The Google X research lab announced this week that it expects its experimental Loon Balloons will be delivering internet service around the globe by next year. Using balloons to provide a wireless internet connection to rural areas across the country sounds like an extraordinary idea, but I thought it would remain science fiction.  I couldn’t fathom how the balloons could be controlled, including how they would maintain strong signals. Also, knowing that Google isn’t really an Internet Service Provider (ISP), I couldn’t imagine how this technology would be available to consumers. With regard to believing in the technology’s functionality and ability to be controlled, I will admit that my Googliness is nowhere near where it should be, and for that, I am ashamed. My public policy mind, however, still isn’t convinced that a practical solution for how to provide the service to consumers has been created.  First we must look at how the Loon Balloon works, and then we’ll explore the policy challenges it will face.

Project Loon’s pilot program has released solar powered balloons equipped with antennas and radios into the atmosphere. These balloons float roughly 65,000 feet into the sky. To better understand the balloons’ placement it should be noted that airplanes and weather occur on the troposphere, which is about 32,000 feet in the sky.  There’s no way to see the Loon Balloons from earth without a telescope. While the balloons are in the stratosphere there are winds, typically flowing from the west to the east, that allow the balloons to float. The balloons are then steered from the ground to follow the winds to new areas while always keeping balloons in every area necessary to continue providing a connection. The balloons are able to talk to neighboring balloons and can only receive signals from Project Loon antennas. This is intended to achieve high band width over long distances.

Additionally, the group-based antennas bounce off of the balloon network, which sends a signal down to the global internet. The pilot program has done so well that Astro Teller, head of the Google X Lab,  believes enough balloons will be launched in the southern hemisphere by next year to have a “semi-permanent ring of balloons.” The balloons are semi-permanent because they are eventually brought back down to earth to be recycled and reused. Although this project seems to ensure Internet access in rural areas, the balloons use the LTE protocol employed by cellular providers to equip users with wireless Internet service. This means that Google Loon has to team up with local ISPs to actually provide a connection to the public.  Here is where we could encounter a problem.

Many ISPs choose not to build infrastructure in rural areas due to the high cost and low probability that they’ll see a great enough return on their investment. This is one of the largest issues we face when considering how to provide Internet service in rural areas. If the balloon has to be supported by preexisting infrastructure then aren’t we back at square one? Google is not quite an ISP. The company is dabbling in this area with the invention and continued expansion of Google Fiber; however, this isn’t available in many areas. As an answer to the questions I’ve posed, Google expressed a plan to invest nearly $1 billion in low-Earth orbiting satellites as an extension of Project Loon. These satellites are able to beam internet access down to consumers.

It is unclear if the balloons will be used in conjunction with the satellites, or if the satellites will replace the Loon balloons all together. Either way, this project is interesting and continuing to broaden in scope. While we can see that the technology works, we’ll have to wait for more information on the success of its application.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Satellites, Fiber, Balloons Oh My! Google Loon Delivers Internet From Sky appeared first on Law Street.

Apple has done it again! No I’m not talking about their new ‘phablet’ {sidebar: how ridiculous is that word} as I’m sure everyone has heard plenty about it. However, the tech giant just announced new consumer protections from both government entities and the company itself, with its latest iOS 8 mobile operating system. Apple has created an encrypted operating system with passcodes inaccessible to the company. This means that if a government entity requests data concerning an iPhone user running the new operating system, Apple would be unable to provide the requested information. Although privacy concerns and requests for individual data by government entities is a huge point of contention for companies and individuals alike, we should expect the government to work slowly and incrementally to address these concerns. Although change will take considerable time, we should look at proposed legislation that will bring us a step closer to securing the privacy of our electronic communications with legislation like the Email Privacy Act.

Several tech companies, businesses, and civil liberties organizations have come together in support of the Email Privacy Act.  It’s rare that a policy is accepted by such a broad group, especially when those groups are normally on opposite sides of policy issues. It seems unlikely that any government would relinquish power over invasions of privacy, but the Email Privacy Act, which would reform the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), aims to do just that. The ECPA, passed in 1986, allowed law enforcement and government entities the freedom to request electronic communications without a warrant from third-party service providers after the communication was more than 180 days old. The Email Privacy Act aims to eliminate this 180-day rule and increase electronic communication confidentiality.

Before explaining the reforms of the Email Privacy Act, I first want to provide context for the ECPA. As I stated, the ECPA was passed in 1986, before the invention of Internet or email. Based on the language of the law, it’s apparent that legislators couldn’t discern the immense popularity electronic communications would eventually have, let alone envision the various social media platforms we would become accustomed to. After realizing how outdated the ECPA is, Congress has put forth efforts to reform the law with H.R.1852 and a similar Senate bill S.607. Each bill intends to eliminate the 180-day clause (Title 18, section 2703 of the U.S. Code). In addition to this change, the bills would set standards for requesting warrants, set deadlines for notifying subscribers whose electronic communications are requested, and set guidelines for delaying notification to subscribers.

If passed, the Email Privacy Act will stop remote computing services and electronic communication services from divulging the contents of any communications to a government entity without a warrant. Government entities may still submit requests to service providers for information, only after approval of warrant. If a warrant is granted to law enforcement, they must notify the subscriber in no more than 10 days that their communications have been surrendered. If a government entity other than law enforcement produces a warrant for an individual’s electronic communications, they must notify the subscriber in no more than three days. The only time a subscriber will not be informed of their surrendered communications is in response to an administrative subpoena.

Although notification of surrendered electronic communications must take place in all cases where a warrant is granted, both government entities and law enforcement may be granted a delay. In the case of law enforcement, they may be granted one or more delays of 180 days and for a government entity a delay of 90 days. There are five instances where a delay of notification to subscribers will be granted:

1. If notification may endanger the life or physical safety of the individual;
2. if flight from prosecution is a concern;
3. if intimidation of potential witnesses is a concern;
4. if destruction of or tampering with evidence is a concern; and,
5. if jeopardizing investigation or unduly delaying trial is a concern.

Even if there is a delay, subscribers must eventually be notified. Each subscriber who has their communications surrendered will be sent a copy of the warrant; notice concerning why and how the information was obtained; notice of delay; information on the court authorizing the delay; and provision for why the delay was granted.

Privacy concerns dealing with technology, and especially electronic communications, will continue until policies are reformed and in some instances, new policies created.  We can’t be discouraged by the inability of  a slow-moving government to address our concerns as quickly as we would like, but we can support new legislation, whenever presented, to address the concerns we have.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Ottox via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Apple is Now a Step Ahead of the Government to Protect Your Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

You’re being tracked.

Surprise!

Well maybe that’s not a surprise since  Americans are pretty cynical on issues of spying. It may surprise people, however, that the things they enjoy, such as digital news articles, videos, wearable technologies, and wireless appliances are all tracking their behavior. Depending on the technology used, data detailing frequency of maintenance, a person’s interests or vital signs, and metadata like location and time is also collected. This information analyzes everything from potential consumer needs, to uncovering relationships and patterns that weren’t previously known. The benefits of big data are enormous but we must consider how else this information could be used? At what point could this become a privacy concern?  Also, what steps are being taken to prevent possible manipulation?

Click here to find out everything you need to know about the big business of Big Data.

The increased use of technology to record defense capabilities, healthcare needs, government practices, as well as maintenance and safety needs are all positive ways big data has affected society. One positive effect translates into saving lives of premature babies after sensors record an uptick in body temperature, which could be a sign of an impending infection. Watching the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services prevent and stop more than $100 million worth of fraud after implementing the Fraud Prevention System, is another example of the advantages of Big Data. These two incredible examples of how Big Data is used as a  positive resource don’t even begin to highlight the many significant contributions it makes to society.

From a business perspective, companies can use the information from data profiling to identify similar or related products, social issues, and events of interest to consumers. How products and events are marketed to consumers is directly related to an advertiser’s ability to collect data and complete a practice known as behavioral targeting. An example of online use that constantly collects data is the social media platform, Facebook.  Most people are unaware that on top of the information provided by their profile, something as simple as posting a picture on Facebook provides more data and other related metadata, such as time and location, to the platform. This information as outlined in the company’s Data Use Policy can be used as stated below.

Sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners, customers and other .third parties that helps us (or them) deliver ads, understand online activity, and generally make Facebook better. For example, an advertiser may tell us information about you (like how you responded to an ad on Facebook or on another site) in order to measure the effectiveness of – and improve the quality of – ads.

I want to note the first line of the data use policy section provided above, which says, “sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners.”  Now wait a second, how do their ad partners and affiliates have data that can be linked to specific people and why are they able to pass it on to others?  The data use policy explicitly tells us that those affiliates and partners have collected data through responses consumers have provided for other ads on other sites, which is then used to create a behaviorally targeted ad for Facebook and vice versa. In addition, cookies, web beacons, and IP addresses are all used to create an online profile able to frame our digital identities. At that point there’s no real need to have a name that identifies individuals. So when companies like Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others declare that the information they share is passed anonymously, they’re technically telling the truth.

But these capabilities, most of which are not visible or available to the average consumer, also create an asymmetry of power between those who hold the data and those who intentionally or inadvertently supply it. – May 2014 Big Data Report

The outlined intent as stated by the terms above is to improve the Facebook experience by making sure Facebook knows what is important to its users. By identifying what’s important to each individual, Facebook can ensure that users see more of the same information they’re most likely to be interested in on either their newsfeeds or in advertisements. This sounds great right? Modifications made to the information seen on the newsfeed and in advertisements are based on:

1. Interests
2. Location
3. How often you use Facebook
4. Books you like and/or have read
5. Movies you like and/or have seen
6. TV shows you like and/or watch
7. Gender
8. Online purchasing habits
9. Other information provided by Facebook affiliates/partners/third parties
10. Topics you post about
11. Your friends list
12. Clubs/social groups/schools you’re associated with

WAIT ONE MINUTE!

