Showing posts sorted by date for query google. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query google. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, April 7, 2026

Google is playing a busy game of bug Whack-A-Mole to keep Chrome safe!

The Great Digital Bug Hunt

Oops, They Did It Again: The Great Chrome Bug Squashing Extravaganza!

A friendly robot holding a giant wrench over a glowing computer screen

Welcome back to the wild, wacky, and sometimes slightly terrifying world of the World Wide Web! If you’ve been clicking around the internet lately, you might have noticed that your trusty sidekick, Google Chrome, has been acting a little bit like a housecat that accidentally swallowed a bumblebee. It turns out, our favorite shiny browser has been playing a high-stakes game of hide-and-seek with some digital gremlins. And not just once, not twice, but three times in a single month! It’s like a summer blockbuster movie where the monsters just keep coming back for the sequel before the first one is even out of theaters.

Now, don’t panic and throw your laptop into the nearest swimming pool just yet. In the tech world, we call these little surprises "zero-day vulnerabilities." It sounds like something out of a spy thriller, doesn't it? "Zero-Day: The Reckoning." But in reality, a zero-day just means that the clever folks who build the browser found a hole in the digital fence at the exact same time—or sometimes slightly after—the naughty hackers found it. It’s a race against the clock where the prize isn't a gold medal, but rather making sure your private data doesn't end up on a billboard in the middle of nowhere.

Imagine your browser is a giant, majestic castle. You’ve got high walls, a deep moat filled with digital alligators, and a shiny gate. Usually, this keeps all the internet ruffians out while you’re busy looking at pictures of capybaras or shopping for neon-colored socks. But every now and then, a sneaky little termite finds a tiny crack in the foundation. This month, it seems the termites have been particularly busy, finding three separate secret tunnels into the castle. It’s like a digital game of Whac-A-Mole, where Google’s engineers are the ones holding the big foam hammers.

So, what exactly is happening behind the scenes? Well, the digital wizards at Google HQ have been working overtime, fueled by gallons of coffee and probably some very high-quality snacks. When a third major bug popped up recently, they didn't just sit around and sigh. They leaped into action, coding at lightning speed to brew up a magical potion—otherwise known as a security patch. This patch is essentially a very high-tech band-aid that covers up the hole and tells the hackers, "Not today, friends! Move along!"

You might be wondering why this is happening so much lately. Is the internet getting scarier? Are the browsers getting tired? Not exactly. It’s more like a game of cat and mouse that has evolved into a game of cyborg-cat and laser-mouse. As our browsers become more powerful and capable of doing incredible things—like running 3D games or managing your entire life—they also become more complex. And in the world of code, complexity is like a big, beautiful mansion with a thousand windows; occasionally, someone is going to forget to lock one of them.

The good news is that you, the brave internet explorer, have a superpower. It’s a small, unassuming button that often pops up in the top right corner of your screen. It’s the "Update" button! Clicking that button is like giving your browser a suit of shiny new armor and a fresh sword. When you see that little green, orange, or red circle pleading for your attention, don't ignore it. It’s not just Chrome trying to be annoying; it’s Chrome asking for a quick nap and a makeover so it can keep protecting you from the spooky stuff lurking in the shadows of the web.

When you hit that update button, the browser does a quick "relaunch." It’s like a digital "Etch A Sketch"—it shakes everything up, clears out the cobwebs, and starts fresh with all the newest defenses. It only takes a few seconds, which is a small price to pay for the peace of mind that comes with knowing your digital castle is secure once again. Think of it as a spa day for your software. It comes back refreshed, rejuvenated, and ready to tackle another million tabs of research, shopping, and cat videos.

While the engineers are busy playing defense, it's a good reminder for all of us to stay sharp. The internet is a wonderful place, but it's always good to have your wits about you. Beyond just keeping your browser updated, remember to keep your passwords unique—no, "password123" is not a fortress—and maybe don't click on links that promise you’ve won a free private island from a long-lost cousin you’ve never heard of. A little bit of common sense goes a long way in keeping the digital gremlins at bay.

In the end, the fact that these bugs are being found and fixed so quickly is actually a good sign. It means the people who build our tools are watching over us like digital guardian angels. They are constantly scanning for trouble, even when we’re sound asleep. So, let's raise a metaphorical glass to the bug hunters, the code-smiths, and the security experts who keep the internet spinning. And remember, the next time you see that update notification, give it a click. Your browser will thank you, your data will thank you, and those sneaky digital termites will have to go find somewhere else to hang out!

Stay safe, stay curious, and keep those browsers shiny and chrome!

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

It's not just Facebook that goes down: the cloud isn't as robust as we think

Josemaria Toscano/shutterstock.com

The computing cloud we have created supports much of our day-to-day office and leisure activity, from office email to online shopping and sharing holiday photos. Even health, social care and government functions are moving towards digital delivery over the internet.

However, we should be wary that as we become more dependent on it, the cracks will show. The systems are often a patchwork of interconnected services provided by various companies and industry partnerships. A failure of one can lead to a failure in others.

For example, Skype recently went down for almost an entire day, while Facebook was down for more than an hour – the second time in a week – meaning that many sites that depend on Facebook accounts as authentication were locked out too.

Losing Facebook is an annoyance, but interruptions to major health and social care services or energy supply management systems can lead to real damage to the economy and people’s lives.

A few weeks ago Google’s data centres in Belgium (europe-west1-b) lost power after the local power grid was struck by lightning four times. While most servers were protected by battery backup and redundant storage, there was still an estimated 0.000001% loss of disk space – which for Google’s huge data stores meant a few gigabytes of data.

The lesson is not to trust cloud providers to store and provide backups for your data. Your backups need backups too. What it also shows is our dependence on power supply system which, as long runs of conductive metal, are more prone to lightning strikes than you might imagine.

Facebook response graph, showing outage. Bill Buchanan

When the lights go out

Former US secretary of defence, William Cohen, recently outlined how the US power grid was vulnerable to a large-scale outage: “The possibility of a terrorist attack on the nation’s power grid — an assault that would cause coast-to-coast chaos,” he said, “is a very real one.”

As a former electrical engineer, I understand well the need for a safe and robust power supply, and that control systems can fail. It’s not uncommon to have alternative or redundant power supplies for important equipment. Single points of failure are accidents waiting to happen. Back-up your backup.

The electrical supply grid will try to provide alternative power whenever any part of it fails. The power supply system needs to be built with redundancy in case of problems, and monitoring and control systems that can respond to failures and keep the electricity supply balanced.

Cohen fears a major power outage could lead to civil unrest. Janet Napolitano, former Department of Homeland Security secretary, said a cyber-attack on the power grid was a case of “when,” not “if”. And former senior CIA analyst Peter Vincent Pry went so far as to say that an attack on the US electrical power supply network could “take the lives of every nine out of ten Americans”. The damage that an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) could cause, such as from a nuclear weapon air-burst, is well known. But many now think the complex and interconnected nature of industrial control systems, known as SCADA, could be the major risk.

An example of the potential problem is the north-east US blackout on August 14 2003, which affected 508 generating units at 265 separate power plants, cutting off power to 45m people in eight US states and 10m people in Ontario. It was caused by a software flaw in an alarm system in an Ohio control room which failed to warn operators about an overload, leading to domino effect of failures. It took two days to restore power.

As the world becomes increasingly internet-dependent, we have created a network that provides redundant routes to carry traffic from point to point, but electrical supply failures can still take out core routing systems.

Control systems - the weakest link

Often it’s the less obvious elements of infrastructure that are most open to attack. For example, air conditioning failures in data centres can cause overheating sufficient to melt equipment, especially the tape drives used to store vast amounts of data. This could affect anything from banking transactions worth billions, the routing of traffic around a busy city, or an emergency services call centre.

As we become more dependent on data and data-processing, so we are more vulnerable to their loss. Safety critical systems are built with failsafe control mechanisms, but those mechanisms can also attacked and compromised.

