Archive for the ‘Telecommunications’ Category

The BBC has published this follow-up on the legality of Google Street View in the UK, which I had previously written about here. Thankfully, the Information Commissioner has ruled on the side of sanity by upholding Britain’s privacy laws as they are written, as opposed to how they are sometimes interpreted by certain police officers and concerned citizens on the lookout for terrorists.

The project drew criticism from privacy campaigners worried it could breach data protection laws.

But the Information Commissioner said it was “satisfied” that Google had put in place safeguards to avoid risking anyone’s privacy or safety.

In a lot of places, but especially in the UK, there seems to be a growing gap between how the people on the street interpret privacy laws, and how the judicial and institutional levels of government uphold them. For now, the opinion of the latter group seems to be prevailing, but all it could take is a strong push of public opinion for the laws to change. It is of the paramount importance that free democratic societies not lose such basic rights as the ability to take pictures and video in public. Privacy laws making it illegal to do these things could strike a crippling blow to our freedom of speech, and more specifically, the free press. Privacy laws exist to protect citizens from surveillance and observation by their government; not to allow the government to censor free activity.

It said the safeguards Google was putting in place, such as blurring faces and registration plates, were sufficient to allay worries about privacy.

The statement said: “Although it is possible that in certain limited circumstances an image may allow the identification of an individual, it is clear that Google are keen to capture images of streets and not individuals.”

It’s refreshing to see that somebody is finally recognizing that Google Street View is not a sinister plan to go around violating people’s privacy by catching them in embarrassing situations and profiting off of their images, but rather an attempt to catalogue images of streets.

Every once in a while some sort of consumer/privacy watchdog group decides to criticize Google over matters of privacy, not fully appreciating how far Google goes to protect the privacy of their users. Naturally, privacy issues are going to arise when you’re in the business of collecting and sorting through information, but none of Google’s past actions have shown them to be a threat to anybody’s privacy. Fears that Google will pull an AOL are completely unwarranted.

“We’ve always said we will not launch in UK until we are comfortable Street View complies with local law,” they added, “and that we will use technology, like face-blurring, license plate blurring and operational controls, such as image removal tools, so Street View remains useful and in keeping with local norms wherever it is available.”

I won’t delude myself into thinking that as a company, Google can do no wrong. At the end of the day, they’re still a for-profit organization looking out for their interests, and the interests of their shareholders. However, Google is smart enough to know that its success in the information trade depends almost exclusively on its ability to keep user information confidential. The only reason it can compile as much information as it has is because people trust Google with that information; and the instant they do anything to betray that trust, their user base will instantly evaporate. So we don’t have to trust that Google will behave in a moral fashion out of the goodness of their hearts; we know that they’ll do it, because it’s good for business.

—

• BBC.co.uk: Google Street View gets go ahead
• Lintbox.com: Quit Touching My Privacy
• BBC.co.uk: Innocent photographer or terrorist?
• Wikipedia.org: AOL Search Data Scandal

Privacy advocacy group ‘Privacy International’ in the UK is all up in arms about Google Street View’s recent endeavor to start mapping out the streets of England. The BBC writes about it here.

Privacy debates are always interesting to me, because despite the legitimate points that can be raised on either side of the issue, I find that arguments are always riddled with false analogies and fallacies galore¹. Take this argument, for example:

“In our view they need a person’s consent if they make use of a person’s face for commercial ends,” said Simon Davis of the group.

The problem with this argument is that Google does not intend to use peoples’ faces for commercial ends. If anything, the people (and their faces) are in the way of what the Street View teams are trying to accomplish — the faces are incidental to the purpose of the project. This is an example of a false premise; Privacy International is assuming that the purpose of Street View is to take pictures of people to use commercially, when they are actually taking pictures of streets and buildings to use commercially. Furthermore, you can always ask Google to remove your image if you don’t like all of the fame and wealth associated with being an internet celebrity. I’m fairly certain that the people over at Privacy International are aware of the false premise, but they will continue to make this argument because it’s one that will allow them to challenge Google on a legal basis (if it ever comes to that).

