Out with the old, in with the new: Public Twitter booths.

Finding a public cellphone is pretty much analogous to finding a needle in a haystack these days. In the age of the cellphone, the need to deposit a few quarters for a few minutes of talk-time seems downright laughable. But would you pay a small fee to tweet in public if the particular mobile device you carry didn’t have the capability?

Some say dumb. I say awesome.

Update: (It was all talk) RIM co-CEO Mike Lazaridis has some choice words regarding recent BlackBerry bans.

If you thought RIM was going to cave to foreign countries’ demands to weaken the security of the BlackBerry platform, you were sorely mistaken. RIM’s response is actually quite refreshing (and comical) in an age where big business and government politics are trumping individual freedoms and privacy left and right.

Specifically, when questioned about the recent BlackBerry bans spreading around the Middle East, Mike Lazaridis, RIM’s co-CEO had a few choice sentences:

This is about the Internet,” Mr. Lazaridis said. “Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can’t deal with the Internet, they should shut it off.

We have dealt with this before,” Mr. Lazaridis said. “This will get resolved. And it will get resolved if there is a chance for rational discussion.

Although Mr. Lazaridis said RIM wouldn’t compromise the security of its products, he acknowledged the company would have to cooperate with authorities if handed a court order to do a lawful intercept of a person’s communications. “I would give them the encrypted stream,” he said. “It would have to be like a wiretap.”

We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet,” he said. “A lot of these people don’t have Ph.Ds, and they don’t have a degree in computer science.”

Clearly, RIM isn’t bending over. ‘Tis a proud day to be a BlackBerry user. RIM’s got your back.

Update

Yeah, about that proud, warm feeling over RIM’s hard stance — it was all talk. Local servers are being placed in Saudi Arabia as we speak. So much for consumers’ best interests and privacy.

Droid X does: …not totally delete text message history/call logs.

It’s never a good thing to find out your beloved gadget has a nasty security hole, revealing some potentially embarrassing material that you’d rather stay locked deep down in secrecy than ‘splayed about for anyone and everyone to just stumble upon. But Droid X owners are finding that very concern playing out before their eyes. Turns out deleting call logs and text messages doesn’t really mean “delete” in the purist form. A simple trip into the contacts history log will instantly pull up a wealth of supposedly “deleted” items — in this case, deleted call logs and text messages.

It’s nothing to get too worked up over really. It’s something that is easily fixed via a small software update and honestly, often overlooked. Various security holes similar to the Droid X’s here have been seen numerous times over the last few years. Though one has to wonder, doesn’t anyone check for these things as much as these devices are flogged in the lab and as often as concerns like this surface? I’m just sayin’, you’d think it would be up there on the list of things to double/triple check for. Video of said security flaw inside…

Why can’t we have non-market Android apps on AT&T? Answer: For your safety

It’s a legitimate answer that companies fall back on all too often to cover their tracks. In the case of Android and AT&T’s reluctance to offering non-market Android apps, it is again “consumer safety and data protection” that takes cake. It’s noble that AT&T wants to keep our digital bits safe. But at what expense? I’m fully capable of making an informed decision as to whether an app is legit or not. Though I’m sure plenty of Android newbs, use to Apple’s squeaky clean ecosystem, may fair differently.

In the end, it’s a rather no-nonsense approach by AT&T that unfortunately still leaves myself and many AT&T Android hopefuls frustrated. One could argue however that in the end, those with know-how and willingness to install non-market apps will root their AT&T Android devices and conduct business as usual anyway. What do you guys think? Is AT&T’s response too much of a cop out, allowing them to hide their control freak ways. Or is it really for the safety of mankind overall?

Privacy nightmare: Google found to have collected not only wireless network data, but logins, passwords, and email contents too…

The backlash against Google’s WiFI collecting tactics isn’t about to let up anytime soon. In fact, I’d say Google is a world of hurt right now after new information is coming to light, stating that Google took not only WiFi network information, but screen names, passwords, and even partial pieces of email messages! If that’s not the most disgusting mis-use of technology and invasion of privacy, I don’t know what is. Currently, the only government body to even have access to this wealth of information is the French National Commission on Computing and Liberty (CNIL), though they’ve already vocalized their extreme displeasure. But several other governments such as Spain and Germany have also requested access to Google’s collected data, meaning the nightmare is only starting.

Judging by the scope of the data collected and given the fact that Google’s street cars have already crawled across vast parcels of earth means Google has a ton of blood on their hands. We’ll keep following this one.

Any readers out there feeling uneasy about Google’s actions. Android users — how does this affect your love for your all Google device? Leave it in the comments.

**After getting several emails and replies via Twitter, I suppose I should further clarify my original thought — Even though Google claims this was all accidental, I don’t see how they could go on for as long as they did without knowing what they were collecting. However, people conducting private business or even merely using open networks aren’t without fault either. Using an open network for anything that requires logins, passwords, or sensitive information is stupid. Better?

Arizona University takes nanny state to the next level, stuffing RFID tracking chips in student ID’s.

Anyone who is “afraid” or not into technology will usually point out their distain for being watched, monitored, or snooped on. It’s a valid argument. Though one that I tend to look past as gadgets of all shapes, sizes, and colors yank my attention faster than –

It seems the current trend in nanny state movements is that of hidden (and sometimes not so hidden) cameras. Under the guise of security, the last several years have seen copious amounts of privacy revoked. For a few students at Northern Arizona University, I’m sure a few security cameras would gladly be exchanged for what is coming — RFID tracking ID’s.