The cloud we have created and upon which we increasingly depend is not as hardy as we think. The internet itself, and the way we use it, is not as distributed as it was designed to be. We still rely too heavily on key physical locations where data and network interconnections are concentrated, creating unacceptable points of failure that could lead to a domino-effect collapse. The DNS infrastructure is a particular weak point, where just 13 root servers worldwide act as master lists for the entire web’s address book.

I don’t think governments have fully thought this through. Without power, without internet connectivity, there is no cloud. And without the cloud we have big problems.

The Conversation

Friday, September 18, 2015

Six easy ways to tell if that viral story is a hoax

Pull the other one. from www.shutterstock.com

“And so it begins … ISIS flag among refugees in Germany fighting the police,” blared the headline on the Conservative Post; “with this new leaked picture, everything seems confirmed”. The image in question purported to show a group of Syrian refugees holding ISIS flags and attacking German police officers.

For those resistant to accepting refugees into Europe, this story was a godsend. The photo quickly spread across social media, propelled by far-right groups such as the English Defence League and Pegida UK. At the time of writing, the page claims to have been shared over 300,000 times.

The problem is, the photo is three years old, and has precious little to do with the refugee crisis. In fact, it seems to be from a confrontation between members of the far-right Pro NRW party and muslim counter-protesters, which took place in Bonn, back in 2012. A number of news outlets tried to highlight the hoax, including Vice, the Independent and the Mirror, as did numerous Twitter users.

But news in the digital age spreads faster than ever, and so do lies and hoaxes. Just like retractions and corrections in newspapers, online rebuttals often make rather less of a splash than the original misinformation. As I have argued elsewhere, digital verification skills are essential for today’s journalists, and academic institutions are starting to provide the necessary training.

But ordinary people are also starting to take a more sophisticated approach to the content they view online. It’s no longer enough to read the news – now, we want to understand the processes behind it. Fortunately, there are a few relatively effective verification techniques, which do not require specialist knowledge or costly software. Outlined below are six free, simple tools that any curious news reader can use to verify digital media.

Reverse image search

Not only is a reverse image search one of the simplest verification tools, it’s also the one that showed the “leaked” ISIS refugee photo was a fake. Both of the most popular services, Google Images and TinEye, found pages containing this image dating back to mid-2012. As the screenshot below shows, the “ISIS refugee” story could be debunked in less than a second.

When the a link to the story was posted to Reddit, sceptical users swiftly took to Google to query it. Soon, one reported back: “Google Image Search says the photo is from 2012”.

Any way this can be thinner?

YouTube DataViewer

When watching the latest viral video on YouTube, it’s important to be on the look-out for “scrapes”: a scrape is an old video, which has been downloaded from YouTube and re-uploaded by someone who fraudulently claims to be the original eyewitness, or asserts that the video depicts a new event.

Amnesty International has a simple but incredibly useful tool called YouTube DataViewer. Once you’ve entered the video’s URL, this tool will extract the clip’s upload time and all associated thumbnail images. This information – which isn’t readily accessible via YouTube itself – enables you to launch a two-pronged verification search.

If multiple versions of the same video are hosted on YouTube, the date enables you to identify the earliest upload. This is most likely to be the original. The thumbnails can also be used in a reverse image search to find web pages containing the video, offering a quick and powerful method for identifying older versions or uses of the same video.

Jeffrey’s Exif Viewer

Photos, videos and audio taken with digital cameras and smartphones contain Exchangeable Image File (EXIF) information: this is vital metadata about the make of the camera used, and the date, time and location the media was created. This information can be very useful if you’re suspicious of the creator’s account of the content’s origins. In such situations, EXIF readers such as Jeffrey’s Exif Viewer allow you upload or enter the URL of an image and view its metadata.

Below is the EXIF data of a photograph I took of a bus crash in Poole in August 2014. It’s very comprehensive; had I claimed the photo was taken, say, last week in Swanage, it would be very simple to disprove. It is worth noting that while Facebook, Instagram and Twitter remove EXIF data when content is uploaded to their servers, media shared via platforms such as Flickr and WhatsApp still contain it.

FotoForensics

FotoForensics is a tool that uses error level analysis (ELA) to identify parts of an image that may have been modified or “photoshopped”. This tool allows you to either upload, or enter the URL of a suspicious image and will then highlight areas where disparities in quality suggest alterations may have been made. It also provides a number of sharing options, which are useful for challenging the recirculation of inaccurate information, because they allow you to provide a direct link to your FotoForensics analysis page.

WolframAlpha

WolframAlpha is a “computational knowledge engine”, which allows you to check weather conditions in at a specific time and place. You can search it using criteria such as “weather in London at 2pm on 16 July, 2014”. So if, for example, a photo of a freak snowstorm has been shared to your timeline, and WolframAlpha reports that it was 27 degrees and clear when the photo was purportedly taken, then alarm bells ought to be ringing.

Online maps

Identifying the location of a suspicious photo or video is a crucial part of the verification process. Google Street View, Google Earth (a source of historical satellite images) and Wikimapia (a crowd-sourced version of Google Maps, featuring additional information) are all excellent tools for undertaking this kind of detective work.

You should identify whether there are any reference points to compare, check whether distinctive landmarks match up and see if the landscape is the same. These three criteria are frequently used to cross-reference videos or photos, in order to verify whether or not they were indeed shot in the location the uploader claims.

Google Earth, in particular, has been put to incredible use use by Elliot Higgins AKA Brown Moses, of Bellingcat – a site for investigative citizen journalism.

The Conversation

Friday, September 11, 2015

Apple's iPad Pro looks good, but who needs a phone with a 13" screen?

Monica Davey/EPA

Apple’s annual September keynote as usual brings hardware changes, software updates and the occasional surprise.

Rumours of a larger iPad Pro were proved true: the significantly larger 12.9 inch iPad with upgraded ARM A9X processor and faster graphics and internal components is being sold as a device on which desktop-class applications could run.

This is supported with a stylus and keyboard (sold separately in typical Apple fashion) that essentially converts the iPad Pro into a laptop. The stylus, dubbed Apple Pencil, has provoked comment as Steve Jobs had expressed his distaste for them in the past. The Pencil features hand writing recognition software, and improvements to iOS finally allow multitasking by splitting the screen between two apps.

However, with prices starting at an eye-watering US$799, there will be many who think that this won’t light a fire under tablet sales, which have been flat. For example, Amazon has taken the opposite approach, aiming for the bottom end of the market with a US$50 tablet subsidised by purchases made through Amazon’s services.

There may be iPad sales in education, and in retail where they are often used as point of sale devices, but in business the iPad faces considerable competition. For example, the iPad Pro bears an uncanny similarity to Microsoft’s own convertible tablet/laptop device, the Surface Pro, in cost and size and style. But the big difference is that Surface comes with a full operating system, Windows 10: few will take Apple’s claims that the iPad Pro can run desktop-class applications for professional use while it’s running the stripped-down iOS operating system originally designed for phones, instead of the full OS X as found on Macbooks and iMacs.

Microsoft’s Surface Pro tablet, keyboard and stylus combo. Microsoft

Apple’s iPad Pro - spot the similarity? Beck Diefenbach/Reuters

 

 

 

 

 

A surprise was the appearance of Microsoft staff on stage to demonstrate Microsoft Office apps running on the iPad – something greeted with a stunned silence in the auditorium. Microsoft Office has been updated to support the stylus, and the invitation to appear at such a high-profile Apple event shows the extent to which Microsoft has been pouring money and effort into ensuring its software suites are cross-platform, rather than tied to Microsoft Windows. Another visitor to the stage was Adobe, whose reps showed off new design tools with the stylus – which all suggests an outbreak of corporate peace between the firms.

Pushing Apple TV into the home

The Apple TV finally gets a long-awaited upgrade, a wait during which many competing devices have appeared such as NOW TV, Roku, or Google’s Chromecast. Originally classified as a “media extender”, Steve Jobs called the Apple TV a “hobby” when introduced in 2007, but with this update Apple has refreshed the device, reorienting it to support the app ecosystem that has thrived elsewhere.

