Sunday, August 29, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Bill Gates Favorite Teacher
Innovation in Education
Bill Gates' favorite teacher
sal_khan.top.jpgKhan turns out thousands of videos from a converted walk-in closet in his Silicon Valley home. By David A. Kaplan, contributorAugust 24, 2010: 5:53 AM ET
FORTUNE -- Sal Khan, you can count Bill Gates as your newest fan. Gates is a voracious consumer of online education. This past spring a colleague at his small think tank, bgC3, e-mailed him about the nonprofit khanacademy.org, a vast digital trove of free mini-lectures all narrated by Khan, an ebullient, articulate Harvard MBA and former hedge fund manager. Gates replied within minutes. "This guy is amazing," he wrote. "It is awesome how much he has done with very little in the way of resources." Gates and his 11-year-old son, Rory, began soaking up videos, from algebra to biology. Then, several weeks ago, at the Aspen Ideas Festival in front of 2,000 people, Gates gave the 33-year-old Khan a shout-out that any entrepreneur would kill for. Ruminating on what he called the "mind-blowing misallocation" of resources away from education, Gates touted the "unbelievable" 10- to 15-minute Khan Academy tutorials "I've been using with my kids." With admiration and surprise, the world's second-richest person noted that Khan "was a hedge fund guy making lots of money." Now, Gates said, "I'd say we've moved about 160 IQ points from the hedge fund category to the teaching-many-people-in-a-leveraged-way category. It was a good day his wife let him quit his job." Khan wasn't even there -- he learned of Gates' praise through a YouTube video. "It was really cool," Khan says.
In an undistinguished ranch house off the main freeway of Silicon Valley, in a converted walk-in closet filled with a few hundred dollars' worth of video equipment and bookshelves and his toddler's red Elmo underfoot, is the epicenter of the educational earthquake that has captivated Gates and others. It is here that Salman Khan produces online lessons on math, science, and a range of other subjects that have made him a web sensation.
Khan Academy, with Khan as the only teacher, appears on YouTube and elsewhere and is by any measure the most popular educational site on the web. Khan's playlist of 1,630 tutorials (at last count) are now seen an average of 70,000 times a day -- nearly double the student body at Harvard and Stanford combined. Since he began his tutorials in late 2006, Khan Academy has received 18 million page views worldwide, including from the Gates progeny. Most page views come from the U.S., followed by Canada, England, Australia, and India. In any given month, Khan says, he's reached about 200,000 students. "There's no reason it shouldn't be 20 million."
His low-tech, conversational tutorials -- Khan's face never appears, and viewers see only his unadorned step-by-step doodles and diagrams on an electronic blackboard -- are more than merely another example of viral media distributed at negligible cost to the universe. Khan Academy holds the promise of a virtual school: an educational transformation that de-emphasizes classrooms, campus and administrative infrastructure, and even brand-name instructors.
Quick, free, and easy to understand
Distance learning and correspondence courses have been around since the invention of mail. And private, for-profit schools flourish; the University of Phoenix has half a million students enrolled, most of them online. Other private operations, like the Teaching Co., specialize in amalgamating "great courses" from nationally known teachers: the 12-hour Game Theory in Life, Business, and Beyond, from one academic star, costs $254.95 on DVD.
What's remarkable about Khan Academy, aside from its nonpareil word of mouth and burgeoning growth, is that it's free and prizes brevity. Remember your mumbling macroeconomics teacher whose 50-minute monologue in a large auditorium could bore the dead? That isn't Khan. He rarely cracks wise -- if you want shtick, check out Darth Vader trying to teach Euclidean geometry on YouTube ("The Pythagorean theorem is your destiny!") -- but in less than 15 minutes Khan gets to the essence of the topics he's carved out.
Online critics question whether he amounts to a dilettante who's turning learning into pedagogical McNuggets. But while you obviously don't learn calculus in one session -- the subject is divided into 191 parts, which doesn't include 32 more in precalc -- Khan's components seem to hit the sweet spot of length and substance. And he covers an astonishing array. There are the core subjects in math -- arithmetic, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, and statistics -- and the de rigueur science offerings, like biology, chemistry, and physics. But Khan also gives lessons in Economics of a Cupcake Factory, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Alien Abduction Brain Teaser.
The seeds of education
Like so many entrepreneurial epiphanies, Khan's came by accident. Born and raised in New Orleans -- the son of immigrants from India and what's now Bangladesh -- Khan was long an academic star. With his MBA from Harvard, he has three degrees from MIT: a BS in math and a BS and a master's in electrical engineering and computer science. He also was the president of his MIT class and did volunteer teaching in nearby Brookline for talented children, as well as developed software to teach children with ADHD. What he doesn't know he picks up from endless reading and cogitation: His gift, like that of many teachers, is being able to reduce the complex. "Part of the beauty of what he does is his consistency," says Gates. Of Khan's capacity to teach, Gates, who says he spends considerable time trying to help his three kids learn the basics of math and science, tells Fortune, "I kind of envy him."
In the summer of 2004, while still living in Boston, Khan learned that his seventh-grader cousin, Nadia, in New Orleans was having trouble in math class converting kilograms. He agreed to remotely tutor her. Using Yahoo Doodle software as a shared notepad, as well as a telephone, Nadia thrived -- so much so that Khan started working with her brothers, Ali and Arman. Word spread to other relatives and friends. Khan wrote JavaScript problem generators to keep up a supply of practice exercises. But between their soccer practices, his job, and multiple time zones, scheduling became impossible. "I started to record videos on YouTube for them to watch at their own pace," Khan recalls. Other users tuned in, and the blueprint for Khan Academy was created.
Khan continued to work for the small hedge fund he had joined after Harvard, Wohl Capital Management. He said he took away "under $1 million" before the Silicon Valley-based hedge fund wound down, and briefly started his own fund in mid-2008, which didn't really get off the ground because of the financial crisis. ("I called it Khan Capital," he says, "but it never got much beyond 'Khan's Capital.'") He used his nest egg to buy a house with his wife, Umamia, a rheumatology fellow at Stanford Medical School, and as a reserve when he gave up his investment career. On a typical day he tapes a few tutorials, answers posts from students, calls experts when he's stuck on how best to explicate a concept, and fields queries from curious potential backers.
He maintains he has no interest in monetizing the operation by charging subscriptions or selling ads. "I already have a beautiful wife, a hilarious son, two Hondas, and a decent house," he declares on his website. But that hasn't stopped the inquiries, the most notable from John Doerr, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and his wife, Ann. Not long ago a PayPal donation on Khan's site came in for $10,000 (a typical gift is $100). Khan e-mailed the donor. Her name was Ann Doerr. He knew of a John Doerr but just assumed the name was more popular than he realized. He e-mailed her to say thanks. She suggested lunch.
When they met, Ann Doerr told him she couldn't believe hers was the largest donation. "This is, like, criminal," she said. "I love what you're doing." When he got home, he found a message from her: "There's $100,000 in the mail."
Khan is using that money to pay himself a salary. Later, he met John Doerr and has since relied on both Doerrs for entrée to others in the philanthropic establishment. After Gates mentioned Khan in Aspen, John tweeted it to his Silicon Valley legions. In July the academy received another $100,000 -- from John McCall MacBain, a Canadian entrepreneur who made a fortune in publishing. "If I had a million dollars," Khan says, he'd fund software development of more automated problem sets and extensive translations of his videos. Gates, whose foundation spends $700 million a year on U.S. education, plans to talk to Khan soon as well.
An academy or a library?
Khan has his skeptics in the education business. They don't doubt he means well and is helping students, but they question the broad impact of any tutorial that doesn't test performance or allow student-teacher discussion. "It's a solid supplemental resource, particularly for motivated students," says Jeffrey Leeds, president of Leeds Equity Partners, the largest U.S. private equity firm specializing in for-profit education. "But it's not an academy -- it's more of a library."
But Khan intends nothing less than "tens of thousands" of tutorials offering the "first free, world-class virtual school where anyone can learn anything." The advances envisioned by Leeds and others wouldn't hurt either. The education industry can use all the innovation it can find.
Bill Gates' favorite teacher
sal_khan.top.jpgKhan turns out thousands of videos from a converted walk-in closet in his Silicon Valley home. By David A. Kaplan, contributorAugust 24, 2010: 5:53 AM ET
FORTUNE -- Sal Khan, you can count Bill Gates as your newest fan. Gates is a voracious consumer of online education. This past spring a colleague at his small think tank, bgC3, e-mailed him about the nonprofit khanacademy.org, a vast digital trove of free mini-lectures all narrated by Khan, an ebullient, articulate Harvard MBA and former hedge fund manager. Gates replied within minutes. "This guy is amazing," he wrote. "It is awesome how much he has done with very little in the way of resources." Gates and his 11-year-old son, Rory, began soaking up videos, from algebra to biology. Then, several weeks ago, at the Aspen Ideas Festival in front of 2,000 people, Gates gave the 33-year-old Khan a shout-out that any entrepreneur would kill for. Ruminating on what he called the "mind-blowing misallocation" of resources away from education, Gates touted the "unbelievable" 10- to 15-minute Khan Academy tutorials "I've been using with my kids." With admiration and surprise, the world's second-richest person noted that Khan "was a hedge fund guy making lots of money." Now, Gates said, "I'd say we've moved about 160 IQ points from the hedge fund category to the teaching-many-people-in-a-leveraged-way category. It was a good day his wife let him quit his job." Khan wasn't even there -- he learned of Gates' praise through a YouTube video. "It was really cool," Khan says.
In an undistinguished ranch house off the main freeway of Silicon Valley, in a converted walk-in closet filled with a few hundred dollars' worth of video equipment and bookshelves and his toddler's red Elmo underfoot, is the epicenter of the educational earthquake that has captivated Gates and others. It is here that Salman Khan produces online lessons on math, science, and a range of other subjects that have made him a web sensation.
Khan Academy, with Khan as the only teacher, appears on YouTube and elsewhere and is by any measure the most popular educational site on the web. Khan's playlist of 1,630 tutorials (at last count) are now seen an average of 70,000 times a day -- nearly double the student body at Harvard and Stanford combined. Since he began his tutorials in late 2006, Khan Academy has received 18 million page views worldwide, including from the Gates progeny. Most page views come from the U.S., followed by Canada, England, Australia, and India. In any given month, Khan says, he's reached about 200,000 students. "There's no reason it shouldn't be 20 million."