Oh my goodness, they know you in a way that has just gotten uncomfortably scary right?

Not only can your timeline be manipulated, but so can your perception of what is going on around you. Facebook received criticism after admitting that for one week, it intentionally tried to make 155,000 of its users sad for no other reason than just to see if they could do it.  Another example can be seen in how conversations concerning the social upheaval in Ferguson, Missouri was somehow missing from many Facebook newsfeeds while Ice Bucket Challenges were commonly seen. People wanted to know how life on this social media outlet could seem so out of the loop. That was until techies realized that a Facebook algorithm used to filter out posts Facebook feels users wouldn’t be interested in, figured its users were much more interested in Ice Bucket Challenges than discussions on social inequities, policing, race relations, civil liberties and so forth.

For all we know, Facebook may have gotten it right.  After being bombarded by 24-hour news cycles and other  social media outlets like Twitter, which were jammed with Ferguson discussions, it may have been nice for users to escape to a place where Ferguson wasn’t the only thing discussed.

Make no mistake, Facebook is not the only outlet that uses, collects, and has the ability to manipulate Big Data. Beyond Facebook is the general use of the internet and digital technology, all of which can collect big data. What must be done now, is to determine the proper use for this information and identify ways to protect the privacy of users. Several government agencies, departments, and branches of government are interested in discussing these topics. This can be noted by the FTC’s call to identify how data is categorized, used, and the applicable laws to protect consumers. Additionally, organizations like the Open Internet Institute, Common Cause, Free Press, and Public Knowledge have submitted comments to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on the importance of protecting telecommunications metadata.

With more people, governments, and organizations identifying concerns, changes can be made and applicable laws can be clarified to protect consumers and avoid impositions of privacy.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Big Data, Little Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

Writing about technology and its many uses has never been more important to me than today.  The civil disobedience, sadness, and anger expressed in Ferguson, Missouri by its residents and sympathizers would most likely have gone unnoticed by the majority of the nation if it weren’t for social media outlets like Youtube, Twitter, Vine, and Facebook.  To attribute the proper value to these technologies, we must first identify the root cause of the demonstrations which have led to a militarized police force and the enforcement of pseudo-martial law.  This post in no way condones, encourages, or repudiates any of the methods used by law enforcement or protesters, nor does it seek to pass judgment on the incomplete police investigation concerning the death of Michael Brown.  Instead, this post will point out what has happened, and highlight the use of technology to keep the public informed when formal media outlets were unable to.

On August 9th, a recent high school graduate and prospective college student by the name of Michael Brown was killed by a member of the Ferguson Police Department.  There is much speculation surrounding the death, including the order of events leading to it.  Because an official investigation is ongoing, the only thing we know for certain is that Michael Brown, although unarmed, was shot and killed by a Ferguson Police officer.  The people of Ferguson, left heartbroken and mourning, decided to commemorate Michael’s death with a candlelight vigil in the same neighborhood where Mr. Brown was killed.  However, the Ferguson police made an appearance at the vigil, bringing with them police dogs and brandishing high powered assault weapons. In response, the crowds’ emotions turned from grief, to outrage, and escalated to protest as documented by Vine and Youtube uploads as well as Tweets and Facebook posts.

In the midst of the protests, a handful of opportunists taking advantage of high emotions and tension destroyed the property of privately owned businesses by looting, vandalizing, and setting said businesses on fire.  This small group of criminals turned a peaceful protest into a riot, causing the St. Louis County Police Department to take over law enforcement in the area by using a strategy of militarized policing.  Characterizing the entire group of protesters as looters and rioters led to the denigration of the entire protest. This allowed the looters to become scapegoats, which subsequently justified militarized police aggression.  The denigration of a group of people and scapegoating resulting in justified aggression are all characteristic of systemic oppression.

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, St. Louis County PD increased tension when it informed Ferguson residents that neither the autopsy nor the identity of the officer involved in the killing of Michael Brown, would be released to the public.  As protests continued, the peaceful crowds were met with heavily armored trucks and tanks, high powered assault rifles, snipers perched ready and waiting, tear gas, and rubber bullets. The protesters were told by police standing in front of tanks and using loudspeakers, that their right to peacefully assemble was not being denied.  Although a curfew was not set, police made it clear that they wanted protesters off of the streets by nightfall and used tear gas and rubber bullets to push non-compliant protesters back. In some cases, as documented by Vine videos, police shot tear gas canisters into residential areas, including the fenced in backyard of a protester that refused to go inside his home, although he was protesting on his own property.

Police detained journalists and shot tear gas at a news crew they saw filming them.  After the news crew ran away from their van and equipment to escape the tear gas, police were photographed removing their cameras and pointing them toward the ground so they could no longer record police activity.  This is where the pseudo-martial law comes into play. To be clear, martial law was at no time officially declared, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. Disallowing the press to report activity; intimidating protesters with visuals of military-like riot gear; requiring protesters that are peacefully assembling to return to their homes by nightfall; detaining reporters without cause; and the use of militarized police enforcement are all characteristics of martial law.

The use of militarized law enforcement has been noted and called into question by government officials on both sides of the political spectrum.  Outrage by people following the activity in Ferguson on social media forums was voiced both nationally and internationally.  Photos, Vine and Youtube videos, as well as tweets and Facebook posts were the source of the outrage that led to protests in major cities throughout the country and internationally in cities like London.  There was even advice given in the form of Youtube videos to protesters in Ferguson by Palestinians on how to stay protected from tear gas.  As a result of public backlash against militarized policing, the Governor of Missouri, Mr. Jay Nixon, announced that Missouri Highway Patrol would take over law enforcement in Ferguson, and try to set a different tone.

The tone set by Missouri Highway Patrol was one of peace and understanding. Captain Ronald Johnson described his personal connection to not only Ferguson but to the killing of Michael Brown. The change in police technique was noted by formal media outlets as well as social media postings which reported MHP officers walking with protesters instead of standing against them. These officers were not dressed in riot gear nor did they use methods such as tear gas or rubber bullets in their interactions with Ferguson protesters.  In addition, the Ferguson Police Chief has announced they will comply with one of the requests of the protesters, to release the identity of the police officer who shot Michael Brown. That identity was released earlier today.

Not only did social media keep the public informed of minute by minute occurrences in Ferguson, but social media users also pointed out what they believed to be disparities in formal media coverage with hashtags on Twitter and Instagram like #IfIWasGunnedDown.  This particular hashtag was used to show ways in which news coverage portrays black victims by displaying unflattering images as opposed to more positive looking images to influence character assassination of the victims.  Other hashtags like #Ferguson were used to allow social media users to quickly find information related to the Ferguson protests.  While social media is an amazing platform that can be used to inform the public, it also showed differing public opinions.  Some users voiced support for the use of military-like force against protesters and used the incident of looting as evidence for its need.  Others voiced disapproval that such force was being used and accused militarized police enforcement of inciting more anger among peaceful protesters.

It’s unclear what will happen in Ferguson but it should be appreciated that people were able to inform the public, voice their opinions, and urge a public discussion on topics such as race relations, militarized policing, civil liberties, police brutality, and what people consider to be justice or injustice.  Social media opened up the problems of a town with a population of 21,000 to the world, causing people to come together in solidarity and peaceful protest.  If it weren’t for the openness of the Internet here in the US, we may have never known what was happening in Ferguson.  Whether you agree or disagree with what is going on in Ferguson, we can all take heart in knowing we were all able to use social media and technology to be informed and come to our own conclusions.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #Ferguson: How Social Media Kept America Informed appeared first on Law Street.

Exciting news is coming from the Apple camp. In an attempt to move into the business enterprise market,  Apple has announced it will team up with International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) to create business apps for iPads and iPhones. It’s no secret that Microsoft has cornered the enterprise market for decades, representing as much as 92 percent of it; however, with Microsoft’s successful efforts to transform its devices and services with the release of the Surface RT and Surface Pro tablets, we shouldn’t be surprised that Apple wants to move in on the enterprise turf. As an owner of a Surface Pro and an iPhone, all I can say is that I’m excited to see the innovation that comes out of this new competition.

The folks at Microsoft have to be a little nervous. Apple has a huge following of dedicated consumers who are all too eager to get their hands on the next new device and software developed by the tech giant. Apple’s genius really is found in its ability to cultivate repeat customers due to proprietary practices. By allowing all Apple products to connect with each other, in addition to their exclusivity as it concerns software, its following grows and customer retention remains high.  Apple is essentially the Pringles of tech devices. You don’t stop after buying one, you get them all and have them communicate with each other. This level of integration is crucial. If the Apple/IBM partnership fairs well in the development of business software, there’s nothing stopping companies from also purchasing Apple computers to have the complete trifecta of phone, tablet, and computer integration. If Apple users can combine their business and personal lives through the exclusive use of Apple devices, what will happen to Microsoft?

Unfortunately, I’m not an oracle and therefore can’t predict how this will affect Microsoft, but I do know that the incorporation of tablets in the workplace will continue to increase over the next three years. I also know that the iPad currently makes up 91 percent of all tablet activations in the enterprise market.  An August 2013 report conducted by Forrestor Research found that by 2017 nearly one in five tablets will be purchased directly by companies. Some key reasons for the trend are better work functionality, quick accessibility to information, and the device’s use for business presentations. These conveniences are only amplified by the ability to have phones integrated with tablets. Many companies are already seeing the value of tablets in the workplace and in some cases implementing BYOD (bring your own device); however, the use of personal devices does create security concerns.

