Net Neutrality: How Does Internet.org Factor In?

The internet has undoubtedly done some amazing things. It has made information easily accessible, and facilitated communication with people all over the world. It has changed the way we work, completely transforming some jobs and sectors. Everyone accesses and uses the internet in different ways. But it has also caused new problems and new challenges. Who controls the internet? Our instinct is to say no one, but that isn’t true. In some countries (like China), the internet is censored, meaning certain websites and searches don’t come up. With the release of the Snowden documents we learned that the U.S. collects vast amounts of data and this is largely possible because the majority of internet traffic travels through the United States. After all, they are the ones who invented it and who built the framework. Other countries, like Brazil and Germany, have set to work trying to build new servers and systems that don’t travel through the U.S. How should governments develop policy and deal with issues that previously didn’t exist? Cyber security has become a necessity with the rise of hacking for political and financial gain. The same way businesses are improved by the internet, so too are gangs, drug cartels, terrorists, etc.

One of the largest issues is that of net neutrality. Net neutrality is the idea that all internet traffic should be treated the same, regardless of the users, content, site, application, platform, etc. This means that internet service providers (Comcast, Verizon, Bell, etc.) shouldn’t restrict internet speeds to influence consumers in the choices they are making. This was an issue around Netflix, with certain providers slowing service in the hopes of getting customers to use alternative media channels. Netflix then shot itself in the foot by deciding to make a deal with Comcast and pay them to ensure a more direct route through Comcast’s network. This set a dangerous precedent that should have been avoided at all costs, something Netflix realized afterwards. It’s hard to push net neutrality when you’re willing to pay companies who don’t comply. 

All of this news around Netflix had people paying attention to net neutrality (after all you don’t mess with people and their binge watching!), so that when Comcast announced that they wanted to merge with Time Warner Cable, a lot of people were paying attention. And they didn't like what they were hearing. In 2011, the FCC approved the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal, raising serious questions about conflicts of interest between the two. The landscape has changed drastically since then, with more people aware of the potential problems arising from a giant media conglomerate. In the end, the $45.2 billion deal didn’t go through, after facing enormous public opposition. We face similar issues in Canada where the companies that provide the services, also create the content. For example, you pay Bell for cable and internet, but it also owns numerous channels, such as TSN and CTV.

The most recent company to come under fire for circumventing net neutrality is Facebook. You may have already seen the ads for internet.org, which is an initiative started by Mark Zuckerberg to bring internet to people all over the world. In theory, it sounds great, but it has already become characterized as ‘Facebooknet’ by some. Facebook, in partnership with several phone companies (Microsoft and Samsung among them), allows free access to a small number of websites, largely by partnering with local service providers. However there are several flaws: all traffic is routed through Facebook’s servers (making it the gatekeeper of all the information), it opens users to massive security vulnerabilities (by not allowing participating sites to use two of the most commonly used security protocols that protect users from online attacks), and it’s program lacks any transparency (it isn’t sharing details on its partnership models with telecom operator partners, policies regarding user data, etc.). If that didn’t sound unnerving enough, the following survey should drive home the point. When surveyed, 65% of Nigerians, 61% of Indonesians and 58% of Indians agree with the statement that “Facebook is the internet”, compared with only 5% in the U.S. There were also large numbers of people who said they used Facebook, but also said that they did not use the internet. Clearly in developing countries, Facebook has become synonymous with (or replacing) the word internet.

So while Facebook may try to spin this as an altruistic mission, there is no doubt that they are benefiting greatly from this initiative. The more people online, the more information they have to sell to other companies. Many have pegged this as an internet race between internet.org and Google’s Project Loon, which is trying to provide internet access to the world by building a wireless network using high-altitude balloons. While Facebook certainly seems to be leading the way, they have faced increasing criticism as of late. In April, several of their Indian partners quit, claiming Facebook was violating net neutrality and had a huge conflict of interest. Zuckerberg responded by stating that internet.org and net neutrality could co-exist and that internet.org will not differentiate between services, a claim that was contested by many response articles. In May, the internet.org platform was announced, allowing participation by any developers that met specific guidelines (likely a response to all the criticism).

