Your high-definition DVD player--and other electronic gear--may require new firmware to correct problems.
Firmware updates for PC peripherals are nothing new. But when was the last time you thought to look for a firmware update of your living-room entertainment products? These days, it may be wise to check.
Cases in point: Three high-definition video players recently tested by PC World needed firmware updates to correct serious issues that surfaced after the players shipped to stores. One of them, the $1000 Samsung BD-P1000 Blu-ray player, requires customers to request an update from the company, which then sends it on a disc. The other two models, both from Toshiba, offer a better alternative: The $499 HD-A1 and $799 HD-XA1 high-def DVD players have ethernet ports, so you can download their updates directly. See "An Elegant Player for High-Def Movies" for details.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126822/article.html
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Privacy Watch: Phishing Anxiety May Make You Miss Messages
Swarms of bogus electronic missives deter people from accepting legitimate e-mail.
"Washington Mutual Security Warning." "Verify Your PayPal Account." "Official Information From Wells Fargo." You've been bombarded by e-mail messages with headers like these so often that you may now assume that they're all phishing scams. But what happens if your bank or an online vendor does need to contact you by e-mail? Will you even open the message?
If you're like most people, you've probably grown so disgusted with the daily attempts to con you into divulging your personal data that you may now unwittingly throw out some legitimate messages along with the fraudulent ones.
The percentage of people who open legitimate HTML messages from companies--the so-called "open rate"--has dropped by 20 to 30 percent over the past year, according to MarketingSherpa, an online publication that covers the marketing industry.
"We have been noticing in general that open rates across HTML e-mail have been unexpectedly plummeting," says Anne Holland, MarketingSherpa's publisher. (There are no statistics available regarding how many people open plain-text marketing messages, because those messages can't be tracked in the same manner.)
You probably know the best defense against phishing: Don't click any of the links within a suspicious message. Instead, type the URL into your browser's address bar, log in as you normally would, and then check to see whether your account has problems.
But companies have to find better ways to communicate securely with their customers. Some businesses are using small dedicated applications to get messages to customers, Holland says. "If [banks] can get people to download an application for banking and keep that on their computer, that might get past phishing."
Another option is for a firm to post messages to customers in a secure portion of its Web site. That way customers can get important news when they log into their account and know it's legitimate.
Finally, more businesses need to adopt measures to counter phishing attacks. For instance, some bank Web sites can detect when a phishing Web site tries to load the site's graphics and can prevent the images from displaying properly in the victim's browser.
It's unlikely that anything will completely eliminate phishers, but if companies want customers to treat their e-mail messages seriously, they need to get serious about dealing with the problem.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,122090/article.html
"Washington Mutual Security Warning." "Verify Your PayPal Account." "Official Information From Wells Fargo." You've been bombarded by e-mail messages with headers like these so often that you may now assume that they're all phishing scams. But what happens if your bank or an online vendor does need to contact you by e-mail? Will you even open the message?
If you're like most people, you've probably grown so disgusted with the daily attempts to con you into divulging your personal data that you may now unwittingly throw out some legitimate messages along with the fraudulent ones.
The percentage of people who open legitimate HTML messages from companies--the so-called "open rate"--has dropped by 20 to 30 percent over the past year, according to MarketingSherpa, an online publication that covers the marketing industry.
"We have been noticing in general that open rates across HTML e-mail have been unexpectedly plummeting," says Anne Holland, MarketingSherpa's publisher. (There are no statistics available regarding how many people open plain-text marketing messages, because those messages can't be tracked in the same manner.)
You probably know the best defense against phishing: Don't click any of the links within a suspicious message. Instead, type the URL into your browser's address bar, log in as you normally would, and then check to see whether your account has problems.
But companies have to find better ways to communicate securely with their customers. Some businesses are using small dedicated applications to get messages to customers, Holland says. "If [banks] can get people to download an application for banking and keep that on their computer, that might get past phishing."
Another option is for a firm to post messages to customers in a secure portion of its Web site. That way customers can get important news when they log into their account and know it's legitimate.
Finally, more businesses need to adopt measures to counter phishing attacks. For instance, some bank Web sites can detect when a phishing Web site tries to load the site's graphics and can prevent the images from displaying properly in the victim's browser.
It's unlikely that anything will completely eliminate phishers, but if companies want customers to treat their e-mail messages seriously, they need to get serious about dealing with the problem.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,122090/article.html
Essentials of E-Mail Etiquette
Your table manners may be impeccable, but when was the last time you brushed up on e-mail etiquette? Follow our tips and avoid an electronic faux pas.
