just put it on a higher table or desk. I sometimes work standing up by plopping my laptop on my dining room counter, which happens to be about the same height as a standing desk.
Controversy over standing desks
One reason not to spend too much on a standing desk is that there is controversy over whether they are actually helpful. An article in US News asks “Is Your Standing Desk Doing More Harm Than Good?” I won’t summarize the entire article, but it does point out that standing all day isn’t the solution either (which is an argument in favor of a product like the ZipLift as well as my improvised solution) and that there are other ways to handle this issue such as standing when you’re on the phone or taking breaks and walks during the day.
Experts quoted in an NPR article also question the wisdom of standing vs. sitting. One cited evidence that standing for too long could case higher risk for enlarged veins and pointed out that the extra calories you burn are “are barely enough to cover a couple of banana chips.”
And if you do decide you want a standing desk, you can save money by following either my example or that of Mikael Cho, who is quoted in the US News article about his own solution which involved a $22 product he picked up at Ikea. I’m not sure what it was that he bought there, but my local Ikea is so large that a trip there will keep me on my feet for hours, a benefit in its own right.
This post first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News
Two recent news stories about cell phone location services recently caught my eye. One was a positive development and the other quite negative, until it was at least partially fixed.
The positive story is that Apple’s iOS 12 operating system for iPhone will enable users to “automatically and securely” share their location data with 911 call centers and first responders. The negative story revealed that cell phone carriers were selling real-time customer location information to data brokers who sold that information to law enforcement and others, without necessarily going through those annoying and time consuming formalities such as court orders. In response to the controversy, the major carriers are stopping the practice.
Locations disclosed without consent or court order
In a letter to AT&T president Randall Stephenson, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said that he “recently learned that Securus Technologies, a major provider of correction facility telephone services, purchases real-time location information from major wireless carriers and provides that information, via a self-service portal, to the government with nothing more than a pinky promise.” Wyden also went after Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint. So far, Verizon, AT&T and Sprint have announced that they will no longer provide this information to these third parties.
According to Wyden, law enforcement agencies could obtain this data simply by uploading an “official document” to a Securus web portal but said that senior officials from Securus “have confirmed to my office that it never checks the legitimacy of those uploaded documents.”
In addition to these illegitimate sales to law enforcement, there is also the not-so-theoretical risk of hacking. Motherboard reported that a hacker broke into Securus servers and stole “2,800 usernames, email addresses, phone numbers, and hashed passwords and security questions of Securus users, stretching from 2011 up to this year.” And, as Krebs on Security reported last month, LocationSmart, another data aggregator with access to these phone location records, “has been leaking this information to anyone via a buggy component of its Web site — without the need for any password or other form of authentication or authorization.”
Location data can save lives
The positive story about smartphone location data is also important and worth celebrating. Last week, Apple announced that it’s working with emergency technology company RapidSOS to “quickly and securely” share iPhone callers’ location data with 911 centers. Cell phone carriers have long been able to provide some location data to 911 centers even before there were smartphones. But iPhones and Android devices have far more location data than those old flip phones, including what can be gleaned from GPS and WiFi access points. There are also efforts underway to pinpoint specific locations within buildings.
In a press release, Apple said that “Approximately 80 percent of 911 calls today come from mobile devices, but outdated, landline-era infrastructure often makes it difficult for 911 centers to quickly and accurately obtain a mobile caller’s location.” RapidSOS currently offers its RapidSOS Haven Emergency app for both Android and iPhones.
Even if you don’t have a 911-level emergency, there are other reasons to use your mobile device to share location data. One is to let others know when you are likely to arrive at a location, such as a meeting or dinner appointment.
Another is piece of mind for parents, spouses/partners and other close family and friends. I’m a bit of a worry-wart and there are times when I’ve used technology to locate my wife and other family members with their permission and knowledge, including when they’re traveling abroad. It’s not about stalking but reassurance that they’re OK.
I’ve heard from parents who insist that their children share their location via their smartphone in exchange for giving them more freedom to be out on their own.
Google Maps has a “Share location until you arrive” feature that allows people to follow your progress during a specific trip. The free Glympse app for smartphones allows you to share your location for a specified period of time — up to four hours, a limit that prevents the app from being abused by stalkers.
Apple’s Find My Friends app lets you permanently share your location with friends, though you can terminate or suspend location sharing at any time.
There are also ways to track your car. My wife and I each have an Automatic Pro ($129.95 with no monthly fee) in our car which can track the car’s location, automatically call for help after a crash and provide diagnostic information. It can be removed or disabled, but when it’s working, it can share your location with anyone allowed to access your account.
Another option is using Apple’s Find My iPhone feature or Google’s Find My Device. In general, I don’t recommend sharing your password, even with close friends, but it could be appropriate as a way for parents to track their children (ideally with the kids’ knowledge) or even between close partners with the understanding that you should change your password if you have any reason to believe someone may be misusing the information. There are also “find my friends” style apps for Android that you can use to share your location with others and unshare at any time.
