John
MagicJack suit thrown out of court
Published February 28, 2010 | 
MagicJack sued Boing Boing and their suit was thrown out of court. Boing Boing reported in 2008 that the MagicJack EULA states that the customer must give up their right to sue the company and that they may analyze your phone calls to target ads. The EULA still states this today. What was most bothersome was that the EULA was not accessible from the MagicJack webpage in 2008 (it is now if you search on the term “EULA”).
I bought and used a MagicJack a couple of years ago. I was underwhelmed with its performance and it was nearly impossible to find any useful information on the webpage. As Boing Boing stated, there is no way to uninstall the software (maybe there is now), and I had to rebuild my computer to uninstall the software. I like the concept but I was bothered by the customer experience, especially if you needed help. I think their website is designed to dissuade users from draining any of their support personnel time. Given the cost they sell this device for, I’d be surprised if they have many, if any, support staff. I finally gave up on using the device and stuck with using my cell phone instead.
Lack of expertise in NHTSA impacts Toyota investigation
Published February 27, 2010 | According to thecarconnection.com, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no software engineers or electrical engineers on staff. They are actually citing a Washington Post article where during the investigation, NHTSA admitted
NHTSA officials told investigators that the agency doesn’t employ any electrical engineers or software engineers.
This is unforgivable. How can the NHTSA expect to do their job if they don’t have anyone that understands the technology found on every new car, and has been in cars for well over a decade. I think the post said it best:
The agency has an annual budget of more than $800 million, and it employs 635 thousands of people. That not a single one of them is an EE or software engineer borders on the criminally insane.
According to the post, it was later clarified that NHTSA actually has 2 EE’s on staff (no mention on if they have any software engineers).
This is insane. Cars are becoming the poster child for the fusion of hardware, software, and electronics. Software and electronics are becoming more and more important. I do hope that the NHTSA will hire the right folks that can do the job.
Can the US survive a Cyber War?
Published February 27, 2010 | Net-Security.org had a story on a recent exercise regarding the US’s ability to detect and defend against a cyber attack. The article starts with:
The inability to deflect even a simulated cyber attack or mitigate its effects shown in the exercise that took place some six days ago at Washington’s Mandarin Oriental Hotel doesn’t bode well for the US.
It begs the question, does the US Government have an obligation to defend the US from cyber attack? I don’t think… maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think there is anything in the Constitution stating that the Government has an obligation to defend against cyber attack. If the US Government took the necessary steps to detect and defeat a cyber attack, then Government would be accused of interfering in business and spying on its own people. To detect a cyber attack, you must have a way to monitor internet traffic. The Government would have to instrument the internet, including the servers at your ISP. If they did so, there would be a public outcry that it is an invasion of privacy to monitor everyone’s internet traffic. As a nation we will have to choose either privacy or cyber security, you technically can’t have both. And I’m not sure if it is even the role of the Government to protect individual citizens or corporate networks. I agree that they should protect government networks, but beyond that it gets very difficult to justify that the benefit outweighs the risks. It should be a corporate or individual obligation to protect your own computer.
So the exercise demonstrated that we can’t survive a cyber attack. Not really a surprise, now is it. It is a real threat that we should not ignore it, and it makes sense that private businesses should combine their efforts to defend the corporate networks of the US. I suspect that much of this is actually happening behind the scenes. Let’s hope that they do, and we can sleep soundly… on a mattress stuffed with money (just in case).
Israel Drones Targeting Iran
Published February 23, 2010 | Al Jazeera reported today that Israel has announced that it now has Heron TP drones with enough range to target Iran. This really isn’t surprising since Israel is one of the worlds leaders in unmanned aerial vehicles. They have been at this for years, and to develop something with that type of range, while challenging, isn’t out of their technical expertise.
This isn’t a real game changer in the ongoing struggle between Israel and Iran. Israel and Iran are struggling over many things, but militarily it is over the possible use of nuclear weapons by Iran. Iran in response to the threats from the West, including Israel have moved their nuclear program well underground. Unfortunately, the West is only guessing as to what sites are nuclear related, and no drone is going to be able to carry a large enough weapon to make a difference to any hardened facility. This certainly will help Israel to keep an eye on Iran and will help their planning. This can augment any manned reconnaissance flights or their use of commercial satellite imagery.