Your everyday communications may be sending the wrong message about your manners. For example, many people now consider an e-mail with a vague subject line to be the height of rudeness--the electronic equivalent of slurping soup. (Gulp!) Plus, thanks to PC viruses, many people now send all questionable e-mail straight to the Delete bin. To make sure your e-mail gets read and understood correctly, stick to these etiquette rules.
Is That Your Final Answer?
Thoughtful friends send notes just to keep in touch. However, over-worked people will send you e-mail only when they want something. These messages usually seek a specific answer to a question. When you write back, make sure you answer the question as best you can. Don't force the time-pressed message sender to ask the question again, or conduct a lengthy series of messages. You'd better not make them late for a double espresso date.
Avoid Abbreviation Frustration
PC users have their own shorthand language that uses expressions designed to save typing, such as "IMHO" (in my humble opinion) and "TTYL" (talk to you later). However, many people find these abbreviations as unintelligible as organic chemistry formulas. You can't assume everyone is familiar with the endless acronyms circulating out there. WIDLTO--when in doubt, leave them out.
PG-13 Is Keen
Many companies scan all employees' incoming e-mail for "R-rated" keywords and image file attachments. Not only can images be inappropriate, but they also hog space on the company's servers. Colorful messages, pictures, or jokes can violate e-mail policies and land recipients in trouble--or at the least, prompt an embarrassing discussion.
Reserve anything you wouldn't want the boss to see for personal e-mail accounts. When it comes to content, you may be surprised to find out that your "entertaining" messages can offend. So think twice before whisking off e-mails to everyone in your address book. You might think a certain topic is innocuous--but Auntie Marge might not.
Response Roulette
Must you respond to every e-mail message received? How quickly must you respond? According to the Emily Post Institute, every message other than spam or junk mail deserves a reply. Our theory: Nobody has that much time to spare. However, notes from people like your boss, your customers, people you care about, and people with whom you haven't spoken in a while always merit a reply. When sending e-mail, tell the recipient explicitly if you need a reply within a certain time frame.
Six Degrees of Attachments
File attachments deserve special scrutiny on the sender's part. For starters, don't send them to people you don't know. Chances are, the whole message will just be deleted without being read, due to virus fears. On top of that, large file attachments can take forever to download. Your son-in-law will not be amused when he's at the airport trying to get his e-mail and has to wait ten minutes for the photos from your birthday party. Also, try to compress large attachments, especially photos.
Fight the Good Fight
E-mail can be one of the coldest, most inhuman forms of communication possible. So stop before you type. If you're really angry about something, give yourself a cooling-off period (ideally at least 24 hours) before you write an e-mail. Also, be careful with criticism via e-mail. The mother who puts her arm around you and smiles before telling you "The Thanksgiving turkey was a bit dry" probably won't start a family feud. But the mother who writes an e-mail that says "Too bad about that overcooked turkey" may cause heirloom china to be thrown to its untimely demise.
Spammer? You?
Warning: You are now entering the zero tolerance area. Almost all of us end up on mailing lists of family members, school chums, and the like. When you reply to these messages, make sure you reply only to the sender--not the whole list. Also, if you forward one of these messages to someone else, just copy and paste the information into a new e-mail. Don't forward the message with that huge list of names on it. You don't want to be branded as tacky.
Another no-no: Don't assume that new acquaintances want to be included on all your mailings--if you do that kind of thing. Ask for their permission first.
The Brief and the Beautiful
Some people think e-mail messages should be long and elaborate, but the best ones are short and clever. Trim the message down after you write it. Don't bury important information. If you're sending an e-mail to express a particular point, make that point right away, in the first paragraph. You can add any delicious bits of unrelated news at the bottom of the message.
If you're sending a one-line response, consider using the subject line to carry the whole message--if it fits. That way, the recipient doesn't have to open your e-mail. For example: "Got your package of samples today, nothing broken. Thank you (no msg)."
Prevent Capital Crimes
Capital letters in e-mail messages make the writer seem arrogant or angry. So unless you want people to confuse you with LEONA HELMSLEY, don't use them. And don't tell yourself that the recipient won't care that your "Caps Lock" key was stuck. Capital letters also prove visually tiring for the recipient, even when it's happy news. So unless you've had QUADRUPLETS or you've really WON THE LOTTERY, skip the capitals.