This post first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News
It’s been obvious for awhile that we’re starting to experience a tech backlash, with an increasing number of people expressing skepticism over whether our devices and social media are doing us harm. Some of this skepticism can be healthy when, for example, it leads to people tightening up their privacy settings or putting down their phones and stepping away from their computers for quality time with friends and family. But, as a couple of recent surveys have found, it’s also starting to cause people to think more about regulating technology companies.
Perceived censorship
One of the most interesting findings from a new Pew Research Center poll is that a majority of Democrats and Republicans worry that social media companies are censoring political viewpoints. I’m not saying that’s true, but Pew is saying that people think it’s true. By definition, an opinion poll measures perception, not necessarily reality. It’s common, for example, for polls to find that people think crime is going up when it is going down or that the economy is getting worse when it’s getting better.
The Pew poll of 4,594 U.S. adults, conducted between May 29 and June 11, found:
64% of Republicans say that social media companies support the views of liberals over conservatives, while
Overall 72% of Americans (85% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats) think that it’s somewhat or very likely that social media companies intentionally censor political viewpoints.
Overall, 43% of Americans feel that these companies support conservatives and liberals equally while an equal number (also 43%) says that liberals get preferential treatment.
Only 11% say that companies support the views of conservatives over liberals.
Appetite for regulation and a Constitutional amendment
It’s important for both private and public sector officials to understand perception because — right or wrong — it influences behavior, including the behavior of elected officials who sometimes, for different reasons, seem to have an increased interest in regulating social media and other technology industries.
Fifty-one percent of Americans say they want more regulation on these industries. Fifty-seven percent of Democrats support increased regulation, but so do 44% of Republicans, which I find interesting, considering President Donald Trump, who has nearly a 90% approval rating among Republicans, has been a strong advocate for reducing regulations on other industries.
53% of Americans believe that large technology companies should be regulated by the federal government in the way big banks are
62% said that the government will take steps to regulate large tech companies “this year or within the next few years.”
Only 31% felt that the federal government is capable of regulating large technology companies.
That HarrisX survey also found that a majority of Americans (53%) supports “A new amendment to the Constitution protecting online privacy in a similar way to how the Fourth Amendment protects against physical search and seizure.”
Some good news for tech
It’s not all bad news for tech companies. Overall, Americans are mostly convinced that technology companies do more good than harm. The Pew survey found that “74 percent of Americans say major technology companies and their products and services have had more of a positive than a negative impact on their own lives.”
A smaller majority (63%) thinks these companies have “been more good than bad” when it comes to society as a whole. Still, almost two-thirds (65% ) feel that tech companies “often fail to anticipate how their products and services will impact society.” Only 24% think these companies “do enough to protect the personal data of their users.”
Compared with other industries, tech does pretty well when it comes to the question of whether it has “too much power and influence in today’s economy.” At 83%, pharmaceutical companies came out in the unenviable first place position, followed by banks and other financial institutions at 72%. Energy companies are seen as too powerful by 57% of American adults while tech came in at 55% with 7% saying it doesn’t have enough power and 37% saying it has “about the right amount.”
Although there is general disdain for any type of political censorship, the public does agree, by a factor of 79% to 15%, that social media companies should intervene when harassment occurs.
Politicians paying attention
I’m sure that this Pew survey will be taken seriously by politicians on both sides of the aisle and could add fuel to the growing appetite for regulation. Ironically, these regulations could go in opposite directions. There are some who are calling for more privacy rules, but there are also many calling for ways for the government to break through the encryption built into smart phones, social media and messaging apps such as WhatsApp. There are also voices for making sure tech companies don’t censor political speech as well as demands to put the brakes on fake news and divisiveness, even though the line between such opposite evils is sometimes hard to decipher.
What I want is a thoughtful debate based on an accurate understanding of the actual (not just perceived) problems and realistic ideas for what we can do to rein in abuse without stifling innovation, free speech and spirited debate.
Larry Magid is a tech journalist and internet safety activist.
Although I had written about tech for PC and other magazines, my first newspaper column about tech ran on July 3, 1983. It was my first of 19 years of syndicated columns for the Los Angeles Times. I later wrote some pieces for the New York Times and, for the past several years, have been writing for the San Jose Mercury News.
Here are a few of those early columns from 1983. Included is my first column, “Learn Buzzwords Before Shopping,” my review of the first truly portable PC, the Radio Shack Model 100 and a piece on how I was able to read the Washington Post the night before it came out via CompuServe. There is also an early review of Microsoft Windows and a look at this new fangled device called a hard disk drive.
Scroll down for my LA Times columns from 1984, including two that were about “1984.” And one about the brand new Mac showed to me by “Apple’s young chairman,” Steve Jobs.
