Morning Fog

Kill My Phone. Please!

I was intrigued by this little report from Saturday's paper.  DC Police Chief Lanier points out how many of the crimes local cops deal with involve cell-phone thefts, and suggests a seemingly effective and easy solution:  Phone companies should immediately disable any cell phone that is reported stolen.

Cell phone companies' collective response, via their industry lobby CTIA:  Not interested.  The main argument they offer is that this step wouldn't stop international trade in stolen cell phones.  But that's not what Chief Lanier and other law enforcement officials are trying to stop; it's the frequent phone-focused robberies that are of concern.

I'm not sure why remotely disabling stolen phones would be an issue.  The following advice has been available on the internet for some time:

To check your Mobile phone's serial number, key in the following digits on your phone: *#06# . A 15-digit code will appear on the screen. This number is unique to your handset. Write it down and keep it somewhere safe.  If your phone is stolen, you can phone your service provider and give them this code. They will then be able to block your handset so even if the thief changes the SIM card, your phone will be totally useless. You probably won't get your phone back, but at least you know that whoever stole it can't use/sell it either. If everybody does this, there would be no point in people stealing mobile phones.

Does anyone know if this is true?  I've never needed to try it.  If it is, it's harder still to understand CTIA recalcitrance.  If people can disable their phones themselves by calling in, where is the problem?  The only difference is that most people probably won't write down their cell phone identifier beforehand; the phone company could provide it easily.

CTIA members may have some conflicts here:  All those robberies resut in people going out to buy replacements, and probably create a greater demand for cell phone insurance, which not coincidentally, most of the cell phone providers sell.  Meanwhile the stolen phones themselves may generate demand for replacement SIM cards and other parts to make them usable again in their new home.  But their ads claim that the wireless phone industry pretty much invented "freedom" (forget the Magna Carta, Thomas Jefferson and all that), so if enough customers make clear they don't necessarily want the freedom to have their phone stolen and their personal data compromised, they might make some headway.

GOP Plan - Paralyze Government

Geezers Obstructing Progress (the G.O.P.) have found a new way to pursue their campaign to render government ineffective (thus proving their contention that government is ineffective).  They propose increased Congressional review of government rule-making.  The object is to assure domination of rule-making by the interested parties, so that no business should ever need to put up with "needless" and "bothersome" rules that could restrict their freedom of action.  The result is to inject politics into even the simplest and most straightforward of government procedures; and to weaken the ability of an elected government to effectuate the policies it was elected to implement.

Really, can you imagine allowing Congress - this is the same Congress, of course, that couldn't bring itself to compromise on anything when the nation's financial health was at stake - yes, that Congress -- to meddle in each and every basic process of government?  The terms deadlock, delay, dysfunction, and dumbness come readily to mind.  Such micromanagement is decried by businesspeople themselves as debilitatingly poor practice.  Yet it's somehow desirable for government.

Ultimately, it's a power raid by Congressional Republicans on the Executive Branch; not to mention a clear breach of the checks and balances built into the Constitution (hey, doesn't the Republican Party revere that document?).  Often such foolish efforts redound to the disadvantage of the party that conceived them, but we shouldn't have to suffer through waiting for that to happen.  This legislative initiative should be killed quickly.

The Life Cycle Of Communications Technology

In the beginning, there was the word.   Actually, before that, there were probably the grunt and the gesture.  Communication between/among humans was a pretty simple thing, even when we moved on to smoke signals, written letters, and the telegraph.  All these media were intended for communication between one or two individuals on the sending end, and an equally small number on the receiving end.

Then came the mass media.  A marketer's dream, if not a marketer's invention.  My recent post on robocalls to cell phones put a new spin for me on the historical development of our mass media.  Of course, one reading is that we advance from one system to another because technology makes it possible, and because we reap improvements of some kind - increased speed, a wider reach, or better audiovisual clarity. There is some truth in that.

Yet from the consumer's perspective, it's also possible to see our progression as a constant cycle of advertising-avoidance.  I recall the days when radio had actual "shows" that people tuned in to (Fibber McGee and Molly, for example, or Jack Benny).  Eventually, though, AM radio became so thickly infused with advertising that people flocked to other media:  FM, then television. 