Subject Matters
In days past, an e-mail could arrive wearing nothing more than a subject line reading "dinner." Today, a message must arrive wearing a focused ensemble, such as "Dinner with Laurie and Jake on January 18th downtown." Remember: People use subject lines to prioritize the order in which they read e-mails, to sort e-mails into holding folders--and to decide which e-mails to skip entirely. Make the subject line as specific as possible without being wordy. "Please comment on enclosed proposal today" beats "per our discussion." If the recipient won't recognize your e-mail address, try to be extra clear.
And don't label your e-mail "Urgent" too often, when it really isn't. You'll start to annoy recipients. Subject closed.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,80624/article.html
Your everyday communications may be sending the wrong message about your manners. For example, many people now consider an e-mail with a vague subject line to be the height of rudeness--the electronic equivalent of slurping soup. (Gulp!) Plus, thanks to PC viruses, many people now send all questionable e-mail straight to the Delete bin. To make sure your e-mail gets read and understood correctly, stick to these etiquette rules.
Is That Your Final Answer?
Thoughtful friends send notes just to keep in touch. However, over-worked people will send you e-mail only when they want something. These messages usually seek a specific answer to a question. When you write back, make sure you answer the question as best you can. Don't force the time-pressed message sender to ask the question again, or conduct a lengthy series of messages. You'd better not make them late for a double espresso date.
Avoid Abbreviation Frustration
PC users have their own shorthand language that uses expressions designed to save typing, such as "IMHO" (in my humble opinion) and "TTYL" (talk to you later). However, many people find these abbreviations as unintelligible as organic chemistry formulas. You can't assume everyone is familiar with the endless acronyms circulating out there. WIDLTO--when in doubt, leave them out.
PG-13 Is Keen
Many companies scan all employees' incoming e-mail for "R-rated" keywords and image file attachments. Not only can images be inappropriate, but they also hog space on the company's servers. Colorful messages, pictures, or jokes can violate e-mail policies and land recipients in trouble--or at the least, prompt an embarrassing discussion.
Reserve anything you wouldn't want the boss to see for personal e-mail accounts. When it comes to content, you may be surprised to find out that your "entertaining" messages can offend. So think twice before whisking off e-mails to everyone in your address book. You might think a certain topic is innocuous--but Auntie Marge might not.
Response Roulette
Must you respond to every e-mail message received? How quickly must you respond? According to the Emily Post Institute, every message other than spam or junk mail deserves a reply. Our theory: Nobody has that much time to spare. However, notes from people like your boss, your customers, people you care about, and people with whom you haven't spoken in a while always merit a reply. When sending e-mail, tell the recipient explicitly if you need a reply within a certain time frame.
Six Degrees of Attachments
File attachments deserve special scrutiny on the sender's part. For starters, don't send them to people you don't know. Chances are, the whole message will just be deleted without being read, due to virus fears. On top of that, large file attachments can take forever to download. Your son-in-law will not be amused when he's at the airport trying to get his e-mail and has to wait ten minutes for the photos from your birthday party. Also, try to compress large attachments, especially photos.
Fight the Good Fight
E-mail can be one of the coldest, most inhuman forms of communication possible. So stop before you type. If you're really angry about something, give yourself a cooling-off period (ideally at least 24 hours) before you write an e-mail. Also, be careful with criticism via e-mail. The mother who puts her arm around you and smiles before telling you "The Thanksgiving turkey was a bit dry" probably won't start a family feud. But the mother who writes an e-mail that says "Too bad about that overcooked turkey" may cause heirloom china to be thrown to its untimely demise.
Spammer? You?
Warning: You are now entering the zero tolerance area. Almost all of us end up on mailing lists of family members, school chums, and the like. When you reply to these messages, make sure you reply only to the sender--not the whole list. Also, if you forward one of these messages to someone else, just copy and paste the information into a new e-mail. Don't forward the message with that huge list of names on it. You don't want to be branded as tacky.
Another no-no: Don't assume that new acquaintances want to be included on all your mailings--if you do that kind of thing. Ask for their permission first.
The Brief and the Beautiful
Some people think e-mail messages should be long and elaborate, but the best ones are short and clever. Trim the message down after you write it. Don't bury important information. If you're sending an e-mail to express a particular point, make that point right away, in the first paragraph. You can add any delicious bits of unrelated news at the bottom of the message.
If you're sending a one-line response, consider using the subject line to carry the whole message--if it fits. That way, the recipient doesn't have to open your e-mail. For example: "Got your package of samples today, nothing broken. Thank you (no msg)."