I could probably write a series of columns on my pet peeves about little and big things that bug me about technology, but I’ll start with ones that have annoyed me in just the past few weeks.
CAPTCHA
One of my biggest pet peeves is to read CAPTCHAs, which stands for “Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart.” The concept is fine — they’re designed to make sure that a real person is behind the keyboard, but the implementation is often nearly impossible for real people to implement.
My most hated CAPTCHAs are a series of letters and numbers that are obscured with lines or odd looking characters so much that neither machines nor humans can read them. Sometimes they’ll let you hear a phrase but even those phrases are often spoken in ways that are hard to comprehend. There are much easier ways to prove a person’s humanness, including very simple math problems, asking people to identify common objects or text message verification.
A hard to read CAPTCHA
Sending texts to missing phones
Text message verification is also a great way to prove your identity. Before you can sign in you must simply respond to a text message, which means you need both your password and your phone — kind of like having a PIN number and a debit card before you can get money from an ATM. But I have been required to respond to a text message when using a find-my-phone service, which — by definition — is only used by people who don’t have their phones. It’s kind of a “catch 22.”
Breaking up with companies is hard to do
Companies often make it very easy to sign up for service and very hard to quit. If you allow people to sign up online, you should allow them to easily cancel online. I recently tried to cancel a service that required me to call, but despite several attempts, I could never reach their cancellation department by phone. Fortunately I had a PR contact at the company who helped me out, but I’m not sure how others could have possibly canceled their accounts.
Although I like any discount I can get, I hate that many companies offer teaser rates for six months, a year or two and then automatically raise your rate. This is very common with cable TV and internet service but also satellite radio and many others services.Several years ago — after the teaser rate ended — I tried to get an internet provider to extend that rate or match their competitor’s teaser rate. They refused even though I said I would quit if they didn’t. When they wouldn’t agree, I switched to another service. When I called to cancel my old service, they transferred me to the cancellation department, which offered me a great rate to stay on. I told them I would have taken the deal if it were offered before I switched and I was told I had to cancel to get this offer. But it never hurts to ask. I’ve had many companies lower rates or even eliminate fees upon request, including cable, phone and even credit card companies. A new California law (Senate Bill 313) will require greater transparency for teaser offers that will later result in higher payments and makes it easier for California residents to cancel a service.
Online Credit card hassles
On a number of occasions I’ve had to enter my credit card information numerous times before it was accepted. Sometimes it’s because I forgot to check a box such as agreeing to terms or declining insurance. Other times there was no real reason. I tried to buy a refrigerator at Sears.com and it kept rejecting my credit card. I thought maybe I was typing it in wrong, but after several tries, I kept getting rejected without it saying why. Finally, I got a call from the credit card company saying there was a fraud alert.
I appreciate fraud protection, but it would have been nice if the site told me about the fraud alert rather than simply rejecting the card. That same site also made it hard to find out the price of the refrigerator. The web page had a price which was crossed out saying that the actual price would be revealed at checkout. It took a pretty big effort to finally get to that page and get that price which — as it turned out — was exactly what other companies were clearly and obviously displaying for the same item. I know there are times when manufacturers don’t want merchants to advertise lower prices, but this price wasn’t actually all that low. Why make life hard for potential customers?
I hate making phone calls to companies or government agencies, mainly because I know I’ll likely be on hold. If you must put people on hold, please give them an estimated wait time, and if it’s going to be for more than a few minutes, do what Delta Airlines does and offer to call them back when it’s their turn. It’s also nice to give them an alternative to calling, such as an online chat service or the ability to get business done on their website.
Stanford Health Care has a great patient portal that lets you make appointments online but only with doctors you’ve seen before. I don’t understand why they require a phone call before allowing you to book an appointment with any of their other providers. I realize that some have special information they need to share with patients, but they could do that online or call the patient after the appointment is made.
As I said, these are just a few of many gripes or what my daughter calls “first world problems.” Do you have any? If so, I’d love to hear from out at Larrysworld.com/Contact.
I don’t know what was more sophisticated, the Russian hacks or the U.S. Justice Department’s impressive computer forensics team that was able to break down these hacks in great specificity. As you’ll see from the indictment (below) the hackers employed both malware and “human engineering” to obtain information from the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. This included spearphising attacks against members of the Clinton campaign, tricking them into turning over their passwords as well as planting a malware program called X-Agent on DNC and DCC servers and computers.
The conspirators allegedly laundered money to be used to purchase infrastructure in the U.S. to aid in their hacking and distribution of materials, including hacking into “computers of U.S. persons.” And “they principally used bitcoin when purchasing servers, registering domains and otherwise making payments in furtherance of hacking activities.