Television was an advertising medium from the git-go, but there was a time when the FCC had some reasonable limits on the minutes of advertising that could be programmed in an hour; in my observation, these seem to have been relaxed to the point where they have become almost meaningless.   Cable TV brought some relief for a while; until cable introduced its own ads.   Viewers are now fleeing in droves toward DVDs and streamed videos of movies and television shows.

In voice communications, our home telephones (the old hard-wired variety)  were transformed from their original usage as instruments of that old-fashioned one-to-one communication (call Mom on Mother's Day!  Hear from Junior who was in the Peace Corps halfway around the world!) into just another means of opening ourselves up to the assault of hucksters.  We have learned to fear the telephone, which became less and less purposed toward "reaching out" and more and more utilized by businesses, political causes, and charities trying to "reach in" -- to our wallets.  (At my house, we are currently getting about 10-15 of these per day.)  Again, consumers took flight to caller ID and to the relative quiet of their cell phones, which were protected to a degree by the restrictions that H.R. 3035 seeks to weaken.  

This view of the life cycles of our media technology offers a strong rationale for resisting the current efforts to relax restrictions on automated calls to cell phones.  Unfortunately, it also implies that ultimately the battle will be lost, and we'll find ourselves waiting for the next new thing in voice communication that will promise - and perhaps even deliver, for a short period - escape.  

    

Robocalls - Coming Soon To A Phone Too Near You?

A reader recently asked me if I'd heard of legislation being proposed that would permit automated phoning to people's cell phones.   I hadn't, and it took a little while to track down (not a mention of it on the FCC website, for example), but I did find a pretty thorough rundown on it at TheInternetPatrol.com. 

The basics are that a coterie of companies and their Congressional friends are sponsoring legislation to roll back some of the protections against annoyance calls to cell phones that have existed since at least 1991.  They propose to legalize "information calls" to cell phones.  I recommend reading the full letter that supporters sent to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is carried at the link above. 

A letter to a Committee chairman, of course, is far from a done deal.  The legislation, known as H.R. 3035, might not get voted out of committee; it might not pass the House; it might get a thumbs down from the Senate.   Still, the potential for invasion of privacy is clear, so we owe "Internet Patrol" a hats-off for helping bring the matter to public awareness.

Of course, the legislation appears reasonable on its face.  They only want permission for "informational calls," like aircraft arrivals, overdue bills, or a breach of your credit card.  Many people probably find these services convenient and desirable.  But concerns arise for a number of reasons:

• Sure, just "informational" and not "telemarketing," but does anyone really believe that many firms (OK, even if it's just the "unscrupulous" ones) will limit themselves to that?  How would the line between information and selling be drawn?
• Proponents argue that earlier restrictions were motivated primarily by the high per-call costs of incoming cell phone calls at the time, and suggest this is no longer a concern.  However, the proposed law ignores the second reason for the 1991 legislation, which was privacy from telemarketers.  For most of us that's still a concern.
• A phone call is not the only way this information can be delivered.  It can be sent by e-mail, a channel of communication that is already polluted by the noxious fog of advertising (not to mention scamming).  Anyone who has a cell phone has e-mail on it (and is constantly checking it - while driving, while in a job interview, while standing at the altar.  Phoning is not necessary.
• The bill would allow automated calls to anyone who had ever provided their phone number before, in any context.  Consumers have a right to be suspicious if no provision is made requiring a new opt-in for "information" calls, and one for each specific company.

This proposed legislation seems fairly typical of the topsy-turvy way rulemaking is approached these days.  Special interest groups write their own legislation, line up a few malleable Congresspersons to sponsor it, create a story line to go with it, and try to sell it before the public can become aware, or government agencies can react. 

The Internet Patrol suggests writing the Congressmen who are sponsoring H.R. 3035.  But as they point out, most Congressmen don't read or accept mail from people who aren't their constituents.  So I'd suggest writing your own Congressman.  If you find phone calls about such things as overdues bills convenient and welcome, maybe you should at least call for appropriate definitions and safeguards against abuse, which there most certainly will be.

 

To The Max

A lot of worthwhile content in Kathleen Parker's column today.