His low-tech, conversational tutorials -- Khan's face never appears, and viewers see only his unadorned step-by-step doodles and diagrams on an electronic blackboard -- are more than merely another example of viral media distributed at negligible cost to the universe. Khan Academy holds the promise of a virtual school: an educational transformation that de-emphasizes classrooms, campus and administrative infrastructure, and even brand-name instructors.
Quick, free, and easy to understand
Distance learning and correspondence courses have been around since the invention of mail. And private, for-profit schools flourish; the University of Phoenix has half a million students enrolled, most of them online. Other private operations, like the Teaching Co., specialize in amalgamating "great courses" from nationally known teachers: the 12-hour Game Theory in Life, Business, and Beyond, from one academic star, costs $254.95 on DVD.
What's remarkable about Khan Academy, aside from its nonpareil word of mouth and burgeoning growth, is that it's free and prizes brevity. Remember your mumbling macroeconomics teacher whose 50-minute monologue in a large auditorium could bore the dead? That isn't Khan. He rarely cracks wise -- if you want shtick, check out Darth Vader trying to teach Euclidean geometry on YouTube ("The Pythagorean theorem is your destiny!") -- but in less than 15 minutes Khan gets to the essence of the topics he's carved out.
Online critics question whether he amounts to a dilettante who's turning learning into pedagogical McNuggets. But while you obviously don't learn calculus in one session -- the subject is divided into 191 parts, which doesn't include 32 more in precalc -- Khan's components seem to hit the sweet spot of length and substance. And he covers an astonishing array. There are the core subjects in math -- arithmetic, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, and statistics -- and the de rigueur science offerings, like biology, chemistry, and physics. But Khan also gives lessons in Economics of a Cupcake Factory, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Alien Abduction Brain Teaser.
The seeds of education
Like so many entrepreneurial epiphanies, Khan's came by accident. Born and raised in New Orleans -- the son of immigrants from India and what's now Bangladesh -- Khan was long an academic star. With his MBA from Harvard, he has three degrees from MIT: a BS in math and a BS and a master's in electrical engineering and computer science. He also was the president of his MIT class and did volunteer teaching in nearby Brookline for talented children, as well as developed software to teach children with ADHD. What he doesn't know he picks up from endless reading and cogitation: His gift, like that of many teachers, is being able to reduce the complex. "Part of the beauty of what he does is his consistency," says Gates. Of Khan's capacity to teach, Gates, who says he spends considerable time trying to help his three kids learn the basics of math and science, tells Fortune, "I kind of envy him."
In the summer of 2004, while still living in Boston, Khan learned that his seventh-grader cousin, Nadia, in New Orleans was having trouble in math class converting kilograms. He agreed to remotely tutor her. Using Yahoo Doodle software as a shared notepad, as well as a telephone, Nadia thrived -- so much so that Khan started working with her brothers, Ali and Arman. Word spread to other relatives and friends. Khan wrote JavaScript problem generators to keep up a supply of practice exercises. But between their soccer practices, his job, and multiple time zones, scheduling became impossible. "I started to record videos on YouTube for them to watch at their own pace," Khan recalls. Other users tuned in, and the blueprint for Khan Academy was created.
Khan continued to work for the small hedge fund he had joined after Harvard, Wohl Capital Management. He said he took away "under $1 million" before the Silicon Valley-based hedge fund wound down, and briefly started his own fund in mid-2008, which didn't really get off the ground because of the financial crisis. ("I called it Khan Capital," he says, "but it never got much beyond 'Khan's Capital.'") He used his nest egg to buy a house with his wife, Umamia, a rheumatology fellow at Stanford Medical School, and as a reserve when he gave up his investment career. On a typical day he tapes a few tutorials, answers posts from students, calls experts when he's stuck on how best to explicate a concept, and fields queries from curious potential backers.
He maintains he has no interest in monetizing the operation by charging subscriptions or selling ads. "I already have a beautiful wife, a hilarious son, two Hondas, and a decent house," he declares on his website. But that hasn't stopped the inquiries, the most notable from John Doerr, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and his wife, Ann. Not long ago a PayPal donation on Khan's site came in for $10,000 (a typical gift is $100). Khan e-mailed the donor. Her name was Ann Doerr. He knew of a John Doerr but just assumed the name was more popular than he realized. He e-mailed her to say thanks. She suggested lunch.
When they met, Ann Doerr told him she couldn't believe hers was the largest donation. "This is, like, criminal," she said. "I love what you're doing." When he got home, he found a message from her: "There's $100,000 in the mail."
Khan is using that money to pay himself a salary. Later, he met John Doerr and has since relied on both Doerrs for entrée to others in the philanthropic establishment. After Gates mentioned Khan in Aspen, John tweeted it to his Silicon Valley legions. In July the academy received another $100,000 -- from John McCall MacBain, a Canadian entrepreneur who made a fortune in publishing. "If I had a million dollars," Khan says, he'd fund software development of more automated problem sets and extensive translations of his videos. Gates, whose foundation spends $700 million a year on U.S. education, plans to talk to Khan soon as well.
An academy or a library?
Khan has his skeptics in the education business. They don't doubt he means well and is helping students, but they question the broad impact of any tutorial that doesn't test performance or allow student-teacher discussion. "It's a solid supplemental resource, particularly for motivated students," says Jeffrey Leeds, president of Leeds Equity Partners, the largest U.S. private equity firm specializing in for-profit education. "But it's not an academy -- it's more of a library."
But Khan intends nothing less than "tens of thousands" of tutorials offering the "first free, world-class virtual school where anyone can learn anything." The advances envisioned by Leeds and others wouldn't hurt either. The education industry can use all the innovation it can find.
INTEL warns Sales will fall short of Forecasts
chart_ws_stock_intelcorp.top.png By David Goldman, staff writerAugust 27, 2010: 11:40 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Intel Corp. on Friday warned investors that its third-quarter revenue will fall below its forecasts as consumer demand for personal computers slipped.
The world's largest chipmaker said that it now expects sales in the current quarter will be in a range of $10.8 billion to $11.2 billion. That falls short of the company's previous revenue guidance of $11.2 to $12 billion.
Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters had expected sales of $11.5, with the most bearish analyst forecasting revenue of $11 billion.
Shares of Intel (INTC, Fortune 500), which were halted for 15 minutes on Friday following the warning, gained more than 1% once they resumed trading. Rival AMD (AMD, Fortune 500) also rose slightly.
The likely reason that Intel and AMD's shares didn't fall Friday is because investors may have already priced in a less optimistic outlook for sales. Intel's shares had already fallen 17%, and AMD's had dropped 29% since the last week of July.
Chip sales have dipped below expectations due to a sudden shift in demand for personal computers. In July, Intel and AMD reported strong second quarters on the back of booming PC sales, with Intel reporting its "best quarter ever."
That tide shifted late last month, and analysts noted that PC manufacturers have begun to scale back their orders from suppliers. Several analysts downgraded shares of Intel and AMD two weeks ago, with analysts at JPMorgan saying that PC order rates in Taiwan were "falling off a cliff."
That shift was rather quick and unexpected, given bullish forecasts from Intel and tech consulting firms like Gartner, which predicted PC shipments would rise more than 20% this year. Analysts said the fact that the economic recovery seems to have tapered off a bit caused manufacturers to grow a bit more cautious.
"The tone in the first half of the year was that the economy looked like it was getting better and the PC business would continue on with strength. But then more uncertain data came in and changed that tone,"said Cody Acree, analyst at Williams Financial Group.
Graphics chipmaker Nvidia (NVDA) also revised its sales forecast down late last month, citing a shift toward lower-priced processors.
The good news for Intel is that corporate PC customers continue to replace their old hardware, as predicted. Chips for servers and computers sold to businesses tend to have higher selling prices than those for consumer PCs.
Still, that was more than offset by the lower than expected consumer PC demand. That led Intel to lower its gross margin expectations from previous forecasts. Intel said its current-quarter gross margin will be in a range of 65% to 67%, compared to a previous range of 65% to 69%.
Intel will report its third-quarter earnings on Oct. 12.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Intel Corp. on Friday warned investors that its third-quarter revenue will fall below its forecasts as consumer demand for personal computers slipped.
The world's largest chipmaker said that it now expects sales in the current quarter will be in a range of $10.8 billion to $11.2 billion. That falls short of the company's previous revenue guidance of $11.2 to $12 billion.
Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters had expected sales of $11.5, with the most bearish analyst forecasting revenue of $11 billion.
Shares of Intel (INTC, Fortune 500), which were halted for 15 minutes on Friday following the warning, gained more than 1% once they resumed trading. Rival AMD (AMD, Fortune 500) also rose slightly.
The likely reason that Intel and AMD's shares didn't fall Friday is because investors may have already priced in a less optimistic outlook for sales. Intel's shares had already fallen 17%, and AMD's had dropped 29% since the last week of July.
Chip sales have dipped below expectations due to a sudden shift in demand for personal computers. In July, Intel and AMD reported strong second quarters on the back of booming PC sales, with Intel reporting its "best quarter ever."
That tide shifted late last month, and analysts noted that PC manufacturers have begun to scale back their orders from suppliers. Several analysts downgraded shares of Intel and AMD two weeks ago, with analysts at JPMorgan saying that PC order rates in Taiwan were "falling off a cliff."
That shift was rather quick and unexpected, given bullish forecasts from Intel and tech consulting firms like Gartner, which predicted PC shipments would rise more than 20% this year. Analysts said the fact that the economic recovery seems to have tapered off a bit caused manufacturers to grow a bit more cautious.
"The tone in the first half of the year was that the economy looked like it was getting better and the PC business would continue on with strength. But then more uncertain data came in and changed that tone,"said Cody Acree, analyst at Williams Financial Group.
Graphics chipmaker Nvidia (NVDA) also revised its sales forecast down late last month, citing a shift toward lower-priced processors.
The good news for Intel is that corporate PC customers continue to replace their old hardware, as predicted. Chips for servers and computers sold to businesses tend to have higher selling prices than those for consumer PCs.
Still, that was more than offset by the lower than expected consumer PC demand. That led Intel to lower its gross margin expectations from previous forecasts. Intel said its current-quarter gross margin will be in a range of 65% to 67%, compared to a previous range of 65% to 69%.
Intel will report its third-quarter earnings on Oct. 12.
How to create a Super Password!
By John D. Sutter, CNN
August 20, 2010 -- Updated 1349 GMT (2149 HKT) | Filed under: Innovation
Want to keep your online data secure? You may need a 12-character password, researchers say.