Some key excerpts from the indictment:
Spearfishing & human engineering
“Co-conspirators targeted victims using a technique known as spearphishing to steal victims’ passwords or otherwise gain access to their computers… The Conspirators targeted over 300 individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC. …v and sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. … Altered the appearance of the sender email address in order to make it look like the email was a security notification from Google (a technique known as “spoofing.”
“Conspirators created an email account in the name (with a one-letter deviation from the actual spelling) of a known member of the Clinton Campaign. The Conspirators then used that account to send spearphishing emails to the work accounts of more than thirty different Clinton Campaign employees. … Embedded a link purporting to direct the recipient to a document titled “hillaryclinton—favorable-rating.xlsx.” In fact, this link directed the recipients’ computers to a GRU—created website.”
Malware
“X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC network transmitted information from the victims’ computers to a GRU-leased server located in Arizona. The Conspirators referred to this server as their “AMS” panel. … co-conspirators logged into the AMS panel to use X—Agent’s keylog and screenshot functions in the course of monitoring and
surveilling activity on the DCCC computers. The keylog function allowed the Conspirators to capture keystrokes entered by DCCC employees. The screenshot function allowed the Conspirators to take pictures of the DCCC employees’ computer screens.”
“The Conspirators searched for and identified computers within the DCCC and DNC networks that stored information related to the 2016 US. presidential election. For example, on or about April 15, 2016, the Conspirators searched one hacked DCCC computer for terms that included “hillary,” “cruz,” and “trump.” The Conspirators also copied select DCCC folders,
including “Benghazi Investigations.”
Distribution of stolen emails
“Conspirators launched the public website dcleaks.com, which they used to release stolen emails. Before it shutdown in or around March 2017, the site received over one million page Views. The Conspirators falsely claimed on the site that DCLeaks was started by a group of “American hacktivists,” when in fact it was started by the Conspirators. 37. Starting in or around June 2016 and continuing through the 2016 US. presidential election, the Conspirators used DCLeaks to release emails stolen from individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign.”
“On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. Organization 1 did not disclose Guccifer 2.0’s role in providing them. The latest-in—time email released through
Organization 1 was dated on or about May 25, 2016, approximately the same day the Conspirators hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server.”
“Russia, if you’re listening…”
“On or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third party
provider and used by Clinton’s personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.”
(note: This was shortly after Donald Trump said ““Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”
Bitcoin
“The Conspirators funded the purchase of computer infrastructure for their hacking activity in part by “mining” bitcoin. Individuals and entities can mine bitcoin by allowing their computing power to be used to verify and record payments on the bitcoin public ledger, a service for which they are rewarded with freshly-minted bitcoin. The pool of bitcoin generated from the GRU’s mining activity was used, for example, to pay a Romanian company to register the domain dcleaks.com through a payment processing company located in the United States.”
Conspirators used the same pool of bitcoin funds to purchase a virtual private network (“VPN”) account and to lease a server in Malaysia. In or around June 2016, the Conspirators used the Malaysian server to host the dcleaks.com website. On or about July 6, 2016, the Conspirators used the VPN to log into the @Guccifer_2 Twitter account. The Conspirators opened that VPN account from the same server that was also used to register malicious domains for the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks.”
Interaction with US persons
“On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a 15 request for stolen documents from a candidate for the US. Congress. The Conspirators responded using the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate’s opponent.
On or about August 22, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of data stolen from the DCCC to a then-registered state lobbyist and online source of political news. The stolen data included donor records and personal identifying information for more than 2,000 Democratic donors.”
The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also communicated with US. persons about the release of stolen documents. On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer
2.0, wrote to a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, “thank u for writing back . . . do u find anyt[h]ing interesting in the docs i posted?” On or about August 17, 2016, the Conspirators added, “please tell me if i can help u anyhow . . . it would be a great pleasure to me.” On or about September 9, 2016, the Conspirators, again posing as Guccifer 2.0, referred to a stolen DCCC document posted online and asked the person, “what do u think of the info on the turnout model for the democrats entire presidential campaign.” The person responded, “[p]retty standard.”
This post first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News
The European Commission on Wednesday hit Google with a record-breaking $5 billion fine for requiring Android makers to bundle Google search and its Chrome browser on Android smartphones sold in Europe. The commission also alleged that Google prevented phone makers from using a “forked” (alternative) version of Android and that it made payments to “certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators” to avoid bundling competing apps on their phones.
In addition to paying the fine, the commission expects Google to stop these practices. In a blog post, Google CEO Sundar Pichai defended its policies, arguing “phones made by these companies are all different, but have one thing in common— the ability to run the same applications. This is possible thanks to simple rules that ensure technical compatibility, no matter what the size or shape of the device.”
He added, “a typical phone comes preloaded with as many as 40 apps from multiple developers, not just the company you bought the phone from. If you prefer other apps — or browsers, or search engines — to the preloaded ones, you can easily disable or delete them, and choose other apps instead, including apps made by some of the 1.6 million Europeans who make a living as app developers.”