I think the most interesting aspect of all of these stories, is the amount of pushback companies have received and the amount of change that people have caused by raising their voices. Clearly the majority of people perceive having a neutral internet space as a right and are willing to fight for it. This will continue to be a huge issue in the future, with governments struggling to keep up with the rapid pace of change and legislate an online space that doesn’t follow any national borders. The internet will continue to revolutionize the way we live, and it seems imperative that control of it remains in the hands of the people rather than governments or corporations. 

Digital Vulnerabilities: Dawn of the Cyber-Industrial Complex?

It feels like lately all the tech news is negative. We’re hearing a lot about the dangers of technology – I think perhaps the bubble is starting to burst and everyone is starting to realize just how seriously technology is changing our lives. We’re starting to reach a point where we can’t go back. Or maybe we reached that point a long time ago.

The headlines for the past couple of months have often been filled with stories of large corporations being hacked. To name a few: Target, Home Depot, Google Mail, Yahoo! Mail, Michaels, eBay, Evernote, Apple iCloud, JP Morgan Chase, and of course, Sony. Usernames, credit card information, addresses, and more have all been stolen. The director of the FBI said “There are two kinds of big companies in the United States. There are those who’ve been hacked…and those who don’t know they’ve been hacked.” Considering many of us essentially have our entire lives online, that’s a pretty scary thought. The most recent hack(s) was done on around 100 banks, in various countries, with an estimated $1 billion stolen. It was only discovered because money started coming out of an ATM in Ukraine with no one there to claim it. Imagine if they hadn’t messed up, how long this would have continued for?

In the debate about governments spying on their people for ‘national security’, I’ve put myself firmly on the side of privacy. I believe that a citizen’s right to privacy over rides any security issues, especially when it’s been determined that the mass collection of data has not helped to stop any terrorist attacks. The irony is that it has been shown that the NSA’s surveillance has actually weakened most internet systems because they opened backdoors, especially into the tech companies involved in PRISM (Google, Facebook, Apple, Skype, Yahoo!). While the government spying on its own people is a disturbing thought, even more disturbing is the idea of other governments or organizations spying on people and stealing their information and money. 

For the average person, like myself, I find it hard to get nervous about this sometimes. Why would anyone want to hack me? What’s the worst that happens? They use one of my credit cards – well hey, my limit isn’t that high. They email all my contacts something terrible – unfortunate, but easily explained. They steal my identity - okay, well that could prove problematic but still resolvable. Invade my privacy in various ways (log your keystrokes, see what you’re watching, watch you through your webcam, etc) – all awkward and unfortunate but hey, I don’t do anything I wouldn’t do if other people were around. I think the problem comes when the hacking is done by a group with a truly malicious intent, on a large scale. Now we know these systems are vulnerable, what happens if someone hacks in and steals top secret data from the government? What if they shut down the power to a large area? What if they render all hacked computers useless? The problem stems from our immense dependence on technology. How many businesses would struggle to function without their technology? How many companies would cease to exist without technology? You want one idea of what could happen - go watch Live Free or Die Hard.

Now they’re saying that almost all cars with wireless technologies are able to be hacked. For now that means someone can hack your GPS and find out all the places you’ve been. They can potentially hack your mobile communications, meaning who you’re calling/texting. What happens when we transition to smart cars? Imagine someone hacks into your car and controls it. Not good. It looks like the ‘military-industrial complex’ bubble might be soon ending, and a new ‘cyber-industrial complex’ may be dawning. The companies that will benefit the most will be those focused on cyber-security, which means companies like Symantec, Intel, Cisco Systems, Fortinet, Palo Alto Networks, etc.

The U.S. government recently announced plans to set up a national Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center. Its goal will be to integrate data from all government agencies AND the private sector, and to distribute it appropriately. I find this particularly interesting because they are relying on the help of the private sector, which I believe will be very reluctant indeed. After the whole PRISM revelation, it was easy to see that the public does not appreciate companies sharing their information with the government, without their awareness. Companies do not help their image by working with the government. Adding another layer to this is the report that the NSA knew in advance about the attack on Sony but didn’t do anything because its job is to protect national security, not the private sector. What incentive do these companies have to help? It will take a huge incentive (i.e. throwing tax payer dollars their way) or legislation forcing their cooperation.