Basic Scientific Research

Annalee Newitz's defense of basic scientific research (and of funding for government entities to conduct it) is a good review of the essential truths about the subject:  Private interests generally do applied research that is focused on their specific products or product areas or which clearly promises a profitable way of using it; yet most of the more far-reaching scientific breakthroughs have resulted from "basic" research, which is focused on understanding something without knowing in advance how it might be utilized or where it might lead.

Politicians have sought to cut funding for government scientific research on the grounds that it duplicates, or competes with, industry research.  These are often the same politicians who have denied climate change, done nothing about environmental issues, and believe that "creationism" should be taught in schools. 

That's all pretty well known, so when I read Newitz's article the other day I didn't think of it as unusual, or particularly important.  Today, I saw it in a different light.

Cigarette companies are fighting in court based on their "freedom of speech" to prevent the rather gross illustrations the FDA wants to require on their packages.  A federal district court judge has sided with the companies, bought into the spurious argument that corporations are "people" with free speech rights, and prevented the new labeling from being implemented for now.  

I think people ought to know by now that smoking is dangerous and make their own decisions.  On the other hand, cigarette companies haven't played responsibly and still don't.  So I don't much care about the eventual decision on the packaging.  The labels are extreme, but largely irrelevant. 

But I did start to think again about the need for basic research.  The cigarette companies are a prime example of why we must have basic research being conducted outside of, and independently of, business interests.  Where would we be today in our knowledge of the nexus between smoking and health if cigarette companies had monopolized scientific research on the topic?  We don't have to guess about the answer; back in the 1960s, when in fact they still did monopolize research on the topic, the companies' efforts mysteriously couldn't find any conclusive link between smoking and cancer.

  

Ignoring Science

Back in the 1960s, spurred by competition with the Soviet Union, the U.S. made an immense commitment to education in science that not only carried us into space but sparked entire new industries.  That seems to have lasted a generation or so but now, as the baby boomers start pushing into their retirement years, their sons and daughters seem more devoted to anti-science.  When we have politicians (or others who make policy for us) claiming that climate change doesn't exist; or professing creationism and insisting on its being taught in schools; or even scoffing at President Obama's efforts to provide even meager funding for investment in education in future, then we have to be worried.

A fellow who wrote a "Letter to the Editor" of the Washington Post yesterday said it well, I think.  The writer was responding to a review in the paper of the current controversy over "global warming": 

This seems rather like the political powers in Italy in 1632 disagreeing with Galileo that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Catholic Church took this position because Galileo’s conclusions did not support church dogma, and it is obvious that some of our political leaders approach the global warming issue with their own dogmatic biases.

Along with his letter was another (see the same link, above) authored by a former undersecretary of Energy (1988-1989), which complained that the Post had not thoroughly covered the scientists who deny that global warming is caused by human activity.   The second letter provides perfect illustration of the danger outlined in the first -- someone in a policy position (however  briefly) who seems prepared to ignore science in favor of dogma.  

Scientific opinion is seldom monolithic; of course one can always find a scientist or two to argue that the overwhelming majority of their colleagues are wrong.  In the case of climate change (a more neutral term), however, no one even bothers to argue it's not happening.  The data are clear.  And I'd suggest for the scoffers that its cause (manmade or natural?) is irrelevant.  Given that it threatens to severely alter our planet, possibly even make it uninhabitable, the real issue is what we can do about it.  The answers on that are pretty clear.  It seems worse than foolish to ignore damaging trends that we may be able to mitigate.  

Smartphones Take Over For Personal Use

This recently published graphic about smartphone usage is very revealing. The accompanying article claims that adoption of smart phones is proceeding at a rate faster than any technology in history; and that minorities and young people are particularly likely to use them as their main connection to the internet (rather than a laptop).

Not at all surprising, I think.  Even I am actively considering getting one, and I am struck by the paradox of that.  I hardly use my cell phone, but believe I'd use the smartphone more.   Internet access on the go, a weather check, e-mail, the ability to look up a restaurant somewhere nearby, use GPS to find my way, reserve a hotel online, and many more - all these are attractive features I feel I'd probably use more than I use a plain cell phone.  That's the microparadox, involving just me.

The macroparadox is my recollection of the talk about 30 years ago, when the personal computer (yes, that big, clunky thing with its deep screen and giant tower) was emerging, and many people wondered if most people really needed such a device for home use.  I think today's news about smartphone usage really provides the answer:  No, they did not. 