The case reminds me of the U.S. and European actions against Microsoft in 1998. Similar to the case against Google, the U.S. Department of Justice and European regulators accused Microsoft of bundling Internet Explorer on all copies of Windows. That year, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates told a Senate committee “the software industry … is an open economic opportunity for any entrepreneur in America.”
Little did he know that a few months later two such entrepreneurs, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, would create Google. And little did Brin and Page know that their company would someday be in the same position as Microsoft was back then — a dominant leader in the cross-hairs of regulators and anti-trust lawyers from both sides of the Atlantic.
It would have been hard to imagine back then that Google’s internet technology someday would beat Microsoft’s, and that it would launch a browser that would become more popular than Microsoft’s, even though Internet Explorer (and now Microsoft Edge) was bundled on all copies of the world’s most popular operating system.
One reason Chrome — as well as Firefox and other browsers — were able to gain market share is because they could be easily and freely downloaded and installed on any Windows or Mac computer.
As someone who recently bought a Windows 10 computer, the first thing I did when I started using the machine was launch Microsoft’s new browser, Edge, and use it to download a copy of Chrome. Since then, I’ve rarely used Edge.
And it’s even easier to download apps on smartphones. Apple, for example, bundles its own mapping program on all iPhones and no longer comes with Google Maps, but millions of iPhone users choose to download Google Maps. Likewise, anyone with an Android device is free to download other browsers, which are available for free at Google’s app store. That’s right — the app store run by Google that, like Apple, allows people to download apps from competing developers.
An argument can be made that it’s much easier to use a bundled app than to download a competing one. Although that’s true, it’s not difficult to download apps.
Twenty years ago, a lot of people in the U.S. and Europe may have been uncomfortable downloading and installing software on a PC, but in 2018, Europeans and Americans, in general, are more tech savvy. Today’s smartphone app stores also are easier to use than download sites were in 1998.
I support government efforts to keep bullies under control and prevent companies from unfairly muscling out competitors. I suspect that there are some valid cases that could be brought against Google. I just don’t buy the argument that Google is using its operating system prowess to prevent other app developers from competing on the Android platform.
If someone comes out with software that truly works better than what Google offers, people will find out about it and start to use it, as long as Google continues to allow competitors to use its app store.
There is also the issue of fragmentation. As it is, there are lots of complaints about too much variation in the user interface among Android phone makers that get to decide what apps to offer and how users interact with the operating system.
I’m not suggesting that Google should take away manufacturers’ ability to define the user experience, but as someone who has tried phones from numerous companies, I do think it’s an issue. I also think it provides Apple with a competitive advantage because Apple controls the experience of iOS users.
I also don’t think that the fine and restrictions on Google will have much impact, even if Google loses its appeal. Although I’m sure Google isn’t looking forward to writing that big check, it could easily do so without any noticeable impact on its bottom line. And, even if Google’s apps were unbundled from the devices, a great many people would download and install them anyway. Perhaps the market share for Chrome and Google search would shrink a tiny bit, but not much.
Windows makes Microsoft Bing its default search engine, yet the vast majority of Windows users use Google for search. I’m pretty sure most Android users would go out of their way to use Google for search even if the phone maker bundled a different browser.
Larry Magid is CEO of ConnectSafely, a nonprofit internet safety organization that receivessupport from Google and some of its competitors, including Microsoft, Twitter and Facebook.
Google employees are now using a physical USB key to log on to their devices and, according to Krebs on Security, none “of its 85,000+ employees successfully phished on their work-related accounts since early 2017, when it began requiring all employees to use physical Security Keys in place of passwords and one-time codes.”
This post first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News
My wife, Patti, is pretty ho-hum about most of the products I review. But when I put Lenovo’s new Smart Display in the kitchen, she loved it, especially after I showed her how easy it is to display recipes, schedules, maps, detailed weather reports and even videos on YouTube and various news outlets. There’s a model with an 8-inch screen for $199.99 and one with a 10-inch screen for $249.99.
The Smart Display is to Google Home speakers what Amazon’s Echo Show is to its Echo speakers. Like their screenless siblings, these are personal home assistants designed to recognize your voice and answer questions, play music and perform other tasks. The answers to questions are pretty much the same as with the Google speakers, except the information is also displayed, sometimes with more detail.
For example, when you ask a Google (or Amazon Echo) speaker about the weather, it will give you the current temperature, whether it’s sunny or cloudy and the high and low temperatures for the day.
When you ask the same question of the Smart Display, it also shows how the temperature will change throughout the day as well as links for what’s in store for the days ahead.
We put the display in the kitchen for several reasons. First, that’s where we spend a lot of time so it’s a logical place to listen to music, catch up on news and get answers to all sorts of questions.