Want to keep your online data secure? You may need a 12-character password, researchers say.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Researchers now say computer passwords should be 12 characters long
* The old standard -- 8 characters -- won't stand up to sophisticated hacks
* The news comes from the Georgia Institute of Technology
* Researchers say you can use sentences as passwords these days
RELATED TOPICS
* Georgia Institute of Technology
* Technology
* Carnegie Mellon University
(CNN) -- Say goodbye to those wimpy, eight-letter passwords.
The 12-character era of online security is upon us, according to a report published this week by the Georgia Institute of Technology.
The researchers used clusters of graphics cards to crack eight-character passwords in less than two hours.
But when the researchers applied that same processing power to 12-character passwords, they found it would take 17,134 years to make them snap.
"The length of your password in some cases can dictate the vulnerability," said Joshua Davis, a research scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute.
It's hard to say what will happen in the future, but for now, 12-character passwords should be the standard, said Richard Boyd, a senior research scientist who also worked on the project.
The researchers recommend 12-character passwords -- as opposed to those with 11 or, say, 13 characters -- because that number strikes a balance between "convenience and security."
They assumed a sophisticated hacker might be able to try 1 trillion password combinations per second. In that scenario, it takes 180 years to crack an 11-character password, but there's a big jump when you add just one more character -- 17,134 years.
Passwords have gotten longer over time, and security experts are already recommending that people use full sentences as passwords.
Here's one suggested password-sentence from Carnegie Mellon University:
"No, the capital of Wisconsin isn't Cheeseopolis!"
Or maybe something that's easier to remember, like this:
"I have two kids: Jack and Jill."
Even though advances in cheap computing power are making long, complicated passwords a necessity, not all websites will accommodate them, Boyd said.
It's best to use the longest and most complex password a site will allow, he said. For example, if a website will let you create a password with non-letter characters -- like "@y;}v%W$\5\" -- then you should do so.
There are only 26 letters in the English alphabet, but there are 95 letters and symbols on a standard keyboard. More characters means more permutations, and it soon becomes more difficult for a computer to generate the correct password just by guessing.
Some websites allow for super-long passwords. The longest one Boyd has seen is at Fidelity.com, a financial site that lets users create 32-character passwords.
On a Microsoft website devoted to password security, the tech giant tells the password-creating public not to use real words or logical combinations of letters. That keeps you safer from a "dictionary attack," which uses a database of words and common character sequences to try to guess the code.
The Georgia Tech researchers carried out a "brute force" attack when they determined that passwords should be at least 12 characters long.
To do so, they deployed computer graphics cards, which are cheap and can be programmed to do basic computations very quickly.
The processors in those cards run simultaneously, trying to guess all of the possible password combinations. The more characters in a password, the more guesses are required.
But if your password has to be really long in order to keep up with this computational power -- and if you're supposed to have a new password for each website you frequent -- then how are you supposed to remember everything?
That's a real problem, the Georgia Tech researchers said.
There are a few solutions, however.
A website called Password Safe will store a list of passwords for you, but Boyd and Davis said it may still be possible for a hacker to obtain that list.
Other companies sell tokens that people carry around with them. These keychain-sized devices generate random numbers several times a minute, and users must enter those numbers and a shorter password to log in.
Some sites -- Facebook for example -- are marketing their log-ins and user names as a way to access sites all over the Web.
That's good for the user but is potentially dangerous because if hackers figure out a single password, they can access multiple banks of information, the researchers said.
The reason passwords have to keep getting longer is that computers and graphics cards are getting faster, the Georgia Tech researchers said.
"These things are really inexpensive -- just a few hundred dollars -- and they have a performance that's comparable to supercomputers of only just a few years ago," Boyd said of fast-processing graphics cards.
Maybe our brains will have to get bigger and faster, too. We'll need some way to remember these tome-like character strings.
August 20, 2010 -- Updated 1349 GMT (2149 HKT) | Filed under: Innovation
Want to keep your online data secure? You may need a 12-character password, researchers say.
Want to keep your online data secure? You may need a 12-character password, researchers say.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Researchers now say computer passwords should be 12 characters long
* The old standard -- 8 characters -- won't stand up to sophisticated hacks
* The news comes from the Georgia Institute of Technology
* Researchers say you can use sentences as passwords these days
RELATED TOPICS
* Georgia Institute of Technology
* Technology
* Carnegie Mellon University
(CNN) -- Say goodbye to those wimpy, eight-letter passwords.
The 12-character era of online security is upon us, according to a report published this week by the Georgia Institute of Technology.
The researchers used clusters of graphics cards to crack eight-character passwords in less than two hours.
But when the researchers applied that same processing power to 12-character passwords, they found it would take 17,134 years to make them snap.
"The length of your password in some cases can dictate the vulnerability," said Joshua Davis, a research scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute.
It's hard to say what will happen in the future, but for now, 12-character passwords should be the standard, said Richard Boyd, a senior research scientist who also worked on the project.
The researchers recommend 12-character passwords -- as opposed to those with 11 or, say, 13 characters -- because that number strikes a balance between "convenience and security."
They assumed a sophisticated hacker might be able to try 1 trillion password combinations per second. In that scenario, it takes 180 years to crack an 11-character password, but there's a big jump when you add just one more character -- 17,134 years.
Passwords have gotten longer over time, and security experts are already recommending that people use full sentences as passwords.
Here's one suggested password-sentence from Carnegie Mellon University:
"No, the capital of Wisconsin isn't Cheeseopolis!"
Or maybe something that's easier to remember, like this:
"I have two kids: Jack and Jill."
Even though advances in cheap computing power are making long, complicated passwords a necessity, not all websites will accommodate them, Boyd said.
It's best to use the longest and most complex password a site will allow, he said. For example, if a website will let you create a password with non-letter characters -- like "@y;}v%W$\5\" -- then you should do so.
There are only 26 letters in the English alphabet, but there are 95 letters and symbols on a standard keyboard. More characters means more permutations, and it soon becomes more difficult for a computer to generate the correct password just by guessing.
Some websites allow for super-long passwords. The longest one Boyd has seen is at Fidelity.com, a financial site that lets users create 32-character passwords.
On a Microsoft website devoted to password security, the tech giant tells the password-creating public not to use real words or logical combinations of letters. That keeps you safer from a "dictionary attack," which uses a database of words and common character sequences to try to guess the code.
The Georgia Tech researchers carried out a "brute force" attack when they determined that passwords should be at least 12 characters long.
To do so, they deployed computer graphics cards, which are cheap and can be programmed to do basic computations very quickly.
The processors in those cards run simultaneously, trying to guess all of the possible password combinations. The more characters in a password, the more guesses are required.
But if your password has to be really long in order to keep up with this computational power -- and if you're supposed to have a new password for each website you frequent -- then how are you supposed to remember everything?
That's a real problem, the Georgia Tech researchers said.
There are a few solutions, however.
A website called Password Safe will store a list of passwords for you, but Boyd and Davis said it may still be possible for a hacker to obtain that list.
Other companies sell tokens that people carry around with them. These keychain-sized devices generate random numbers several times a minute, and users must enter those numbers and a shorter password to log in.
Some sites -- Facebook for example -- are marketing their log-ins and user names as a way to access sites all over the Web.
That's good for the user but is potentially dangerous because if hackers figure out a single password, they can access multiple banks of information, the researchers said.
The reason passwords have to keep getting longer is that computers and graphics cards are getting faster, the Georgia Tech researchers said.
"These things are really inexpensive -- just a few hundred dollars -- and they have a performance that's comparable to supercomputers of only just a few years ago," Boyd said of fast-processing graphics cards.
Maybe our brains will have to get bigger and faster, too. We'll need some way to remember these tome-like character strings.
Be polite and put your Smartphone down
By Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich, Special to CNN
August 27, 2010 -- Updated 1614 GMT (0014 HKT) | Filed under: Mobile
Constantly perusing your phone is rude, say CNN.com's netiquette columnists Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich.
Constantly perusing your phone is rude, say CNN.com's netiquette columnists Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Phones do not belong on the table at restaurants, CNN.com's netiquette columnists say
* You're more likely to get run over while yakking on the phone, research finds
* Idle but interesting moments have become excuse to busy yourself with your phone
* Challenge from columnists: Stick to phone calls and texting
RELATED TOPICS
* Cellular Phones
* Facebook Inc.
* Twitter Inc.
Editor's note: Brenna Ehrlich and Andrea Bartz are the sarcastic brains behind humor blog and soon-to-be-book Stuff Hipsters Hate. When they're not trolling Brooklyn for new material, Ehrlich works as a news editor at Mashable.com, and Bartz holds the same position at Psychology Today.
(CNN) -- Remember the good ol' days, circa mid-naughts, when most people's phones just alerted them of incoming calls and the occasional text message?
After a two-second peek, you knew that you were not in desperate demand, and you were free to slip your cell back into your pocket or purse (or cell phone holster, if you were a huge geek). You'd then go back to standing in line, taking in a raucous concert or attending your grandma Bunny's funeral.
Now we're more stupidly available, and a phone check involves, at minimum, viewing your e-mails, scanning Twitter mentions, perusing blog comments and stalking that dude's Facebook wall.
Even if there's nothing remarkable in any digi-venue, we keep tapping away -- reading the latest headlines, checking the weather (often, bafflingly, while outside or near a window) or ordering the most darling collectible Hummel set from eBay. You know, the usual.
Last year, a study even hinted that fresh bits of info may hook into the brain's reward system, shedding light on how whipping out your phone is analogous to that whiskey-and-taco bender you went on last weekend. (It just hurts so gooooood.)
The problem, of course, is that constantly perusing your phone is freaking rude -- a clear signal that your reception is more important than anything going on in the here and now.
Get this: 10 percent of people 24 and younger think it's OK to text during sex, according to consumer electronics shopping and review site Retrevo. That brings a whole meaning to the term multitasking.
But unless you're among that ADD-addled 10 percent, there's hope for you yet. May we suggest holsterin' the old communication cannon during the following situations:
At a restaurant
Putting your phone screen-up on the table is like ordering dessert -- one person does it and everyone else follows suit. Never mind that phones do not belong amidst tableware. As soon as a text pops up or a call comes through, everyone else at the table is trapped in conversational limbo while you have your own digital tete-a-tete.
If you must remain imminently reachable, simply make a big show out of it: "I'm so sorry to have to keep my phone out. Jess is supposed to get here soon, and I don't want to miss her."