The new Apple TV features a new operating system tvOS, making use of the extensive iPhone/iPad developer tools and software already available. Boasting a much higher hardware specification, the Apple TV now runs apps and games, provides a new interface and a touch-enabled remote that can also process audio commands through the Siri digital assistant voice recognition system. With this a user can use their voice to search for content across multiple television networks.

It should be easy to port existing iPad/iPhone applications to the TV, bringing an unparalleled range of services compared to the competition. The surge in streaming services from Amazon and Netflix has sidelined Apple to some extent, so it will be interesting to see whether reorienting the device around apps will increase Apple’s footprint in this space. Sony and Microsoft should be worried that the massive back catalogue of iOS games can now be used in the living room through Apple TV. Prices start from US$149, available from October.

Phone and Watch

An update to the Watch, dubbed WatchOS2, arrives later this month and features updated accessories, colours and straps. The update will give apps direct access to the hardware, allowing developers to write full native applications for that are more independent of the iPhone, to which the Watch has so far played second fiddle.

The iPhone 6S and iPhone 6SPlus are unchanged externally, but Apple claims internal upgrades including a 12 megapixel capable camera, faster A9 processor and a Force Touch capable screen, which responds to varying degrees of pressure. This is still a new tech, for which capable software has yet to be written.

Finally, as signalled in the developer conference earlier in the year, owners of older devices will get access to new features when iOS 9 is launched very soon. An incremental upgrade, nevertheless it offers features many users have been calling for and will provide a significant increase in speed and features for older devices.

It’s unlikely these changes will lead to the extraordinary sales achieved with the larger iPhones last year, so it may provide an opportunity for other manufacturers to play catch-up – improving their hardware and services which Apple has always claimed is what differentiates them from the competition in a crowded market.

The Conversation

The web has become a hall of mirrors, filled only with reflections of our data

The web should expand our horizons, but instead it's shrinking our view. uroburos

The “digital assistant” is proliferating, able to combine intelligent natural language processing, voice-operated control over a smartphone’s functions and access to web services. It can set calendar appointments, launch apps, and run requests. But if that sounds very clever – a computerised talking assistant, like HAL9000 from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey – it’s mostly just running search engine queries and processing the results.

Facebook has now joined Apple, Microsoft, Google and Amazon with the launch of its digital assistant M, part of its Messaging smartphone app. It’s special sauce is that M is powered not just by algorithms but by data serfs: human Facebook employees who are there to ensure that every request that it cannot parse is still fulfilled, and in doing so training M by example. That training works because every interaction with M is recorded – that’s the point, according to David Marcus, Facebook’s vice-president of messaging:

We start capturing all of your intent for the things you want to do. Intent often leads to buying something, or to a transaction, and that’s an opportunity for us to [make money] over time.

Facebook, through M, will capture and facilitate that “intent to buy” and take its cut directly from the subsequent purchase rather than as an ad middleman. It does this by leveraging messaging, which was turned into a separate app of its own so that Facebook could integrate PayPal-style peer-to-peer payments between users. This means Facebook has a log not only of your conversations but also your financial dealings. In an interview with Fortune magazine at the time, Facebook product manager, Steve Davies, said:

People talk about money all the time in Messenger but end up going somewhere else to do the transaction. With this, people can finish the conversation the same place started it.

In a somewhat creepy way, by reading your chats and knowing that you’re “talking about money all the time” – what you’re talking about buying – Facebook can build up a pretty compelling profile of interests and potential purchases. If M can capture our intent it will not be by tracking what sites we visit and targeting relevant ads, as per advert brokers such as Google and Doubleclick. Nor by targeting ads based on the links we share, as Twitter does. Instead it simply reads our messages.

‘Hello Dave. Would you like to go shopping?’ summer1978/MGM/SKP, CC BY-ND

Talking about money, money talks

M is built to carry out tasks such as booking flights or restaurants or making purchases from online stores, and rather than forcing the user to leave the app in order to visit a web store to complete a purchase, M will bring the store – more specifically, the transaction – to the app.

Suddenly the 64% of smartphone purchases that happen at websites and mobile transactions outside of Facebook, are brought into Facebook. With the opportunity to make suggestions through eavesdropping on conversations, in the not too distant future our talking intelligent assistant might say:

I’m sorry Dave, I heard you talking about buying this camera. I wouldn’t do if I were you Dave: I found a much better deal elsewhere. And I know you’ve been talking about having that tattoo removed. I can recommend someone – she has an offer on right now, and three of your friends have recommended her service. Shall I book you in?

Buying a book from a known supplier may be a low risk purchase, but other services require more discernment. What kind of research about cosmetic surgery has M investigated? Did those three friends use that service, or were they paid to recommend it? Perhaps you’d rather know the follow-up statistics than have a friend’s recommendation.

Still, because of its current position as the dominant social network, Facebook knows more about us, by name, history, social circle, political interests, than any other single internet service. And it’s for this reason that Facebook wants to ensure M is more accurate and versatile than the competition, and why it’s using humans to help the AI interpret interactions and learn. The better digital assistants like M appear to us, the more trust we have in them. Simple tasks performed well builds a willingness to use that service elsewhere – say, recommending financial services, or that cosmetic treatment, which stand to offer Facebook a cut of much more costly purchase.

No such thing as a free lunch

So for Facebook, that’s more users spending more of their time using its services and generating more cash. Where’s the benefit for us?

We’ve been trained to see such services as “free”, but as the saying goes, if you don’t pay for it, then it’s you that’s the product. We’ve seen repeatedly in our Meaningful Consent Project that it’s difficult to evaluate the cost to us when we don’t know what happens to our data.

People were once nervous about how much the state knew of them, with whom they associated and what they do, for fear that if their interests and actions were not aligned with those of the state they might find ourselves detained, disappeared, or disenfranchised. Yet we give exactly this information to corporations without hesitation, because we find ourselves amplified in the exchange: that for each book, film, record or hotel we like there are others who “like” it too.

The web holds a mirror up to us, reflecting back our precise interests and behaviour. Take search, for instance. In the physical world of libraries or bookshops we glance through materials from other topics and different ideas as we hunt down our own query. Indeed we are at our creative best when we absorb the rich variety in our peripheral vision. But online, a search engine shows us only things narrowly related to what we seek. Even the edges of a web page will be filled with targeted ads related to something known to interest us. This narrowing self-reflection has grown ubiquitous online: on social networks we see ourselves relative to our self-selected peers or idols. We create reflections.

The workings of Google, Doubleclick or Facebook reveal these to be two-way mirrors: we are observed through the mirror but see only our reflection, with no way to see the machines observing us. This “free” model is so seductive – it’s all about us – yet it leads us to become absorbed in our phones-as-mirrors rather than the harder challenge of engaging with the world and those around us.

It’s said not to look too closely at how a sausage is made for fear it may put you off. If we saw behind the mirror, would we be put off by the internet? At least most menus carry the choice of more than one dish; the rise of services like M suggests that, despite the apparent wonder of less effortful interactions, the internet menu we’re offered is shrinking.

The Conversation

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Apple's iPad Pro looks good, but who needs a phone with a 13" screen?

Monica Davey/EPA

Apple’s annual September keynote as usual brings hardware changes, software updates and the occasional surprise.

Rumours of a larger iPad Pro were proved true: the significantly larger 12.9 inch iPad with upgraded ARM A9X processor and faster graphics and internal components is being sold as a device on which desktop-class applications could run.

This is supported with a stylus and keyboard (sold separately in typical Apple fashion) that essentially converts the iPad Pro into a laptop. The stylus, dubbed Apple Pencil, has provoked comment as Steve Jobs had expressed his distaste for them in the past. The Pencil features hand writing recognition software, and improvements to iOS finally allow multitasking by splitting the screen between two apps.

However, with prices starting at an eye-watering US$799, there will be many who think that this won’t light a fire under tablet sales, which have been flat. For example, Amazon have taken the opposite approach, aiming for the bottom end of the market with a US$50 tablet subsidised by purchases made through Amazon’s services.