What can the average person do? I think the biggest thing we can do is push the companies we like and trust to spend their money on protecting our information. Realistically, consumers speak with their wallets. Going one step further, I would say be wary of being completely dependent on technology. Make sure you still know how to function without your smartphone. Have a face to face conversation with a real person – just to make sure you still know how. We will have to wait and see what happens. 

North Korea Hacks Sony - How Does This Affect Us?

One of the big stories lately has been that of Sony getting hacked. I think everything has gotten a little out of control and of course, that means I need to give it a Renée twist. For those of you who haven’t been following, Sony Pictures Entertainment (the movie studio arm of Sony) was hacked near the end of November (it was discovered by employees on Monday, November 24^th). The hackers stole large amounts of information, deleted original information and generally damaged Sony’s network, causing it to be down for several days. Among the stolen information were 5 movies (4 unreleased), including Fury and Annie, which has its official release tomorrow. The movies were then released on file sharing sites and are being downloaded like crazy – this will definitely hurt Sony’s bottom line. The stolen information also included private company communications which interestingly enough have only been released to journalists so far (the documents are protected and only journalists were sent the password). These documents include some unflattering exchanges about Hollywood celebrities and some potential movie projects – Sony will definitely be doing damage control for a while.

Now the big question is, who hacked Sony? And following that, why did they hack Sony? Well it’s starting to look like North Korea hacked Sony. Why? Because they were outraged at the soon to be released movie, The Interview. The movie is a comedy where two journalists (played by Seth Rogen and James Franco) get an interview with Kim Jung-Un and are instructed by the CIA to assassinate him. There are so many things wrong with this movie – I honestly don’t understand how there was never a point where someone was like, hey guys, maybe this isn’t such a good idea. The movie focuses on assassinating the CURRENT leader of North Korea – a country that isn’t exactly known for its openness. Would any country be okay with this? What if someone made a movie about trying to assassinate Obama? Americans would go insane. What about the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel? Or Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper? Let’s be real - no country would be okay with a movie talking about killing their current leader, so why did Sony think this would be okay? Also, how did they not think that this would hurt relations with North Korea, which are already terrible? They are certainly never going to let a journalist in after this.

This movie feels like it was trying to be in the same genre as Borat, which was also a terrible idea, but at least he wasn’t talking about killing anyone. Now I haven’t seen the film, so I don’t know what kind of commentary they provide about assassinations, but I think this shows how acceptable it has become for the government to kill leaders or people who have different ideas and values. We have come a long way from Executive order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan, which reiterates the U.S stand on assassination, stating that “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination”. This has been relaxed and stretched significantly since the war on terror began. But that’s a topic for another day.

So Sony gets hacked, and the demand is that Sony does not release the movie. This is accompanied by threats of 9/11 style violence against movie theatres that show the movie and against people who go see it. Sony wanted to make a movie with a political angle – now they get to join in the global political mess. Because of these threats, theatres started to pull out of playing the movie and so, yesterday Sony announced it would not be releasing the film at all – losing them at least $44 million (we know how much the film cost to make because the hackers released that information too). Sony then released a strongly worded letter to media organizations telling them to stop reporting based on stolen information and delete all copies they have. I find this particularly interesting because a lot of media organizations are owned by organizations that also own movie studios – for example, the Walt Disney Company also owns ABC News. While they are certainly interested in reporting breaking news, one could argue that they benefit from Sony being under attack because that’s one less competitor for them. Certainly none of the other large movie studios have come out and said anything to condemn the attacks.

I think the craziest thing about all of this is the most recent news that the U.S. government is considering a ‘proportional response’. A proportional response to what? The United States was not attacked – a company that is based in America, but is the subsidiary of a Japanese company, was attacked. The U.S. should almost be happy at the insight from these hacks, that 1) companies have weak security measures that need to be worked on to protect the information of their American employees and 2) North Korea has sophisticated cyber warfare capabilities. Besides, what are they going to do? North Korea is already incredibly isolated and sanctioned against – any actions will likely only hurt the people further. Will they hack North Korea back? Figure out a way to give everyone access to the internet and the truth? I feel like if they were able to do that already, they would have. Also, is the U.S. sure that they have better cyber warfare capabilities than North Korea? Do they really want to test that theory by turning the hackers’ attention to the U.S. government?