However, what really takes the cake is this next section:
Read the rest of this entry »

In the past, we’ve blogged about issues such as ISP bandwidth throttling, and net neutrality. According to the CBC, the Canadian government has formed an organization exclusively to deal with issues between telecommunications companies, and consumers/small businesses. Unfortunately, word of the organization still hasn’t gotten around.

The Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services was established a year ago, but few Canadians are even aware there’s an agency where they can take their cell phone and internet gripes.

Science and skepticism thrive on the exchange of information. The whole point of the skeptical movement is to make information available for those who choose to seek it out. Therefore, even though this might seem like a tangentially related issue to the science/skepticism focus of this site, maintaining a free and open internet through combating unfair telecommunications practices is just as important of a battle as fighting mysticism and pseudoscience. In Canada, unlike the United States, we don’t have competition to take care of unfair telecommunications practices; so it’s reassuring to know that our government hasn’t completely abandoned us.

From the CCTS website:

Please feel free to contact us in the following ways:

General Inquiries: info@ccts-cprst.ca
TSP membership inquiries: info@ccts-cprst.ca

Hours of Business: Monday to Friday 09:00 – 17:00 HRS Eastern Standard Time.

Toll Free: 1-888-221-1687
Ottawa local: 613-244-9585
TTY: 1-877-782-2384

Please note: CCTS policy prevents us from accepting complaints over the phone. However, we can provide advice on whether or not you should file a written complaint and how to file a written complaint.

Fax: 1-877-782-2924
Mail: P.O. Box 81088, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1B1

—

• CBC.ca: Telecom complaints agency celebrates birthday in obscurity
• Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc.

Hearing Jenny McCarthy’s stance on vaccinations sickened me. This was no longer the innocent pseudo-science of UFO sightings and Free Energy, but rather a movement that has resulted in thousands of deaths world-wide, and outbreaks of previously-eradicated diseases in one of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world. Enraged, I decided to do something. I didn’t go out and hold a protest, or write an angry email. Rather, I decided to scour her Wikipedia article and see if I could find and fix any misconceptions. When I did, I found the following paragraph:

On April 2, 2008, she went on the Larry King Live special dedicated to autism, and engaged in a fierce, on-camera spat debating whether premature vaccines have contributed to the incidence of autism in previously unaffected babies. However, this opinion is in stark contrast to the scientific community opinion that no causal association exists between autism and childhood vaccines, such as the MMR vaccine,[15][16] although the US government has recently compensated a family whose child developed autism after receiving vaccines.

I took exception to the last part of that paragraph, and feeling that it was unnecessarily biased towards anti-vaccination sentiments, I modified it to read:

On April 2, 2008, she went on the Larry King Live special dedicated to autism, and engaged in a fierce, on-camera spat debating whether premature vaccines have contributed to the incidence of autism in previously unaffected babies. However, this opinion is in stark contrast to the scientific community opinion that no causal association exists between autism and childhood vaccines, such as the MMR vaccine,[15] although the US government has recently compensated a family whose child developed complications from a previously-existent disease, resulting in autism-like symptoms, after receiving a vaccination.[16] However, this is the only such case where a link has been established between autism and vaccination, and was most likely due to a pre-existing condition.¹

My addition was eventually removed due to the autism debate being deemed tangential to the rest of the article. That being said, I managed to start a process that would culminate in having the offended text removed. The current article now reads:

On April 2, 2008, she went on the Larry King Live special dedicated to autism, arguing that premature vaccines have contributed to the incidence of autism in previously unaffected babies. Her opinion contradicts the scientific consensus that no causal association exists between autism and childhood vaccines, such as the MMR vaccine.[15]

I feel satisfied knowing that I made a small difference. A minor victory, to be sure, but every little bit helps in the fight against medical hysteria — especially on a site like Wikipedia, which has become the go-to site for those unfamiliar with the topics they are researching.

As it turns out, cell towers actually are dangerous… just not in the way we had previously discussed. A post on the ‘Apple 2.0′ blog on cnn.com outlines one of the hidden dangers of the increased number of cell towers.