Prevent Capital Crimes
Capital letters in e-mail messages make the writer seem arrogant or angry. So unless you want people to confuse you with LEONA HELMSLEY, don't use them. And don't tell yourself that the recipient won't care that your "Caps Lock" key was stuck. Capital letters also prove visually tiring for the recipient, even when it's happy news. So unless you've had QUADRUPLETS or you've really WON THE LOTTERY, skip the capitals.
Subject Matters
In days past, an e-mail could arrive wearing nothing more than a subject line reading "dinner." Today, a message must arrive wearing a focused ensemble, such as "Dinner with Laurie and Jake on January 18th downtown." Remember: People use subject lines to prioritize the order in which they read e-mails, to sort e-mails into holding folders--and to decide which e-mails to skip entirely. Make the subject line as specific as possible without being wordy. "Please comment on enclosed proposal today" beats "per our discussion." If the recipient won't recognize your e-mail address, try to be extra clear.
And don't label your e-mail "Urgent" too often, when it really isn't. You'll start to annoy recipients. Subject closed.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,80624/article.html
Consumer Watch: National Security vs. Online Privacy
The new antiterrorism law steps up electronic surveillance of the Internet.
By now, you've probably heard a lot of debate over the USA Patriot Act, the federal legislation passed in October to give investigators more tools for apprehending terrorists. Proponents of the law say we need it to protect ourselves. Opponents say it threatens our constitutional rights. But whatever position you take on these issues, it's important to know how the new law will affect your life online.
The Patriot Act is complex and powerful. It broadens the definition of terrorism and increases the penalties for terrorism.
Some of the more sweeping changes involve electronic surveillance. The act permits federal investigators to use more-powerful tools to monitor phone calls, e-mail messages, and even Web surfing. We all hope that means agents will be better able to arrest terrorists and foil their plans. But the changes also mean we now have even less guarantee of privacy on the Net. The new law, along with new surveillance tools, will create a dragnet wide enough that anyone's e-mail note, text chat, or search inquiry might be snared.
What are the implications of this new type of surveillance for your Internet privacy? It's difficult to say exactly. The Patriot Act is vague on many key points. And understandably, law enforcement officials aren't eager to reveal details about tools like the controversial Internet surveillance system, DCS1000 (more commonly recognized by its previous name, Carnivore). "One of the biggest issues with Carnivore is that we don't really know how it works," says Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for Democracy in Technology, a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C., that focuses on preserving privacy and civil liberties on the Internet.
It's probably fair to say that joking in an e-mail about planting a bomb is a very bad idea these days. And researching biological terror techniques over the Internet could conceivably draw suspicion.
Watch What You Say
Am I saying that the FBI will break down your door if you run a Google search on anthrax? Of course not. Surveillance will naturally focus on people about whom authorities have a solid basis for suspicion. Investigators will treat most other traffic as just so much white noise. But the new security measures do make some old advice even more valuable: Never write anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't write on the back of a postcard.
The Patriot Act extends to Internet-based communications the use of pen-register and trap-and-trace orders, techniques designed in the '60s and '70s to capture numbers dialed to and from a particular telephone. Investigators can get permission to use the techniques fairly easily. They need not establish probable cause--reasonable suspicion that a targeted individual has been or will be involved in a crime--and judges are required to approve all reasonable requests related to criminal investigations.
Now that such surveillance will apply to Net communications, though, investigators could gather much more than just phone numbers. When a suspect sends an e-mail message, investigators could discover not only the recipient's identity, but also the subject line and perhaps even the body of the message. The act doesn't clearly define what constitutes electronic content that can permissibly be captured. The FBI's solution: Let federal agents make the decision and take responsibility for excising inadmissible material.
The new law opens the door for increased use of Carnivore and similar broad-based electronic surveillance systems. Used at an Internet service provider, Carnivore gives authorities easy access to all Internet communications to and from the ISP's entire membership. Although the act requires the FBI to work with the ISP, it places few restrictions on who can be monitored, so theoretically any subscriber identified by law enforcement as relevant to an investigation could be targeted. Investigators don't need to establish probable cause in advance.
The act also loosens the rules for roving wiretaps, conferring broad authority to listen in on a suspect's communications. Under previous laws, officials had to specify certain phone lines they wanted to monitor, along with proof that their suspect used them. Federal authorities said that the old rules were outdated, since many people have phone lines at home, a mobile phone, and Internet access at home, at work, and even at Starbucks. The act lets agents wiretap any phone line--again, without showing probable cause--and monitor everything on that line whether the suspect is using it or not.