It’s also great to be able to bring up recipes that you can read. Google and Amazon speakers will recite recipes, but it’s easier to follow on-screen directions and much easier to select which recipe you want.
I asked for a barbecue chicken recipe and got 10 options, some of which displayed number of ingredients, calories and preparation time even before I clicked on the one I wanted. You also can use the display to add to or view a shopping list that is also available on your phone.
Like the Amazon Echo and Google speakers, you can ask the display questions like “who was George Washington” and hear the first paragraph or two from the Wikipedia entry. The Display, however, provides additional detail and images. It showed me Lincoln’s height and date of assassination. For Theodore Roosevelt, I got a picture of him by a horse, his term in office and date and place of death. A verbal search for Donald Trump shows his picture, his height, and for some reason, Wikipedia’s estimate of his net worth.
You can also search for images. I asked to see a picture of the state capitol of Colorado and got stock images, but when I asked for a picture of the California capitol, Google displayed one from a personal photo library with Patti in the foreground, based on its pattern matching technology. I asked for pictures from New York and got a slide-show from pictures I’ve taken on my various trips.
As you’d expect from a Google-powered screen, the display can show YouTube videos. I asked it to show videos on how to unclog a sink, and thumbnails from several came up. I said “play the second one” and it started.
What I don’t understand is why Google Home devices don’t show or recite Google search results. Wikipedia is of course limited to mostly prominent people and things that are on the site. But Google has far more information.
For example, if you ask for the biography of someone who is famous, it will almost certainly be on Wikipedia, but Google has listings for lots of people who aren’t well-known and who aren’t in Wikipedia.
Like the speakers, the Smart Display works with many home-control devices. I have a system in my house which allows me to lock doors, adjust thermostats and control lights and appliances through an app or via voice using Echo or Google Home. But the display gives me a visual confirmation. If I set my porch light brightness to 20 percent, it tells me and shows me the setting.
My most common use for both my Echo and Google Home speakers (I’ve bought a few of each) is listening to music, and the smart display does that very well thanks to its built-in 10-watt speaker with passive tweeters. In addition to music, you also see the album covers. I have my speakers and displays linked to my Spotify account, but you can also use them with Pandora, YouTube and Google Play Music or any music app on your phone or tablet.
Many of these same tasks can be accomplished on a smartphone or a tablet, but it’s nice to have a device set-up and always ready to respond to your voice. In many ways, this is the imbedded computer that people have been talking about for years — a device that you just interact with when the mood strikes you. It’s not perfect, but it’s taking us in the right direction.
Larry Magid is CEO of ConnectSafely, a nonprofit internet safety organization that receives support from Google.
Facebook has announced tools to enable both Facebook and Instagram users to better manage the time they spend using those apps. That will include an activity dashboard, a daily reminder and enhanced ways to limit notifications.
In a post, Ameet Ranadive, Product Management Director at Instagram, and David Ginsberg, Director of Research at Facebook said “We have a responsibility to help people understand how much time they spend on our platforms so they can better manage their experience.” They added, “t’s not just about the time people spend on Facebook and Instagram but how they spend that time. It’s our responsibility to talk openly about how time online impacts people — and we take that responsibility seriously.”
How to access controls:
These tools are being rolled soon and, once implemented, you can access the tools from the setting page on either Instagram or Facebook:
On Instagram. tap our Activity,” and on Facebook, tap “Your Time on Facebook.”
At the top, you’ll see a dashboard showing your average time for that app on that device.
Tap any bar to see your total time for that day.
Below the dashboard, you can set a daily reminder to give yourself an alert when you’ve reached the amount of time you want to spend on that app for that day.
You can change or cancel the reminder at any time. You can also tap on “Notification Settings” to quickly access the new “Mute Push Notifications” setting. This will limit your Facebook or Instagram notifications for a period of time when you need to focus.
The 1966 movie “The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming” was a fictitious comedy, but its title was a reminder of how tense things were at the time between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Our countries were engaged in a cold war, with each side having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the other. Those nukes still exist, but now there is a new arsenal of cyber weapons that can be “launched” by an army of hackers, housed at the Internet Research Agency and other offices throughout Russia.
There are, to be sure, differences between nukes and cyber weapons. On the plus side, a cyber weapon — by itself — can’t wipe out an American city, but it can do tremendous damage to our financial, energy and other infrastructures and potentially trigger an action that could cost lives. What’s more, as we’ve already discovered, it can damage something far more important than an electrical grid — the infrastructure that holds up the very basis of our democracy.
Politics and tech are converging
As a technology commentator, I’ve expressed opinions on all sorts of subjects including iPhones and internet safety, but I’ve generally steered away from politics. But politics and tech are converging, especially now that companies I’ve been covering for years are in the thick of political issues, including the manipulation of our democracy. So, the time for everyone in and around the tech community has come for us to collectively say “enough is enough.” We must find ways to prevent the tools that we are building, buying and — in my case — writing about — from being weaponized against the very fabric of what makes America America.