On May 16, Jonathan Guilford, 25, of Fort Payne, Alabama, was working on an AT&T UMTS (3G) project in Haubstadt, Ind., when he fell to his death from a 200-foot tower

While not common, it is not unheard of for maintenance workers to fall to their deaths while working on cell towers, and other tall structures. This latest cluster of fall-deaths seem to be related to phone companies (mainly AT&T) rapidly trying to upgrade their networks for broader 3G coverage.

Whether or not companies like AT&T are responsible for these accidents by rushing this potentially dangerous work remains to be seen; this may very well be a coincidental random grouping of accidents. It’s tragic that these types of fall-deaths still occur, as all it takes to prevent them is a bit of training and a safety harness.

With each and every new or modern technology, there are typically those who, perhaps through either a lack of understanding of that technology or even an antipathy for it openly oppose its establishment and advancement.

This is something we here at Lintbox have encountered before. There are plenty of opponents to new technologies who argue that things such as microwave-emitting cell phone towers cause horrible diseases such as leukemia, autism and birth defects. We learned from our adventures exploring Bill C-51 that there are people who believe pharmaceuticals cause harm rather than treat it. In both examples, the hysteria surrounding these technologies had eventually mutated into incoherent conspiracy theories, arguing that the government establishes cell-phone towers and poisons us with pharmaceuticals to control the population.

This story may not have reached that point yet, however it is still based on hysteria, bad science, and an antipathy (or at the very least, an ambivalence) toward new technology.

Excerpt:

A group in Santa Fe says the city is discriminating against them because they say that they’re allergic to the wireless Internet signal. And now they want Wi-Fi banned from public buildings.

Arthur Firstenberg says he is highly sensitive to certain types of electric fields, including wireless Internet and cell phones.

“I get chest pain and it doesn’t go away right away,” he said.

There are many possible explanations for this phenomenon– hypochondria, a form of confirmation-bias, is the most likely. The most unlikely explanation would be an until-now undocumented allergy to radio wave emissions. The claim is virtually the same as that surrounding cell phone towers: Radio waves harm our bodies.

The prevalence of the 2.4GHz radio band has increased dramatically within the past decade. Commonly-found household appliances such as the microwave, the cordless phone, Bluetooth electronics, cellphones and WLAN routers all use this band in their operation. In short, it’s everywhere. Were Mr. Firstenberg suffering from anything other than the power of suggestion, he would be experiencing chest pain 24/7, as radio waves on the 2.4GHz bandwidth bombard us virtually everywhere, all the time, whether he’s aware of it or not.

Therefore, the claim that his chest pains were caused by the presence of a WiFi signal is quite a clear example of the post-hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy (A WiFi signal was present, then I got chest pains, therefore WiFi signals cause chest pain). Should we then abolish such an incredibly useful technology as WiFi based on virtually no reliable evidence? City Councilor Ron Trujillo summed up the answer quite succinctly:

But City Councilor Ron Trujillo says the areas are already saturated with wireless Internet.

“It’s not 1692, it’s 2008. Santa Fe needs to embrace this technology, it’s not going away,” Trujillo said.

Link.

By now, you’ve probably heard something of the network neutrality debate. To sum it up, until a few months ago the flow of data on the internet was unrestricted and free. Then companies like Bell and Rogers realized that they could save money be restricting the flow of information over their networks. Both those companies now throttle bittorrent traffic, claiming that by restricting the use of bittorrent on their networks, they allow every user to have a steady, fast internet connection.

Bell uses this exact argument to justify throttling bittorrent traffic, forcing all bittorrent downloads and uploads to a crawl regardless of their legality. Back in March, the CBC released an episode of a show called Canada’s Next Prime Minister via bittorrent on the mininova tracker. This is just one of the many legitimate and legal uses of bittorent today.

Alarmingly, users reported download times of up to 11 hours due to “traffic shaping” policies employed by Canadian ISPs. In the name of keeping their network “available to all users,” Bell and Rogers are successfully blocking those same users from receiving the download speeds which they pay for.

Yesterday, Bell launched a new video streaming service, offering television and movie rentals and downloads over internet streams. Just like bittorrent downloading, this type of distribution utilizes large amounts of bandwidth. Unsurprisingly, Bell has not seen fit to throttle its own television service.