I’m not saying that we should be okay with what happened, but we should consider all the information before responding. One, this movie was a dumb idea and North Korea was right to be upset by it. Two, they hacked the company responsible for the movie and did damage to it, but did not overly hurt employees (while personal information was included in the hacked data, that data has not been released to the general public, only to journalists, who we can hope will keep that data private). Three, they asked (with threats) that Sony not release the movie, which Sony has decided to comply with. Four, the world is now aware of North Korea’s cyber capabilities and should increase their cyber security accordingly. That is all.

New Product Roundup: iPad Air 2, Lenovo Yoga Tablet 2 Pro, Google Nexus Line, Blackberry Passport

The Apple saga never stops. On Thursday, the world was once again introduced to some new Apple products and they were, once again, underwhelmed. After all the mixed media they’d been receiving after their announcement in September, you would think they would want to come out with a bang, but apparently not. The new iPad Air 2 is, you guessed it, thinner and faster. Now that it’s 18% thinner, my question is, will it bend? But really, all Apple had to present was a few changes to their iPad Air: a special coating to make it the least reflective tablet on the market, Touch ID, new cameras, and an M8 processor. I’m not sure how that last feature is even useful, unless there are people out there who carry their iPad around with them absolutely everywhere. There was also the iPad mini 3 (with Touch ID), a new iMac with Retina 5K display, and an upgrade to the Mac Mini.

I read a really interesting article that said that Apple’s strategy was to “have its customers fit themselves into a product’s core principles – and then innovate from within that self-selected box” (Chris Maxer, Technewsworld). Basically, Apple thinks that they’ve mastered the tablet and that it doesn’t need any significant form changes. Well let’s just say that Lenovo disagrees, and has released a stellar product by actually listening to what consumers want from their device.

This video talks about how Lenovo created the Yoga Tablet 2 Pro (with help from Ashton Kutcher, oddly enough). I have to say, this tablet looks amazing. It’s a 13 inch tablet with a great display (2560x1440), 2GB of RAM, support for up to 64GB of storage, 15h of battery life, a subwoofer and kick stand that flips all the way around to let you hang your device if you so need to.  The special bonus feature is that it has a projector built in to it, allowing you to project your screen for others to see. It’s running Android 4.4 KitKat and costs $499. What more could you want?

Next I want to mention the newest devices from Google. On Wednesday, Google introduced us to the Nexus 9 (an 8.9 inch tablet), the Nexus 6 (a 6 inch smartphone), the Nexus player and the newest Android mobile operating system (Android Lollipop). My first comment, is that I think it’s very strange that they had different manufacturers make each of these devices. The Nexus 9 was made by HTC, the Nexus 6 was made by Motorola (which is owned by Google, but is being sold to Lenovo at the end of the year) and the Nexus Player was made by Asus. This seems like it would cause a lot of confusion and differences between the products, which is strange considering they are all part of the same product line. The only reason I can think of, would be that the more manufacturers they get involved in building Nexus devices, the more likely these manufacturers will stay loyal to Android.

The Nexus 6 is an interesting move, Google’s first “Phablet” and a phone that has a larger display than it’s two biggest competitors, the iPhone 6 Plus (5.5”) and the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 (5.7”). The Nexus 9 falls between the iPad mini and the iPad Air. Then we have the Nexus player, which is the first device with Android TV, which allows people to play Android games on their TV, and to send entertainment to it from any Chromebook, Android or iOS device. This is a particularly interesting device considering Apple did not release a new version of their Apple TV, and appears to be pulling out of the home entertainment market altogether.

The last company I want to mention, is Blackberry. It looks like they may be mounting a comeback. In a blog post a while back, I made fun of the blocky Blackberry Passport, but it turns out that there are people who like it! The passport pre sold 200,000 units in the first two days of being available, selling out in 10 hours on Amazon, and in 6 hours on Blackberry’s website. While that’s nowhere near Apple numbers (10 million iPhones in the first weekend), it’s certainly a positive turn of events for the Canadian company that focuses on the “30% of the market that sees their phones as a tool, not as an entertainment portal” (John Chen, Blackberry CEO).