It’s no joke. The ability to influence who leads our country may be more powerful than the ability to blow things up and could wind up giving us leaders who could start or provoke a nuclear war.
There is debate as to whether the Russians influenced the outcome of the 2016 election, but when you consider the president’s tiny margin of victory in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, it’s far from out of the question that Russian hacking and social media posting could have been a decisive factor.
There are some positive steps being taken. On Tuesday, Facebook announced that it removed 32 pages and accounts from Facebook and Instagram that “were involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior.” Facebook said that it isn’t certain who was behind those pages, but it did say that “some of the activity is consistent with what we saw from the IRA (Russia’s Internet Research Agency) before and after the 2016 elections. And we’ve found evidence of some connections between these accounts and IRA accounts we disabled last year.”
Several security and intelligence experts, including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, have said that these Facebook pages are almost certainly the work of Russia. Clapper told CNN “This is identical to Russia’s behavior in the run-up to the 2016 election, where the first objective was to sow discord, discontent, and doubt about the truth.”
‘Witches’ are still casting spells
The day after Facebook’s announcement about what is likely fresh Russian interference, the president tweeted that “Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now.” But if the Mueller investigation were to end prematurely, who would expose those “witches” who are clearly still casting their spells?
There is nothing new about the discord and discontent that Clapper spoke about. Our nation has fought over many contentious issues in our 242-year history, but widespread “doubt about the truth” has become a much more serious problem, partially because of all the fake news being promulgated by Russia and other bad actors and a president who has called legitimate organizations “the enemy of the American people,” while telling a cheering audience “Don’t Believe The Crap You See From These People On Fake News.” This is from a president who, according to the Washington Post, “has made 4,229 false or misleading claims” during his first 558 days in office.
I bring up the truth issue not to dump on Donald Trump but to make a wider point on the importance of having a set of facts that we can all agree on, even if we don’t agree on how to interpret or act on those facts.
Fake news is a powerful weapon
The reason fake news is such an important weapon is because it gives people a “factual” basis on which to act, even if they’re actions are not based on real facts. The most obvious example was the internet rumor that associates of then candidate Hillary Clinton were operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington pizza restaurant. That prompted a North Carolina man to drive to DC with an assault rifle that he fired inside the restaurant, prompting the judge who sentenced him to four years in prison to say it was “sheer luck” that no one was injured or killed.
Most of the calamity from fake news is far less dramatic than a gunman at a pizza restaurant, but it’s nevertheless incredibly dangerous when you think about all of the damage that can be done if people are voting — making extremely important decisions about our democracy — based on false information.
It’s time for everyone in the public, the tech industry and the government to take these attacks seriously, starting by agreeing on a set of facts and following up with decisive action.
Larry Magid is a tech journalist and internet safety activist.
A friend called me the other day to say that she got an email asking for money to prevent the sender from sharing a comprimisng video of her watching porn. Normally she would have ignored it, but it contained an actual password that she had used. The email began as follows:
I’m aware that <an actual password the person has used> is your password,”
You don’t know me and you’re thinking why you received this e mail, right?
Well, I actually placed a malware on the porn website and guess what, you visited this web site to have fun (you know what I mean). While you were watching the video, your web browser acted as a RDP (Remote Desktop) and a keylogger which provided me access to your display screen and webcam. Right after that, my software gathered all your contacts from your Messenger, Facebook account, and email account.
What exactly did I do?
I made a split-screen video. First part recorded the video you were viewing (you’ve got a fine taste haha), and next part recorded your webcam (Yep! It’s you doing nasty things!).
It’s a scam and the person doesn’t know whether you’ve visited a porn site and doesn’t have video of you. What they do have is a password that you have used at some point, which they probably got from a website you’ve signed into that was compromised.
On his website Krebs On Security, Brian Krebs wrote “My guess is that the perpetrator has created some kind of script that draws directly from the usernames and passwords from a given data breach at a popular Web site that happened more than a decade ago, and that every victim who had their password compromised as part of that breach is getting this same email at the address used to sign up at that hacked Web site.”
While this scammer doesn’t have any compromising video of you, it is possible to turn on a webcam remotely, which is why it’s a good idea to cover your webcam when you’re not using it. I used a round band-aid on my laptop’s camera and have a piece of cloth over the camera on my desktop PC.
I recently purchased a 55-inch TCL 5- Series 4K TV for a media room in my house. I brought it home, set it up, sat down to watch TV and immediately had buyer’s remorse because the set was too big for the room. The distance between the set and my eyes when sitting on the couch is 87 inches, and that’s as far as it can be given the dimensions of the room. In theory, the set was about the right size or maybe even a little small for the room, but in practice — at least as far as my wife and I were concerned, it was too big. (MORE)
The initial reviews (see below) are somewhat mixed, but tech journalists who have had a chance to test out the Magic Leap One AR headset are — at least — impressed by the effort and the goals of this $2.3 billion funded formerly stealth company.
