December 2013

With the latest update to Android, Google has removed a hidden feature that had been used to allow phone owners to more tightly control which personal information could be accessed by applications.

Google isn’t commenting directly on the feature’s removal, but the company has indicated that it had inadvertently included experimental code within Android 4.3 that enabled it. Google won’t say when or if the feature might return. The move isn’t winning Google any love from privacy advocates who see yanking the feature as a step back for consumers. Google maintains that the feature could cause apps to crash since it allows for certain permissions to be revoked.

As we become a more digitally connected society, one question has become increasingly pervasive: Is the expectation of privacy still reasonable? Ann Cavoukian, the privacy commissioner for Ontario, Canada, thinks so.

She contends that privacy — including privacy online — is foundational to a free society. She developed a framework for approaching privacy issues back in the 1990s that's been recognized around the world. Her approach of seven principles, called "Privacy By Design," advocates that tech designers and engineers need to bake privacy provisions into their products and work from the start, not as an afterthought.

The seven principles:

1. Proactive not Reactive; Preventative not Remedial
2. Privacy as the Default Setting
3. Privacy Embedded into Design
4. Full Functionality – Positive-Sum, not Zero-Sum
5. End-to-End Security – Full Lifecycle Protection
6. Visibility and Transparency – Keep it Open
7. Respect for User Privacy – Keep it User-Centric

[Commentary] A resurgent T-Mobile underpinned by aggressive pricing and a boisterous CEO, a new Sprint backed by hyper-fast data and a Japanese telecom giant, and the duopoly -- AT&T and Verizon -- up to its usual antics: just when it seemed like we'd finally reached some semblance of stability in the US wireless market, we hear the news that Sprint may be ramping up to make a bid for T-Mobile. If the report holds water and Sprint elects to proceed, we could be in for an unexpectedly turbulent 2014 (and beyond) for the American wireless landscape, as regulators and executives spar over the viability and wisdom of allowing the United States' number three and four carriers to combine. And who would win that battle?

For the Federal Communications Commission, it’s primarily a question of whether a consolidation would help or harm competition. Two years ago, with Sprint and T-Mobile both hemorrhaging subscribers, teaming up might have put the two in a better position to square off against the Big Two; since then, though, the smaller carriers have gotten their desperately needed LTE efforts off the ground. T-Mobile has started adding customers; Sprint hasn't, but it's now backed by SoftBank's wallet and ambition. In other words, it's fair to call T-Mobile and Sprint more "competitive" now, at least by some metrics -- and that makes a merger, which would bring the United States down to just three national wireless providers, less appealing in the eyes of competition-minded regulators. But regulation aside, none of this touches on the technical nightmare that engineers at Sprint and T-Mobile would face in combining their networks.

The House Judiciary Committee could have more to do on the issue of “cellphone unlocking.”

The committee, which has worked on the issue before and is in the middle of a broad review of copyright law, may take up the issue again. Many in Congress applauded the announcement that five top cellphone carriers — AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and U.S. Cellular — have reached an agreement that will allow their users to keep their devices when they switch between the five companies’ networks when technologically possible as a significant gain for consumers, but some are saying the agreement isn’t enough. According to a House Judiciary aide, Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) “welcomes the agreement” and “is in the process of reviewing this agreement and determining if legislation is necessary.” In a statement, Committee member Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) called the carriers’ agreement a “partial win” for consumers but said, “The process that necessitated the FCC having to take action remains heavily flawed.” Rep Chaffetz said he would work “with Chairman Goodlatte to help advance legislation that will remove the threat of felony charges for unlocking a cell phone.”