With all of that said, there are likely to be a lot more products released in the lead up to the holiday season. It will be interesting to see which kind of products consumers choose. 

Apple Takes a Beating in the Media

This month has been full of up and downs for Apple and it’s not even over yet. I think it’s quite interesting to see how quickly the media jumped off the “Apple can do no wrong” bandwagon and jumped onto the “We expected so much more” bandwagon. I mean there were days (and weeks and months) that I thought I was riding this wagon solo, but this change of events has been so drastic that I actually feel bad for Apple. I want to talk about this, not because I’m pleased that Apple is failing, but because I want to show just how fickle the media is.

This month started off well for Apple, with the launch of the new iPhone 6 (and 6 Plus) and the Apple Watch. CNN said that the new product launch was “one of the most ambitious product launches in its history”, while Gizmodo said “this is Apple’s biggest year yet”. People were excited and wanted to get their hands on an iPhone immediately (don’t ask me why). For customers on the east coast that meant getting up at 3AM (I actually know someone who did this) to place your pre-order. And here is where the first problem occurred. Apple’s online store in the US was down for 2 hours and 25 minutes, leaving people frustrated. And when people are frustrated, they take to Twitter to vent (and come up with clever tweets like “Guy in charge of the Apple store fell asleep listening to the new U2 album”). I would have thought at this point, they would be able to forecast demand and prepare for an increase in traffic, but apparently not. All of the online Apple stores outside of the US weren’t affected (you would think the US site would be the one they would make sure worked). It appears Apple is also unaware of Canadian geography, confusing Toronto and Ottawa on their pre-order map. This led to a lot of jokes that they must have been using their own mapping software instead of Google Maps. 

However, Apple fans aren’t so easily deterred. And so, it was announced that Apple had sold 10 million iPhones in the first weekend, beating last year’s record of 9 million. Not only that but Tim Cook stated, “we could have sold many more iPhones with greater supply and we are working hard to fill orders as quickly as possible”. So, why didn’t you have greater supply Apple? At this point I have to assume it’s a strategic tactic, making the products scarce to increase the demand, and it always seems to work.

But then, things started to go downhill. First, we have “bendgate” as it’s being called. Proud owners of the new iPhone 6 and 6 Plus started to notice that if you left the phone in your pocket for most of the day (as most of us do), that the phones started to show a slight bend. My first reaction is, how is this even possible?? Numerous companies have been releasing 4.7” and 5.5” phones for years and they all managed to prevent them from bending, but then Apple (who is supposedly the pinnacle of technology) can’t succeed at this? I’m going to presume that it had something to do with the fact that Jony Ive’s design department has far more say than in any other technology company and forced engineering to cave into some sort of weaker casing, but who knows. Its hard to believe, considering how much attention to detail he, and Apple, put into everything. Apple’s response to all of this was to say that they have only received 9 bending complaints to date, which I presume was a way of saying, stop overreacting. I think people aren’t reacting so much to the bending, as to the idea that Apple may have messed up. They then stated that their products go through rigorous testing and invited a few members of the press to their testing labs to see this.

I think the best part of all of this was the creative ads that other companies came up with to make fun of Apple. Everyone from LG, Samsung, Nokia, Coca-Cola, Kit Kat, Pringles, Heineken, etc. I think it shows just how important real time advertising is becoming and how everyone wants to be a part of the conversation, regardless of what it’s about.

And just when you think Apple may have managed that crisis effectively, they are hit by another one. The disaster that is iOS 8 and it’s updates. Originally iOS 8 had some glitches that needed to be worked out. But then, the first patch (iOS 8.0.1) caused even more issues. For a lot of users, it disabled their cellular connection and made Touch ID stop working altogether (which means users couldn’t even get into their phone if they had a fingerprint password). It was so bad that Apple pulled the update and decided to try again. And so they soon released iOS 8.0.2, which apparently is causing the same issues for users in Australia, but everyone else is fine.