The most likely mission for the Heron TP is simply to gather intelligence, either SIGINT or IMINT. While it may be capable of being armed, it is probably limited to one or two precision guided bombs. Now, it’s primary mission may be to help Israel locate the Iranian nuclear facilities, but I doubt that this is going to really make a difference in finding them. It may prove best at simply being a constant eye over the Persian Gulf to monitor traffic in and out of Iran. As long as it is flying legally and in international territory, Iran will have a hard time deterring them.
AZ Speed Camera Revolt
Published February 20, 2010 | 
As a recovering victim of Arizona’s speed camera system, I was delighted to see this report from the LA Times on how the citizens of Arizona are revolting against the cameras.
Speed limit enforcement using photo radar is a misuse of technology. I don’t argue that many speeders will get ticketed through the system. The problem is that often the cities or in this case, state that uses them forgets that they are ticketing people. They are wrapped around the idea of the technology and the possible income source to forget that it is their own citizens that will be targeted by this technology. There is contradictory evidence on the effectiveness of photo enforcement. Some say that they reduce the number of speeders and improve the safety of the roads, and other evidences suggest that drivers efforts to avoid the cameras actually cause more accidents by disrupting the flow of traffic.
So, what is AZ forgetting:
- It’s people receiving these tickets. Most speeders are willing to accept responsibility if they perceive that it was fair and square. Every speeder knows that they are taking a chance on getting caught. If a cop pulls you over, okay… it is your turn. But at least you have a human to talk to, to explain your “special circumstances” to, and at least there’s a human bond there. Speeders don’t like getting tickets, and they may not be the nicest of people to the police, but most folks will accept it. Cameras are impersonal and do not offer the speeder the same experience, or anything like it. It is like trying to have a discussion with an automated phone service at your bank, when all you want to do is talk to a human. In once since it is fair since the camera has no biases as to who to issue a ticket to, but it is not the same, nor is it even close to the same experience.
- Arizona has clearly set this up to generate income. Some may state that it is for safety, but that argument gets lost when you take into account the efforts of Arizona to make it easy to “just pay the fine”… no point on your license, no insurance issues, etc. It may actually serve a dual purpose, to raise income and promote safety, but safety is quickly drowned out in the argument. And unlike a human police officer, the cameras only catch speeders and red light runners, but doesn’t offer any judgment on if your actions are safe or not. A police officer can tell if someone is driving safe or not, and can pull over the drunk driver that is driving within the speed limit. Getting rid of the officers reduce the cost to generate this income, but also reduces the safety on the road. So, all of the evidence suggest that Arizona’s motivation for these cameras was primarily for making money. But wait, it does so by fining the citizens of Arizona who elect those that put this system into place. You can only piss in your own pool so long until someone notices the water changing color.
- People want to be heard. Whether you call it an “excuse” or a “reason” for speeding, people want to be heard. If not by the police officer that pulled you over, then by the judge. If you cut out the police officer, you end up with a lot of people that want to be heard by the judge. According to the article, there are courts in Arizona booked through 2011 with these cases. You can make it enticing for people to “just pay your fine”, but if someone feels strong enough, they are willing to pay more… but only after they have been heard. So, now the traffic courts in Arizona are overloaded. According to the report, only 38% of the fines have been paid, and 50% of the cases are pending while waiting for court. That’s a lot of people that want to be heard, and a lot of voters with a burning issue with their elected officials.