Suppose that investigators believed a terrorist was using Internet connections on PCs at a library. Under the new law, authorities could monitor all PCs with Internet connections at that library and monitor the e-mail, Web browsing, and other traffic of everyone who used them--all for an indefinite period.
Our national security depends on improved electronic surveillance, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), a key player in crafting the new legislation. "To prevent future terrorist attacks, we must improve our intelligence-gathering capabilities, and make sure that intelligence about potential terrorists is shared with necessary actors throughout the government," Leahy said during a recent congressional hearing on terrorism.
Civil libertarians counter that the Patriot Act erodes fundamental freedoms and may even make some investigations more difficult. "First Amendment rights are also at stake since communications and associations will be chilled if they're subject to government snooping," says Nadine Strossen, a professor at New York Law School and president of the American Civil Liberties Union. With the new law, Strossen says, investigators may be so deluged with data that spotting the real threats will be impossible. "This sweeping surveillance is at best inefficient, at worst counterproductive," she says.
If you're like me, you may find yourself agreeing, at least in part, with both Leahy and Strossen. Striking the right balance between security and individual liberty in these scary times is a difficult and contentious undertaking. It's a debate whose outcome we all have a stake in. Go to www.congress.org to contact your senators and your congressional representative.
The national tragedy of September 11 changed almost every facet of American life. It's sad--but not surprising--that it will change our virtual lives as well.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,68769/article.html
By now, you've probably heard a lot of debate over the USA Patriot Act, the federal legislation passed in October to give investigators more tools for apprehending terrorists. Proponents of the law say we need it to protect ourselves. Opponents say it threatens our constitutional rights. But whatever position you take on these issues, it's important to know how the new law will affect your life online.
The Patriot Act is complex and powerful. It broadens the definition of terrorism and increases the penalties for terrorism.
Some of the more sweeping changes involve electronic surveillance. The act permits federal investigators to use more-powerful tools to monitor phone calls, e-mail messages, and even Web surfing. We all hope that means agents will be better able to arrest terrorists and foil their plans. But the changes also mean we now have even less guarantee of privacy on the Net. The new law, along with new surveillance tools, will create a dragnet wide enough that anyone's e-mail note, text chat, or search inquiry might be snared.
What are the implications of this new type of surveillance for your Internet privacy? It's difficult to say exactly. The Patriot Act is vague on many key points. And understandably, law enforcement officials aren't eager to reveal details about tools like the controversial Internet surveillance system, DCS1000 (more commonly recognized by its previous name, Carnivore). "One of the biggest issues with Carnivore is that we don't really know how it works," says Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for Democracy in Technology, a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C., that focuses on preserving privacy and civil liberties on the Internet.
It's probably fair to say that joking in an e-mail about planting a bomb is a very bad idea these days. And researching biological terror techniques over the Internet could conceivably draw suspicion.
Watch What You Say
Am I saying that the FBI will break down your door if you run a Google search on anthrax? Of course not. Surveillance will naturally focus on people about whom authorities have a solid basis for suspicion. Investigators will treat most other traffic as just so much white noise. But the new security measures do make some old advice even more valuable: Never write anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't write on the back of a postcard.
The Patriot Act extends to Internet-based communications the use of pen-register and trap-and-trace orders, techniques designed in the '60s and '70s to capture numbers dialed to and from a particular telephone. Investigators can get permission to use the techniques fairly easily. They need not establish probable cause--reasonable suspicion that a targeted individual has been or will be involved in a crime--and judges are required to approve all reasonable requests related to criminal investigations.
Now that such surveillance will apply to Net communications, though, investigators could gather much more than just phone numbers. When a suspect sends an e-mail message, investigators could discover not only the recipient's identity, but also the subject line and perhaps even the body of the message. The act doesn't clearly define what constitutes electronic content that can permissibly be captured. The FBI's solution: Let federal agents make the decision and take responsibility for excising inadmissible material.
The new law opens the door for increased use of Carnivore and similar broad-based electronic surveillance systems. Used at an Internet service provider, Carnivore gives authorities easy access to all Internet communications to and from the ISP's entire membership. Although the act requires the FBI to work with the ISP, it places few restrictions on who can be monitored, so theoretically any subscriber identified by law enforcement as relevant to an investigation could be targeted. Investigators don't need to establish probable cause in advance.