The others will get the point. Either that, or they'll stick you with the bill. Don't worry, you'll likely be too distracted by Foursquare to notice.
On the sidewalk
It's one thing to walk and talk with your phone glued to your ear. Research finds that you're more likely to get run over while yakking, but hey, that's a risk you take. However, tucking your chin to your chest and staggering along whilst reviewing your Match.com updates or checking the Facebook RSVP list for your "America's Got Talent" viewing party is both stupid (cars!) and obnoxious.
It's all about spatial awareness: Those who walk-n-surf tend to weave to and fro, making them impossible to pass on crowded or skinny sidewalks. Park yourself out of the current and against a wall, finish your phone time and pocket your cell before re-entering the deadened, zombified stream of pedestrian humanity.
Special request to those of you who live in subway-arteried cities: I know you're super eager to breach fresh air and burst into the service zone, but for heaven's sake, wait until you've crested the stairs to turn your attention to your mobile.
Your slow climb is pissing off scads of already addled public transportation users. One day they will push you to your death, and all those shuffling aforementioned zombies will likely trample you under their distracted soles.
When cool stuff is happening
Manners aside, here's the big danger with packing every spare moment with a cybercheck: Eventually, idle but perfectly interesting moments (sitting on a park bench, people-watching at a café) become excuses to busy yourself with your touch screen.
Remember that iconic New Yorker cover from last Halloween? Clever, sure. Terrifying, absolutely.
Soapbox, prepare to be climbed: Challenge yourself to go a week without using your data plan. Pretend you're on vacation overseas and can't afford the rate. Turn off Push and Fetch and all the other emphatic verbs that bring inane Facebook updates and new e-mails to your attention like a cat proudly dropping an especially fresh rodent at your feet. Stick to phone calls and texting and check everything else exclusively from a computer.
You'll see passersby, not pixels, when you're riding in a car; squirrels, not a screen, when you're waiting outside to meet a friend. And you'll make the liberating (albeit depressing) discovery that when you fire up your e-mail again, the world has continued to swivel without your immediate viewage of e-coupons from Suave and that cat video from Uncle Bob.
Those are best dealt with when you're at your desk and supposedly working anyway./iframe>
August 27, 2010 -- Updated 1614 GMT (0014 HKT) | Filed under: Mobile
Constantly perusing your phone is rude, say CNN.com's netiquette columnists Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich.
Constantly perusing your phone is rude, say CNN.com's netiquette columnists Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Phones do not belong on the table at restaurants, CNN.com's netiquette columnists say
* You're more likely to get run over while yakking on the phone, research finds
* Idle but interesting moments have become excuse to busy yourself with your phone
* Challenge from columnists: Stick to phone calls and texting
RELATED TOPICS
* Cellular Phones
* Facebook Inc.
* Twitter Inc.
Editor's note: Brenna Ehrlich and Andrea Bartz are the sarcastic brains behind humor blog and soon-to-be-book Stuff Hipsters Hate. When they're not trolling Brooklyn for new material, Ehrlich works as a news editor at Mashable.com, and Bartz holds the same position at Psychology Today.
(CNN) -- Remember the good ol' days, circa mid-naughts, when most people's phones just alerted them of incoming calls and the occasional text message?
After a two-second peek, you knew that you were not in desperate demand, and you were free to slip your cell back into your pocket or purse (or cell phone holster, if you were a huge geek). You'd then go back to standing in line, taking in a raucous concert or attending your grandma Bunny's funeral.
Now we're more stupidly available, and a phone check involves, at minimum, viewing your e-mails, scanning Twitter mentions, perusing blog comments and stalking that dude's Facebook wall.
Even if there's nothing remarkable in any digi-venue, we keep tapping away -- reading the latest headlines, checking the weather (often, bafflingly, while outside or near a window) or ordering the most darling collectible Hummel set from eBay. You know, the usual.
Last year, a study even hinted that fresh bits of info may hook into the brain's reward system, shedding light on how whipping out your phone is analogous to that whiskey-and-taco bender you went on last weekend. (It just hurts so gooooood.)
The problem, of course, is that constantly perusing your phone is freaking rude -- a clear signal that your reception is more important than anything going on in the here and now.
Get this: 10 percent of people 24 and younger think it's OK to text during sex, according to consumer electronics shopping and review site Retrevo. That brings a whole meaning to the term multitasking.
But unless you're among that ADD-addled 10 percent, there's hope for you yet. May we suggest holsterin' the old communication cannon during the following situations:
At a restaurant
Putting your phone screen-up on the table is like ordering dessert -- one person does it and everyone else follows suit. Never mind that phones do not belong amidst tableware. As soon as a text pops up or a call comes through, everyone else at the table is trapped in conversational limbo while you have your own digital tete-a-tete.
If you must remain imminently reachable, simply make a big show out of it: "I'm so sorry to have to keep my phone out. Jess is supposed to get here soon, and I don't want to miss her."
The others will get the point. Either that, or they'll stick you with the bill. Don't worry, you'll likely be too distracted by Foursquare to notice.
On the sidewalk
It's one thing to walk and talk with your phone glued to your ear. Research finds that you're more likely to get run over while yakking, but hey, that's a risk you take. However, tucking your chin to your chest and staggering along whilst reviewing your Match.com updates or checking the Facebook RSVP list for your "America's Got Talent" viewing party is both stupid (cars!) and obnoxious.
It's all about spatial awareness: Those who walk-n-surf tend to weave to and fro, making them impossible to pass on crowded or skinny sidewalks. Park yourself out of the current and against a wall, finish your phone time and pocket your cell before re-entering the deadened, zombified stream of pedestrian humanity.
Special request to those of you who live in subway-arteried cities: I know you're super eager to breach fresh air and burst into the service zone, but for heaven's sake, wait until you've crested the stairs to turn your attention to your mobile.
Your slow climb is pissing off scads of already addled public transportation users. One day they will push you to your death, and all those shuffling aforementioned zombies will likely trample you under their distracted soles.
When cool stuff is happening
Manners aside, here's the big danger with packing every spare moment with a cybercheck: Eventually, idle but perfectly interesting moments (sitting on a park bench, people-watching at a café) become excuses to busy yourself with your touch screen.
Remember that iconic New Yorker cover from last Halloween? Clever, sure. Terrifying, absolutely.
Soapbox, prepare to be climbed: Challenge yourself to go a week without using your data plan. Pretend you're on vacation overseas and can't afford the rate. Turn off Push and Fetch and all the other emphatic verbs that bring inane Facebook updates and new e-mails to your attention like a cat proudly dropping an especially fresh rodent at your feet. Stick to phone calls and texting and check everything else exclusively from a computer.
You'll see passersby, not pixels, when you're riding in a car; squirrels, not a screen, when you're waiting outside to meet a friend. And you'll make the liberating (albeit depressing) discovery that when you fire up your e-mail again, the world has continued to swivel without your immediate viewage of e-coupons from Suave and that cat video from Uncle Bob.
Those are best dealt with when you're at your desk and supposedly working anyway./iframe>
Monday, August 23, 2010
European Science Satellite hit by Glitch
PARIS (AFP) – A satellite designed to map Earth's gravitational field has been hit by a software glitch and is unable to send its science data back home, the European Space Agency (ESA) said on Monday.
The problem began to affect the spacecraft GOCE in late July, Mark Drinkwater, head of mission science at ESA's technical division, the European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), told AFP.
"The satellite's not transmitting its scientific data because of this anomaly," Drinkwater said from Noordwijk, the Netherlands.
Technicians were working on a patch and hope to install it by radio link next month, he said.
"All the other onboard systems are otherwise fine. We are not constrained by fuel or by time, and we have got excellent data in the bank already," Drinkwater said.
The satellite has already completed two-thirds of its mission and many science objectives have already been met, he said.
GOCE -- for Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer -- was launched on March 17, 2009.
Its aim is to monitor tiny variations in Earth's gravity caused by ocean trenches, mountains and differences in density in the planet's interior.
Understanding these variations will have benefits in oceanography, especially in modelling complex ocean currents and predicting how sea will rise in response to global warming, ESA says.
The agency describes GOCE as "the Formula 1" of satellites because of its avant-garde design.
Whereas most satellites are essentially boxes, the five-metre (16.25-feet) craft is arrow-like and has stabilising fins because it orbits Earth at an altitude of just 250 kilometres (156 miles) where there is still a lingering atmosphere.
GOCE ran into a first problem in February this year when a chip failed in its primary computer. Ground engineers switched the satellite over to its backup computer.
The new problem is different from the first, being a software glitch in a module that deals with telemetry processing.
One approach is to stitch together the two computers' working parts so that the mission can recover, said Drinkwater.
GOCE is on ESA's roster of "Earth Explorer" projects to further fundamental understanding about the Earth.
Investigations into ice cover, soil moisture, ocean salinity, cloud cover, vertical winds and the planet's magnetic field are either planned or in operation.
The problem began to affect the spacecraft GOCE in late July, Mark Drinkwater, head of mission science at ESA's technical division, the European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), told AFP.
"The satellite's not transmitting its scientific data because of this anomaly," Drinkwater said from Noordwijk, the Netherlands.
Technicians were working on a patch and hope to install it by radio link next month, he said.
"All the other onboard systems are otherwise fine. We are not constrained by fuel or by time, and we have got excellent data in the bank already," Drinkwater said.
The satellite has already completed two-thirds of its mission and many science objectives have already been met, he said.
GOCE -- for Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer -- was launched on March 17, 2009.
Its aim is to monitor tiny variations in Earth's gravity caused by ocean trenches, mountains and differences in density in the planet's interior.
Understanding these variations will have benefits in oceanography, especially in modelling complex ocean currents and predicting how sea will rise in response to global warming, ESA says.
The agency describes GOCE as "the Formula 1" of satellites because of its avant-garde design.
Whereas most satellites are essentially boxes, the five-metre (16.25-feet) craft is arrow-like and has stabilising fins because it orbits Earth at an altitude of just 250 kilometres (156 miles) where there is still a lingering atmosphere.
GOCE ran into a first problem in February this year when a chip failed in its primary computer. Ground engineers switched the satellite over to its backup computer.
The new problem is different from the first, being a software glitch in a module that deals with telemetry processing.
One approach is to stitch together the two computers' working parts so that the mission can recover, said Drinkwater.
GOCE is on ESA's roster of "Earth Explorer" projects to further fundamental understanding about the Earth.
Investigations into ice cover, soil moisture, ocean salinity, cloud cover, vertical winds and the planet's magnetic field are either planned or in operation.