Initially, it will only be available in Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the San Francisco Bay Area and Seattle where it will be delivered and set-up for the buyer.
CNET’s Scott Stein said that “It’s real, and it works. Whether it’s more than a developer prototype, and whether it amazes you, is another story. My initial experience didn’t blow me away, despite Magic Leap’s promises. And yet, I came away thinking it’s the best AR headset experience I’ve had to date.”
As you may know, I run a small nonprofit internet safety organization called ConnectSafely.org, and like most nonprofits, we’re always looking for ways to save both time and money. There are situations where spending a little bit of money can save you time, but we’ve discovered some tools that help us save both.
Bookkeeping
For example, until about three years ago, the CPA firm that did our tax return was also doing our bookkeeping. It was not only expensive, but we still had to do a lot of the work to make sure they got the receipts and expense reports they needed. Now we use QuickBooks Online, and it’s a breeze.
My COO or I simply sign into our account on the web and enter any expenses as we incur them. It actually takes us less time to do it ourselves than it did to interact with the CPA firm. We also changed CPA firms to one that is willing to import our QuickBooks data when they do our “990” non-profit tax return.
Quickbooks has a special sign-in for tax preparers who are able to import the data into their own software to make it easier for them to do the returns. As a result, we not only save on bookkeeping but accounting, too, because everything is ready and machine readable, making the CPA’s job easier too. QuickBooks Online costs between $10 and $30 a month, depending on the features you need.
Page layout
We publish printed parents and educator guides, brochures and a new one-page Quick Guide series on subjects like cyberbullying, security, teen sexting, fake news and numerous other subjects, and, until recently, we would submit a Word file to our designer who would import it into a professional page layout program, add graphics and provide us with two PDFs — one for a professional printer and to post on our site so people could print them at home or school.
We love our designer, but in addition to paying her fees, it took us time to work with her, and every time we needed to make a change — whether it was a revision or just correcting a typo — we had to go back to her and wait for her to do the work and send it back to us. Sometimes we need our materials right away and can’t wait for her.
Now we do all work on a web-based layout service called Canva which, for about $10 a month, lets us design and layout our booklets, brochures and Quick Guides on their site. It’s relatively easy to use, comes with all sorts of graphics (some graphics have a nominal $1 fee) and all the tools you need for basic designs. It may not be as versatile as InDesign and other professional programs, but it works for us.
One of my colleagues does most of the work in Canva, but if I find something I need to change, I don’t even have to bother her. I log in and make the change myself. And, I’ve even created a couple of publications based on a design she already came up with, simply by copying one of her leaflets and replacing the text and graphics.
In-house printing
We’ve even taken some of our printing in-house. We still use a professional printing company for our booklets or if we want to print a thousand or more copies of a leaflet, brochure or Quick Guide. But, if we’re doing a short run, it’s a lot cheaper, faster and more flexible to do it on either our color laser printer or our HP PageWide Pro.
A few years ago I bought a small HP color laser printer for under $300, initially to print about 500 copies of a back-to-back color single-page tri-fold brochure. Fedex Office would have charged us $1.50 per color copy or about $750 for the entire job. I saved more than enough money on that first job to pay for the printer. Of course, there are costs to printing yourself. The actual price depends on how much toner you use (the heavier the graphics the more toner) but as a general rule, I figure it costs less than 25 cents a page.
We use the laser printer for jobs with relatively large photographs and images, but when printing jobs with smaller images, we get nearly the same results with the PageWide printer whose cost of ink is even lower. Again, the actual cost depends on how much ink you use, but it’s generally less than 10 cents per page. It’s also very fast, printing both sides of the page at once. One way to keep the cost down is to reduce the size of images and avoid elements like large shaded boxes. It does pay to use good quality paper, especially for two-sided jobs.
Our tri-fold brochure needs to be folded, and I’m not about to buy and fiddle with a folding machine. I sometimes take them to copy shops for folding, but if the quantities are low enough (say under 200), I sometimes just do it by hand while I’m watching TV or listening to a podcast. It’s slow mindless work but I actually don’t mind it. One time our organization needed to fold about 500 brochures so we did it as a group during a meeting and it took relatively little time.
I’m not suggesting that everyone do his or her own bookkeeping, printing or design — it’s not for everyone. There are a lot of things — like assembling furniture and most home repairs — that I don’t do myself because I don’t have the time or the skills and I’m better-off hiring people who know what they’re doing. But when it comes to some “digital” tasks, our organization actually finds that doing it ourselves makes our jobs easier as well as less expensive.
Larry Magid is a tech journalist and internet safety activist.