The act also loosens the rules for roving wiretaps, conferring broad authority to listen in on a suspect's communications. Under previous laws, officials had to specify certain phone lines they wanted to monitor, along with proof that their suspect used them. Federal authorities said that the old rules were outdated, since many people have phone lines at home, a mobile phone, and Internet access at home, at work, and even at Starbucks. The act lets agents wiretap any phone line--again, without showing probable cause--and monitor everything on that line whether the suspect is using it or not.
Suppose that investigators believed a terrorist was using Internet connections on PCs at a library. Under the new law, authorities could monitor all PCs with Internet connections at that library and monitor the e-mail, Web browsing, and other traffic of everyone who used them--all for an indefinite period.
Our national security depends on improved electronic surveillance, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), a key player in crafting the new legislation. "To prevent future terrorist attacks, we must improve our intelligence-gathering capabilities, and make sure that intelligence about potential terrorists is shared with necessary actors throughout the government," Leahy said during a recent congressional hearing on terrorism.
Civil libertarians counter that the Patriot Act erodes fundamental freedoms and may even make some investigations more difficult. "First Amendment rights are also at stake since communications and associations will be chilled if they're subject to government snooping," says Nadine Strossen, a professor at New York Law School and president of the American Civil Liberties Union. With the new law, Strossen says, investigators may be so deluged with data that spotting the real threats will be impossible. "This sweeping surveillance is at best inefficient, at worst counterproductive," she says.
If you're like me, you may find yourself agreeing, at least in part, with both Leahy and Strossen. Striking the right balance between security and individual liberty in these scary times is a difficult and contentious undertaking. It's a debate whose outcome we all have a stake in. Go to www.congress.org to contact your senators and your congressional representative.
The national tragedy of September 11 changed almost every facet of American life. It's sad--but not surprising--that it will change our virtual lives as well.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,68769/article.html
Consumer Watch: National Security vs. Online Privacy
The new antiterrorism law steps up electronic surveillance of the Internet.
By now, you've probably heard a lot of debate over the USA Patriot Act, the federal legislation passed in October to give investigators more tools for apprehending terrorists. Proponents of the law say we need it to protect ourselves. Opponents say it threatens our constitutional rights. But whatever position you take on these issues, it's important to know how the new law will affect your life online.
The Patriot Act is complex and powerful. It broadens the definition of terrorism and increases the penalties for terrorism.
Some of the more sweeping changes involve electronic surveillance. The act permits federal investigators to use more-powerful tools to monitor phone calls, e-mail messages, and even Web surfing. We all hope that means agents will be better able to arrest terrorists and foil their plans. But the changes also mean we now have even less guarantee of privacy on the Net. The new law, along with new surveillance tools, will create a dragnet wide enough that anyone's e-mail note, text chat, or search inquiry might be snared.
What are the implications of this new type of surveillance for your Internet privacy? It's difficult to say exactly. The Patriot Act is vague on many key points. And understandably, law enforcement officials aren't eager to reveal details about tools like the controversial Internet surveillance system, DCS1000 (more commonly recognized by its previous name, Carnivore). "One of the biggest issues with Carnivore is that we don't really know how it works," says Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for Democracy in Technology, a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C., that focuses on preserving privacy and civil liberties on the Internet.
It's probably fair to say that joking in an e-mail about planting a bomb is a very bad idea these days. And researching biological terror techniques over the Internet could conceivably draw suspicion.
Watch What You Say
Am I saying that the FBI will break down your door if you run a Google search on anthrax? Of course not. Surveillance will naturally focus on people about whom authorities have a solid basis for suspicion. Investigators will treat most other traffic as just so much white noise. But the new security measures do make some old advice even more valuable: Never write anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't write on the back of a postcard.
The Patriot Act extends to Internet-based communications the use of pen-register and trap-and-trace orders, techniques designed in the '60s and '70s to capture numbers dialed to and from a particular telephone. Investigators can get permission to use the techniques fairly easily. They need not establish probable cause--reasonable suspicion that a targeted individual has been or will be involved in a crime--and judges are required to approve all reasonable requests related to criminal investigations.
Now that such surveillance will apply to Net communications, though, investigators could gather much more than just phone numbers. When a suspect sends an e-mail message, investigators could discover not only the recipient's identity, but also the subject line and perhaps even the body of the message. The act doesn't clearly define what constitutes electronic content that can permissibly be captured. The FBI's solution: Let federal agents make the decision and take responsibility for excising inadmissible material.
The new law opens the door for increased use of Carnivore and similar broad-based electronic surveillance systems. Used at an Internet service provider, Carnivore gives authorities easy access to all Internet communications to and from the ISP's entire membership. Although the act requires the FBI to work with the ISP, it places few restrictions on who can be monitored, so theoretically any subscriber identified by law enforcement as relevant to an investigation could be targeted. Investigators don't need to establish probable cause in advance.