What could Apple's unknowm hardware be?
A new beta of Apple’s iOS mobile software reportedly boasts references to a fourth-generation iPod Touch and maybe even a new iPad — not much of a surprise there. It’s the mention of some "unknown hardware" in the iOS beta code that’s raising eyebrows. Are we talking a new Apple TV, perhaps, or something new we haven’t seen yet?
The references to new Apple devices come from the latest beta of iOS 4.1, which is due for release in the "coming weeks," according to AppleInsider and its anonymous tipsters.
The USB configuration files of the new beta supposedly include a line of code with the text "iPod 4,1," which probably refers to a revamped, fourth-generation iPod Touch, says AppleInsider — not merely a revision of the third-generation Touch, which was earlier identified in the iOS firmware as "iPod 3,2."
In other words, we might be in for a true revamp of the Touch next month, especially given that Apple usually holds its music-focused events in September. The smart money has Apple adding such features as a front- and rear-facing cameras, FaceTime video chat, its speedy A4 processor, and the iPhone 4’s "Retina Display" to the Touch, which — in its current form, anyway — still lacks a camera of any sort.
Also found in the new iOS USB configuration files, according to AppleInsider: a mention of "iProd 2,1," with "all indications" being that it’s a reference to a "material update" to the iPad — which had, after all, previously been referred to as "iProd 1,1" in the iOS code. Again, not a huge surprise, since Apple is surely far along in the development of a second-generation iPad (perhaps with a camera, this time).
Most intriguingly, though, is a third mysterious product reference in the latest iOS beta: "unknownHardware." Hmmm ... what’s this?
Well, given all the speculation that Apple might be poised to unveil a new, pared-down $99 Apple TV that runs on its own version of iOS, we could well be looking at a reference to an updated Apple TV — or "iTV," as Engadget claims it’ll end up being called.
But that’s "purely speculation," as AppleInsider prudently notes. Perhaps Apple has something else up its sleeves instead, like a smaller, 7-inch iPad, or even a tiny touchscreen iPod Nano. (Then again, could you imagine dealing with apps on a 1.7-inch screen? Ugh.)
Anyway, "unknown hardware" aside, it’s looking more and more likely that we’ll get a full-on revamp of the iPod Touch in the coming weeks — excellent news for anyone enticed by the new features on the iPhone 4 but spooked by all the "Antennagate" drama (or unwilling to sign up for two years with AT&T). Meanwhile, a cheaper, app-friendly Apple TV — or iTV — could be just the thing to jump-start Apple's stalled living-room "hobby."
So, what do you think Apple’s "unknown hardware" is?
AppleInsider: Apple testing iOS 4.1 alongside next-gen iPod touch, iPad and 'unknown' product
— Ben Patterson is a technology writer for Yahoo! News.
The references to new Apple devices come from the latest beta of iOS 4.1, which is due for release in the "coming weeks," according to AppleInsider and its anonymous tipsters.
The USB configuration files of the new beta supposedly include a line of code with the text "iPod 4,1," which probably refers to a revamped, fourth-generation iPod Touch, says AppleInsider — not merely a revision of the third-generation Touch, which was earlier identified in the iOS firmware as "iPod 3,2."
In other words, we might be in for a true revamp of the Touch next month, especially given that Apple usually holds its music-focused events in September. The smart money has Apple adding such features as a front- and rear-facing cameras, FaceTime video chat, its speedy A4 processor, and the iPhone 4’s "Retina Display" to the Touch, which — in its current form, anyway — still lacks a camera of any sort.
Also found in the new iOS USB configuration files, according to AppleInsider: a mention of "iProd 2,1," with "all indications" being that it’s a reference to a "material update" to the iPad — which had, after all, previously been referred to as "iProd 1,1" in the iOS code. Again, not a huge surprise, since Apple is surely far along in the development of a second-generation iPad (perhaps with a camera, this time).
Most intriguingly, though, is a third mysterious product reference in the latest iOS beta: "unknownHardware." Hmmm ... what’s this?
Well, given all the speculation that Apple might be poised to unveil a new, pared-down $99 Apple TV that runs on its own version of iOS, we could well be looking at a reference to an updated Apple TV — or "iTV," as Engadget claims it’ll end up being called.
But that’s "purely speculation," as AppleInsider prudently notes. Perhaps Apple has something else up its sleeves instead, like a smaller, 7-inch iPad, or even a tiny touchscreen iPod Nano. (Then again, could you imagine dealing with apps on a 1.7-inch screen? Ugh.)
Anyway, "unknown hardware" aside, it’s looking more and more likely that we’ll get a full-on revamp of the iPod Touch in the coming weeks — excellent news for anyone enticed by the new features on the iPhone 4 but spooked by all the "Antennagate" drama (or unwilling to sign up for two years with AT&T). Meanwhile, a cheaper, app-friendly Apple TV — or iTV — could be just the thing to jump-start Apple's stalled living-room "hobby."
So, what do you think Apple’s "unknown hardware" is?
AppleInsider: Apple testing iOS 4.1 alongside next-gen iPod touch, iPad and 'unknown' product
— Ben Patterson is a technology writer for Yahoo! News.
Smartphones will make up over half of Asian mobile phone sales by 2015
SINGAPORE (AFP) – Smartphones will make up over half of Asian mobile phone sales by 2015, with 477 million units likely to be sold, an industry report said Monday.
Consultancy Frost and Sullivan said smartphones would account for 54 percent of the Asia-Pacific mobile market in five years, up sharply from five percent in 2009.
The sharp take-up rate for smartphones will be a huge revenue boost for telecom operators as it means a surge in demand for data services, the consultancy said.
The consultancy said data usage from smartphones would generate over 38 billion US dollars for the region's telecom operators by 2015, from slightly over 1.3 billion dollars last year.
Smartphones are high-end mobile devices providing faster access to data connections such as e-mail and Internet browsing than so-called feature phones, which have less computing ability.
Subscribers usually pay more for mobile data services, translating into higher average revenue per user (ARPU) for operators keen to make up for flat or declining earnings growth from feature phones.
"Smartphones are critical to every operator?s mobile broadband business case, as a smartphone user?s ARPU typically increased by 25 to 100 percent after adoption depending on the market," said Marc Einstein, the consultancy's industry manager.
"The Asia-Pacific market is particularly interesting for smartphones as there has been significant uptake in emerging markets like China, India and Indonesia, even among prepaid users," he said in the report.
Apple's phenomenally popular iPhone and Research in Motion's BlackBerry, a favourite with corporate users, are largely credited with sparking consumer interest in smartphones in the last few years.
Despite the upbeat assessment, telecom operators still need to overcome a few hurdles, Frost and Sullivan said.
"Eighty percent of Asian mobile users use prepaid cards, and in fact in many markets are as high as 97 percent, making smartphone subsidies impossible for most users," said Einstein.
"Furthermore, there is a lack of public Wi-Fi, particularly in emerging markets, which has been a smartphone saviour in the US and other developed markets."
Consultancy Frost and Sullivan said smartphones would account for 54 percent of the Asia-Pacific mobile market in five years, up sharply from five percent in 2009.
The sharp take-up rate for smartphones will be a huge revenue boost for telecom operators as it means a surge in demand for data services, the consultancy said.
The consultancy said data usage from smartphones would generate over 38 billion US dollars for the region's telecom operators by 2015, from slightly over 1.3 billion dollars last year.
Smartphones are high-end mobile devices providing faster access to data connections such as e-mail and Internet browsing than so-called feature phones, which have less computing ability.
Subscribers usually pay more for mobile data services, translating into higher average revenue per user (ARPU) for operators keen to make up for flat or declining earnings growth from feature phones.
"Smartphones are critical to every operator?s mobile broadband business case, as a smartphone user?s ARPU typically increased by 25 to 100 percent after adoption depending on the market," said Marc Einstein, the consultancy's industry manager.
"The Asia-Pacific market is particularly interesting for smartphones as there has been significant uptake in emerging markets like China, India and Indonesia, even among prepaid users," he said in the report.
Apple's phenomenally popular iPhone and Research in Motion's BlackBerry, a favourite with corporate users, are largely credited with sparking consumer interest in smartphones in the last few years.
Despite the upbeat assessment, telecom operators still need to overcome a few hurdles, Frost and Sullivan said.
"Eighty percent of Asian mobile users use prepaid cards, and in fact in many markets are as high as 97 percent, making smartphone subsidies impossible for most users," said Einstein.
"Furthermore, there is a lack of public Wi-Fi, particularly in emerging markets, which has been a smartphone saviour in the US and other developed markets."
A flop with consumers, sold out Nexus One with developers
A flop with consumers, sold-out Nexus One scores with developers
Google tried — and ultimately failed — to turn the U.S. wireless market upside-down by selling its supercharged Nexus One Android phone online, with minimal help from the big carriers. But now, months after shuttering its online storefront for the phone, the Nexus One is a sudden, improbable hit.
Who’s buying the Nexus One, you ask? Android developers, that’s who — and apparently, they’re so eager to get their mitts on the eight-month-old handset that Google supply of Nexus One phones for developers is completely sold out.
So says a post on Google’s Android developers blog (via TechCrunch), with Google’s Tim Bray writing that Google "blew through the (substantial) initial inventory in almost no time," adding that Nexus One manufacturer HTC is busy trying to crank out more of the suddenly gotta-have handsets.
Google launched the Nexus One — described in hushed tones as the "Google Phone" in the days and weeks before its official unveiling — way back in January, and the search behemoth caused quite a stir by offering the Android 2.1-powered handset only on the Web, through Google’s own Nexus One online storefront.
Why all the fuss? Because usually it’s the big carriers (think AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless) who do the heavy lifting in terms of marketing and selling cell phones, both online and (mainly) in brick-and-mortar stores. While it got a little help from T-Mobile, which subsidized the Nexus One for use on its network, Google’s decision to go it virtually alone with the Nexus One — with practically no marketing help from a carrier—was seen as a potentially game-changing move.
Unfortunately, it turned out to be anything but. Sales of the Nexus One never took off, and an unprepared Google — which, before the Nexus One launch, had little need for a bank of customer-service reps — found itself quickly overwhelmed by customers complaining about iffy 3G reception (which ultimately led to a patch) and other assorted glitches.
Consumers were also underwhelmed by the less-than-revolutionary $179 two-year contract price and $529 price tag for an unlocked Nexus One, while existing T-Mobile users were turned off by the $379 upgrade price for the phone (which was eventually cut by $100). Last May, Google finally waved the white flag, announcing that it would close down its online Nexus One store.