Overall, I’m sure it’s been a hectic couple of weeks for the people over at Apple. All those people who waited to get their iPhone's (knowing that the first batch usually has some issues), are probably feeling pretty smart right about now. I think that every company makes mistakes (although some of these are fairly significant) and that it's only such a big deal because the media, and people, have put Apple on such a high pedestal. I wonder if it will cause anyone to rethink buying a new iPhone.

Apple's Newest Releases: iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, Apple Pay & Apple Watch

This week Apple had a huge announcement where they finally unveiled the products that everyone had been waiting for. On Tuesday, Apple introduced the world to the iPhone 6, the iPhone 6 Plus, Apple Pay, and the Apple Watch. Let’s start with the iPhones. Not only did Apple finally give in and make 4.7” phone, they went even further and made a 5.5” phone as well. So after years of refusing to shift away from the 4” sized phone, they have now abandoned it all together. I find this interesting because a lot of Apple fans that I talk to say they love the size of their phones and that other phones are too big. I’m assuming we won’t hear much of that now that Apple has told them that a bigger phone is better. I’m curious to see if the 5.5” ‘phablet’ sized iPhone takes off, and if it cannibalizes iPad mini sales. I honestly think that making their phone bigger – at least 4.7” - is a good move for Apple, if a bit behind the curve. The new phones have a new processing chip (A8), a better camera, and NFC technology, which allows them to implement Apple Pay.

Apple Pay is a mobile payment system meant to replace your wallet and all your cards. Essentially you load your cards and information on your phone, and when you want to buy something you tap it (the same way you would tap a credit card) and put your finger on the fingerprint sensor. Of course it only works on the new iPhones, and with certain companies/retailers. While Apple could be the company to make mobile payments takeoff, I think it also has several concerns to face. Security is a big issue considering the recent hacking of iCloud accounts that led to the release of nude pictures. Apple says that the place you’re buying from doesn’t get any of your financial information, and that Apple doesn’t either, but I’m not sure how much I believe this. If Apple can push the new U2 album to everyone person who has iTunes (users get the album for free), to help break some records, then I’m pretty sure they can collect data about your purchase habits. One part of Apple Pay that wasn’t announced on Tuesday, is that Apple gets 0.15% of all payments made with Apple Pay. That’s 15 cents for every $100 spent, and that’s going to add up quickly.

While a lot of retailers are on board (McDonalds, Staples, Walgreens, etc.), some companies aren’t planning on implementing Apple Pay any time soon. Walmart and Best Buy both stated that they have no plans to equip their stores with NFC scanners. Both of them have given their allegiance to a retailer owned mobile commerce network called MCX (Merchant Customer Exchange). MCX uses an app (available next year) that is available on both iOS and Android devices, allowing the technology to be used by a much wider range of people. Considering the impact that Walmart has on the marketplace (it pretty much single handedly got companies to switch to RFID tracking), it could definitely affect which mobile payment systems take off.

Lastly, is the Apple Watch (which is horribly named, in my opinion – even iWatch is better). I felt kind of bad for Apple because the expectations were so high for this product. And while it isn’t bad, it isn’t amazing either. Apple clearly attempted to make their product customizable, but only with the physical hardware. There are 2 sizes, 3 different watch faces, and 6 interchangeable watch bands. There are also physical buttons, which remind me of the original iPod with the scroll wheel. I’m not sure why the buttons are necessary, but we’ll see how they improve the user experience. The watch pushes your phone notifications to you, it functions as a mini iPod, it’s a fitness tracker, it works with Apple Pay and you can control your Apple TV with it, among other things. While it’s arguably the best smartwatch out there right now, it certainly doesn’t blow anything out of the water. It incorporates a lot of the similar features and ideas of other smart watches, and the design leaves you looking for more. However it is the first iteration and lots of improvements are sure to be made in the future. Still, it’s a hefty price to pay ($349 USD) for something that simply saves you the convenience of pulling out your phone. Like other smart watches, the Apple watch has to be charged every night. It also won’t be available until sometime in 2015.

Overall, I think this was a good day for Apple. Nothing revolutionary was introduced, but they are working on new things, and often their strength is improving on the ideas of others. Tim Cook did say that Apple is working on products that haven’t even been rumoured about, and that he still thinks improvements need to be made to TVs. Now the media will have to find something new to expect from Apple, continuing the endless cycle of hype.