Now this is where the magic happens for Apple: companies are already promoting the use of tablets. In addition, having integrated tablet and mobile devices allows for constant connection and the ability to manage multi-platforms of integrated business data.  Apple already has the device and integrated system established.  All it needs is the security, big data, and analytics capabilities that businesses want, which is why its partnership with IBM is important.  According to Apple, IBM has the world’s deepest portfolio in Big Data and Analytics. Hence the beautiful marriage of IBM and Apple. This pairing will produce more than 100 industry-specific business solutions. High customer retention, an integrated system for all Apple devices, a partnership with the world’s leading big data and analytics corporation. A market for tablets in the workplace could mean trouble for Microsoft’s enterprise market.

Good luck to all involved, and let the innovation commence.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Leon Lee via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tablets in the Workplace: Should Microsoft be Afraid of Apple? appeared first on Law Street.

I imagine the folks at places like Apple and Google have huge smirks on their faces as they watch the media frenzy Amazon Fire has caused. Why? Because companies like Apple and Google ARE technology, that’s their whole reason for existing. In contrast to them, Amazon is more like a digital supermarket with competitively priced inventory, and the added advantage of delivering its goods directly to consumers. Increasing Internet sales is its number one goal, so Amazon continually creates new apps and devices to achieve it. The difference between Amazon and a company like Google is that Amazon doesn’t have a passion for creating innovative technology for the sake of being a heavy hitter in the tech community. Due to this difference, Amazon Fire will be intriguing, until it is quickly replaced with a significantly better product.

What sets Amazon Fire apart from other smartphones is its built in and specialized Augmented Reality interface. Augmented Reality (AR) provides a connection between the real world and the digital world with overlays of video, audio, 3-D content, and location-based information. AR is what users experience with Google Glass and apps created by companies like Metaio, Layar, and Aurasma. When using the Fire phone’s firefly feature, the phone can instantly identify an object, price it,  and provide an option to buy through Amazon. This is most certainly convenient; however the phone’s built in capabilities aren’t much different from the Amazon Flow app, which is already available for both Android and iOS phones.  Although Amazon has used AR in its effort to increase sales, it definitely isn’t the first company to experiment with this technology, and it is actually behind in the ability to capitalize on all the known AR capabilities.

The use of this technology for marketing and ads as well as within specific industries like real estate has evolved since the early 2000s. Metaio is one of the first companies to promote the use of Augmented Reality through print campaigns and consumer usable home design and decoration AR solutions. Metaio, a German company, was founded in 2003 by CEO Thomas Alt. For Alt, the creation of AR stemmed from a project with Volkswagen. To build upon this technology, Metaio was awarded a German government grant to continue the work, which resulted in the creation of Augmented Reality. Since Metaio’s inception, it  has remained at the forefront of AR innovation and truly envisions AR as the new frontier. While companies like Google have partnered with Blipper to create real-time interactive image recognition Augmented Reality for Google Glass, Metaio is far more advanced.  It’s moved on to thermal touch, to make the whole world a touchscreen.

So what is my point?  Augmented Reality is the main selling point that Amazon is using to entice consumers to buy the Amazon Fire phone, but the company isn’t even using the feature its greatest abilities. Amazon Fire’s AR capabilities are basic compared to the new innovations that companies like Metaio are creating. On top of that, companies like Google have already released AR products and are continuing to push the limits of those capabilities. Google is just perfecting its established  AR and waiting to have a monster release of a product that’ll be too amazing for most people to ignore. Amazon is at a clear disadvantage due to the priorities established in its business model compared to the business models of actual tech companies. Because of this difference, technology companies can dedicate their time and resources to improving products while  Amazon is happy to have a hot product until it quickly becomes obsolete.

Think about it, when is the last time someone bought a Kindle e-reader? I imagine Amazon Fire’s product life will parallel that: big explosion and quick fizzle out.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Billy Brown via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post That Amazon Fire Phone You Pre-Ordered is Already Outdated appeared first on Law Street.

The continuing saga of false and misleading operations at various Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals throughout the country hit a new level last week. While we know that there has been a critical backlog of veterans waiting for healthcare services, the backlog itself is not the scandal. What’s got everyone upset is misconduct by VA employees who input false and misleading information into the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA), the system used to electronically log appointment requests. The public is outraged, and rightly so, but Congress is acting just as surprised as the rest of us, and therein lies the issue. The real question the public needs to ask is, why the phony outrage Congress?

Due to public outcry, the House Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on June 9, 2014 entitled Oversight Hearing on Data Manipulation and Access to VA Healthcare: Testimony from GAO, IG, and VA. Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of the VA Philip Matkovsky was asked about the technology used to schedule appointments, to which he answered, “Our scheduling system made its first appointment in April of 1985…it has not changed in any appreciable manner since that date.”  Yes, you read that right. The technology currently used by the VA is more than 30 years old. Technology changes significantly each year. It’s completely unacceptable to think using a system that old would increase efficiency and remain effective. As the hearing continued, Richard J. Griffin, acting VA Inspector Generalm testified that, “Since 2005 the OIG has issued 18 reports that identified at both the national and local level, deficiencies in scheduling resulting in lengthy wait times and negative impact on patient care.”

The Veterans Administration has been championed as a pioneer in healthcare information technology. In a 2005 Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing entitled Information and Technology at the VA – Is It ready for the 21st Century, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs Gordon Mansfield testified that his department had seen significant changes in IT operations.  A major reason this hearing was held was to discuss the VA’s use of more than $2 billion in appropriated funds to update information technology. (It should also be noted that 1,200 information technology service contracts valued at approximately $5.2 billion were awarded between October 2010 through June 2012.)  Mr. Mansfield pointed to editorials, professional journal publications, and even remarks from a speech delivered by President George W. Bush on April 27, 2004 describing his intentions to expand the VA’s electronic health records beyond the VA as examples of the great progress made. Although this testimony may seem to substantiate Congress’ claims of being unaware of the technology issues the VA faced, it does not explain why the Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee personally requested an audit of Veterans Integrated Service Network 3 in 2008.

The Veterans Affairs Department breaks up the entire country into Veterans Integrated Service Networks to identify the clinics and hospitals Veterans are eligible to visit in their area.  VISN 3 represents portions of New York and New Jersey.  In 2008 the VA Office of the Inspector General conducted an audit on VISN 3 and this report uncovered the manipulation practices of the scheduling system that have also been identified in the current scandal. The report was sent to Michael J. Kussman, the Undersecretary of Health with recommendations; however, Mr. Kussman had this to say in response:

I have carefully reviewed your report on scheduling practices within VISN 3, and I do not concur with your conclusions and recommendations. Because the issues you cite reflect the need for national solutions to acknowledged policy-related concerns that VHA is already addressing in response to your previous reports, it is counterproductive to single out VISN 3 in your recommendations for accountability issues that apply to every other VISN, as well.

The Assistant Inspector General wasn’t going to take that lying down and responded with the following:

Contrary to the Under Secretary’s statement, we did not single out VISN 3 for this review. The Chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee requested we conduct this audit based on serious allegations the committee received that VISN 3 was intentionally distorting the numbers on waiting times. We also take exception to the Under Secretary’s non-concurrence with the report’s conclusions and recommendations based merely on the fact that the issues we reported reflect the need for national policy solutions that VHA claims they are already addressing. Our exception is based on the fact that VHA has recognized the need to improve the accuracy of waiting times data, yet has taken no meaningful action to achieve this goal to date. We can only conclude that VHA’s stated intention to correct recognized and long-standing problems is not sincere.

 

After reading several of the OIG reports it is clear that the VistA technology has a major flaw. Since the first report in 2005, the VA uncovered that scheduling can be manipulated by overwriting the Electronic Waiting List system and scheduling appointments on top of an already existing one. Overwriting the system does two things.

1. It changes the originally created date to the current date of entry, and changes the desired date to the date of the appointment, reducing the reported wait time.
2. The cancellation of the original date of creation is never recorded.  

In an attempt to make the logs appear to meet scheduling requirements, employees are able to overwrite the system to show they are in compliance with scheduling procedures even when they’re not. This has made it increasingly more difficult to identify when a request was originally created and interferes with the Veteran Affairs Department’s ability to accurately report the true wait time based on electronic waiting lists.

The OIG reports recommend stopping this employee behavior by providing training to employees to ensure compliance with scheduling systems standards. Surprisingly, there was never a recommendation for using a portion of the appropriated billions of dollars the VA Department was given on an entirely new scheduling system.

The VA’s Office of the Inspector General has issued 18 reports, each sent to Congress, and at least one of which was personally requested by a Senate Committee Chairman. Even if all 535 members of Congress weren’t aware, the members of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees most certainly were. Of the several billions of dollars appropriated to the VA Department for IT operations, it’s astounding to me that nobody thought to update the technology or at the very least get rid of the overwriting loophole the employees uncovered in the system.  As seen in the 2008 report, the VA knew the problem and chose to fight among themselves instead of fixing it. Then legislators responsible for oversight of the Department pretended to be completely unaware of what was going on once the truth was reported to the public. The general public, and Veterans especially, should be upset that this was allowed to continue.  But again I must ask Congress, why the phony outrage?

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [DVIDSHUB via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why the Phony Outrage Over the VA Scandal, Congress? appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of talk about marijuana lately. This year we’ve seen the implementation of Amendment 64 in Colorado and Initiative 502 in Washington, both passed in 2012. Aside from the 18 states and the District of Columbia that have approved marijuana for medical use, two states have approved measures to legalize recreational use for adults 21 and over. With the sophisticated enforcement of these initiatives we must ask ourselves, has marijuana gone mainstream?

