February 2012

Eric Schmidt takes $1.45 billion of his Google bet off the table

There are two ways to interpret the news that Eric Schmidt is going to sell $1.45 billion worth of Google shares this year – his biggest annual disposal yet and first big sale in four years. Either he thinks the stock is looking pricey again or he is cutting some of his ties with the company.

Schmidt’s stock sale will see him shed 2.4 million shares – that’s more than a quarter of his remaining stake. True, he’s already sold 5.7 million shares since Google went public seven and a half years ago, but there are a couple of things that make this latest sale stand out: 1) This is his first big disposal since Google’s stock lost its mojo at the end of 2007 and 2) News of the sale comes less than a year after he stepped up to the post of executive chairman to make room for Larry Page as CEO.

Could Braille Touch app revolutionize texting?

Braille Touch is a new app that enables people to type messages on an Android or iOS touch screen without having to look down. The app is designed for people who are visually impaired, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't use it too.

"We have become slaves to keyboards that are too small and that have too many buttons," said Mario Romero, a post-doctoral fellow at Georgia Tech's School for Interactive Computing and the lead researcher on a paper about Braille Touch. "Almost everyone has to look at the keyboard when they send a text message. We lose sight every time we text. And I don't think that's right." Braille Touch would change that. It is based on Computer Braille, a system of typing that allows users to input up to 63 characters through pressing different combinations of just six buttons -- three on each side of the phone. Users of this new typing system hold the phone facing away from the body, using the middle three fingers of each hand to chord in letters, numbers and characters such as exclamation points and the "at" sign. Spaces and backspaces can be entered through gestures of flicking left or right on the phone.

Cars that communicate could improve safety

Consumer Reports has sent its editors to Silicon Valley and to a special Ford proving ground in Dearborn (MI) to look at how cars might talk to one another in transit and improve safety. The magazine likes what it sees in this new technology, which enables vehicles to talk to one another and to road infrastructure such as traffic lights. This so-called V2X technology is gaining currency in the auto industry and among safety analysts. It has great potential in scenarios such as a car approaching an intersection at 30 mph with a green traffic light ahead at the same time a vehicle on the cross street is about to run a red light.

The Oil of the Digital Age

[Commentary] A Michael Rigley video called “Network” recently caught our eye. A caption describing the video reads, “Information technology has become a ubiquitous presence. By visualizing the processes that underlie our interactions with this technology we can trace what happens to the information we feed into the network.” For policy wonks like us, this generally translates into one word: privacy. For a country seemingly obsessed with reality television and tabloid journalism, the United States is suddenly very worried about privacy, wrote The Verge’s Joshua Topolsky in the Washington Post. And not celebrity privacy, but your privacy. Joshua Brustein wrote in the New York Times that Facebook’s pending initial public offering gives credence to the argument that personal data is the oil of the digital age. The company was built on a formula common to the technology industry: offer people a service, collect information about them as they use that service and use that information to sell advertising. That information – and that advertising – is becoming more and more targeted, too.

Disruptions: And the Privacy Gaps Just Keep On Coming

Whose fault is all of this? We can’t just point fingers at the companies that make iPhones, apps, social networking services and Web sites — although there are a lot of fingers that can be aimed in their direction. We’re all somewhat to blame.

The argument that if consumers care about their privacy they shouldn’t use these technologies is a cop-out. This technology is now completely woven into every part of society and business. We didn’t tell people who wanted safer cars simply not to drive. We made safer cars. Well, safety advocates, consumers and the government dragged the automobile industry toward including seat belts, air bags, more visible taillights and other safety features. Christopher N. Olsen, assistant director in the division of privacy and identity protection at the Federal Trade Commission, expects that as the privacy violations pile up, Congress could enact laws to protect consumers. “Industry should redouble its efforts to focus on privacy issues, or they may face additional pressure in form of legislation from Congress,” he said. Such legislation would not be ideal for anyone. As technology companies rightly argue, more legislation and regulation stifle innovation. But the current system of self-regulation is clearly not working. “The FTC has been very active on the enforcement front; we’ve recently entered into consent decrees with large companies like Facebook and Google, and we have pushed other companies too,” Olsen said.

FTC Tells Consumer Watchdog to Mind Its Own Business

The Electronic Privacy Information Center’s pleas to the Federal Trade Commission to scrutinize Google’s latest privacy policy changes have met with a curt “No, thanks.”