Technology is all fine and good, but when technology intersects with humans there are always issues. You can never forget that it is a human with emotions and feelings that are at the receiving end of this technology. The technology itself may be straightforward but when mixed with emotions, nothing is ever straightforward. Even if without a doubt that photo that arrived in the mail is me, and yes, I was speeeding… I have a strong emotional response to it. It isn’t a cold calculation that yep, I’m guilty and I should pay my fine. When this happened to me I felt violated in that I didn’t have even a small chance to confront my accuser, or explain my behavior. I don’t live in Arizona and was simply driving through the state when I got caught, so I suppressed my anger and frustration and signed up for “traffic school” (a whole other income generating scheme by the state of Arizona). The technology got me into trouble and I used technology (from the same evil bastards) to get out of the ticket.
I hope the citizens of Arizona will vote to end the use of photo radar. I know I have one more trip I must take to Arizona next month, but after that… I’m not inclined to visit ever again. I love the area, but after getting that ticket, I simply don’t feel welcomed in that state. Maybe if the citizens of Arizona ban the use of these systems, at least they will feel welcomed in their own state.
Millions for this Crap?
Published February 20, 2010 | CNN is reporting that a “bomb scanner” purchased by Iraq, Thailand, and others is a hoax. According to CNN:
The Thai government announced Tuesday that the GT200 failed rigorous tests carried out by scientists and the army in Thailand, after concerns were raised that the device was an elaborate hoax.
Unless you live completely in the Star Trek universe, who could reasonable believe that a device that is no more than a dowsing rod with a chip can actually find bombs. There have been previous reports about the GT200′s extensive use in Iraq, and that the US Military expressed concerns over their use. “Global Technology”, the makers of this device have and continue to defend their product despite the wide disbelief of their abilities. This is a case of “if it is too good to be true, then it probably isn’t”. If this worked, it would be great. It’s a small device, human powered, and highly accurate for a wide range of explosives. For a small price you can replace the explosive dogs, the massive detection systems in our airports, and so on. But there is no science that I’m aware of that would allow this thing to work. For any sensor to work, they have to receive input, either a reflection of what they sent out (such as radar), or passively (such as your ear). This device just fails the common sense test.
According to e-k9.net this is how the GT200 works:
The GT200 works on the principal of dia/para magnetism. All substances carry a magnetic charge that, when stimulated by an impulse of electricity, (static) creates an attraction between the substance being detected and the GT200 unit itself. This is called EMA or Electro Magnetic Attraction.
The simple way to explain this technology is to take an inflated balloon and rub it on your hair. A static charge is being created making that balloon “attract” it to say, a wall. Provided that there is enough charge on that balloon, it will remain “attracted” to the wall for an indefinite amount of time. However, once the “charge” has dissipated, the balloon will then “unattached” between itself and fall to the ground.
What the GT200 is doing is creating an “attraction” between itself and the substance it wants to detect. Through the Substance Sensor Card and the movement of an operator, an attracting field is created in the card reader that, in turn causes the Receiver”s antenna of the GT200 to lock onto a signal, indicating the direction in which the substance can be located. When the magnetic signal of the substance that the GT200 is searching for, is located within its detection range, the GT200 receiving antenna will move toward the direction that the substance exist. In essence the GT200 functions like a hyper sensitive receiver.
Yeah… right… doesn’t quite follow Maxwell’s equations now does it. How much static electricity would you need to create to excite a substance away to be detectable to a human powered detector? Maybe if you got really close to the explosive, placed some static-y material on top, and rubbed it hard… then maybe if you haven’t blown yourself up to pieces it may work. The worse part of this is that even today on their website, they are defending this product. They should pull it off the market immediately, and offer full refunds. I just hope that no one has been killed while trusting this device to work.
UK Police Drone Grouned
Published February 19, 2010 | Engadget is reporting that the new police drone operated by the city of Merseyside as been grounded for flying without a license. Not sure why the police thought that they were exempted from the law…. not that that isn’t common. They are off getting the permits to fly it legally.
So, should cities have their own police drones? How much surveillance is too much surveillance? The UK is well known for videoing everyone, everything, and leaving all aspects of privacy behind. I don’t know if all those cameras have actually reduced crime, but I suspect that some criminals have been deterred. Others probably realize that no country can have enough people to watch all the camera feeds to prevent crime, and that the best you can hope for is to use it during the investigation. Drones are different than static cameras on poles, they allow the police to follow someone from a distance. You would like to think that the police would only follow folks for a reason, but I can see cops using this to follow ex-wives, girlfriends, and so on. They are after all, only human. I can understand how a drone could help a large city counter a riot, or identify flood survivors. I just hope that the people behind the camera stay within the law and do not abuse the technology.