There may be iPad sales in education, and in retail where they are often used as point of sale devices, but in business the iPad faces considerable competition. For example, the iPad Pro bears an uncanny similarity to Microsoft’s own convertible tablet/laptop device, the Surface Pro, in cost and size and style. But the big difference is that Surface comes with a full operating system, Windows 10: few will take Apple’s claims that the iPad Pro can run desktop-class applications for professional use while it’s running the stripped-down iOS operating system originally designed for phones, instead of the full OS X as found on Macbooks and iMacs.

Microsoft’s Surface Pro tablet, keyboard and stylus combo. Microsoft

Apple’s iPad Pro - spot the similarity? Beck Diefenbach/Reuters

 

 

 

 

 

A surprise was the appearance of Microsoft staff on stage to demonstrate Microsoft Office apps running on the iPad – something greeted with a stunned silence in the auditorium. Microsoft Office has been updated to support the stylus, and the invitation to appear at such a high-profile Apple event shows the extent to which Microsoft has been pouring money and effort into ensuring its software suites are cross-platform, rather than tied to Microsoft Windows. Another visitor to the stage was Adobe, whose reps showed off new design tools with the stylus – which all suggests an outbreak of corporate peace between the firms.

Pushing Apple TV into the home

The Apple TV finally gets a long-awaited upgrade, a wait during which many competing devices have appeared such as NOW TV, Roku, or Google’s Chromecast. Originally classified as a “media extender”, Steve Jobs called the Apple TV a “hobby” when introduced in 2007, but with this update Apple has refreshed the device, reorienting it to support the app ecosystem that has thrived elsewhere.

The new Apple TV features a new operating system tvOS, making use of the extensive iPhone/iPad developer tools and software already available. Boasting a much higher hardware specification, the Apple TV now runs apps and games, provides a new interface and a touch-enabled remote that can also process audio commands through the Siri digital assistant voice recognition system. With this a user can use their voice to search for content across multiple television networks.

It should be easy to port existing iPad/iPhone applications to the TV, bringing an unparalleled range of services compared to the competition. The surge in streaming services from Amazon and Netflix has sidelined Apple to some extent, so it will be interesting to see whether reorienting the device around apps will increase Apple’s footprint in this space. Sony and Microsoft should be worried that the massive back catalogue of iOS games can now be used in the living room through Apple TV. Prices start from US$149, available from October.

Phone and Watch

An update to the Watch, dubbed WatchOS2, arrives later this month and features updated accessories, colours and straps. The update will give apps direct access to the hardware, allowing developers to write full native applications for that are more independent of the iPhone, to which the Watch has so far played second fiddle.

The iPhone 6S and iPhone 6SPlus are unchanged externally, but Apple claims internal upgrades including a 12 megapixel capable camera, faster A9 processor and a Force Touch capable screen, which responds to varying degrees of pressure. This is still a new tech, for which capable software has yet to be written.

Finally, as signalled in the developer conference earlier in the year, owners of older devices will get access to new features when iOS 9 is launched very soon. An incremental upgrade, nevertheless it offers features many users have been calling for and will provide a significant increase in speed and features for older devices.

It’s unlikely these changes will lead to the extraordinary sales achieved with the larger iPhones last year, so it may provide an opportunity for other manufacturers to play catch-up – improving their hardware and services which Apple has always claimed is what differentiates them from the competition in a crowded market.

The Conversation

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

The web has become a hall of mirrors, filled only with reflections of our data

The web should expand our horizons, but instead it's shrinking our view. uroburos

The “digital assistant” is proliferating, able to combine intelligent natural language processing, voice-operated control over a smartphone’s functions and access to web services. It can set calendar appointments, launch apps, and run requests. But if that sounds very clever – a computerised talking assistant, like HAL9000 from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey – it’s mostly just running search engine queries and processing the results.

Facebook has now joined Apple, Microsoft, Google and Amazon with the launch of its digital assistant M, part of its Messaging smartphone app. It’s special sauce is that M is powered not just by algorithms but by data serfs: human Facebook employees who are there to ensure that every request that it cannot parse is still fulfilled, and in doing so training M by example. That training works because every interaction with M is recorded – that’s the point, according to David Marcus, Facebook’s vice-president of messaging:

We start capturing all of your intent for the things you want to do. Intent often leads to buying something, or to a transaction, and that’s an opportunity for us to [make money] over time.

Facebook, through M, will capture and facilitate that “intent to buy” and take its cut directly from the subsequent purchase rather than as an ad middleman. It does this by leveraging messaging, which was turned into a separate app of its own so that Facebook could integrate PayPal-style peer-to-peer payments between users. This means Facebook has a log not only of your conversations but also your financial dealings. In an interview with Fortune magazine at the time, Facebook product manager, Steve Davies, said:

People talk about money all the time in Messenger but end up going somewhere else to do the transaction. With this, people can finish the conversation the same place started it.

In a somewhat creepy way, by reading your chats and knowing that you’re “talking about money all the time” – what you’re talking about buying – Facebook can build up a pretty compelling profile of interests and potential purchases. If M can capture our intent it will not be by tracking what sites we visit and targeting relevant ads, as per advert brokers such as Google and Doubleclick. Nor by targeting ads based on the links we share, as Twitter does. Instead it simply reads our messages.

‘Hello Dave. Would you like to go shopping?’ summer1978/MGM/SKP, CC BY-ND

Talking about money, money talks

M is built to carry out tasks such as booking flights or restaurants or making purchases from online stores, and rather than forcing the user to leave the app in order to visit a web store to complete a purchase, M will bring the store – more specifically, the transaction – to the app.

Suddenly the 64% of smartphone purchases that happen at websites and mobile transactions outside of Facebook, are brought into Facebook. With the opportunity to make suggestions through eavesdropping on conversations, in the not too distant future our talking intelligent assistant might say:

I’m sorry Dave, I heard you talking about buying this camera. I wouldn’t do if I were you Dave: I found a much better deal elsewhere. And I know you’ve been talking about having that tattoo removed. I can recommend someone – she has an offer on right now, and three of your friends have recommended her service. Shall I book you in?

Buying a book from a known supplier may be a low risk purchase, but other services require more discernment. What kind of research about cosmetic surgery has M investigated? Did those three friends use that service, or were they paid to recommend it? Perhaps you’d rather know the follow-up statistics than have a friend’s recommendation.

Still, because of its current position as the dominant social network, Facebook knows more about us, by name, history, social circle, political interests, than any other single internet service. And it’s for this reason that Facebook wants to ensure M is more accurate and versatile than the competition, and why it’s using humans to help the AI interpret interactions and learn. The better digital assistants like M appear to us, the more trust we have in them. Simple tasks performed well builds a willingness to use that service elsewhere – say, recommending financial services, or that cosmetic treatment, which stand to offer Facebook a cut of much more costly purchase.

No such thing as a free lunch

So for Facebook, that’s more users spending more of their time using its services and generating more cash. Where’s the benefit for us?

We’ve been trained to see such services as “free”, but as the saying goes, if you don’t pay for it, then it’s you that’s the product. We’ve seen repeatedly in our Meaningful Consent Project that it’s difficult to evaluate the cost to us when we don’t know what happens to our data.

People were once nervous about how much the state knew of them, with whom they associated and what they do, for fear that if their interests and actions were not aligned with those of the state they might find ourselves detained, disappeared, or disenfranchised. Yet we give exactly this information to corporations without hesitation, because we find ourselves amplified in the exchange: that for each book, film, record or hotel we like there are others who “like” it too.

The web holds a mirror up to us, reflecting back our precise interests and behaviour. Take search, for instance. In the physical world of libraries or bookshops we glance through materials from other topics and different ideas as we hunt down our own query. Indeed we are at our creative best when we absorb the rich variety in our peripheral vision. But online, a search engine shows us only things narrowly related to what we seek. Even the edges of a web page will be filled with targeted ads related to something known to interest us. This narrowing self-reflection has grown ubiquitous online: on social networks we see ourselves relative to our self-selected peers or idols. We create reflections.