One might think, but this is a paradox when it comes to the criminal justice system. The latest FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that the highest amount of arrests were for drug abuse violations, with more than 42 percent of violators being arrested for marijuana possession. So marijuana is cleared for medical use but possessing it is a crime that led to more arrests than any other in 2012. Not only that, but these arrests consume massive amounts of money due to the cost of prosecuting, incarcerating, and having offenders under the watchful eye of the courts as a result probation or parole. These non-violent criminals are a drain of financial resources and increase criminal justice caseloads. As a result, many states are considering decriminalizing marijuana as is the case in places like Maryland and the District of Columbia.

The prohibition of marijuana seems to be losing popularity as the combination of decreased funds in state budgets continue, and more medical uses for the drug are found. On top of efforts to decriminalize and legalize marijuana, there seems to be a new level of acceptance when you consider the number of apps that have been created that allow potential marijuana dispensary customer to locate dispensaries from their phones. Even more than being able to get directions to the local dispensary, there are game-like apps such as Weed Firm that allow users to create their own cyber pot shops.

Weed Firm, a creation of Manitoba Games, was offered by the Apple App Store and allowed users to create their own marijuana plant mixtures that could then be sold to virtual customers. The game was complete with seed, potting, and fertilizer options for growers to make their favorite combinations. One of the more unsavory game features was the option to either pay the local thugs for the ability to sell marijuana on their turf, or have them take all of your plants and profit as payment. Manitoba Games was pleased to announce that Weed Firm was number one on every Apple App Store category. Unfortunately for Manitoba Games, Apple recently decided to remove the app from the store. As you can expect, the gaming company was not pleased with this decision and released a hilarious statement discussing the matter. In their statement, Manitoba Games has vowed to return to Apple’s App Store with a more acceptable, censored version of Weed Firm.

If technology is any indication of the changing opinion on marijuana, then its safe to say marijuana is no longer considered taboo. This change is a result of realizing the prohibition of marijuana has been unsuccessful. Financially, states cannot support the incarceration of large amounts of people for non-violent crimes like marijuana possession. It’s even harder to explain that people are being classified as criminals as a result of being in possession of a plant that is used for medical purposes. It seems that the evolution of marijuana and its negative associations are as old as Reefer Madness. This post does not advocate for the legalization of marijuana, but rather to explain some of the changes in public opinion and the influence it has on technology.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [O’Dea via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana Apps May Indicate a Change in Public Opinion appeared first on Law Street.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is well on its way to becoming one of the more popular global industries as household appliances and security systems go online. In the last decade, we’ve watched cell phones evolve from basic devices that could only make phone calls into pocket-sized computers that many of us would be lost without. I’m not saying we’re on our way to using our internet-connected dishwashers to play Flappy Bird, but the IoT evolution, like cell phones, is moving into a new era complete with its own cellular network.

The evolution of the IoT means that this technology is moving beyond just consumer electronics and utilities, and into transportation, healthcare, agriculture and environment, construction, and intelligent buildings. As we prepare for nearly everything to have an internet connection, we cannot ignore the amount of bandwidth that could potentially be used to connect the IoT. With worries already mounting over reaching current bandwidth limits and our ability to improve infrastructure to ensure better and faster connectivity to meet the demands of use, adding the IoT could cause us to reach bandwidth limits even faster. Wouldn’t it be great if someone created a network just for the IoT?  Well, someone did create such a network and it’s not only global, but will finally be coming to the U.S.

France-based company SigFox recently agreed to create a cellular network strictly for IoT use in Silicon Valley and the San Francisco area. While this is a new development in the U.S., SigFox’s services are already active in Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Russia. The creation of a cellular network strictly for the use of IoT connectivity will free up bandwidth used for standard internet use by computers and cell phones, allowing the faster connectivity that users have become accustomed to, to continue as usual. But concerns over bandwidth will continue as new internet-based technologies are created. For now, however, IoT may not be a threat to that.

SigFox has chosen the perfect area to test their IoT cellular network. The Silicon Valley-Bay Area is one of the largest technology hubs in the country.  Because of this, the search for a decent internet connection is at an all-time high and anything that can be done do decrease the number of connections on their geographic network is welcomed.  Although the IoT is gaining popularity nationally, this area has an abundance of consumers who are already operating IoT technologies.  If Sigfox’s IoT-only network is well received, this could become a guide for the rest of the country.  In fact, American companies like Qualcomm have also begun developing machine-only networks, which shows there could be considerable competition in the near future. More competition will allow costs for IoT connectivity to decrease and will free up space on the current network. In all, this is a win for consumers.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Geralt via Pixabay]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The IoT-Only Network is a Big Win for Consumers appeared first on Law Street.

This week we saw the shocking, leaked video of Solange Knowles physically attacking brother in-law Jay Z while her sister, Beyoncé, looked on. I’ll admit that it’s natural to be entertained by celebrities misbehaving, but putting that element aside, where does surveillance and security end and privacy begin? Elevator cameras are installed for security purposes, but this is a prime example of how surveillance can be misused. We see cameras on buildings, inside elevators, and just about everywhere we go without questioning how that footage is being used, or perhaps misused. The common use of surveillance technology will continue to increase if left unchecked — especially in the law enforcement.

This increased acceptance of security surveillance has contributed to law enforcement taking new measures to monitor us all on a grander scale and for longer periods of time.  New surveillance technologies have emerged that allow local law enforcement to use special aircraft equipped with powerful cameras to capture and record real-time images over large amounts of space. Not only will these cameras record a broader area, they will also have the capability to record for longer lengths of time as compared to traditional camera-equipped helicopters.

These digital technologies are capable of motion detection and zoom of movement. This means no matter how far away a person is, his or her movement can be detected and observed more closely with the zoom capabilities. Persistent Surveillance Systems is one of the companies assisting local law enforcement with their missions to decrease crime and bring criminals to justice through the use of surveillance technology.

The Ohio-based company touts itself as a full-service, wide-area surveillance provider with experience in border control, law enforcement operations, and event security. Persistent Surveillance Systems even reached out to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and convinced it to use the technology to monitor the streets of Compton, with one big selling point being that this method is less expensive than using the police helicopters. LA County provides just one, though by no means is it the only, example of where this monitoring is employed.

It is unclear how successful Los Angeles’ use of this type of surveillance technology is  in an attempt to quell crime because no data has yet been released. What is clear, however, is that this technology is so expansive it isn’t limited to targeting criminals. The footage also includes law-abiding citizens carrying on the regular functions of their day. Some may argue that being constantly recorded isn’t troubling because they have nothing to hide, but where does the trade off of privacy for security end?

With little to no regulation of this technology and the dependence on private companies to provide this surveillance service, the possibility of misuse increases. There are many more questions than answers, but we must be aware of the possibilities and consequences of being constantly watched. We all have the right to privacy. How far are we willing to use our technological capabilities to impede that?

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [idrewuk via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You and Beyonce Have Something in Common: Constant Surveillance appeared first on Law Street.

Tech startup Alibaba is making major headlines with its decision to file for an IPO. Alibaba is certainly different than many other tech companies. While many startups tout abilities to disrupt the market, Alibaba depends on China’s shift to a more western structure in which spending is valued over saving. Time will tell if Alibaba is right in its assumptions.

One of Alibaba’s creations is called WeChat — an app that attempts to change the way people communicate. With 12 different features, the technology shows extraordinary promise in accomplishing its goal. Among other things, users can live and group chat, make video calls, web WeChat, and Facebook connect.  Although many of these features are already popular, WeChat’s ability to combine all of our favorite tools into one app and include several lesser known features makes it unique.

Let’s take a look at the group chat QR code. In the WeChat app, QR codes are used to allow Apple, Windows, Blackberry, and Android phones to scan a code assigned to the group chat in order to temporarily connect the user’s web browser with her phone. This means that instead of being confined to just your phone, you can use the QR code to mobilize the app on various devices.

WeChat provides social features like shake and look around, which sets it apart from similar apps like the popular WhatsApp. The shake feature asks users to shake their phones and connects them with local people who shake their phones at the same time, allowing connections to people in your vicinity. I’m not sure how useful that particular feature is, but it does seem like an interesting way to meet new people. The look around feature is similar to shake in the sense that people have a chance to connect with other WeChat users in the area: once you turn on the look around feature, you’re able to see all the people nearby who have also activated it and send a greeting to people of interest.

Finally, the drift bottle feature allows you to create a voice text message and throw it into the WeChat ocean.  A person can come along and choose the option to pick up your drift bottle.  After reading the message, users have the option to either respond or throw it back into the WeChat ocean. It’s a pretty fun feature and could end up being a good time depending on the message you pick up.

The use of new social features and QR codes sets this communication app apart from the masses.  Alibaba managed to take communication technology in a different direction than most people would expect, and it seems to be paying off. Maybe the new approach to becoming a publicly traded company will have the same positive results.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Rico Shen via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alibaba Creates a Stir With IPO Filing and WeTalk App appeared first on Law Street.

The difference between believing that the internet is vital to life and just accepting it as a useful tool is the difference between having government regulation and allowing the market to regulate it on its own. Nobody supports unwarranted government interference, but it would be unwise to think government involvement for the purpose of regulating industries is unnecessary. This brings me to the topic of Open Internet, also known as net neutrality.

In January, the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia changed several rules established in 2010 by the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order. The Court’s decision rolled back the rules that disabled the blocking of legal content and enforced nondiscriminatory practices, but upheld the rule that enforced transparency. The Court’s decision terrified many people and left us wondering how open and free the internet will remain. Recently, an official document was leaked that may give insight to exactly where the FCC is headed in regulating net neutrality, and unfortunately the odds look like they’re in favor of major Internet Service Providers.

The leaked FCC documents show that the Commission is considering allowing major Internet Service Providers to give large, well known companies the option of paying for faster lanes through which their videos and other content travel. This amounts to deregulating the more equalizing practice of having all content from all companies travel the same internet lanes. This means that well established companies will have an extra advantage in supplying their content to their users. How is this harmful to small startups and new innovation?