Most people, then as now, wanted to do mainly personal things on the computer -- banking, photos, e-mail, and (later) music.  They had little use for the things the major office suites and the CPU power of a desktop could do.  An average home probably seldom even writes a letter these days, let along creating a huge database, or using mail merge to produce invoices.  In short, the computer started life as a business tool, was back-marketed as a consumer product, but was always a bit of overkill for the latter application.  Now it appears business and personal use can - already have - diverged again.  Yet the smartphone could not have evolved without the computer as a steppingstone.

I'll keep my current desktop.  I first learned computers in the office, and to me they're still a work tool.  They're much more convenient to use for my spreadsheets, databases, mailmerges, and even blogging.  If I acquire a smartphone, it will be for the unserious side of life.  Sure, it may come in handy for an occasional work use, especially on the go, but the real work will get done on a laptop or desktop.

 

 

Pitfalls Of Translation

In a recent feature article in the Washington Post, I learned that the programmers behind online translation services like Babel Fish and Google Translate, frustrated with the efforts of linguists to resolve the countless pitfalls of translating from one language to another, are turning increasingly to mathematical models instead.  By counting off words, comparing existing translations, and various other means, they hope to be able to create better and quicker translations.

I wish them luck.  Certainly the difficulties of mutual understanding across different languages, involving not only translators but interpreters (a related endeavor that demands very different skills), has long been a barrier to many forms of human intercourse, from commerce to diplomacy.  It's also one in which very little progress has been made.  Translating from one language to another is hardly less quick or reliable today than it was 100, or even 1,000 years ago.

That's where the computer-based services come in, hoping to offer a speeded up solution.  Unfortunately the examples cited in this article don't seem to offer much hope -- they may be quick, but they are unintelligible.  Perhaps they'll improve as work progresses. 

If seeking to show off their work, Google and Babel Fish may have used the wrong examples by selecting a passage from a literary work.  In literature, language -- whether English, Hindi, or Japanese -- is the medium, like acrylic or oil in painting, or iron or marble in sculpture.   You can't translate paint or marble.  Better, and presumably more successful, examples might have been chosen from commercial texts, international law, or treaties, which undoubtedly lend themselves more easily to machine translation and which happen also to be the places we really need them.   

As developers continue to try to perfect the art or science of translating, I wonder if their efforts will succeed before they are overtaken or overshadowed by other less technological developments. 

Specifically, I have in mind the continuing and accelerating spread of English as a common global language.   The process probably began with the use of English throughout the far-flung British Empire; it speeded up after World War II as the U.S. became a global power and also simultaneously a net exporter of its language.  In the twenty-first century, North America is wallpapered by English speakers; the South Pacific and India likewise; in Europe, it's difficult to find people who don't speak English; in many African countries, it's the lingua franca among people who speak many different tribal languages; in China, the world's most populous nation, government is teaching children by the millions to speak English.  This natural, self-generated development seems very likely to obviate translation services within a few decades, if not sooner.

China Stressing Science

John Pomfret's recent report, "China Pushing the Envelope,"says that China is pouring loads of money and talent into developing scientists.  The thrust of the article is economic -- that China is becoming "the second superpower" and will increasingly become a threat to U.S. economic dominance.

That may be true, and if so, it would be regrettable for us.  But... well, that's competition.  I think we in the U.S. still understand a little something about competition, and we've prospered without placing much emphasis on "pure" scientific research.  We prefer the applied version, and have done well commercially by picking up and developing ideas conceived and researched by others.    So it is not a foregone conclusion that we are losing our competitive edge just because the Chinese are investing scads of money in science education.

There was one telling line in Pomfret's piece, though, that stood out to me:  "Unburdened by social and legal constraints common in the West, China's trailblazing scientists are also pushing the limits of ethics and principle...."

One of our burdens in the U.S., and one that could seriously harm us, is the alienation of a large part of our population from science as they flock to various forms of anti-scientific religious doctrine.   Religious objections to stem cell research, a turn toward forms of non-scientific medicine, belief in "creationism" -- all these and more weaken our efforts to develop science and scientists.  Yes, we can easily lose our technological lead if we refuse to go where research leads us, and cower ignorantly under rocks instead.