The workings of Google, Doubleclick or Facebook reveal these to be two-way mirrors: we are observed through the mirror but see only our reflection, with no way to see the machines observing us. This “free” model is so seductive – it’s all about us – yet it leads us to become absorbed in our phones-as-mirrors rather than the harder challenge of engaging with the world and those around us.

It’s said not to look too closely at how a sausage is made for fear it may put you off. If we saw behind the mirror, would we be put off by the internet? At least most menus carry the choice of more than one dish; the rise of services like M suggests that, despite the apparent wonder of less effortful interactions, the internet menu we’re offered is shrinking.

The Conversation

Friday, September 4, 2015

Using Wikipedia as PR is a problem, but our lack of a critical eye is worse

Wikipedia - it's a work in progress. Lane Hartwell, CC BY-SA

If you heard that a group of people were creating, editing, and maintaining Wikipedia articles related to brands, firms and individuals, you could point out, correctly, that this is the entire point of Wikipedia. It is, after all, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit”.

But a group has been creating and editing articles for money. Wikipedia administrators banned more than 300 suspect accounts involved, but those behind the ring are still unknown.

For most Wikipedians, the editors and experts who volunteer their time and effort to develop and maintain the world’s largest encyclopedia for free, this is completely unacceptable. However, what the group was doing was not illegal – although it is prohibited by Wikipedia’s policies – and as it’s extremely hard to detect it’s difficult to stamp out entirely.

Conflicts of interest in those editing articles has been part of Wikipedia from the beginning. In the early days, a few of the editors making the most contributions wanted a personal Wikipedia entry, at least as a reward for their contribution to the project. Of course most of these were promptly deleted by the rest of the community for not meeting the notability criteria.

As Wikipedia grew and became the number one source of free-to-access information about everything, so Wikipedia entries rose up search engines rankings. Being well-represented on Wikipedia became important for any nation, organisation, firm, political party, entrepreneur, musician, and even scientists. Wikipedians have strived to prohibit self-serving editing, due to the inherent bias that this would introduce. At the same time, “organised” problematic editing developed despite their best efforts.

The glossy sheen of public relations

The first time I learned of non-Wikipedians taking an organised approach to editing articles I was attending a lecture by an “online reputation manager” in 2012. I didn’t know of her, so I pulled up her Wikipedia entry.

It was readily apparent that the article was filled with only positive things. So I did a bit of research about the individual and edited the article to try and introduce a more neutral point of view: softened language, added references and [citation needed] tags where I couldn’t find reference material to back up an important statement.

Online reputation mangers and PR firms charge celebrities and “important” people to, among other things, groom Wikipedia pages and fool search engines to push less favourable search results further down the page when their name is searched for. And they get caught doing it, again and again and again.

Separating fact from fiction

It is not that paid-for or biased editing is so problematic in itself, but the value that many associate with the information found in Wikipedia entries. For example, in academia, professors with Wikipedia entries might be considered more important than those without. Our own research has shown that scholars with Wikipedia articles have no greater statistically significant scientific impact than those without. So do some appear on Wikipedia while others do not? The reason is clear: because many of those entries are written by themselves or their students or colleagues. It’s important that this aspect of Wikipedia should be communicated to those reading it, and remembered every single time you’re using it.

The arrival of [citation needed] tags is a good way to alert readers to the potential for statements to be unsafe, unsupported, or flat-out wrong. But these days Google has incorporated Wikipedia articles into its search results, so that an infobox at the right side of the results page will display the information – having first stripped such tags out, presenting it as referenced and reliable information.

A critical eye

Apart from self-editing that displays obvious bias, we know that Wikipedia, however amazing it is, has other shortcomings. Comparing Wikipedia’s different language versions to see the topics they find controversial reveals the attitudes and obsessions of writers from different nations. For example, English Wikipedia is obsessed with global warming, George W Bush and the World Wrestling Federation, the German language site by Croatia and Scientology, Spanish by Chile, and French by Ségolène Royal, homosexuality and UFOs. There are lots of edit wars behind the scenes, many of which are a lot of fuss about absolutely nothing.

It’s not that I’d suggest abandoning the use of Wikipedia, but a bit of caution and awareness in the reader of these potential flaws is required. And more so, it’s required by the many organisations, academics, journalists and services of all kind including Google itself that scrape or read Wikipedia unthinkingly assuming that it’s entirely correct.

Were everyone to approach Wikipedia with a little more of a critical eye, eventually the market for paid editing would weaken or dissolve.

The Conversation

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Facebook's digital assistant blends AI with customer service staff – but will it cope without human help?

M – no Bond jokes please. Facebook

With the arrival of its monosyllabic M, Facebook has introduced its own personal digital assistant, following those from Apple (Siri), Microsoft (Cortana), Google (Now) and Amazon (Echo). Technically, M operates partly on the user’s smartphone via the Facebook Messenger app, but it is mostly a cloud-based service. Unlike the others, however, this isn’t just an artificial intelligence but a mix of smart machine learning and human assistance.

What makes M different is that it takes recommendations or answering queries one step further, able to actually make purchases or arrange services for you, and order deliveries. This is the logical conclusion of recommending something, allowing the system to spend your money for you as well. This approach might be risky, or might be brilliant. If it works, suppliers will be clamouring for Facebook’s M to spend users’ money with them, and Facebook will be able to take a percentage in return.

With Facebook’s enormous reach – the site recently claimed one billion concurrent users – even a small percentage of such a large number of users spending even relatively small sums of money would still add up to a great deal of cash for Facebook. Mind you, a few unfortunate misunderstandings of what a user wants to buy might lead to some negative publicity – and one can imagine some Facebook users attempting some very dubious transactions.

Technical and human intelligence

Under the hood, it appears Facebook is not using cutting-edge AI. While its digital assistant’s interface is stored and run from users’ phones, the processing occurs on Facebook’s servers in the cloud where computing power and data can be distributed. It uses technology from wit.ai, which is understood to use conditional random fields, a popular statistical technique dating from the 2000s, and maximum entropy classifiers, based on information theory. These pick up on the structure of the data, and use this to make predictions. These may not be cutting edge, but they are well established and understood. Not only that, but they can use prior knowledge, and one of M’s aims is to improve and to get better through training.

There’s a huge amount of contextual information about the user’s likes and preferences within Facebook’s enormous datasets, and this could help M’s algorithms provide answers. It could also be used to help constrain queries – things to exclude – particularly if both the purchaser and the recipient are Facebook users. But it will take leading edge AI techniques like sentic technologies, which attempt to extract mood, emotion, intention and meaning from text, in order to mine the full value of the text and image datasets generated by Facebook users.

M’s natural language processing picks out a message’s intent. But it has a lot to learn. Facebook

David Marcus, vice president of messaging products at Facebook and in charge of M, has said that without explicit consent M won’t embark on such data-mining. In fact there is a limited range of possible services and purchases that the software can perform automatically, while trickier tasks are carried out by the human element behind the scenes - customer service staff working for Facebook. Humans are needed to be able to cover the gaps in the AI’s ability to understand natural language, understanding what users are after, able to sign off purchases to ensure they’re reasonable, and legal.

While the idea is that M learns the right behaviours by associating the user’s intent with the solutions provided by human staff, for this to scale to even a fraction of Facebook Messenger’s 700,000 users, the AI will have to be good enough to relieve the human staff of their role. And that may take a while. Of course, M is being rolled out area by area – currently only San Francisco, of course – so perhaps the firm is just dipping a toe in the water to start with.

So while M may be the personal assistant of the future, at the moment it’s a curious mix of machine learning, automation, and human comprehension. But powered by the tutoring of actual humans and human-created data, in time it could still become more adept than the competition.

The Conversation

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Get used to it: quantum computing will bring immense processing possibilities

D-Wave, CC BY

The one thing everyone knows about quantum mechanics is its legendary weirdness, in which the basic tenets of the world it describes seem alien to the world we live in. Superposition, where things can be in two states simultaneously, a switch both on and off, a cat both dead and alive. Or entanglement, what Einstein called “spooky action-at-distance” in which objects are invisibly linked, even when separated by huge distances.