In the age of faster is better, the ability to use a service faster is more likely to be chosen over a service that runs slower. For example, you can either choose wireless internet or dial-up. They both supply an internet connection, but when was the last time you heard the screeching sound of a dial-up connection?…. Exactly!  If the FCC follows through with this idea, small startups will not be able to compete against the financial strength of giants that have the resources to provide speedier service. In addition, these costs for faster internet lanes may be passed to consumers as companies work to maintain profits.

Another possibility that hasn’t been talked about is the larger companies’ ability to recreate the innovations of smaller, lesser known companies. For example, if Company X creates a new way to shop on the internet and the larger Company Z recreates this technology, Company Z would have the advantage of faster internet speed to their site over Company X.  Even though Company X created the technology, Company Z would benefit, leaving small startups asking “what’s the point in trying?”

With our economy’s strength and growth hinging on new innovation, it is counterproductive to have an unfair system that doesn’t allow companies both large and small to have the same service capabilities. This goes directly against the entrepreneurial spirit of our country and shows that lawmakers have gotten it wrong in their assertion that the internet is important but not vital.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Svilen.milev via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Leaked FCC Documents Signal Bad News for Startups appeared first on Law Street.

Tech startup Aereo continued to disrupt the market this week when the Supreme Court heard arguments in the American Broadcasting Companies Inc. v. Aereo Inc. case. The case has garnered lots of attention in the technology community due to the implications it may have on Cloud services. Essentially, Aereo provides an electronic antenna that picks up and broadcasts existing signals with the added bonus of being a virtual recorder and storage locker.  Aereo’s creation is brilliant, but as seems to be the case with many such tech developments, it may have outpaced current laws and policy.

Broadcasting companies believe copyrighted content is illegally transmitted through the internet from Aereo to Aereo’s paying subscribers. Companies such as ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and PBS allege that the company is publicly performing by transmitting content without proper licensing and payment of royalty fees — a violation of intellectual property laws.

Broadcast Companies are using the 1976 Copyright Act definition of transmission to prove that Aereo’s transmission of content is a public performance, while Aereo’s customers are private performers. This distinction is important because private performances are exempt from obtaining licenses and paying fees for copyrighted content, while public performances are not.  Paul Clement, the attorney working on behalf of the broadcast company petitioners, recognizes that a person or company that sells traditional antennas would not be involved in a public performance; however, he asserts that Aereo’s use of ongoing services, even if considered a rented service, exploits the use of copyrighted works and therefore represents a public performance and a violation of the Copyright Act.

In response to questions from Justices Alito and Kennedy about the difference between Aereo’s services and the DVR service provided by companies like CableVision, Clement responded that unlike Aereo, CableVision acquired licenses to receive their content in the first place. Because CableVision’s customers are recording and storing content for private use that the company was given permission to transmit, CableVision’s DVR service was rightfully excluded from obtaining a reproduction license. Aereo did not obtained permission to access the content that they allow their customers to stream, record, and store.

The use of Aereo allows its customers to only view local over-the-air broadcasts, the signals for which are free to the public, which makes the sale and private use of antennas to disseminate these broadcasts a lawful act. Aereo asserts that they are not publicly performing because they are equipment providers, no different than a company that sells antennas. This equipment provides access to free, public content, which is different from providing content in the first place. Aereo attorney David Frederick cited Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios as precedent for the lawful use of Aereo’s DVR service. The Sony decision held that consumers have the right to record local over-the-air broadcasts for private use. Since Aereo is renting equipment that provides access to free local content, the company argues that they’re not in violation of the Copyright Act.

What is bothersome to Aereo, and potentially problematic to Cloud service, is the interpretation of the Copyright Act’s Transmission Clause. Aereo believes that the petitioners’ interpretation qualifies any device or process disseminating works to the public, as a public performance, thereby requiring licenses and payment of royalties, which could be detrimental to cloud computing. Clement; however, was clear on the subject of cloud computing and doesn’t believe a decision in his clients’ favor should threaten that technology’s future.

Whether anyone believes that a decision against Aereo should threaten Cloud’s future or not is irrelevant — the more important question is, could it be applied when considering cloud computing? I’m not sure how the Supreme Court will rule, but I do believe this decision will affect cloud computing no matter the outcome.

Aereo is the twenty-first century solution to the discontinued use of antennas and VCRs. If the Supreme Court rules in its favor, Aereo could build on its existing technology and become an entity more comparable to a cable company, at which time they should be responsible for proper licensing and adherence to copyright laws. Technology is constantly changing and challenging older, more established technologies and industries — this is exactly what drives continued innovation. A ruling against Aereo would stifle this innovative growth.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Adam Fagen via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aereo Technology Drives Innovation, But How Will SCOTUS Rule? appeared first on Law Street.

I recently discovered Tinder, the latest dating app craze, after a friend tweeted about her shame over having to create a Facebook account just to use the Tinder app.  At that time I was unaware of the app’s existence and decided to ask my significant other about it — which was a huge mistake.   At the mere mention of Tinder I was banned from even thinking about it. Fortunately for all of us, I feel that as a technology blogger it is my duty to investigate this new phenomena and give a report.

So what is Tinder? It’s a dating app, available on Apple and Android phones, that allows users to find people in their area whom they’re are attracted to and send them an alert. To do this, you have to log into Facebook and turn on your phone’s GPS.  As with many other apps, the use of Facebook is to verify a person’s identity, and the GPS allows the app to know your location. Based on your Facebook picture and information, Tinder creates your profile. To be clear, not all of your Facebook information is visible, only your picture, age, and first name. The creation of a profile allows your information to be seen and sent to other Tinder users in the area.

Next, the profiles of users nearby are sent to your phone and Tinder gives you the option to either like or pass. If you like the profile, an alert will be sent to that user. If someone likes your profile, then an alert will be sent to you. If both users like each other, then you probably guessed by now that the app connects them to each other. What happens after that is up to you.

There have been complaints of difficulties when using the app. Slow picture uploading, an inability to find Tinder users in one’s area, and issues logging in are just a few. Recently, Tinder upgraded the app to improve picture deleting time, correct minor crashes and issues, and hide common interests and friends from being viewed in a user’s profile. The issue of finding Tinder users nearby will probably correct itself as more people download the app. One of the most important new features is the photo zoom.  Why is photo zoom important, you ask?  Because this is Tinder, not Match.com!

In the dating world, who approaches a person because they appear to possess strong family values? Nobody, that’s who. This is what sets Tinder apart from other dating apps. Unlike with others, you won’t waste time finding out you’re compatible just to click on a picture that makes you change your mind. Tinder depends on a shared physical attraction between its users before it connects them — and this more closely resembles what happens in real life. I’m not sure if creating a dating app to resemble actual dating life was Tinder’s intention, but that’s not the only way people are using it.

In practice, Tinder is used as a hook-up app, or as a source of entertainment. On the hook-up side, users are logging on, swapping likes with people they’re attracted to and meeting them to… you know. I’m not saying that every person who uses Tinder is looking for this kind of situation, but it is happening. For entertainment, people like my friends are using Tinder to look at the awkward messages men send them and laugh. Others, the rare few, are actually committing to dates and using the app the way it was created to be used.

Tinder, like any dating app can be used to find great people in your area to create meaningful relationships with. Don’t get upset if someone approaches you in a way that seems brash and slightly shocking. Don’t be surprised if the person you’re messaging is being silly and using Tinder as a way to safely talk to strangers. For all the single adults out there, enjoy. For those adults in relationships, enjoy at your own risk. For all of you who are as intrigued as I was… check it out.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Kenny Louie via Flickr] 

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Want to Hook Up? Better Get on Tinder appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like the US just can’t catch a break on the international relations front these days. Just in case you aren’t aware, America is very publicly getting her ass handed to her on the global stage. I’m not even going to talk about the Russia and Crimea disaster. I’ll roll right over Venezuela forcing American Embassy officials to leave, and bashing Panama for being the United States’ “lackey.” What I really want to talk about is the latest incident between the US and Cuba, which is quite interesting, and more importantly, involves our favorite topic — technology.

To set this up, Cuba is open about its vigilant monitoring and prevention of access to communication and the internet. Ramiro Valdes, former Cuban telecommunications minister, referred to the internet as a “wild colt,” believing it “should be tamed.”  With that pointed out, is it wrong to let a country decide their own internet restrictions and communication freedoms?

It’s reported that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) spent an estimated $1.6 million to develop and implement Zunzuneo, a Cuban social network similar to Twitter. The Associated Press claimed that USAID conspired to influence political thought and incite support of the Cuban people to challenge their government. In addition, there were suggestions that USAID wanted to gather important information of Cuban cellphone users.

Zunzuneo’s implementation was somewhat elaborate. The use of offshore bank accounts and operating companies, marketing campaigns to encourage new users, and mock ads to give the appearance of a legitimate company, were all enlisted to hide the social media platform’s origin. Zunzuneo gained a following of nearly 40,000 over its two-year existence, but the program abruptly ended after losing its funding in 2012. Yesterday Congress requested a hearing with USAID’s  Administrator, Rajiv Shah, to question him on the program’s purpose and if it sought to gather information about Cuban cellphone users. In response Shah said, “The purpose of the program was to support access to information and to allow people to communicate with each other.”  USAID has also released their eight facts about ZunZuneo.

That’s USAID’s story, and they’re sticking to it. However, let’s critically think this through. The US has never gotten over its inability to make Cuba revolt against Castro, nor can they accept the loss of influence the US had over the Cuban government.  Also, in 2010 we witnessed several countries rising up against their governments and succeeding in overthrowing them. Much of the ability of protesters and revolutionaries was due to technology, specifically social media outlets like YouTube and Twitter to communicate to the masses both inside and outside of their countries.