So yes, Google learned the hard way that nothing beats a "full-court press by a big national carrier" (as I wrote back in May) when it comes to selling a smartphone. But here’s the thing: The well-reviewed Nexus One itself wasn’t a bad phone — indeed, it was (and still is) a pretty good one, complete with a 3.7-inch AMOLED screen, a 1GHz "Snapdragon" processor, 512MB of RAM, and a 5-megapixel camera with a flash.
The Nexus One also happened to be among the first handsets to get an update to Android 2.2 — a fact that clearly wasn’t lost on enthusiastic Android developers, who’ve been able to buy the unlocked Nexus One — in droves, apparently — direct from Google for a few weeks now.
In any case, Google is now in the strange but surely satisfying position of "working hard on re-stocking" (as Google’s TIm Bray puts it) a smartphone that looked all but dead just a few months ago. Strange, but true.
Google’s Android developers blog: A Little Too Popular (via TechCrunch)
— Ben Patterson is a technology writer for Yahoo! News.
Google tried — and ultimately failed — to turn the U.S. wireless market upside-down by selling its supercharged Nexus One Android phone online, with minimal help from the big carriers. But now, months after shuttering its online storefront for the phone, the Nexus One is a sudden, improbable hit.
Who’s buying the Nexus One, you ask? Android developers, that’s who — and apparently, they’re so eager to get their mitts on the eight-month-old handset that Google supply of Nexus One phones for developers is completely sold out.
So says a post on Google’s Android developers blog (via TechCrunch), with Google’s Tim Bray writing that Google "blew through the (substantial) initial inventory in almost no time," adding that Nexus One manufacturer HTC is busy trying to crank out more of the suddenly gotta-have handsets.
Google launched the Nexus One — described in hushed tones as the "Google Phone" in the days and weeks before its official unveiling — way back in January, and the search behemoth caused quite a stir by offering the Android 2.1-powered handset only on the Web, through Google’s own Nexus One online storefront.
Why all the fuss? Because usually it’s the big carriers (think AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless) who do the heavy lifting in terms of marketing and selling cell phones, both online and (mainly) in brick-and-mortar stores. While it got a little help from T-Mobile, which subsidized the Nexus One for use on its network, Google’s decision to go it virtually alone with the Nexus One — with practically no marketing help from a carrier—was seen as a potentially game-changing move.
Unfortunately, it turned out to be anything but. Sales of the Nexus One never took off, and an unprepared Google — which, before the Nexus One launch, had little need for a bank of customer-service reps — found itself quickly overwhelmed by customers complaining about iffy 3G reception (which ultimately led to a patch) and other assorted glitches.
Consumers were also underwhelmed by the less-than-revolutionary $179 two-year contract price and $529 price tag for an unlocked Nexus One, while existing T-Mobile users were turned off by the $379 upgrade price for the phone (which was eventually cut by $100). Last May, Google finally waved the white flag, announcing that it would close down its online Nexus One store.
So yes, Google learned the hard way that nothing beats a "full-court press by a big national carrier" (as I wrote back in May) when it comes to selling a smartphone. But here’s the thing: The well-reviewed Nexus One itself wasn’t a bad phone — indeed, it was (and still is) a pretty good one, complete with a 3.7-inch AMOLED screen, a 1GHz "Snapdragon" processor, 512MB of RAM, and a 5-megapixel camera with a flash.
The Nexus One also happened to be among the first handsets to get an update to Android 2.2 — a fact that clearly wasn’t lost on enthusiastic Android developers, who’ve been able to buy the unlocked Nexus One — in droves, apparently — direct from Google for a few weeks now.
In any case, Google is now in the strange but surely satisfying position of "working hard on re-stocking" (as Google’s TIm Bray puts it) a smartphone that looked all but dead just a few months ago. Strange, but true.
Google’s Android developers blog: A Little Too Popular (via TechCrunch)
— Ben Patterson is a technology writer for Yahoo! News.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Meet The YouTube Stars Making $100,000 Per Year
Posted Aug 19, 2010 11:04pm EDT by William Wei in Internet.
Provided by the Business Insider, August 19, 2010:
There are 10 independent YouTube stars who made over $100,000 in the past year, according to a study done by analytics and advertising company TubeMogul.
From July 2009 to July 2010, TubeMogul used their viewership data to estimate the annual income for independent YouTube partners, which they define as anyone who is not part of a media company or brand.
Here's how they got their estimates:
* Revenue only comes from banner ads served near content (we ignored pre-roll or overlay since we can't easily isolate by publisher).
* Since YouTube banner ads have a two-second load delay, we estimate 2.59% of viewers click away before an ad loads based on separate research.
* Ads were served near all videos that loaded (since there are partners, this is generally true).
* CPM for the banner ads was $1.50 (Google auctions a lot of this inventory off; we rounded this 2009 estimate down to be conservative).
* YouTube is splitting ad revenue with partners 50-50.
Basically, take their views from the past year, assume a few don't stick around long enough for an ad to load, divide that number by 1,000, multiply by $1.50 and divide that number in half.
Conservative estimates? Sure. But with that math, you get a pretty decent estimate of how much these YouTube celebrities are making from just the banner ads on their channel. So, without further ado, here are the highest earning YouTube stars!
1. Shane Dawson – $315,000
Shane Dawson is so popular that he is three different YouTube channels. His most popular channel consists of his comedy skits and music video parodies. Dawson created a second channel as a vlog and for a separate series called "Ask Shane," and his third channel only has videos taken from his iPhone.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 431,787,450
2. The Annoying Orange – $288,000
The Annoying Orange is a comedy web series that takes place in a kitchen and is about talking fruit. Dane Boedigheimer is the mastermind behind the series and is also the voice of Orange.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 349,753,047
3. Philip DeFranco – $181,000
Philip DeFranco uploads a new video onto YouTube every Monday to Thursday for his show – The Philip DeFranco Show. His video blogging topics range from politics to pop culture.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 248,735,032
4. Ryan Higa – $151,000
Ryan Higa makes comedy skits and is a video blogger who turned into a viral star with his "How to be Gangster" and "How to be Ninja" videos. Even though he doesn't upload as many videos as his fellow YouTube celebrities, Higa is still the top dog at YouTube with over 2.6 million subscribers.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 206,979,909
5. Fred – $146,000
Lucas Cruikshank plays "a lonely six year old named Fred" who uses his mom's video camera and posts videos on a YouTube channel. As the second most subscribed to YouTube channel, Lucas Cruikshank's immensely popular Fred character even has a movie coming out backed by Nickelodeon.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 200,656,150
6. Shay Carl – $140,000
As a radio DJ, Shay Carl started making comedy skits and put them on YouTube for the world to see. He claims to have held 20 different jobs before settling down with his DJ and YouTube gigs.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 192,309,247
7. Mediocre Films – $116,000
Greg Benson created Mediocre Films initially for a sketchy comedy TV series called "Skip TV." The show lasted for one season, and now Benson makes low budget comedy videos for the web.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 159,030,703
8. Smosh – $113,000
Smosh is the comedy duo of Ian Hecox and Anthony Padilla, and with over 1.7 million subscribers, they make up the 5th most popular channel on YouTube. They first shot to viral fame with their "Pokemon Theme Music Video" which became YouTube's most viewed video in Spring 2006. However, due to copyright reasons, the original video was removed from YouTube.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 154,936,876
9. The Young Turks – $112,000
The Young Turks is a political talk show that also airs on Sirius Satellite Radio. Founded and hosted by Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks talk show and their vast viewership has proven that the Internet can be a viable broadcast platform.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 153,807,362
10. Natalie Tran– $101,000
Under the user name of communitychannel, Natalie Tran is the most subscribed to YouTube user in Australia. Like most others on this list, she is a video blogger and occasionally uploads comedy skits.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 138,871,829
Provided by the Business Insider, August 19, 2010:
There are 10 independent YouTube stars who made over $100,000 in the past year, according to a study done by analytics and advertising company TubeMogul.
From July 2009 to July 2010, TubeMogul used their viewership data to estimate the annual income for independent YouTube partners, which they define as anyone who is not part of a media company or brand.
Here's how they got their estimates:
* Revenue only comes from banner ads served near content (we ignored pre-roll or overlay since we can't easily isolate by publisher).
* Since YouTube banner ads have a two-second load delay, we estimate 2.59% of viewers click away before an ad loads based on separate research.
* Ads were served near all videos that loaded (since there are partners, this is generally true).
* CPM for the banner ads was $1.50 (Google auctions a lot of this inventory off; we rounded this 2009 estimate down to be conservative).
* YouTube is splitting ad revenue with partners 50-50.
Basically, take their views from the past year, assume a few don't stick around long enough for an ad to load, divide that number by 1,000, multiply by $1.50 and divide that number in half.
Conservative estimates? Sure. But with that math, you get a pretty decent estimate of how much these YouTube celebrities are making from just the banner ads on their channel. So, without further ado, here are the highest earning YouTube stars!
1. Shane Dawson – $315,000
Shane Dawson is so popular that he is three different YouTube channels. His most popular channel consists of his comedy skits and music video parodies. Dawson created a second channel as a vlog and for a separate series called "Ask Shane," and his third channel only has videos taken from his iPhone.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 431,787,450
2. The Annoying Orange – $288,000
The Annoying Orange is a comedy web series that takes place in a kitchen and is about talking fruit. Dane Boedigheimer is the mastermind behind the series and is also the voice of Orange.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 349,753,047
3. Philip DeFranco – $181,000
Philip DeFranco uploads a new video onto YouTube every Monday to Thursday for his show – The Philip DeFranco Show. His video blogging topics range from politics to pop culture.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 248,735,032
4. Ryan Higa – $151,000
Ryan Higa makes comedy skits and is a video blogger who turned into a viral star with his "How to be Gangster" and "How to be Ninja" videos. Even though he doesn't upload as many videos as his fellow YouTube celebrities, Higa is still the top dog at YouTube with over 2.6 million subscribers.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 206,979,909
5. Fred – $146,000
Lucas Cruikshank plays "a lonely six year old named Fred" who uses his mom's video camera and posts videos on a YouTube channel. As the second most subscribed to YouTube channel, Lucas Cruikshank's immensely popular Fred character even has a movie coming out backed by Nickelodeon.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 200,656,150
6. Shay Carl – $140,000
As a radio DJ, Shay Carl started making comedy skits and put them on YouTube for the world to see. He claims to have held 20 different jobs before settling down with his DJ and YouTube gigs.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 192,309,247
7. Mediocre Films – $116,000
Greg Benson created Mediocre Films initially for a sketchy comedy TV series called "Skip TV." The show lasted for one season, and now Benson makes low budget comedy videos for the web.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 159,030,703
8. Smosh – $113,000
Smosh is the comedy duo of Ian Hecox and Anthony Padilla, and with over 1.7 million subscribers, they make up the 5th most popular channel on YouTube. They first shot to viral fame with their "Pokemon Theme Music Video" which became YouTube's most viewed video in Spring 2006. However, due to copyright reasons, the original video was removed from YouTube.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 154,936,876
9. The Young Turks – $112,000
The Young Turks is a political talk show that also airs on Sirius Satellite Radio. Founded and hosted by Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks talk show and their vast viewership has proven that the Internet can be a viable broadcast platform.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 153,807,362
10. Natalie Tran– $101,000
Under the user name of communitychannel, Natalie Tran is the most subscribed to YouTube user in Australia. Like most others on this list, she is a video blogger and occasionally uploads comedy skits.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 138,871,829
Thursday, August 19, 2010
When phones are too big for pockets..........