But weird or not, quantum theory is approaching a century old and has found many applications in daily life. As John von Neumann once said: “You don’t understand quantum mechanics, you just get used to it.” Much of electronics is based on quantum physics, and the application of quantum theory to computing could open up huge possibilities for the complex calculations and data processing we see today.

Imagine a computer processor able to harness super-position, to calculate the result of an arbitrarily large number of permutations of a complex problem simultaneously. Imagine how entanglement could be used to allow systems on different sides of the world to be linked and their efforts combined, despite their physical separation. Quantum computing has immense potential, making light work of some of the most difficult tasks, such as simulating the body’s response to drugs, predicting weather patterns, or analysing big datasets.

Replica of the first ever transistor, manufactured at Bell Labs in 1947. Lucent Technologies

Such processing possibilities are needed. The first transistors could only just be held in the hand, while today they measure just 14 nm – 500 times smaller than a red blood cell. This relentless shrinking, predicted by Intel founder Gordon Moore as Moore’s law, has held true for 50 years, but cannot hold indefinitely. Silicon can only be shrunk so far, and if we are to continue benefiting from the performance gains we have become used to, we need a different approach.

Quantum fabrication

Advances in semiconductor fabrication have made it possible to mass-produce quantum-scale semiconductors – electronic circuits that exhibit quantum effects such as super-position and entanglement.

Quantum circuitry. Paul Koenraad/TU Eindhoven, Author provided

The image, captured at the atomic scale, shows a cross-section through one potential candidate for the building blocks of a quantum computer, a semiconductor nano-ring. Electrons trapped in these rings exhibit the strange properties of quantum mechanics, and semiconductor fabrication processes are poised to integrate these elements required to build a quantum computer. While we may be able to construct a quantum computer using structures like these, there are still major challenges involved.

In a classical computer processor a huge number of transistors interact conditionally and predictably with one another. But quantum behaviour is highly fragile; for example, under quantum physics even measuring the state of the system such as checking whether the switch is on or off, actually changes what is being observed. Conducting an orchestra of quantum systems to produce useful output that couldn’t easily by handled by a classical computer is extremely difficult.

But there have been huge investments: the UK government announced £270m funding for quantum technologies in 2014 for example, and the likes of Google, NASA and Lockheed Martin are also working in the field. It’s difficult to predict the pace of progress, but a useful quantum computer could be ten years away.

Building quantum computers. Michael Thompson, Lancaster Quantum Technology Centre, Author provided

The basic element of quantum computing is known as a qubit, the quantum equivalent to the bits used in traditional computers. To date, scientists have harnessed quantum systems to represent qubits in many different ways, ranging from defects in diamonds, to semiconductor nano-structures or tiny superconducting circuits. Each of these has is own advantages and disadvantages, but none yet has met all the requirements for a quantum computer, known as the DiVincenzo Criteria.

The most impressive progress has come from D-Wave Systems, a firm that has managed to pack hundreds of qubits on to a small chip similar in appearance to a traditional processor.

Quantum secrets

The benefits of harnessing quantum technologies aren’t limited to computing, however. Whether or not quantum computing will extend or augment digital computing, the same quantum effects can be harnessed for other means. The most mature example is quantum communications.

Quantum physics has been proposed as a means to prevent forgery of valuable objects, such as a banknote or diamond, as illustrated in the image below. Here, the unusual negative rules embedded within quantum physics prove useful; perfect copies of unknown states cannot be made and measurements change the systems they are measuring. These two limitations are combined in this quantum anti-counterfeiting scheme, making it impossible to copy the identity of the object they are stored in.

Adding a quantum secret to a standard barcode prevents tampering or forgery of valuable goods. Robert Young, Author provided

The concept of quantum money is, unfortunately, highly impractical, but the same idea has been successfully extended to communications. The idea is straightforward: the act of measuring quantum super-position states alters what you try to measure, so it’s possible to detect the presence of an eavesdropper making such measurements. With the correct protocol, such as BB84, it is possible to communicate privately, with that privacy guaranteed by fundamental laws of physics.

Quantum communication systems are commercially available today from firms such as Toshiba and ID Quantique. While the implementation is clunky and expensive now it will become more streamlined and miniaturised, just as transistors have miniaturised over the last 60 years.

Improvements to nanoscale fabrication techniques will greatly accelerate the development of quantum-based technologies. And while useful quantum computing still appears to be some way off, it’s future is very exciting indeed.

The Conversation

Monday, August 24, 2015

Privacy watchdog takes first step against those undermining right to be forgotten

It's not erasing the past, just making memories fuzzier. chalboard by sergign/shutterstock.com

The UK’s data privacy watchdog has waded into the debate over the enforcement of the right to be forgotten in Europe.

The Information Commissioner’s Office issued a notice to Google to remove from its search results newspaper articles that discussed details from older articles that had themselves been subject to a successful right to be forgotten request.

The new reports included, wholly unnecessarily, the name of the person who had requested that Google remove reports of a ten-year-old shoplifting conviction from search results. Google agreed with this right to be forgotten request and de-linked the contemporary reports of the conviction, but then refused to do the same to new articles that carried the same details. Essentially, Google had granted the subject’s request for privacy, and then allowed it to be reversed via the back door.

The ICO’s action highlights the attitude of the press, which tries to draw as much attention to stories related to the right to be forgotten and their subjects as possible, generating new coverage that throws up details of the very events those making right to be forgotten requests are seeking to have buried.

There is no expectation of anonymity for people convicted of even minor crimes in the UK, something the press takes advantage of: such as the regional newspaper which tweeted a picture of the woman convicted of shoplifting a sex toy. However, after a criminal conviction is spent, the facts of the crime are deemed “irrelevant information” in the technical sense of the UK Data Protection Act.

The arrival of the right to be forgotten, or more accurately the right to have online search results de-linked, as made explicit by the EU Court of Justice in 2014, does not entail retroactive censorship of newspaper reports from the time of the original event. But the limited cases published by Google so far suggest that such requests have normally been granted, except where there was a strong public interest.

Stirring up a censorship storm

It’s clear Google does not like the right to be forgotten, and it has from early on sent notifications to publishers of de-listed links in the hope they will cry “censorship”. Certainly BBC journalist Robert Peston felt “cast into oblivion” because his blog no longer appeared in search results for one particular commenter’s name.

It’s not clear that such notifications are required at all: the European Court of Justice judgment didn’t call for them, and the publishers are neither subject (as they’re not the person involved) nor controller (Google in this case) of the de-listed link. Experts and even the ICO have hinted that Google’s efforts to publicise the very details it is supposed to be minimising might be viewed as a privacy breach or unfair processing with regard to those making right to be forgotten requests.

The Barry Gibb effect

De-listing notifications achieve something similar to the Streisand effect, where publicity around a request for privacy leads to exactly the opposite result. I’ve previously called the attempt to stir up publisher unrest the Barry Gibb effect, because it goes so well with Streisand. So well, maybe it oughta be illegal.

Some publishers are happy to dance to Google’s tune, accumulating and publishing these notifications in their own lists of de-listed links. Presumably this is intended to be seen as a bold move against censorship – the more accurate “List of things we once published that are now considered to contain irrelevant information about somebody” doesn’t sound as appealing.

In June 2015, even the BBC joined in, and comments still show that readers find salacious value in such a list.

Upholding the spirit and letter of the law

While some reporters laugh at the idea of deleting links to articles about links, this misses the point. The ICO has not previously challenged the reporting of stories relating to the right to be forgotten, or lists of delisted links – even when these appear to subvert the spirit of data protection. But by naming the individual involved in these new reports, the de-listed story is brought straight back to the top of search results for the person in question. This is a much more direct subversion of the spirit of the law.

Google refused the subject’s request that it de-list nine search results repeating the old story, name and all, claiming they were relevant to journalistic reporting of the right to be forgotten. The ICO judgement weighed the arguments carefully over ten pages before finding for the complainant in its resulting enforcement notice.