The influence of social media is quite evident, which is why people and organizations are always asking us to check out their Facebook page and tweet them. USAID is known for providing services and resources to populations around the world in need — because of this reputation, we shouldn’t discount their claims of wanting to provide a kind of technology and communication to a population that doesn’t have it. In acknowledging this possibility, I also have to acknowledge that if a government agency wanted to influence young people in another country, the use of social media would probably be  the most helpful in accomplishing that goal.

__

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did USAID Actually Create Zunzuneo, the Cuban Twitter? appeared first on Law Street.

Mahana, the latest development in the race to serve millions of diners, will be the most tech-friendly way to do fine dining. Beautifully designed and easy to use, the app offers an array of convenient options to users, including reviews and wait times. The Austin-based company founded last summer just finished its private beta testing phase. The company expects to officially launch the app this summer once public testing closes. With all of its wonderful features, I wanted to know the inspiration behind the app’s creation. Luckily Mahana Co-Founder Richard Bagdonas was kind enough to speak with me about the company’s purpose and plans for future growth.

Mr. Bagdonas, who has been involved in hospitality app development for the last four years, decided to create Mahana in order to fill a need in this huge market.

“Companies wanted it.  I was hearing from restaurant owners that filling orders for pick-up wasn’t the biggest problem.  The problem restaurants are having is that they need more guests inside of the restaurant.  More guests means more need for wait staff and servers and helps owners identify repeat customers.”

The restaurants on Mahana are considered upper casual and fine dining, so a meal for two could range from $100-$120 — locations that most people are unlikely to visit more than once a week. As a result, the ability for participating restaurants to follow who is coming in, what they’re ordering, and how often they frequent the location is an incredibly valuable tool. So far Mahana has been received very well in Austin, and according to Mr. Bagdonas there are “two dozen restaurants on the waiting list.”

When you download the Mahana app, you’re asked to sign in via Facebook. I thought this was interesting but also wondered why the app requires this particular access method. According to Mr. Bagdonas,

“Facebook is very good at identifying if a person is who they say they are.  Years ago, Facebook stopped allowing users to create fake pages so instead of reinventing a verification system, we decided to use one that is already established.  Also, Facebook is good for tracking important dates like birthdays and anniversaries.  Having this information allows restaurants to provide special deals and promotions to its customers based on that information.”

I’ll be honest, I was a little skeptical about this required Facebook integration, but after everything was explained, it makes perfect sense. So now I’m waiting to see what kind of deals my impending birthday may bring my way. Thank you Mahana!

If the idea of finding a charming fine dining restaurant wrapped in a sleek and user-friendly app doesn’t interest you, maybe the other features will. All the information you need from an establishment’s opening and closing times, to the address and telephone number are all provided with a picture of  the restaurant’s interior set as the background. For me, getting a glimpse inside the restaurant is something small, but it’s one of my favorite things about Mahana. It’s hard enough to pick out something to wear when I actually know where I’m going, so imagine what I put everyone through when I’m not sure what the place looks like. This app will save so many significant others from the irritation that goes along with having picky “I don’t know what to wear” partners.

Users have the option of choosing the map view to find a restaurant based on location or they can choose the list view to search the name of a specific establishment. Once you choose a restaurant, make sure your phone’s Bluetooth is on so that the restaurant knows exactly where you are and the app can alert them of your arrival time. Also, for customers with food allergies, you can record this information into the app and trust that this vital information is communicated to the wait staff on your behalf.

Mahana will definitely change how upper casual and fine dining is done. The company does have plans for the app to work nationally, but they’re looking for feedback from users to let them know what areas they should come to next. To learn more about Mahana and persuade them to come to your city, visit their Facebook, mention them on Twitter @getmahana, or visit their website.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New App Mahana Takes Fine Dining Into the Tech Age appeared first on Law Street.

Austin, Texas is home to many innovative tech startups. Recently I discovered a wonderful peer-to-peer bike sharing startup with its own cool app. Spokefly and founder Nate McGuire are excited to provide the city of Austin, and eventually areas throughout the country, with an easy to use, technology-supported way to bike! Nate graciously agreed to an interview and I’m happy to share all the Spokefly details. If you’re seeking more information, you can check them out at www.spokefly.com or tweet them @Spokefly. Prepare for the Spokefly greatness!

Spokefly, a six-month-old company, has gone live but won’t be considered officially launched until it moves into an additional city. Right now the company is working to expand to DC and the Bay Area. When I asked Nate how he came up with the idea for a peer-to-peer bike share, he said he was first inspired by his friends who were able to get around Austin much faster during rush hour because they biked. After realizing how efficient bikes could be, he decided to create a peer-to-peer bike share that didn’t have the same limitations as Austin’s bike share. Unlike the city’s program, Spokefly allows customers to browse an app and select from a variety of listed bikes, with the advantage of docking the bike at any rack throughout the city. Spokefly just changed the game.

Spokefly allows riders to use their app to reserve a bike. Available to both Android and Apple users, there will be a new release of the mobile app within the next two weeks. Once the bike is reserved, riders are given a combination number to unlock it. At that point, the rider is free to go anywhere they need to in the city. Once they’re finished, they find the nearest bike rack to dock and lock the bike, and then check it in using the app on their phone. It’s nice, easy, and most importantly convenient. The GPS on the rider’s phone records the bike’s location, allowing other users to find it. My only concern, which I shared with Nate, was the potential to have all the bikes end up in the same area; however, Nate assured me that because of Spokefly’s large-scale distribution system, they are able to make sure bikes are spread throughout the city, allowing customers to always have easy access.

People interested in joining Spokefly can select one of three membership options, and can even list their bike to receive a 50 percent discount on monthly membership. Spokefly has been received very well in Austin, especially with college students. Nate was happy to announce that students with unlimited monthly memberships are now using Spokefly almost as their primary mode of transportation. I definitely see the appeal. Aside from the freedom of docking the bike anywhere, biking is already a better cost saving mode of transportation. With biking there are no costs for gas, parking, or insurance. For a monthly fee, Spokefly users with unlisted bikes don’t even have to buy a bike or worry about storage or maintenance. As if Spokefly wasn’t already sweet, they’re also considering creating an option for app users to request on-demand public delivery.

Nate made it clear that Spokefly reviews all bikes before they agree to list them, and requires owners to constantly maintain the bikes to ensure they are safe for all riders. Because owners are responsible for providing combination locks to secure the bikes, Spokefly has a list of acceptable locks for participation in the program, and the company will refuse to list any bike that doesn’t meet all safety requirements, including providing that approved combination lock.

After speaking with Nate McGuire and confirming the utility, convenience, and safety of Spokefly, I’m just waiting for it to come to DC.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spokefly, Austin Tech Startup, Spreads Peer-to-Peer Bike Sharing appeared first on Law Street.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Keep the Love Between Us appeared first on Law Street.

Temporarily escaping the real world while sitting in a theater enveloped by the kind of darkness that can make even the most crowded place feel isolating is a compelling enough reason for me to shell out the money for a movie ticket. But the same can’t be said for some other people. Some can create the same experience in the comfort of their own home with the help of Netflix or diligent web searching for a free version of the latest blockbusters. And who can blame them? Even thought new technology is constantly created, the movie projection industry hasn’t done much to upgrade their technology and improve the viewing experience over the last 60 years. That is, until now.

Movie projectors switched to digital systems around 2000; however, the systems still rely on a 60-year-old technology known as xenon electric-arc lamps. The arc lamps lose their brightness over time, and result in diminished clarity and dimmed illumination. This deterioration of picture quality forces theaters to continually replace equipment or allow customers to suffer through poorly lit movies. Fortunately for movie goers, Laser Light Engines, debuted a new laser projection system that corrects for the problems the old system experiences. The NH’based company’s latest movie projection technology will use lasers to improve the clarity of all images and will significantly enhance 3D projection in a way that has never before been possible.

While all movies will have improved picture, the push for laser projection is directly linked to the demand for 3D movies and the terrible illumination associated with them. For example, one of the popular systems used to project 3D movies is known as the TI system. This system is complex and involves specialized lenses, polarized beams of light, and loads of other technical things that most people can’t explain nor do they care to know about. Anyway, the TI system, in tandem with the arc lamps and their issues of decreased brightness, plus the use of 3D glasses can reduce the brightness of 3D movies by nearly 80 percent. Yes, those awesome 3D movies like Avatar and Gravity that you thought were amazing, may have been 80 percent less amazing than they could’ve been. With laser projection, those days are gone, and we’ll be able to view 3D as it was meant to be seen.

In addition to the enhanced picture quality, Laser Light Engines’ system will create a standardized system for movie capture, distribution, and encryption of digital movies, leading to better movie content security. This is a huge plus for production companies and theaters that lose millions due to illegally manufactured movies. Another benefit of using laser technology systems is that the cost of the new technology is cheaper than the older xenon electric-arc lamps. Consumers will have the bonus of a more clearly projected movie that will also cost less for theaters to provide. (I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting on lower ticket prices, though.)

The only thing I’m honestly upset about is that I won’t be able to catch the new 300 Rise of an Empire movie in all its laser-projected glory. If only the movie Gods would let it be. Other than that minor issue, I say let the laser movie projection commence!

Featured image courtesy of [LG전자 via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Movies Are About to Get 80 Percent More Visually Exciting appeared first on Law Street.

In response to Target’s massive data breach affecting nearly 110 million consumers, the Data Security and Breach Notification Act has been introduced in the U.S. Senate. Both Target and its customers were victims of the 2013 cyberattack, which increased susceptibility to identity theft for customers, and tanked profits for the company. The new legislation attempts to increase the security of consumer information, and to set requirements for companies to notify consumers and government agencies of security breaches.

