AAA Wants Ban on Texting While Driving
The American Automobile Association (AAA) is pushing for texting while driving to be banned in all 50 states by the year 2013. Specifically, the organization wants it to be illegal to read, write, or send text messages while driving a vehicle. Eighteen states, plus Washington DC, currently have laws banning text messaging while driving. Are these laws really necessary? Statistics seem to indicate that they could be. Roughly one out of five US drivers admitted to texting while driving at least once in a 30 day period. And a Virginia Tech study revealed that commercial truck drivers who text while on the road are 23 times more likely to be in a crash.
What we have here is another conflict between a new technology and our established society. While text messaging is not new as a technology, its widespread use is a recent development. For many people, text messaging has become a vital part of their life, a way to communicate with friends and family in times or places where a phone call is unnecessary or inappropriate. Some cell phone users send text messages more than they make phone calls. The conflict comes into play when those people start using text messaging in places that it should not be done. Driving is an activity that requires near-constant attention to the road. Brief glances to mirrors or to take a sip of a beverage don't affect driving too much, but sending a text message would require a driver to take their eyes off the road for several seconds. An average of 4.6 seconds, long enough to travel the length of a football field at 55 mph. Common sense tells most of us that taking one's eyes off the road for that length of time is too dangerous. But some people do it anyway, and it has already caused accidents and injuries.
The question is, does there need to be a law to ban texting while driving? Some would say no, but I disagree. Texting while driving has caused accidents, and charging drivers with reckless driving can only be done after the driver has already done something reckless that endangers other drivers. The new laws will serve as a deterrent, something that will hopefully make people think twice before taking their eyes off the road to compose a text message.
Additional Sources:
State needs law to ban texting while driving
Ban texting while driving
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
FCC Chief to Propose New Rules for How Firms Control Internet Traffic
Network neutrality, a topic that should be important to everyone who uses the Internet on a regular basis. Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers should keep all legal Internet content freely available. This would obviously be good for consumers, as all network traffic would be treated equally, but service providers are less happy about the idea. Many providers would rather have control over what content has a higher priority than others. Some say they want to have more control to regulate bandwidth across their networks. But with the ability to give higher priority to certain types of Internet content comes the possibility of bribery and payoffs. Some companies have lobbied for a pay-to-play system, where companies would pay ISPs to give their content higher priority on the networks. Companies who couldn't afford to pay would be bumped down to lower speeds, with priority given to those who can pay up.
This isn't the kind of system we have now. Since 2005, the Federal Communications Commission has had four principles that cover net neutrality policy. However, many developers and interest groups have expressed concern that the current policies are too vague, and don't properly cover recent advances in wireless network technology. We have net neutrality, but it could stand to be stronger. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to propose new rules on Monday that should strengthen the current net neutrality policy.
I'm a strong advocate for free access on the Internet, so my stance on net neutrality is probably obvious. The Internet has seen increasing use as a way for smaller companies to get their names out and grow. The social networking industry, now very large, developed itself from a collection of small websites. Many small businesses use the Internet to communicate and promote their services. Giving out bandwidth priority to those willing to pay would make it difficult for smaller, less wealthy businesses to compete. While that system would be very profitable to ISPs, it would be harmful to the customers they are supposed to serve. In lobbying for an end to net neutrality, ISPs do a disservice to their own customers. The FCC's new net neutrality guidelines should insure that the Internet remains a level playing field for consumers everywhere.
Additional sources:
FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules
We can't be neutral on net neutrality
Network neutrality, a topic that should be important to everyone who uses the Internet on a regular basis. Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers should keep all legal Internet content freely available. This would obviously be good for consumers, as all network traffic would be treated equally, but service providers are less happy about the idea. Many providers would rather have control over what content has a higher priority than others. Some say they want to have more control to regulate bandwidth across their networks. But with the ability to give higher priority to certain types of Internet content comes the possibility of bribery and payoffs. Some companies have lobbied for a pay-to-play system, where companies would pay ISPs to give their content higher priority on the networks. Companies who couldn't afford to pay would be bumped down to lower speeds, with priority given to those who can pay up.
This isn't the kind of system we have now. Since 2005, the Federal Communications Commission has had four principles that cover net neutrality policy. However, many developers and interest groups have expressed concern that the current policies are too vague, and don't properly cover recent advances in wireless network technology. We have net neutrality, but it could stand to be stronger. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to propose new rules on Monday that should strengthen the current net neutrality policy.