The act also loosens the rules for roving wiretaps, conferring broad authority to listen in on a suspect's communications. Under previous laws, officials had to specify certain phone lines they wanted to monitor, along with proof that their suspect used them. Federal authorities said that the old rules were outdated, since many people have phone lines at home, a mobile phone, and Internet access at home, at work, and even at Starbucks. The act lets agents wiretap any phone line--again, without showing probable cause--and monitor everything on that line whether the suspect is using it or not.
Suppose that investigators believed a terrorist was using Internet connections on PCs at a library. Under the new law, authorities could monitor all PCs with Internet connections at that library and monitor the e-mail, Web browsing, and other traffic of everyone who used them--all for an indefinite period.
Our national security depends on improved electronic surveillance, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), a key player in crafting the new legislation. "To prevent future terrorist attacks, we must improve our intelligence-gathering capabilities, and make sure that intelligence about potential terrorists is shared with necessary actors throughout the government," Leahy said during a recent congressional hearing on terrorism.
Civil libertarians counter that the Patriot Act erodes fundamental freedoms and may even make some investigations more difficult. "First Amendment rights are also at stake since communications and associations will be chilled if they're subject to government snooping," says Nadine Strossen, a professor at New York Law School and president of the American Civil Liberties Union. With the new law, Strossen says, investigators may be so deluged with data that spotting the real threats will be impossible. "This sweeping surveillance is at best inefficient, at worst counterproductive," she says.
If you're like me, you may find yourself agreeing, at least in part, with both Leahy and Strossen. Striking the right balance between security and individual liberty in these scary times is a difficult and contentious undertaking. It's a debate whose outcome we all have a stake in. Go to www.congress.org to contact your senators and your congressional representative.
The national tragedy of September 11 changed almost every facet of American life. It's sad--but not surprising--that it will change our virtual lives as well.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,68769/article.html
By now, you've probably heard a lot of debate over the USA Patriot Act, the federal legislation passed in October to give investigators more tools for apprehending terrorists. Proponents of the law say we need it to protect ourselves. Opponents say it threatens our constitutional rights. But whatever position you take on these issues, it's important to know how the new law will affect your life online.
The Patriot Act is complex and powerful. It broadens the definition of terrorism and increases the penalties for terrorism.
Some of the more sweeping changes involve electronic surveillance. The act permits federal investigators to use more-powerful tools to monitor phone calls, e-mail messages, and even Web surfing. We all hope that means agents will be better able to arrest terrorists and foil their plans. But the changes also mean we now have even less guarantee of privacy on the Net. The new law, along with new surveillance tools, will create a dragnet wide enough that anyone's e-mail note, text chat, or search inquiry might be snared.
What are the implications of this new type of surveillance for your Internet privacy? It's difficult to say exactly. The Patriot Act is vague on many key points. And understandably, law enforcement officials aren't eager to reveal details about tools like the controversial Internet surveillance system, DCS1000 (more commonly recognized by its previous name, Carnivore). "One of the biggest issues with Carnivore is that we don't really know how it works," says Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for Democracy in Technology, a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C., that focuses on preserving privacy and civil liberties on the Internet.
It's probably fair to say that joking in an e-mail about planting a bomb is a very bad idea these days. And researching biological terror techniques over the Internet could conceivably draw suspicion.
Watch What You Say
Am I saying that the FBI will break down your door if you run a Google search on anthrax? Of course not. Surveillance will naturally focus on people about whom authorities have a solid basis for suspicion. Investigators will treat most other traffic as just so much white noise. But the new security measures do make some old advice even more valuable: Never write anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't write on the back of a postcard.
The Patriot Act extends to Internet-based communications the use of pen-register and trap-and-trace orders, techniques designed in the '60s and '70s to capture numbers dialed to and from a particular telephone. Investigators can get permission to use the techniques fairly easily. They need not establish probable cause--reasonable suspicion that a targeted individual has been or will be involved in a crime--and judges are required to approve all reasonable requests related to criminal investigations.
Now that such surveillance will apply to Net communications, though, investigators could gather much more than just phone numbers. When a suspect sends an e-mail message, investigators could discover not only the recipient's identity, but also the subject line and perhaps even the body of the message. The act doesn't clearly define what constitutes electronic content that can permissibly be captured. The FBI's solution: Let federal agents make the decision and take responsibility for excising inadmissible material.