The Act will establish six requirements for companies to increase data security protection: 

1. Create a security policy with respect to the collection, use, sale, dissemination, and maintenance of personal information.
2. Identify a point of contact who is responsible for the management of information security.
3. Create a process to identify and assess possible vulnerabilities within the security systems maintained by the company, including regular monitoring for breaches.
4. Create a process to make necessary changes to security practices used to maintain personal information including architecture, installation, and operating software.
5. Create a process to dispose data in electronic form by destroying, erasing, or encrypting the information.
6. Implement a standard method(s) to destroy paper and other non-electronic data that contains personal information.

While some companies maintain their own security of personal information, others contract this responsibility to third party groups. In the event of a security breach, this legislation requires any group responsible for maintaining personal information to contact the Federal Trade Commission, and to contact all consumers whose information may have been compromised. Consumers must be contacted either by mail, email, or telephone, and it is the company’s responsibility to create a hotline or website to provide additional information to those affected by the breach. If a security breach affects more than 5,000 people, companies are required to notify all major credit reporting agencies. Also, some companies will be responsible for providing at least one free credit report per quarter for each consumer with compromised personal information, for up to two years.

Some covered companies, like small businesses and non-profit organizations, that are unable to provide free credit reports due to cost may be exempt from this practice.  Additionally, companies that find other correspondence methods too costly may employ alternative notification methods like contacting print and broadcast media to inform the public. If a company does not follow the reporting requirements and are not exempted from certain practices, they can be fined.

If this legislation is passed, a company’s data security will not improve as a result of it, but rather in spite of it. Companies are improving security to combat the threat of class-action lawsuits and enormous financial losses as a result of a security breach without federal action. The Data Security and Breach Notification Act fails to understand that companies are also victims when dealing with cyberattacks, and no matter what security measures are in place, all electronic information is vulnerable to being hacked. The bill also fails to acknowledge the role bankcards play in the insecurity of personal information. As noted by David French, Vice President of The National Retail Federation, the bankcard industry prefers magnetic strip cards over PIN-and-Chip technology, which is more secure. Retail companies cannot be the only group held accountable for the actions of cyber criminals.

Requiring companies to notify government organizations, credit reporting agencies, and consumers is a more effective policy.  Although companies are improving cybersecurity, a breach in that security could cause companies to hide or delay informing consumers. This delay may impede a person from contacting their financial institution in time to prevent the misuse of his personal information. Another benefit of requiring companies to inform the public of a breach is that it reduces the consumer burden of proving identity fraud. Consumers need to be protected, and when companies fall short of providing that protection, they have a responsibility to assist consumers in correcting the company’s mistake; however, lawmakers should consider that consumers and companies are victims of data security breaches, and that different industries influence the ability to effectively secure data.

—

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Potter/StockMonkeys.com via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Security Breach: The Senate Wants to Protect Your Information appeared first on Law Street.

Bitcoin  — the cryptocurrency in the form of digital coins — allows financial transactions to be completed over the internet without the use of banks or a clearing house.  (Click here to read Bitcoin for Beginners.) There are plenty of positives that come along with this currency: it reduces the cost of transactions, as the fees are significantly lower than those with traditional electronic transactions; there are no  prerequisites or qualifications to gain access to Bitcoin; and  unique to its creation, the coins, which are stored in free, user-created digital wallets, can be used in any country. With that said, there are real concerns surrounding the coins.

Unlike paper currency, Bitcoin is not backed by any government or any other currency standard such as gold. One huge difference between traditional currency and Bitcoin is that there will only ever be 21 million coins available. Unlike traditional currencies, producing more Bitcoins, or taking some out of circulation, is not an option, and many of the people currently holding them are hoarding them. This has increased speculation and contributed to the huge increase in cryptocurrency value over a short time. Once people realize that there are only a small amount of coins available to purchase out of the 21 million total, consumers may be unwilling to purchase them at such high prices. This could have adverse affects on the coins’ value, but on the other hand, the exclusivity of the commodity may cause people to be even more interested in acquiring the currency and cause its value to increase considerably.

What happens if Bitcoins become so valuable that they’re able to back legitimate government currencies?  How could this shift power and wealth to the people who are hoarding Bitcoins?  I’m not saying it will happen, but we must think about the possibilities in this technology-driven society. The major takeaway from the speculation is that this currency is risky and can be exploited easily. Bitcoins are a risky investment and there are no equivalent insurance protections to those at traditional banks. Possibly worse, there are no standard cybersecurity protections from hackers when dealing with Bitcoin. Due to the currency’s anonymity, it is very hard to track where a particular coin has gone once it’s taken from a digital wallet. This anonymity leads us into the darker, seedier side of Bitcoin.

Because of the anonymity and absence of government regulation, Bitcoin is being used as a de facto payment to fund illegal weapons and drug trades on the black market. The most well known underground internet-based drug ring, Silk Road, had more than one million users and was in operation for two and a half years. Silk Road allowed users to buy any kind of illegal drug they desired and have it shipped directly to their home. Think eBay for drug addicts and their suppliers. Silk Road was also good for child pornography and illegal weapons sales.

In September 2013, after years of investigation by the FBI, Silk Road was shut down and its engineer, Ross Ulbrict, was arrested after facilitating 1.2 million transactions. These transactions accounted for 9.5 million Bitcoins — valued at a whopping $1.2 billion — and earned Ulbrict about $80 million. Unfortunately for him, all of his Bitcoins, and a majority of those held by Silk Road users, were seized by the FBI, making the government agency’s digital wallet the largest in the world.

Although the FBI should be excited about a job well done, we must remember that it took them two and half years to shut down Silk Road, and only a month for Silk Road 2.0 to get up and running.  If you go to the site, the operators boast how they’re morally superior to the original Silk Road since they no longer provide child pornography or facilitate the sale of illegal weapons. No… I’m not joking. The site also talks about newly emerging competition with other underground websites that were created to fill the void Silk Road left. The problem is getting worse and the operators have learned from the mistakes of previous site operators. They’re even giving users instructions on how to better protect themselves and keep their identities from being detected.

The only positive in this situation is that these people are so clearly lacking significant moral fiber, that every few weeks the site creators steal  all of their users’ Bitcoins, or they are hacked and the site’s Bitcoins are stolen. Unbelievable. I think it’s kind of funny that these drug dealers are being robbed, but at the same time, we have no idea what kind of criminal mind has the ability to steal from other criminals. That’s when it gets scary. We can only hope that these kinds of underground sites will cause so much uncertainty that they self destruct. Until then, we have an unregulated digital currency that can be exchanged for real money, and is contributing to an increased amount of cyber thievery and crime in America and abroad.

—

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

 Featured image courtesy of [Zach Copley via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Seedy Side of Bitcoin appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever woken up after a night of drinks and fun, reached for your phone, and were mortified by some of the messages and emails you don’t remember sending?  If you have a phone and are at least twenty-one years old, it’s safe to assume this has happened to you at least once.  After recalling some of my own less than flattering moments, my mind shifts to one of my favorite television shows, GIRLS.

While I was catching up on the show I remembered an amazing invention one of the characters created. Last season Marnie’s ex-boyfriend Charlie, distraught over their breakup, couldn’t resist the urge to drunk dial her. Luckily he happened to be an app developer, so he created one for his phone that wouldn’t allow him to dial his ex while drinking.

I remember watching the episode and thinking, “if only it were real.” Although my days of partying and waking up to embarrassing messages are behind me, I did a bit of research and found out that there actually are apps that can prevent us from drunk dialing.

Drunk Dial No! allows its users to input contact information prior to drinking, and disable their ability to contact the designated person until the following day. This may seem silly to some, but I’m sure this technology has prevented many people from embarrassing themselves in front of exes, from giving their bosses a piece of their mind, and from sending inappropriate messages to mom when they really meant to text Tom. Even if this app isn’t appealing to the masses, we can all agree that this technology prevents people from making bad decisions.

While drunk dialing, messaging, and emailing are potentially embarrassing, there are fewer things more devastating than the loss of lives as a result of a drunk driver. Drunk driving is one hundred percent avoidable; however, when senses are impaired and the beer muscles are on, many people don’t realize the danger they are to themselves and others while driving. In 2011 alcohol related driving fatalities had declined about 69 percent since 1982. The improvements can be credited to increased penalties for driving under the influence as well as more attention focused on informing the public of its dangers. According to a study by the Century Council, 66 percent of people killed in alcohol-related car accidents were drivers. Considering these statistics, it makes sense to support alcohol-sensor technology with laws to further reduce the amount of drunk driving offenses. Just like Drunk Dial No!, these technologies would prevent bad decisions from being made in the first place, as opposed to dealing with the consequences of bad decisions.

Several States have adopted legislation that requires individuals convicted of a DUI to have alcohol-sensor devices, known as interlock systems, installed into their cars. These devices require drivers to take a Breathalyzer test before being able to operate their vehicle. In fact, a company known as Smart Start boasts more than 200,000 alcohol-sensor installations, from which there have been more than 700 million alcohol-free starts, as well as the prevention of more than seven million alcohol starts.

In 2011 Senators Tom Udall and Bob Corker introduced the ROADS SAFE Act which would have authorized $12 million for five years toward the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety program. According to the legislation, the funds would be used to explore the feasibility of vehicle interlock systems and some of the policy challenges they may face in Congress. Unfortunately, this bill, which I believe would be a step in the right direction, was lost in committee and never received the attention it deserved.

The technology to save lives exists, and car manufacturers could choose to equip cars with it. However,  I have not found any information on companies considering installing the technology, and  I find it highly unlikely that it will happen without government regulation.
—
Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Robert Lachenman for the Work Projects Administration Federal Art Project via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alcohol Apps Can Save Your Rep & Your Life appeared first on Law Street.