I'm a strong advocate for free access on the Internet, so my stance on net neutrality is probably obvious. The Internet has seen increasing use as a way for smaller companies to get their names out and grow. The social networking industry, now very large, developed itself from a collection of small websites. Many small businesses use the Internet to communicate and promote their services. Giving out bandwidth priority to those willing to pay would make it difficult for smaller, less wealthy businesses to compete. While that system would be very profitable to ISPs, it would be harmful to the customers they are supposed to serve. In lobbying for an end to net neutrality, ISPs do a disservice to their own customers. The FCC's new net neutrality guidelines should insure that the Internet remains a level playing field for consumers everywhere.
Additional sources:
FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules
We can't be neutral on net neutrality
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Hacker pleads guilty to ID thefts netting millions
Albert Gonzalez recently pleaded guilty to nineteen criminal charges related to an enormous identity theft scheme. His offenses include conspiracy, computer fraud, wire fraud, and access device fraud. Gonzalez worked with ten others from various countries to steal credit and debit card numbers from a number of retail companies. Albert and his co-conspirators used wardriving and packet sniffers to steal the information, and also engaged in ATM fraud by putting the stolen data on blank cards and making fraudulent withdraws.
Wardriving is the name for the practice of driving down a street with an open laptop, scanning for unsecured wireless networks, and a packet sniffer is a tool used to capture data being transmitted over a network. Both are practices used by hackers. What Albert Gonzalez did was clearly illegal, and caused financial damage to countless individuals. This serves as an example of what can happen when new technologies are used in unethical ways. But some of these same methods can be used in good ways too.
Computer hacking falls into two broad categories: black hat and white hat. Black hats like Gonzalez break into computer systems for their own gain, and generally without regard to the owners of the systems. Their actions can damage the systems they break into, and cause harm to others in the form of piracy, fraud, and identity theft. However, the same techniques used by the black hat hackers can be used for the good of society.
White hat hackers also breach computer security systems, but do so for non-malicious reasons. Sometimes the system the hacker breaks into is their own, other times they're hired to test the security of another person's system. They use the same tools and techniques as the black hats, but the end results are radically different. The techniques used in hacking can be used for ethical or unethical ways, it all depends on the user.
Additional sources:
Hacker Pleads Guilty In Major Identify Theft
Remorseful hacker faces 25 years
Hacker (Computer security)
Albert Gonzalez recently pleaded guilty to nineteen criminal charges related to an enormous identity theft scheme. His offenses include conspiracy, computer fraud, wire fraud, and access device fraud. Gonzalez worked with ten others from various countries to steal credit and debit card numbers from a number of retail companies. Albert and his co-conspirators used wardriving and packet sniffers to steal the information, and also engaged in ATM fraud by putting the stolen data on blank cards and making fraudulent withdraws.
Wardriving is the name for the practice of driving down a street with an open laptop, scanning for unsecured wireless networks, and a packet sniffer is a tool used to capture data being transmitted over a network. Both are practices used by hackers. What Albert Gonzalez did was clearly illegal, and caused financial damage to countless individuals. This serves as an example of what can happen when new technologies are used in unethical ways. But some of these same methods can be used in good ways too.
Computer hacking falls into two broad categories: black hat and white hat. Black hats like Gonzalez break into computer systems for their own gain, and generally without regard to the owners of the systems. Their actions can damage the systems they break into, and cause harm to others in the form of piracy, fraud, and identity theft. However, the same techniques used by the black hat hackers can be used for the good of society.
White hat hackers also breach computer security systems, but do so for non-malicious reasons. Sometimes the system the hacker breaks into is their own, other times they're hired to test the security of another person's system. They use the same tools and techniques as the black hats, but the end results are radically different. The techniques used in hacking can be used for ethical or unethical ways, it all depends on the user.
Additional sources:
Hacker Pleads Guilty In Major Identify Theft
Remorseful hacker faces 25 years
Hacker (Computer security)
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Microsoft ordered to stop US sales of Word, appeals court stays injunction
U.S. appeals court stays Microsoft Word injunction
This one might need some background info. In a suit filed in March 2007, Canadian software developer i4i charged Microsoft with patent infringement. The suit centered on Microsoft Word's ability to create and edit custom XML (extensible markup language) documents. Last month, a jury found in favor of i4i, and Microsoft was ordered to pay $290 million in damages. Additionally, the judge imposed an injunction prohibiting Microsoft from selling any version of MS Word capable of opening .XML files, as well and .DOCX or .DOCM files, which contain custom XML. All current versions of Word have this capability, so the decision could have taken Word off the shelves entirely until Microsoft could create a version without the offending features, or find another work-around. This week, the US Court of Appeals granted Microsoft's request for a stay of the injunction, pending the appeal of the original decision.