The ICO dealt with 120 such complaints in the past year, but this appears to be the only one where a Google refusal led to an enforcement notice.

The decision against Google is a significant step. However, its scope is narrow as it concerns stories that unwisely repeat personally identifying information, and again it only leads to de-listing results from searches of a particular name. It remains to be seen whether other more subtle forms of subversion aimed at the right to be forgotten will continue to be tolerated.

The Conversation

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Why there must be freedom to publish flaws and security vulnerabilities

It's not just the badge that gets nicked. tedits, CC BY-ND

Two academics have been given permission to publish their security research which reveals vulnerabilities in a wireless car locking system. It comes two years after Volkswagen, one of the manufacturers using it, won a court injunction banning publication.

Despite a court order in its favour, Volkswagen has now allowed the report to be republished with only minor redactions. However the case reveals the tension between security researchers and software firms, or in this case the software used by car manufacturers. While some firms such as Facebook, Google and Microsoft offer financial rewards for those finding bugs, others such as Fiat Chrysler assert that such activity is criminal or as Volkswagen did, take it to the courts – while failing to address the highlighted problems that expose their customers to risks.

The car industry may feel bullied just now, but Volkswagen’s approach of using the courts to try to keep information about a key flaw under wraps is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping everything will turn out well. This is a serious issue, one that is too important for the brute force of court rulings. In any case, the internet has little respect for national boundaries or court jurisdictions, and the information was available online regardless of the court’s ruling.

Knock knock, come in

The Megamos transponder wireless key. Verdult/Ege/Garcia

The encryption used in the Swiss-made Megamos transponder is so weak that an intruder needs only listen to two messages transmitted from the fob in order to crack the key. The vulnerability relates to the poor, proprietary cryptographic methods used by the device, where the researchers found they could generate the transponder’s 96-bit secret key and start the car in less than half an hour.

This vulnerability has been well known since 2012, and code to exploit the flaw has circulated online since 2009. Yet there has been no product recall of the dozens of models from Audi, Porsche, Bentley and Lamborghini, Nissan and Volvo it affects, and no patches released to fix its problems.

Vulnerable wireless keys are a growing problem. It is reported that 42% of all car break-ins in London were related to various wireless key access systems, particularly for high-value cars from BMW and Audi.

For example, the RollJam device can be bought online for £20 and opens many well-known brands of cars – it “jams” the wireless signal twice when the user uses their key, and then is able to grab the access code for the car. It also opens most garage doors and disables some alarm systems.

A universal canopener, the RollJam device opens cars easily. RollJam

Academic freedom vs industry interests

The researchers who have now been permitted to publish, Roel Verdult and Barıs Ege of Radboud University in the Netherlands and Flavoi D Garcia of the University of Birmingham, approached the manufacturer in May 2012, explaining that they intended to present their findings at the USENIX 2013 conference, giving the manufacturer plenty of time to produce a fix for the problem. Instead Volkswagen used the courts to block publication of the paper, pitting the prevention of the potential insecurity of Volkswagen cars against the freedom of academic publishing.

The scope of the patching required to fix Megamos’ problems would be enormous, as there is no simple update to replace the weak propriety cryptography at the heart of the problem. Clearly this was an incentive for Volkswagen to seek an injunction, but doing so hasn’t made the vehicles any more secure, nor has it prevented the information circulating on the internet.

Table of models affected (bold indicates models the researchers tested). Verdult/Ege/Garcia

Other manufacturers have been stung too – Ford recalled 433,000 Focus, C-MAX and Escape vehicles due to a software bug where drivers could not switch off their engines. And recently a security researcher showed how BMW cars could be breached by sending commands that told the cars to open their doors and lower their windows, leading BMW to issue a patch for over 2m BMW, Mini and Rolls-Royce vehicles.

But this case was avoidable: the Megamos vulnerability was one of poor design and implementation – using poor-quality, home-brewed encryption instead of one of the many common standards that would have proved far more impenetrable. This should have been reviewed as part of the due diligence process in evaluating the designs. Were they published, someone in the industry could have pointed out their flaws. Yet it’s this same process of research, publication and evaluation common in academia that Volkswagen tried to prevent.

This a sorry tale of responsible disclosure by academics followed by a gagging order, and ultimately for the problem to go unfixed. Unless the car industry takes this problem seriously, designs and tests systems properly before release then they will be weighed down by the costs of recall and repair and fines from regulators.

While some hunt vulnerabilities for glory, the researchers in this case were responsible and gave the companies involved a good amount of time to deal the problem before the paper was due to be published. While many in cryptography have faced pressures not to publish, such as government efforts to suppress Ron Rivest’s work on public key encryption, academic freedom to publish and review responsibly is a key part of how mistakes are discovered and how knowledge progresses.

The Conversation

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

IWF's efforts to remove child porn from the web won't tackle paedophile networks -- but it's still important

IWF moves will control only the most visible child abuse images online. Cybercrime by hamburg_berlin/shutterstock.com

In the fight against the spread of child sexual abuse images on the web, the Internet Watch Foundation has announced that it is to share its database of digital signatures of images, known as the hash list, with internet giants Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Yahoo.

This action follows David Cameron’s announcement of tougher measures to combat online child sexual abuse material at the #WePROTECT conference in November 2014.

The big question is whether this will make any great difference and, if so, why hasn’t it happened sooner?

The IWF and its critics

The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is a charity founded in 1996 to receive and act upon reports of images depicting the sexual abuse of children (mislabelled as child pornography) and those images of adult content that are deemed illegal in the UK. Funded by telecoms operators, software and hardware manufacturers and other organisations, the IWF’s role is officially outlined by a Memorandum of Understanding between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers, which protects IWF staff from prosecution. The IWF operates a reporting hotline service and directs law enforcement to illegal images it has assessed so that take-down notices can be issued and investigators can follow-up.

Over the past 20 years the IWF has been at the forefront of policing child sexual abuse and other extreme imagery, overseeing development of content rating systems and encouraging the development of similar practices in other countries. During this time, the IWF’s workload and need for its services have increased – reports of child sexual abuse imagery have risen from 1,291 in 1996-7 to 74,199 in 2013-14.

The IWF is not without its critics, however. It has been labelled as government censorship by the back door, while others suggest the images it deals with are harmless by themselves, and that they may even have a beneficial or preventative use for those with paedophilic sexual interests. These are minority views, however, and a more widely held fear is that viewing images of child sexual abuse may precipitate thoughts to into action and lead to real harm to real children. While such an argument seems logical, there is no conclusive evidence yet that this is the case as research findings often conflict.

But, what is a fact is that the demand for these images leads to more images being created – which perpetuates the abuse of children. The law is quite clear that possession of such imagery, even images that are computer generated but depict similar scenes, are illegal.

Where should the focus be?

The main criticism of the IWF’s move to share its hash list of abusive and extreme images is that it is not tackling the real problem. While Google, Facebook and other major internet firms could, equipped with the IWF’s hash list of known images, provide automatic scanning and blocking of some kind, this wouldn’t takle the paedophile groups involved in the trade of such imagery. They do not use social media or the open web: they hide in the darker recesses of the internet where the IWF does not go. Perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that collections of imagery are used as tokens for entry to closed paedophile networks which are involved in the organisation of harmful activity towards children and underage young people, such as providing children for sex and then photographing or filming them.

But many of these more secretive networks are already the target of police operations and require a different type of policing. Significantly, this argument also detracts from the main issue being highlighted by the IWF, which is the importance of keeping these illegal images out of the public domain and preventing them from becoming normalised. It also encourages partnerships between a range of organisations and businesses that have hitherto been rather reluctant to accepting full responsibility for their role in facilitating the sharing of materials. Clearly, undesirable internet activity can only be prevented effectively by collective action.

IWF’s recent announcement sends the message that possession of child abuse imagery is wrong; it also keeps those undesirable images away from the more public side of the internet. As long as valuable police time is not tied up investigating minor infringements at the expense of actually shutting down paedophile networks, IWF’s decision is surely a good thing.