Straight from a sci-fi/thriller book, students at NUA will find that their new ID’s are more telling than in past years, offering up those behind a screen hundreds of yards if not miles away a constant look at where they are at. At first, the excuse seems noble — they want to monitor students’ class attendance. But when you step back and look at the gross invasion of privacy these ID cards represent, you can begin to see how detrimental this is…

Google: “If EU mandates 6-month data retention policy, we’re packin’ up and high steppin’ it outta here”

EU residents may want to write/call/email/text their local governments and let them know any bill or law that drops data retention limits from 12 months to 6 is a bad idea. Especially so because if it does pass, Google Street View will be no more. They’re stating that if data retention limits are lowered for the original unblurred images from twelve to six months, the accuracy, integrity, and overall usefulness will be dimished. After those 6-months, if Google wants fresh unblurred images, they’ll have to drive all over kingdom come again, resnapping life as it happens. The short answer would be to hire more Street View drivers to scan more often. But is that really the answer?

I just can’t see the reasoning behind the “privacy” motives if the images will still be online for many months at a time. What’s the difference in a screen capture from Street View whether it’s six or twelve months? Am I missing something here?

Bloomberg

EU lays down the law: Google has to re-snap all of EU land every 6 months.

In the current economy, acquiring or even maintaining a job is pretty hard stuff. If you are lucky enough to keep a job, work is often sporadic and pay is stagnant or reduced. “Job security” is highly sought after. If job security is really what you’re after, Google is “the” place to be — specifically the Street View team.

A new EU ruling documented in Article 29 states that the current 12-month time span is a “too disproportionate” amount of time for images to be stored. Ok, fair enough. The new limit proposed is a mere 6-months. So, every 6-months the street team has to go around re-snapping all of these pictures — bingo, job security.

My question is, unless there is a major change such as a new building or road added, why take a picture if nothing has changed? So some guy with a completely blurred face has been on Street View for 12 months, what’s the big deal? Am I missing something?

(Google, are you hiring Street View drivers…?)

Pocket-Lint

[Image Source]

Privacy concerns arise from Google Goggles facial recognition/stranger identifier search results…

Simply taking a picture of some object and using it to search for more relevant information doesn’t seem that difficult until you actually think about the tools necessary to complete such a search. I mean, taking a picture of a simple can of beans (it’s early and I’m hungry) means the phone/software has to properly determine what is text/images before actually searching for it so it knows what to search for. Second, the actual algorithms for the search software then have to somehow find the exact brand of beans in front of you as well as pull any relevant information from the cloud. Of that information, there are countless options and things to weed through so irrelevant information doesn’t pollute your search results. But that is all bridge under the water as the end user doesn’t really care how it works. They only care when it doesn’t work, or more importantly, works too well. Such is the case unfolding with Google Goggles, Google’s new image based search software.

Apparently, Goggles even has facial recognition built in. “Awesome” you think. Now random creepers lurking in your neighborhood who you’ve always wondered about can be explored from the safety of your couch. Are they a sex offender, previously in jail for murder, a drug addict? Such things are helpful to know. But as with all new and emerging technology, someone has a problem with it, labeling the facial recognition aspect of the software in particular a threat. For that reason, Google has for the time being, blocked any image searches involving faces or facial recognition until they can “better implore the ramifications of such a feature”.

I can honestly see both sides of the issue. While it would be nice to know about potential stranger dangers, being able to snap pictures of random people walking by, hit up Google Goggles and all of a sudden know the person’s entire biography are interesting, compelling, and scary all at the same time. I mean, it would be useful say if you’re trying to learn more about a new employer, more particularly a new boss, so that you can impress them to the best of your (newly acquired) knowledge. Again however, having such untouched and easy access to the inner workings of peoples’ lives opens a pandora’s box for privacy concerns.

One could argue though that in this digital age, with Facebook, MySpace, a half a bajillion other social networking sites that privacy has gone by the wayside. Take a stroll MySpace or Facebook and look at some of idiots on there and the moronic stuff they actually post for the world to see — and they wonder why they get fired for calling their boss a fat pig on their wall…?

Even still, social networking and the information uploaded by users is just that — user generated. I’m sure people aren’t going to upload their address, social security number, age, birthplace, etc. Such information is extremely private (at least it used to be) and extremely vulnerable to Google Goggles and other types of software.

The greater flexibility and freedom consumers are gaining will mean ever greater responsibility. In the hands of most, it will simply mean a fun day at the park randomly snapping pictures of strangers and giggling at their personal bio that Google Goggles returns. But in the wrong hands, your life and all of the information you hold near and dear could be made available for the entire world to see against your will.

I’m not trying to stir up any mass hysteria or some big angry “anti-Goggles” mob. In fact I like Goggles and privacy concerns withstanding, would still love the facial recognition feature to make a comeback. But I’m sure many of you feel different. What’s your take? Should Google Goggles be allowed or is it an evil creation of the technology age? Just understand when one technology falls or is shuttered, several more pop up ready and waiting to replace it…

Textually > Independent.co.uk

[Image Source] [Image Source 2]