All this brings us to the real question: What does this all mean? For right now, nothing. The injunction has been postponed, so Word will remain on the shelves until the appeal process has been finished. But what would happen if Word were removed from the shelves? For most people, there wouldn't be much of an effect. MS Word would disappear from store shelves for a few weeks, possibly a few months, while Microsoft created a new version of the software without the features that infringed on i4i's patent. However, considering the large number of people who depend on Word on a daily basis, this gap in availability would be sure to negatively affect somebody. However, some bloggers and writers have expressed an opinion that this could be a good thing. Jeff Bertolucci of PC World wrote a piece exploring what he thinks could happen if Word were banned for a few months, or possibly for good. His opinion seems to be that the general public would start turning to free and open source alternatives if Word were unavailable. I find that I must respectfully disagree with Jeff's opinion. Word is the standard word processor for a large percentage of computer users, and switching to a product that many people have not even heard of before would be very difficult. Besides, chances are very good that Word will not be removed from store shelves, and if it is, it likely won't stay gone for very long.
Before I bring this post to a close, I do want to bring up one more issue raised by this lawsuit. The ODF open document format is an open source document file format, intended to become a standard usable across many types of software. ODF is XML based, and there have been some fears over the possibility that i4i's patent could cover ODF too. While this is a legitimate worry, the current version of ODF does not use the custom XML covered by i4i's patent, and it's worth nothing that the case against Microsoft may have more to do with a deteriorated relationship between i4i and Microsoft.
Additional sources:
Microsoft's 'Custom XML' patent suit could put ODF at risk
Injunction on Microsoft Word Unlikely to Halt Sales
Microsoft Word Ban: Maybe it Wouldn't be so Bad
This one might need some background info. In a suit filed in March 2007, Canadian software developer i4i charged Microsoft with patent infringement. The suit centered on Microsoft Word's ability to create and edit custom XML (extensible markup language) documents. Last month, a jury found in favor of i4i, and Microsoft was ordered to pay $290 million in damages. Additionally, the judge imposed an injunction prohibiting Microsoft from selling any version of MS Word capable of opening .XML files, as well and .DOCX or .DOCM files, which contain custom XML. All current versions of Word have this capability, so the decision could have taken Word off the shelves entirely until Microsoft could create a version without the offending features, or find another work-around. This week, the US Court of Appeals granted Microsoft's request for a stay of the injunction, pending the appeal of the original decision.
All this brings us to the real question: What does this all mean? For right now, nothing. The injunction has been postponed, so Word will remain on the shelves until the appeal process has been finished. But what would happen if Word were removed from the shelves? For most people, there wouldn't be much of an effect. MS Word would disappear from store shelves for a few weeks, possibly a few months, while Microsoft created a new version of the software without the features that infringed on i4i's patent. However, considering the large number of people who depend on Word on a daily basis, this gap in availability would be sure to negatively affect somebody. However, some bloggers and writers have expressed an opinion that this could be a good thing. Jeff Bertolucci of PC World wrote a piece exploring what he thinks could happen if Word were banned for a few months, or possibly for good. His opinion seems to be that the general public would start turning to free and open source alternatives if Word were unavailable. I find that I must respectfully disagree with Jeff's opinion. Word is the standard word processor for a large percentage of computer users, and switching to a product that many people have not even heard of before would be very difficult. Besides, chances are very good that Word will not be removed from store shelves, and if it is, it likely won't stay gone for very long.
Before I bring this post to a close, I do want to bring up one more issue raised by this lawsuit. The ODF open document format is an open source document file format, intended to become a standard usable across many types of software. ODF is XML based, and there have been some fears over the possibility that i4i's patent could cover ODF too. While this is a legitimate worry, the current version of ODF does not use the custom XML covered by i4i's patent, and it's worth nothing that the case against Microsoft may have more to do with a deteriorated relationship between i4i and Microsoft.
Additional sources:
Microsoft's 'Custom XML' patent suit could put ODF at risk
Injunction on Microsoft Word Unlikely to Halt Sales
Microsoft Word Ban: Maybe it Wouldn't be so Bad
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)