Whenever I search for the latest technology, I realize that we’re about to live a Star Trek-like existence. Live long and prosper people. Due to advances in computer capabilities, the creation of the internet, and increasing production of smart technologies, we’re moving on to the final frontier with wearable technologies. It seems like the most obvious next step right? With the release of Pebble in 2013, a smartwatch created by Pebble Technology and based on Eric Migicovsky’s design, people are now able to use their watches to communicate with Android and iOS devices.  Even more exciting, Pebble has just released their own App Store where consumers can find apps like Tweeble and PebbleBucks. For those of us who can’t step away from Twitter, Tweeble gives you access to Twitter and maintains many of the same functions as the normal app, including the ability to compose a tweet. With PebbleBucks, you’re now able to purchase your next Starbucks chai tea (I love those) from your watch. Yay!

I place technology like Pebble in the win column, and I may continue winning with wearable technology moving into fashion. A Montreal-based company known as OMsignal Technology has created bio-sensor garments, including a compression shirt. OMsignal Technology (who has raised $1.2 million from Real Ventures, Golden Ventures, Mistral Ventures and David Cohen) has created a compression garment that is waterproof, has moisture management, and even odor control. The garment is able to connect through Bluetooth to update the information obtained by the built-in sensors and display this information on the company’s OMsignal app. The app provides real-time data on heart rate, breathing, and activity. Also, the shirt is able to have continual data capture even if you’re not near your phone. OMsignal’s co-founder, Stephane Marceau, believes that apparel companies will increasingly embed sensors into clothing to transmit physiological data in real time. Take a look at the commercial.

This means that the “old days” of wearing devices like smartwatches to provide biofeedback, could be behind us by simply putting on a shirt. Because, you know, smartwatches are so outdated — so 2013. I’m kidding of course, but this is a clear example of how technology is rapidly changing.  I can’t help but be intrigued, and that spurred me do a quick Google search to find out where I can get this new product. I’m telling you now, don’t waste your time searching. I haven’t found any information that OMsignal’s bio-sensor compression shirt has been released. What I do know is that Marceau and partners would prefer major performance apparel brands like Nike and UnderArmour integrate OMsignal’s technology with their fashions. I’m enthusiastic about the possibilities of the technology, but we have a few people out there who won’t let us live happily.

The major concern with this technology is how will it be used. Yes consumers may want to use the garments in the exact way that the commercial indicates. However, what if this information was hacked or given away? I have written about the Internet of Things, and wearable technologies would also be considered an IoT. The more technology used and data captured, the more we open ourselves up to being monitored. Many have questioned the possibility of the information being given to insurance companies, and how that may affect coverage and price. I wish I could answer these questions for all of the people interested in the product, but the technology is so new that I can’t begin to tell you which way this will go. OMsignal has created this technology to promote healthier living but we all know the saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I truly hope the technology will be used for its intended purposes and that safety measures are implemented to protect consumers. Whatever the case, I’m excited to see what comes of this technology, and I look forward to buying it in the future.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy.  Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community.  In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football!

Featured image courtesy of [Eric Steuer via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Star Trek Lifestyle: When Shirts Start Communicating appeared first on Law Street.

The President’s State of the Union address sounded similar to some of his previous addresses, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, who can disagree with a statement like this:

“Opportunity is who we are.  And the defining project of our generation is to restore that promise. We know where to start: the best measure of opportunity is access to a good job.”  -President Obama

Yes! Access to a good job is a great measure of opportunity, but if people are unaware of the opportunities, it’s hard to believe that they exist. There are thousands of openings in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields with some of the largest growth found in information & technology. As of 2011, STEM jobs accounted for 20 percent of all U.S. jobs and this number is predicted to increase. Some advantages of STEM jobs are that they have median pay higher than the national average, unemployment rates lower than national average, and half the jobs in these fields do not require a four-year degree.

According to a Brookings Institute report, half of all STEM jobs are in manufacturing, health care, or construction industries, with installation, maintenance, and repair occupations constituting 12 percent of all STEM jobs. These jobs are given to workers with qualified certificates or associate’s degrees, workforce training, vocational training, or community college education. These particular STEM areas are a great place to start for people who are unemployed and unable to commit to completing a four-year degree. Yes, obtaining a STEM job requires additional training and/or education, but that is the direction in which the job market has moved for nearly every field. Our options are to accept this fact, or stick our heads in the sand and see what comes of it.

“We know that the nation that goes all in on innovation today will own the global economy tomorrow. This is an edge America cannot surrender.”  – President Obama

For high school and college students, I want to tell you that technology is your friend. I’m sure you’re probably tweeting the link to my post and talking about it over Snapchat, but seriously, if you’re not considering a professional career in IT, you should really think about it. Comparatively, the unemployment rate for tech professionals in 2013 averaged 3.5 percent while the national unemployment rate was more than double that, at 7.4 percent.

According to eWeek, 54,300 new jobs were created in 2013 in the tech consulting field. These jobs include software developers, web developers, database administrators, programmers, and more.   Also, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, since July 2013, 474,800 employees voluntarily left their jobs each month. Yes you read that correctly, they voluntarily left their jobs. Some may have retired, others moved to new positions, and some could have left to start their own tech businesses. Whatever the case, they left voluntarily, and with each person that leaves, a new person has to fill that position. Between higher job turnover, and reports that companies plan to create new jobs by significant numbers,  high school and college students should investigate these upcoming opportunities. You can start by looking here at the Bureau of Labor and Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook for Computer and IT Occupations.

“Teachers and principals in schools from Tennessee to Washington, D.C. are making big strides in preparing students with skills for the new economy – problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering, and math.” – President Obama

We can’t retreat from the notion that this new economy is managed by technology and requires a more skilled and sophisticated labor force. Technology has advanced so quickly that many adults feel ill prepared for the current job market. With that said, it would be unwise to risk the future of America’s children by continuing with the same education practices that have been unsuccessful in preparing a technology-based labor force. A first step could be the passage of the STEM Gateways Act. This Act would increase funding to schools through grants for the purpose of encouraging interest and motivating engagement in STEM fields, supporting workforce training and career preparation in STEM fields, and supporting classroom success in STEM disciplines at the elementary or secondary school levels. These are the kinds of policies the President was encouraging in his State of the Union Address and STEM Gateways is the kind of policy I would like to see.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy.  Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community.  In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football!

Featured image courtesy of [Pete Souza via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SOTU: Sizeable Opportunities in Technology Unfilled appeared first on Law Street.

I was watching television recently when I saw an awesome AT&T commercial that summed up the greatness that is technology. Take a look.

The dad literally turned off all the appliances and locked the door with a press of a button on his smartphone. Mind… Blown… I’m not easily impressed, but after seeing this I had to know more. How could all of these different things be turned off remotely with one app? Are they connected to the internet? What did I just see?

After some research, I found out that everything in that mind-blowing commercial will probably be common in about seven years. Household appliances like toasters, refrigerators, ovens, and coffee pots are being enabled to communicate with each other and with your applications — technology referred to as IoT, or the Internet of Things. We know about smart TVs, but say hello to smart thermostats. These devices have the ability to connect wirelessly via router signals, and some can even connect to the internet on their own. Not only that, but these appliances are able to connect, control, and share resources over different operating systems. This is so cool that even Google wants a piece of the action — which explains their $3.2 billion purchase of Nest, creator of smart thermostats and smoke alarms.

Last year 10 billion of these devices were connected to the internet, and there are estimates that up to 212 billion devices will be connected by 2020. The Internet of Things is slated to be an $8.9 trillion market by 2020, and will include many more things than just household devices. State, local, and federal governments are preparing to expand on these kinds of technologies and use them to create entire smart cities, as well as tech-supported infrastructure and energy sources such as wind turbines. These will all fall under the category of IoT and therefore could have some of the same vulnerabilities.

Proofpoint, a new tech security firm, has found evidence that smart appliances have the ability to be cyberattacked. In a study conducted from December 23, 2013 to January 6, 2014, Proofpoint found that more than 100,000 common appliances like multimedia centers, TVs, routers, and refrigerators were able to send 750,000 malicious emails in bursts of 100,000, three times a day. While some people may not be frightened by the prospect of their toaster sending out spam, we should note that this implies a bigger problem.

Proofpoint was not the first entity to point out these security issues, as there have been reports dating back to 2009 of concerns with the ability to hack routers. However, Proofpoint is the first to show supporting evidence that these security breaches can, will, and have happened to appliances. So what is happening? First, these devices are mass produced without much antivirus software to protect against security breaches. Because the devices have internet connectivity, hackers are able to exploit some of the known software vulnerabilities of the devices and apps that are used to control them. By exploiting these vulnerabilities, these devices become spam-sending machines capable of conducting denial of service attacks used to steal usernames and passwords. Another problem is that hackers may gain the ability to control the functions of the devices. What’s even more frightening is that many consumers won’t even know their networks and devices have been compromised.

The reason these vulnerabilities have not been dealt with is the lack of security standards for these gadgets. Not only have companies not produced universal security standards, there has been no government intervention to set security standards. With technology changing so rapidly, government officials have not been able to keep up with the changes and pass laws accordingly. Until such time as these standards are created, either by companies or by the government, we’re on our own folks.

On the bright side, I’m sure companies don’t want their products to be responsible for spreading viruses and spamming people. For that reason, I believe companies will develop more robust antivirus software as smart appliances become more common. However, if you already have one of these devices, you may want to take some precautions to protect them. Some suggestions are to screen your internet connections and bar devices that aren’t email servers from being able to send email. Another suggestion is to encrypt your devices. While my mind is still completely blown by the commercial I saw, I think that’s where I’ll let my interest pique…for now.

—

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy.  Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community.  In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football!

Featured image courtesy of [James Nash via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Your Toaster Just Spam Me? appeared first on Law Street.