The Conversation

Monday, August 17, 2015

Four problems the revamped Google should tackle now it's free to innovate

Reuters/Steve Marcus

Google is seen as a world leader in innovation, an important backer of tech start-ups and a pioneer in all our futures. The corporation, which is financially the size of a mid-range country, just reorganised its structure so that it can continue to invest in experimental technologies – such as drones, driverless cars and unusual medical devices – without worrying shareholders.

But many of Google’s current publicly reported innovations seem to be aimed at encouraging us to spend even more time connected to the internet. They are “technology-push” innovations, products that require the creation of a new market because there isn’t an obvious existing demand. Google Glass, the wearable optical computer that has now been discontinued is a good example. It didn’t appear to be rooted enough in a genuinely understood need.

On the other side there are “need-pull” innovations that respond to existing needs and are the result of humble enquiry. Developments by Google in security devices, and modular smart phones all appear, on the surface to meet needs. But are they the genuine result of humble enquiry?

The problem with Google’s moonshots is that they are fired at the Moon. And there’s no one on the Moon (not yet anyway). Many real needs are social, cultural and environmental, not rooted only in a hunger for the next wearable gizmo. Here are some real-need challenges that Google could put its mighty innovation machine to work tackling and improve the world in the process.

Digital dealmaker Shutterstock

1. Making money more secure

In a world of identity theft and online fraud, there is a huge need for more secure ways to transfer money and carry out transactions. Various ways to simply move money around, for example between smartphones, are emerging but other innovations could vastly improve security. “Smart contract” programs could ensure both parties stick to their side of a deal. For example, if you buy something online then a smart contract could take the money from your bank account only when it receives notification from the delivery company the product has arrived.

Virtual or cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are starting to incorporate such technology but these systems still carry suspicion due to their use by black markets. Google has so far just hovered around the edges of Bitcoin but it has the opportunity to lead development and help make the technology mainstream.

To do so, however, it may also have to fundamentally rethink its approach to privacy, which is an inherent part of Bitcoin but largely absent from the way Google currently operates thanks to its widespread data-gathering operation.

Online jungle. Shutterstock

2. Creating a safer online world

Google’s Project Vault will give us a digital safe in which to securely store our smartphone’s personal data and messages. Another useful gadget no doubt. But instead of developing security devices and making gadgets less stealable, I’d like to see Google support us in becoming more secure in ourselves.

Existing innovations came about as a reaction to the insecurities of a hacked world. But there are opportunities not only for creating new digital safes and padlocks, alarms and security guards but also to begin an exploration of how to create preventive and naturally safe virtual and physical environments. These environments would be less about protection and defence and more about assurance and trust.

The new windows Shutterstock

3. Making technology less intrusive

Smartphones are constantly diverting our attention from the real world. Integrating technology more seamlessly into our lives could free us from their grip. Wearable technology and smart clothing could be one way of doing this, but better would be technologies that rely on and develop our tactile relationships with the world and each other.

This may well involve finally dispensing with the “screen” and the gadget as the required focus of our attention. A big question is how can Google create technology that doesn’t require us to “look”, instead of having us squint at screens of different sizes, flashing us into trance states and harming our eyesight.

Some experiments in less noticeable technology may involve an initial intrusion, for example, digital implants for communication, enhancing our senses or even curing physical conditions. But it is not guaranteed people will want to become cyborgs. A big opportunity is to create technologies that arise and pass away as needed, that are temporary, emergent and that enter our lives when we truly need them and leave when we don’t.

Flying turbines Makani/Google

4. Changing the way we produce energy

Energy is one of the biggest challenges for the whole planet. What if Google turned its weighty innovation might towards generating truly clean energy? Others in Silicon Valley have already started making inroads into the energy sector – see this gadget that allows consumers to access solar energy through smart tech, without buying expensive panels. Electric vehicle and battery technology such as Tesla is making also continues to grow and innovate.

But country-sized corporations such as Google could do even more (perhaps they are behind closed doors). There are some crazy-sounding, alternative forms of energy emerging that might just work. Solar roads, sewage waste and even high altitude wind energy might benefit from some Google kickstart resource (the latter just has). Ok, Google! While you are up high in the sky, installing wifi balloons, why not harness some free energy for us all?

The Conversation

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Google becomes Alphabet in effort to keep the innovative spark alive

Google: no longer just a search engine. mwichary/flickr, CC BY

In the corporate world you learn quickly that if small companies want to collaborate, it tends to happen, while efforts to collaborate with large companies may involve many meetings and involve many people with no guarantee anything will come of it. Small companies innovate as they need to; big companies are often risk averse.

Google’s announcement that it is to reorganise under a new parent company, Alphabet, is a step towards overcoming this sort of bureaucracy and maintaining the fiercely innovative and daring streak that has until now been its trademark.

Large companies have more freedom to ignore their end users, preferring secrecy from fear of having their ideas stolen, and instead focus on large stakeholders. This means that they often create products that are too wide in scope and which fail to address specific needs.

For smaller businesses, innovations are part of the way they engage with customers. Rapid prototypes are released, and assessed to see what works and what doesn’t. These prototypes are then scaled up and made relevant to a wider range of potential customers. Despite its enormous size and wealth, this is also the approach that Google favours.

Too often large companies don’t trust their engineers to make sensible judgements on business decisions. This probably shouldn’t be the case, as often the most successful technology companies are run by those who worked up through a technical role. Companies such as Hewlett Packard, Apple and Google made their names through being technically excellent, rather than a narrow focus on business objectives.

Google’s move effectively splits one monolithic company into several smaller companies wholly owned by Alphabet, of which Google is the largest. In this way, Google (or should we say, Alphabet) hopes to keep each of its areas of focus small, fast, and innovative.

G is for Google. Let’s hope M isn’t for mistake. Alphabet

Risk averse

After all, Google is not just a search engine any more. It has expanded in many directions, from mobile phone design and operating systems, to smart home control kits, automotous cars, geomapping, and off-the-wall projects. It is comfortable trying things out and dedicating the resources to ideas with potential.

This risk-taking is a key part of Google’s innovation infrastructure, giving independence of thought to staff and technical leaders without over-burdening them with business issues. In fact, it’s similar to a traditional academic research model, where academics with good ideas get the resources that allow them to drive them forward. Done well, the university becomes a leader in the field, just as Google has become a technology giant.

Small works in software

Google wants to attract the best staff into research labs, and achieves this by creating a small-company infrastructure where engineers are not burdened by bureaucracy. However, unlike smaller businesses, Google has the deep pockets to support its staff. A rising star can be given responsibilities without the need to progress through a formal hierarchy.

After all, the structure of large companies may limit their ability to produce useful software – take for example the many major government IT contract disasters, such as the £10 billion spent on an NHS IT system that ultimately never worked.

What would a small company have done differently? It would have invested time in searching for the best solution, created and tested prototypes, and used those as a basis for the final product. The large companies involved in the NHS contract had off-the-shelf solutions, which they pushed without questioning their suitability. Too much money was spent on design and requirements analysis, and it was years before the product reached the clinical staff, by which point it was a computer programmer’s dream but a nightmare for the intended user.

Reputations built on people

Leading universities generally have individuals to thank for their success – for examples cryptography at Royal Holloway, led by Professor Fred Piper, and the University of Edinburgh’s Informatics Group that thrived under the guidance of Professor Sidney Michaelson.

So big companies need to act like small ones and provide opportunities for innovation and risk-taking to thrive, where individuals who do not want to conform to strict rules and procedures can take on their vision of the future. After all, Apple was a garage company once, and Microsoft had to borrow someone else’s operating system (known as 86-DOS and purchased from Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products) to get a foot on the ladder.

Google’s enormous impact is mostly down to the creativity of individuals, its image still one of a bunch of software developers who just love to write code – not easy for a company whose products increasingly find places in almost every web user’s life. Let’s hope that the creation of Alphabet protects the small-company ethos that has made Google great.

The Conversation

Tiny cell superheroes are suiting up to give bone cancer the boot!

Imagine your body is a sprawling, high-tech kingdom, and usually, your immune system is the elite police force keeping everything...