Last year, Google signed a consent decree with the FTC, promising not to make changes to the information it made public about its users without their consent. Last week, EPIC sued the FTC in Federal District Court in Washington, calling for it to investigate Google’s privacy policy changes. On Feb 17, the agency responded by saying that EPIC has no legal standing in the matter. It asked the court to dismiss the case. The agency’s response says nothing about the substance of the allegations. The agency reserves the right to scrutinize Google anyway and rule on whether it violated the consent decree it signed with the government last March. The FTC’s court filing simply tells the consumer group to mind its own business.

Federal lawmakers question if Google violated FTC agreement

In the wake of evidence that Google circumvented privacy protections on the iPhone, federal lawmakers are asking if the company violated the terms of its broad privacy settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC settlement, finalized in October, "bars the company from future privacy misrepresentations," and required Google to implement a comprehensive privacy program. But Reps. Ed Markey (D-M), Joe Barton (R-TX) and Cliff Sterns (R-FL) are asking if Google's apparent end run around software on Apple's Web browser that blocks tracking would constitute a violation of Google's agreement with the FTC. "Google’s practices could have a wide sweeping impact because Safari is a major web browser used by millions of Americans," the lawmakers wrote to the FTC. "As members of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, we are interested in any actions the FTC has taken or plans to take to investigate whether Google has violated the terms of its consent agreement."

Location tracking of GSM cellphones: now easier (and cheaper) than ever

Computer scientists have devised a low-cost way to surreptitiously tease out key location details of people carrying cellphones that are connected to older carrier networks.

The attack, described in a research paper penned by members of the University of Minnesota's College of Science and Engineering, is most useful for determining whether a target is within a given geographic area as large as about 100 square kilometers (about 39 square miles) or as small as one square kilometer. It can also be used to pinpoint a target's location but only when the attacker already knows the city, or part of a city, the person is in. The attack works by exploiting features in GSM, or Global System for Mobile Communications, cellular networks that transmit data sent between base stations and phones in clear text. By simply calling the target's mobile number and monitoring the network's radio signals as it locates the phone, the attacker can quickly confirm if the person is located in what's known as the LAC, or Location Area Code. Attackers can use the same technique to determine if the target is within close proximity to a given base station within the LAC.

Public Safety Broadband Network Wins in Tax Cut Deal

The battle to establish an interoperable, nationwide broadband network for public safety appears to be over.

Congress passed legislation on Friday, Feb. 17, that reallocates the 700 MHz “D Block” section of the airwaves for the network and supplies $7 billion in federal grant money to kick-start the project. For more than a decade, public safety advocates had been seeking federal approval for a high-speed wireless system that connects police and firefighters across multiple jurisdictions. The spectrum and network provisions were tucked into the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (H.R. 3630) — which extends social security tax breaks for the middle class and unemployment benefits. Funding for the system will come out of an expected $22 billion stemming from future FCC auctions to commercial wireless providers of unused airwaves and “white space” spectrum — the band of frequencies between TV channels that are currently blank and serve as a buffer between the broadcast signals of various stations. Wireless communications placed in white space aren’t expected to be powerful enough to interfere with TV transmissions. Thanks to the legislation, the reallocation of D Block means that public safety will have 20 MHz of contiguous spectrum to launch the nationwide wireless broadband network. In addition, public safety also won’t be required to return its 700 MHz narrowband spectrum.

FCC can auction spectrum, but will broadcasters sell?

When it comes to parting with their spectrum, many television broadcasters have the same attitude Charlton Heston had when it came to his rifle: The government can pry it from their “cold dead hands.” Even though the potential cut for broadcasters from the sale is $1.75 billion, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of excitement about the idea.

“We have no intention of giving up spectrum,” said Alan Frank, president and chief executive of Post-Newsweek Stations, a broadcasting group that owns stations in several big cities, including Detroit, Houston and Miami. David Smith, CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., which operates 74 stations around the country, said he “hasn't heard of any broadcaster who has said they have anything for sale.” The big networks seem to share that view. Although none would comment publicly, executives at Fox and NBC indicated they had no desire to sell any of their airwaves. CBS Chief Executive Leslie Moonves has previously said his company wants to keep all its spectrum. “The stations likely to sell — if any — are the ones that offer truly niche programming serving a melting pot of immigrant populations,” said Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association for Broadcasters. “The notion that an ABC or CBS affiliate would voluntarily choose to go out of business to help solve an alleged spectrum crunch is ludicrous.”