-- Something weird is happening to mobile phones: After shrinking from enormous Zack Morris proportions in the '80s and '90s, they're getting bigger again.
So big, in fact, that some won't fit in jeans pockets anymore.
The Dell Streak, which is set to be released in the U.S. later this summer, is the biggest of the big-daddy phones so far, with a 5-inch screen. The screen of the iPhone 4, by comparison, measures only 3.5 inches diagonally.
When held up to a person's ear, the Dell phone looks like a book.
The Streak's mondo screen has become the focus of much debate on the internet, with tech bloggers arguing about what kinds of pants you'd have to wear to carry it around in your pocket; how big your hands have to be to hold it; whether or not people will stare at you when you're using it; and, perhaps most significantly, what exactly constitutes a phone these days.
Is a phone just any device that can make calls? Or does it have to be portable enough to carry with you, regardless of how baggy your pants are?
As mobile phone technology improved, "there definitely was a trend for smaller and there definitely was a trend for thinner," said Ramon Llamas, a senior research analyst who covers mobile technology for IDC. "But I think we're seeing the pendulum swinging back in favor of larger phones."
Mobile phone makers are trying to "push the boundaries of what is acceptable in a pocket," said Ross Rubin, executive director of industry analysis for consumer technology at the NPD Group.
Several Android phones -- which run on an operating system developed by Google, as opposed to those by Microsoft or Apple -- have come out with screens that are larger than 4 inches diagonally.
The HTC Evo and the Motoroloa Droid X, for example, both have 4.3-inch screens. Sony Ericsson is rumored, according to the blog Engadget, to be working on another 5-inch smartphone, the same size as the Dell Streak. (As a side note, the HTC Evo is so big that it comes with a kickstand).
In video reviews of these ever-larger phones, it seems almost to be a requirement these days for tech pundits to try to shove the things in their pockets as a way to determine whether the devices are truly portable.
In one such video, Veronica Belmont, co-host of a video show called Tekzilla, puts the Dell Streak in the front pocket of her pants only to find that about a third of the phone is still sticking out.
One YouTube video, titled "Dell Streak vs. Jeans," starts with a shot of a man's waist line, shown only from the thighs to mid-belly.
"The reason you're staring at my hips is that I'm going to show you what the Dell Streak is like, fitting in a jeans pocket," the host says. "Now, these jeans have got quite a deep pocket and, even still, it pokes out a little bit over the top. You can tuck it right in and there's still a corner coming out at the top there."
The man then proceeds to stuff the Streak into his back pocket, which he decides isn't such a good idea, either.
It sticks out, which could make it easily accessible to pickpockets, he says. "And you're certainly not going to want to sit on it."
The other potential issue with large phones is that it can be difficult to hold them up to your face, depending how big your hands are and if your arms are strong.
When Chris Hall tested the Dell Streak for the British website Pocket-lint, he said his hand literally became tired and stretched-out from holding the phone.
He said he also got some stares from strangers.
"People are going to look at you in a funny way" when you're holding such a large gadget up to your face, he said.
Hall still gave the phone -- which is sometimes referred to as a small "tablet" computer rather than a large phone -- a good rating: 8 of 10 stars.
In a video review for the blog Engadget, Richard Lai takes a bit of a contrarian view, saying the Dell Streak is still small enough to carry comfortably in a standard pant pocket.
"Obviously you see a bit of bulge here," he says after putting the phone in his jeans pocket, "but you get that with any phones these days, really, you know? Sliding it in and out is no problem, you see?"
Lai does note, however, that, if you want to walk up a flight of stairs with the 5-inch phone in your pocket, you should "shift your phone as far to the side [of your pocket] as possible" in order to maintain a normal range of movement.
"But other than that we've had no real issues with it," he says.
Despite some fuss about the bulk of these 4- and 5-inch phones, there are some clear advantages to screens with more real estate.
As phones increasingly become internet portals, e-book readers and video players, having bigger screens makes them more useful, Llamas said.
Those functions are butting up against some long-held ideas about what a mobile phone is -- namely that it's a gadget that you can easily carry in a pocket and hold to your ear to make a call.
So maybe we need a new cell phone definition:
One that can fit in your cargo shorts
So big, in fact, that some won't fit in jeans pockets anymore.
The Dell Streak, which is set to be released in the U.S. later this summer, is the biggest of the big-daddy phones so far, with a 5-inch screen. The screen of the iPhone 4, by comparison, measures only 3.5 inches diagonally.
When held up to a person's ear, the Dell phone looks like a book.
The Streak's mondo screen has become the focus of much debate on the internet, with tech bloggers arguing about what kinds of pants you'd have to wear to carry it around in your pocket; how big your hands have to be to hold it; whether or not people will stare at you when you're using it; and, perhaps most significantly, what exactly constitutes a phone these days.
Is a phone just any device that can make calls? Or does it have to be portable enough to carry with you, regardless of how baggy your pants are?
As mobile phone technology improved, "there definitely was a trend for smaller and there definitely was a trend for thinner," said Ramon Llamas, a senior research analyst who covers mobile technology for IDC. "But I think we're seeing the pendulum swinging back in favor of larger phones."
Mobile phone makers are trying to "push the boundaries of what is acceptable in a pocket," said Ross Rubin, executive director of industry analysis for consumer technology at the NPD Group.
Several Android phones -- which run on an operating system developed by Google, as opposed to those by Microsoft or Apple -- have come out with screens that are larger than 4 inches diagonally.
The HTC Evo and the Motoroloa Droid X, for example, both have 4.3-inch screens. Sony Ericsson is rumored, according to the blog Engadget, to be working on another 5-inch smartphone, the same size as the Dell Streak. (As a side note, the HTC Evo is so big that it comes with a kickstand).
In video reviews of these ever-larger phones, it seems almost to be a requirement these days for tech pundits to try to shove the things in their pockets as a way to determine whether the devices are truly portable.
In one such video, Veronica Belmont, co-host of a video show called Tekzilla, puts the Dell Streak in the front pocket of her pants only to find that about a third of the phone is still sticking out.
One YouTube video, titled "Dell Streak vs. Jeans," starts with a shot of a man's waist line, shown only from the thighs to mid-belly.
"The reason you're staring at my hips is that I'm going to show you what the Dell Streak is like, fitting in a jeans pocket," the host says. "Now, these jeans have got quite a deep pocket and, even still, it pokes out a little bit over the top. You can tuck it right in and there's still a corner coming out at the top there."
The man then proceeds to stuff the Streak into his back pocket, which he decides isn't such a good idea, either.
It sticks out, which could make it easily accessible to pickpockets, he says. "And you're certainly not going to want to sit on it."
The other potential issue with large phones is that it can be difficult to hold them up to your face, depending how big your hands are and if your arms are strong.
When Chris Hall tested the Dell Streak for the British website Pocket-lint, he said his hand literally became tired and stretched-out from holding the phone.
He said he also got some stares from strangers.
"People are going to look at you in a funny way" when you're holding such a large gadget up to your face, he said.
Hall still gave the phone -- which is sometimes referred to as a small "tablet" computer rather than a large phone -- a good rating: 8 of 10 stars.
In a video review for the blog Engadget, Richard Lai takes a bit of a contrarian view, saying the Dell Streak is still small enough to carry comfortably in a standard pant pocket.
"Obviously you see a bit of bulge here," he says after putting the phone in his jeans pocket, "but you get that with any phones these days, really, you know? Sliding it in and out is no problem, you see?"
Lai does note, however, that, if you want to walk up a flight of stairs with the 5-inch phone in your pocket, you should "shift your phone as far to the side [of your pocket] as possible" in order to maintain a normal range of movement.
"But other than that we've had no real issues with it," he says.
Despite some fuss about the bulk of these 4- and 5-inch phones, there are some clear advantages to screens with more real estate.
As phones increasingly become internet portals, e-book readers and video players, having bigger screens makes them more useful, Llamas said.
Those functions are butting up against some long-held ideas about what a mobile phone is -- namely that it's a gadget that you can easily carry in a pocket and hold to your ear to make a call.
So maybe we need a new cell phone definition:
One that can fit in your cargo shorts
Smartphone Data----is it safe?
What happens to your smartphone data -- and is it safe?
* The BlackBerry controversy has highlighted how smartphone privacy works
* Many plans encrypt data, meaning it can't be deciphered if it's intercepted
* BlackBerry data is stored on a private server; others stored by mobile service provider
-- This week, news out of the Middle East saw BlackBerry, the handheld communication device of choice in the corporate world, assailed on multiple fronts over a security problem.
The problem? It's too secure.
Governments in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates said they plan to ban BlackBerry use, at least in part, unless they're able to view messages for security reasons. India and Indonesia are reportedly considering similar measures.
The controversy has raised questions about what happens to data from smartphones and whether users should be concerned about how secure that data is.
The answers can sometimes be tricky, and differ from country to country and phone to phone. So, we've rounded up some answers to help make sense of it all.
What do governments not like about BlackBerry's security?
BlackBerry maker Research In Motion (RIM) touts security as one of the phone's major selling points to its largely professional customer base.
That's mainly done in two ways -- ways that haven't made countries like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates happy.
The first line of defense is encryption -- a system that, in very basic terms, scrambles the text of messages, then unscrambles them when they reach their destination.
