This is just wrong. In olden days
(last week?) stores were sited based on traffic volumes. Now that
will be disrupted as ignorant drivers are GPS-guided directly into
parking spots. No doubt the little voice will then say “You must
buy something to continue...”
"On IBM's
Smarter Planet, you may drive further than need be to get to your
destination. Big Blue's pending patent for Determining
Travel Routes by Using Fee-Based Location Preferences calls for
the likes of Walmart, Starbucks, and Best Buy
pay a fee
in return for having your route calculation
service de-optimize driving instructions to
make you do a drive-by of their stores, and an
additional fee if GPS tracking of your car indicates you actually
took the suboptimal route. The same IBM inventors also have a patent
pending for Environmental
Stewardship Based on Driving Behavior, which calls for yet
another fee to be assessed when a retailer-friendly-but-suboptimal
route causes your vehicle to enter a congested area and produce more
pollution."
This intrigues me as it suggests that
each type of household electronic device has a unique interference
signature (my ELINT friends agree) no doubt this will require police
departments to purchase the app to detect bad guys. “He's running
a bill counter. He must be a major drug dealer!”
"Researchers at UW Madison have
used
regular WiFi cards to detect non-WiFi interference sources like
microwave ovens, Bluetooth devices, cordless phones, Xbox controllers
and video cameras. They call their software Airshark. Current
products like Wispy, Spectrum Expert are expensive and need extra
hardware, whereas Airshark is a software-only solution that can
directly work on the Wi-Fi cards on your laptops and APs. This also
paves way several interesting applications. For example, your WiFi
network will not be affected anymore just because your neighbor
switched on a microwave oven or a cordless phone — the newer WiFi
APs will be able to switch the channels and adapt to the interference
accordingly."
About damn time!
September 24, 2011
ABA
Commission on Ethics 20/20 Recommends Amending Lawyer Ethics Rules
Relating to Globalization of Law Practice
News release: "The American
Bar Association Commission on Ethics 20/20, in its release of
initial
proposals for comment, is recommending amendments to the ABA
Model Rules of Professional Conduct and other association
policies to take into account the proliferation of new technologies,
including cross-border practice issues, lawyer mobility and
differences in lawyer rules across jurisdictions."
[From the Technology &
Confidentiality Rule:
Maintaining
Competence
[6]
To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep
abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including
the benefits and risks associated with technology, engage
in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing
legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.
Always
an interesting viewpoint. I definitely agree with the first test,
but shouldn't the second test be OR not AND?
GPS
Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment: Thoughts on United States v.
Jones
September 24, 2011 by Dissent
Sometimes, simpler is better. Dan
Solove has generated an interesting test that the Supreme Court could
apply to determine if GPS surveillance should require a warrant:
The Fourth
Amendment applies to a surveillance technology used in public if the
surveillance technology: (1) extends significantly beyond human
capabilities; and (2) is used in a manner beyond its ordinary use by
the general public.
Read Dan’s thinking about why this
would be a useful test on Concurring
Opinions while I mull this over some more. My first thought is,
“Why stop there? Why not write the test in a way that it also
applies to requests for prospective cell location data?” Why not
say, “The Fourth Amendment applies to the use of technology or
digital data held by third parties if a significant purpose of its
intended use is surveillance and its use: (1) extends significantly…
etc.”
But then I channeled Orin Kerr, and
could already hear his arguments.
Brilliant! Attention Ethical Hackers!
Websites ask us to agree to what is essentially a shrink-wrap
license, this app converts it back to a negotiated agreement.
(Unfortunately, we know where the power lies...) QUESTION: If the
website did allow you to continue after submission of your modified
agreement, that is acceptance of the new contract, right?
"Are we simply subject to
whatever a software provider demands of us in their clickthrough TOS
agreement or are they real contracts where we
can counteroffer our preferred terms and expect a
refund if they are rejected? One blogger has come up with an applet
to change TOS agreements and automatically
submit the changes for approval (or rejection). Even he is not
sure of the legal standing for the offer, but with these contracts so
common they have been featured on South Park the issue certainly
could be coming to the courts soon."
(Related)
"Three
data and security breach notification bills have been approved
by the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of which includes an
amendment that adds clarity with regards to the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act. These three bills would require
businesses to develop data privacy and security plans,
and it would set a federal standard for
notifying individuals of breaches of very sensitive
personally identifiable information, such as credit card information
or medical records. This clarification is welcomed, making the
statute more focused towards hackers and identity thieves, instead of
consumers that run afoul of ToS or AUPs of websites and service
providers."
Lots of pluses, but how secure is this?
Perhaps we could introduce global medical licenses, then we could
outsource all of this to Austria...
According to a recent story in the New
York Times, psychiatrists and psychologists are turning to online
video conferencing with products like Skype to counsel patients.
This method of treatment is designed for people who want more
flexibility in appointment timing as well as prefer engaging with a
therapist in the comfort of their own home. Using a video
conferencing client like Skype also allows the therapist to charge
less for sessions due to the money saved on transportation and office
expenditures. In addition, appointments are less likely to be
canceled or missed due to inclement weather conditions, traffic jams
or other delays. This also allows patients to continue working with
a therapist in case of relocation by either party.
However, some therapists dislike the
acceptance of video conferencing sessions due to possible problems
with the Internet and the chance of losing a connection during a
critical moment. There’s also the problem of making eye contact
with the patient due to typical placement of cameras within laptops
or even external webcams. Another issue for Skype therapy sessions
involves licensing laws between states as the therapist may not be
licensed in the state. Concerns for patients may include the privacy
of the video chat sessions from other viewers, the ability to record
therapy video sessions and the possibility that insurance will deny
claims for online therapy.
Handy?
Maryfi:
Turn Your Windows 7 PC Into A Wi-Fi Hotspot
Maryfi is free software for Windows 7
that lets you easily share your Internet connection with other
devices such as laptops, smartphones, gaming systems and others. It
turns your PC into a Wi-Fi hotspot that others can easily connect to.
You can share any type of connection – cable modem, a cell card
and even another Wi-Fi network.
Important - Before
downloading Maryfi, you need to download and install Microsoft
Virtual Wi-Fi Miniport Adapter from Microsoft’s website.
No comments:
Post a Comment