This is a perfect example of what network neutrality advocates fear. Bell is using its position as one of the few ISPs in Canada to promote its own services by hindering the competition. These practices are abusive and should not be allowed to continue. As a paying customer of Bell, I should be able to use my internet connection for whatever I wish, not whatever Bell profits most from.

For more information about network neutrality, visit savetheinternet.com

—

• Torrentfreak.com: Bell opens Video Download Store but Continues to Throttle Bittorrent
• CBC.com: ISPs Limit Access to CBC Download, Users Say
• Globeandmail.com: Bell’s Small-Screen Debut

Probably. There are no definite answers in science; all we can ever know are effects to various degrees of certainty. I was originally planning to write a long follow-up article to criticisms of my original post on cell tower radiation (and I still am), but I thought a bit more of an immediate follow-up would be warranted in light of some of the misunderstandings out there.

Before I go any further, I’ll direct you towards this post by Dr. Steven Novella (a man much smarter than I am) on his NeuroLogica Blog. He has summarized the issue quite nicely, though in a way that may not make you happy if you’re looking for a definitive answer.

So what do we know about cell towers? We know that the science is largely inconclusive. Some of the tests performed have been positive, and some are negative. The science has largely not supported the hypothesis that cell phone radiation is harmful, but there is not enough of a consensus in the data to draw this conclusion. However, it is interesting to note that a bulk of the studies that show harms from cell phone radiation were focused on cell phones as opposed to cell towers. The largest concern right now appears to be an increased risk of developing brain tumors from using cell phones, and even then only over an extended period of time (10+ years).

Many of the studies used by the anti-cell tower crowd are smaller studies, and more prone to statistical outliers affecting the result of the study. Furthermore, many of the studies that suggest major health problems from cell phone radiation exposure are poorly designed. The biggest study used by the anti-cell tower crowd, The Bioinitiative Report, isn’t even a study, but is rather a poorly constructed meta-analysis of previous studies in the field.

One common accusation leveled against studies showing no effects of cell tower/phone radiation is that they were performed by researchers who were in the pocket of telecommunications companies. Aside from this being a non sequitur (whether the test was a good or bad test does not rely on who pays for the test, but rather how the test is carried out and whether the results are accurately reported), this argument wrongly assumes that all previous research into this topic has been influenced by the telecommunication industry, and doesn’t recognize the new research that has been performed completely free of any influence from the telecommunication industry (research which is arriving at the same mixed, but mostly negative, results).

The bottom line seems to be that there’s no reason to be afraid of cell phones, and even less to be afraid of cell towers; and at this point, it isn’t looking likely that there are any serious harms. However, even if it were discovered that cell phone radiation damaged the human body somehow, it would be important to understand the extent of the damage before we could react in any meaningful way. We accept a certain level of danger for convenience on a regular basis (if you know statistics, getting behind the wheel of a car can be a scary experience). The outright banning of cell phones and towers seems to be an unlikely outcome even if it was discovered that they posed a danger. Regardless of the outcome, it’s clear that what is needed in this situation is more research into the topic — not protests and propaganda.

Recently, a new cell tower was erected at a nearby intersection. To most people, this means improved cell reception, fewer dropped calls, and at the very least a brand new flagpole. However, one group of residents was not pleased with this new addition to the neighborhood. Believing that cell towers emit radiation that is harmful to the human body, they gathered to protest the cell tower.

Performing a quick Google search for “cell tower dangers” (and ignoring the results that inform of no harms from cell towers), you will stumble across many sites claiming vague and pseudo-scientific harms that result from living near cell towers. If you dig deep enough, you’ll find sites willing to sell you Orgone generators, which will generate Orgone fields to counteract the harmful rays of cell towers. Dig even deeper and you will find conspiracy theorists who believe that the government uses cell phone signals and radio waves to control our minds.

Let’s not dig that deep.

The protesters were nice enough to set up a website with a list of their claims as to why they believe that cell towers are harmful. Let’s examine what these claims are, and why they are wrong.

Read the rest of this entry »