Systems like BlackBerry's, and those of other smartphone vendors aiming at corporate and government clients, will theoretically show up as gobbledygook if someone grabs them between Point A and Point B.
Research In Motion, the owner of the BlackBerry, says that each individual user has a key that scrambles and unscrambles their data and that no one, even RIM itself, can access that data from the outside. (Some tech analysts doubt this is 100 percent true, but that's based more on speculation than hard fact).
Second, the BlackBerry stores data from the phones on secure servers that the company itself owns. The UAE complained that since those servers are not in-country, presumably living in RIM's home country of Canada, they can't peek in when they want to.
The countries want RIM to build and use servers in their own countries, making it easier for them to enter a "backdoor" to those servers when they're investigating what they consider a national security concern.
How is data from other phones stored?
Unlike BlackBerry, smartphone makers like Apple and HTC, among others, leave it up to wireless providers or clients to manage data.
Often, that means the data gets stored "in the cloud" -- a network of data centers that quietly secure and process information from all over the world.
That doesn't mean that data isn't safe.
On its website, Apple also promotes the "strong encryption" for data sent on its phones and lists a host of other security features -- from the ability to remotely wipe data from the phone if it falls into the wrong hands to its ability to work with companies' private networks.
Google's open-source Android platform, for phones like the HTC Evo and Droid Incredible, leaves some room for chicanery. But apps like DroidSecurity, with over 2.5 million users, specialize in cloud-based protection.
So, this means governments can't get to my data?
Afraid it doesn't.
With most phones, a government would seek data from the mobile service provider, not the phone company itself. So if you have an iPhone 4 or an old-school phone the size of a brick, a government could theoretically get access.
In the United States, that requires a court order. But laws in other countries, of course, vary.
For the record, some familiar with U.S. intelligence efforts say they have access to BlackBerry data, although the company says it never makes deals with governments to share.
Reading between the lines, this might just mean that U.S. intelligence agencies are more adept at cracking code than those in other countries.
Who else can intercept my info?
Security experts never say never. But with encryption and secure data banks, they say it's unlikely that a random bad actor could steal your transmissions in any usable way.
"If you are not a government and you are not holding the wires of the network of one of the companies like RIM or Google or Alltel, you can't really access the date the user is using or sending," said Dror Shalev, chief technical officer for DroidSecurity.
They say smartphone users are far more at risk from more mundane attacks -- from having their phones (and the data inside them) stolen to using the phone's web browser to click bad links.
"With mobile devices, a lot of the privacy and security risks are really similar to what we've seen with desktops and laptops," said Doris Yang, mobile security product manager for digital security company Symantec.
"A lot of it really does hinge on common sense. Whether we're talking about information stored on your device or in some storage facility, the same rule applies -- you shouldn't be sending out personal information.
* The BlackBerry controversy has highlighted how smartphone privacy works
* Many plans encrypt data, meaning it can't be deciphered if it's intercepted
* BlackBerry data is stored on a private server; others stored by mobile service provider
-- This week, news out of the Middle East saw BlackBerry, the handheld communication device of choice in the corporate world, assailed on multiple fronts over a security problem.
The problem? It's too secure.
Governments in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates said they plan to ban BlackBerry use, at least in part, unless they're able to view messages for security reasons. India and Indonesia are reportedly considering similar measures.
The controversy has raised questions about what happens to data from smartphones and whether users should be concerned about how secure that data is.
The answers can sometimes be tricky, and differ from country to country and phone to phone. So, we've rounded up some answers to help make sense of it all.
What do governments not like about BlackBerry's security?
BlackBerry maker Research In Motion (RIM) touts security as one of the phone's major selling points to its largely professional customer base.
That's mainly done in two ways -- ways that haven't made countries like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates happy.
The first line of defense is encryption -- a system that, in very basic terms, scrambles the text of messages, then unscrambles them when they reach their destination.
Systems like BlackBerry's, and those of other smartphone vendors aiming at corporate and government clients, will theoretically show up as gobbledygook if someone grabs them between Point A and Point B.
Research In Motion, the owner of the BlackBerry, says that each individual user has a key that scrambles and unscrambles their data and that no one, even RIM itself, can access that data from the outside. (Some tech analysts doubt this is 100 percent true, but that's based more on speculation than hard fact).
Second, the BlackBerry stores data from the phones on secure servers that the company itself owns. The UAE complained that since those servers are not in-country, presumably living in RIM's home country of Canada, they can't peek in when they want to.
The countries want RIM to build and use servers in their own countries, making it easier for them to enter a "backdoor" to those servers when they're investigating what they consider a national security concern.
How is data from other phones stored?
Unlike BlackBerry, smartphone makers like Apple and HTC, among others, leave it up to wireless providers or clients to manage data.
Often, that means the data gets stored "in the cloud" -- a network of data centers that quietly secure and process information from all over the world.
That doesn't mean that data isn't safe.
On its website, Apple also promotes the "strong encryption" for data sent on its phones and lists a host of other security features -- from the ability to remotely wipe data from the phone if it falls into the wrong hands to its ability to work with companies' private networks.
Google's open-source Android platform, for phones like the HTC Evo and Droid Incredible, leaves some room for chicanery. But apps like DroidSecurity, with over 2.5 million users, specialize in cloud-based protection.
So, this means governments can't get to my data?
Afraid it doesn't.
With most phones, a government would seek data from the mobile service provider, not the phone company itself. So if you have an iPhone 4 or an old-school phone the size of a brick, a government could theoretically get access.
In the United States, that requires a court order. But laws in other countries, of course, vary.
For the record, some familiar with U.S. intelligence efforts say they have access to BlackBerry data, although the company says it never makes deals with governments to share.
Reading between the lines, this might just mean that U.S. intelligence agencies are more adept at cracking code than those in other countries.
Who else can intercept my info?
Security experts never say never. But with encryption and secure data banks, they say it's unlikely that a random bad actor could steal your transmissions in any usable way.
"If you are not a government and you are not holding the wires of the network of one of the companies like RIM or Google or Alltel, you can't really access the date the user is using or sending," said Dror Shalev, chief technical officer for DroidSecurity.
They say smartphone users are far more at risk from more mundane attacks -- from having their phones (and the data inside them) stolen to using the phone's web browser to click bad links.
"With mobile devices, a lot of the privacy and security risks are really similar to what we've seen with desktops and laptops," said Doris Yang, mobile security product manager for digital security company Symantec.
"A lot of it really does hinge on common sense. Whether we're talking about information stored on your device or in some storage facility, the same rule applies -- you shouldn't be sending out personal information.
RIM testing newBlackberry, Tablet
Report: RIM testing new BlackBerry, tablet
RIM is reportedly building a new touchscreen Blackberry, similar to the Storm 2, above, only with a slideout keyboard.
* RIM has new touchscreen version of BlackBerry smartphone with a slide-out keyboard, newspaper reports
* BlackBerry OS 6 is operating system running on the test device
* RIM previously said it is working on a tablet device that will be a companion to the new BlackBerry
* RIM leads smartphone market, shipping 35 percent of the devices in the U.S
RELATED TOPICS
* BlackBerry Mobile Devices
* Cellular Phones
* Tablet Computers
* Consumer Electronics
While Apple and Google have been getting the lion's share of attention in the smartphone world of late, Research In Motion isn't going quietly, according to a report.
The Wall Street Journal reports that RIM has a new touchscreen version of its BlackBerry smartphone up its sleeve, this time with a slide-out keyboard. The operating system running on the test device is also new: BlackBerry OS 6, which the company previewed earlier this year. It has some of the same features as Apple's iOS, which allows swiping and pinching motions on screen, as well as a new browser.
And has already been reported, RIM is working on a tablet device that will be a companion to the new BlackBerry. It will be able to connect to the Internet via the BlackBerry but won't be a standalone device like the Apple iPad. The WSJ's sources repeat the earlier report that the device will be available by the end of the year.
RIM has already said that BlackBerry OS 6 will ship by the end of the third quarter, or by September 30. That likely means the new phone won't be ready until then or later.
RIM is still the leader in the smartphone market, shipping 35 percent of the devices in the U.S. in the first quarter of 2010, according to data recently released by Nielsen. Apple is behind RIM with 28 percent of U.S. smartphones, followed by Windows Mobile phones with 19 percent, and Android smartphones with 9 percent.
But Apple and Android-based phones have much of the momentum. And now that Palm and its WebOS operating system have been purchased by tech industry heavyweight Hewlett-Packard, it means RIM needs to show that it's not only keeping up with competition, but pushing the category that it has long defined forward.
RIM is reportedly building a new touchscreen Blackberry, similar to the Storm 2, above, only with a slideout keyboard.
* RIM has new touchscreen version of BlackBerry smartphone with a slide-out keyboard, newspaper reports
* BlackBerry OS 6 is operating system running on the test device
* RIM previously said it is working on a tablet device that will be a companion to the new BlackBerry
* RIM leads smartphone market, shipping 35 percent of the devices in the U.S
RELATED TOPICS
* BlackBerry Mobile Devices
* Cellular Phones
* Tablet Computers
* Consumer Electronics
While Apple and Google have been getting the lion's share of attention in the smartphone world of late, Research In Motion isn't going quietly, according to a report.
The Wall Street Journal reports that RIM has a new touchscreen version of its BlackBerry smartphone up its sleeve, this time with a slide-out keyboard. The operating system running on the test device is also new: BlackBerry OS 6, which the company previewed earlier this year. It has some of the same features as Apple's iOS, which allows swiping and pinching motions on screen, as well as a new browser.
And has already been reported, RIM is working on a tablet device that will be a companion to the new BlackBerry. It will be able to connect to the Internet via the BlackBerry but won't be a standalone device like the Apple iPad. The WSJ's sources repeat the earlier report that the device will be available by the end of the year.
RIM has already said that BlackBerry OS 6 will ship by the end of the third quarter, or by September 30. That likely means the new phone won't be ready until then or later.
RIM is still the leader in the smartphone market, shipping 35 percent of the devices in the U.S. in the first quarter of 2010, according to data recently released by Nielsen. Apple is behind RIM with 28 percent of U.S. smartphones, followed by Windows Mobile phones with 19 percent, and Android smartphones with 9 percent.
But Apple and Android-based phones have much of the momentum. And now that Palm and its WebOS operating system have been purchased by tech industry heavyweight Hewlett-Packard, it means RIM needs to show that it's not only keeping up with competition, but pushing the category that it has long defined forward.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)