DoD Welcomes Back USB Drives
Published February 18, 2010 | Wired is reporting that USSTRATCOM has lifted the ban on the use of USB drives in the DoD. The ban was enacted after malicious code managed to bypass the DoD’s anti-virus scans by launching directly from the USB drive. The funny thing is that the lifting of the ban doesn’t really lift the ban, but restricts the use of USB drives to Government issued approved devices. So, the vast majority of folks will still look at the USB drives used widely by DoD contracts with envy, and will continue to carry laptops around instead of simply moving the data.
I agree with the Wired article in that this is unlikely to reduce the chance of malicious code being introduced on military networks. The only way I can think of this working is if the USB profile used by the military is updated to only allow these approved drives. I don’t know if that is even possible, nor do I think that it would stop someone from using the USB drive at home, getting it infected, and then putting it on a military network. My money is that the ban will be back in full force in a couple of months.
Inside North Korea
Published February 14, 2010 | VBS.TV was able to go into North Korea and as a result produced a fascinating look inside North Korea. His commentary on the trip is wonderful, and really gives you an appreciation of how crazy that country really is. Even though, I do think it would be fascinating to go to North Korea someday if Korea is re-unified. I suspect it would be like stepping into a time machine and going back to the 1950′s. You can go to the first episode by clicking here.
Airborne Laser Hits Missile
Published February 14, 2010 | 
On 10 Jan, the US Air Force’s Airborne Laser (ABL) finally hit and destroyed a sub-launched ballistic missile. The ABL is a great achievement in direct energy weapon design, and a complete waste of taxpayer money. It is an albatross in the world of missile defense. It is expensive, a potential environmental nightmare, and unable to intercept any significant number of missiles. The ABL should have been finished and in the field years ago, and has continuously slipped. I’m actually surprised that they ever got it far enough to shoot anything.
The ABL uses a chemical laser. Sounds cool, until you realize that these are highly toxic chemicals. The aircraft is a flying tanker of hazardous chemicals. This thing suppose to fly in wartime. So, it is realistic to expect that it may get shot at, and if it is hit, boom. And if the chemicals don’t create a lovely mushroom cloud in the sky, it will rain down hazardous chemicals on those below. You just hope that it is flying high enough for the chemicals to dissipate. But wait, there’s more. It doesn’t carry a significant amount of chemicals on board. Actually, that isn’t true, it is just that it uses an enormous amount of chemicals for each shot, so it runs dry pretty quickly. If the Russians launch a thousand missiles, the ABL won’t be effective. Any nation launching a single or very small handful of missiles has to know that we will launch a massive nuclear strike against them. So, to be effective, we will need a lot of ABL’s flying in the air at the same time, and they it will land and refill if we ever get into a nuclear weapon shooting war (assuming anyone is left alive to launch anything after the first wave). If the idea is to land and refill, and that this will take place in a forward deployed base, then it has to bring fuel bladders forward with it to fill with these chemicals. Well, bladders aren’t protected, so on an airbase within missile range will be rubber bladders filled with highly toxic chemicals. I don’t want to be there when a missile, or saboteur blows up one of those bladders. If I was a foreign government, I wouldn’t allow the ABL anywhere near my soil. It is likely that the missiles flying overhead are heading to the US and not my own country, so why put my people and environment at risk?
Now, eventually it may be possible to replace the chemical laser with a solid state laser. Today, the technology doesn’t exist for such a high power solid state laser. There would still be significant power requirements, but at least it would reduce the potential environmental nightmare. The ABL should be cut as a program until a solid state laser is powerful enough to do the job. It is a waste of money and a flying environmental nightmare. Maybe the DoD budget will be stressed by today’s wars such that this albatross gets shot in the head… at least I can hope.