The new law opens the door for increased use of Carnivore and similar broad-based electronic surveillance systems. Used at an Internet service provider, Carnivore gives authorities easy access to all Internet communications to and from the ISP's entire membership. Although the act requires the FBI to work with the ISP, it places few restrictions on who can be monitored, so theoretically any subscriber identified by law enforcement as relevant to an investigation could be targeted. Investigators don't need to establish probable cause in advance.
The act also loosens the rules for roving wiretaps, conferring broad authority to listen in on a suspect's communications. Under previous laws, officials had to specify certain phone lines they wanted to monitor, along with proof that their suspect used them. Federal authorities said that the old rules were outdated, since many people have phone lines at home, a mobile phone, and Internet access at home, at work, and even at Starbucks. The act lets agents wiretap any phone line--again, without showing probable cause--and monitor everything on that line whether the suspect is using it or not.
Suppose that investigators believed a terrorist was using Internet connections on PCs at a library. Under the new law, authorities could monitor all PCs with Internet connections at that library and monitor the e-mail, Web browsing, and other traffic of everyone who used them--all for an indefinite period.
Our national security depends on improved electronic surveillance, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), a key player in crafting the new legislation. "To prevent future terrorist attacks, we must improve our intelligence-gathering capabilities, and make sure that intelligence about potential terrorists is shared with necessary actors throughout the government," Leahy said during a recent congressional hearing on terrorism.
Civil libertarians counter that the Patriot Act erodes fundamental freedoms and may even make some investigations more difficult. "First Amendment rights are also at stake since communications and associations will be chilled if they're subject to government snooping," says Nadine Strossen, a professor at New York Law School and president of the American Civil Liberties Union. With the new law, Strossen says, investigators may be so deluged with data that spotting the real threats will be impossible. "This sweeping surveillance is at best inefficient, at worst counterproductive," she says.
If you're like me, you may find yourself agreeing, at least in part, with both Leahy and Strossen. Striking the right balance between security and individual liberty in these scary times is a difficult and contentious undertaking. It's a debate whose outcome we all have a stake in. Go to www.congress.org to contact your senators and your congressional representative.
The national tragedy of September 11 changed almost every facet of American life. It's sad--but not surprising--that it will change our virtual lives as well.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,68769/article.html
My Plan To Get More From Multi Cores
There was a time when PC hardware struggled to keep up with PC software. Not anymore. At this point in the evolution of the personal computer, the hardware is so far ahead of the software that it's actually sad. For example, I now have close to 4 terabytes of disk storage at home, but I can barely push myself past 400 gigabytes of data and programs. Having such ridiculous amounts of storage space means that no one will ever do disk cleanup again. And that's great news for government snoops. With instant access to gigabyte after gigabyte of your personal records, they'll have no trouble finding what they need for your eventual conviction on trumped-up charges.
But it's this dual/quad/octo-core chip thing that's really the issue. The software needed to take full advantage of these chips continues to lag behind. It's like the old lady in the checkout line at the grocery store who's certain she has that much-needed penny in the bottom of her change purse but can't seem to find it. "It's in here somewhere. I just know it."
Nobody wants to face the fact that Linux, Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows XP, and Vista are based on OS designs that are as old as the hills. Sure, OS X and Windows have been gussied up with pretty icons and lots of colors, but that's just lipstick on a pig. The difference today between the Mac and the PC is that the Mac has better lipstick.
Meanwhile, none of these operating systems has the power to make multicore chips work as advertised. In the end, these chips are little more than novelties. Intel actually has the gall to claim that its extra cores can save power by automatically shutting down when they're not in use. This just means they'll be shut down most of the time. If the software could take advantage of these extra cores, there wouldn't be any need to shut them down.
With that in mind, I give you my CORE DEDICATION PROPOSAL. Why can't operating systems simply dedicate extra cores to housekeeping chores and cool background tasks? It's simple enough to work. Here are a few choice uses for core dedication. There are six of them, since we may see a six-core chip on the road ahead.
Disk Maintenance At one time or another, your PC's hard drive starts grinding away, doing God knows what. Sometimes, as you type on your word processor, your machine slows to a crawl, and each character takes its sweet time showing up on-screen (or they show up all at once, long after you typed them). Why not dedicate a CPU core to disk maintenance? That way, your machine can grind away without disturbing anything else.
Virus and Spyware Scanning One of the most painful PC experiences is when a virus or spyware scan begins in the middle of the night—and you're still trying to work. Everything stops. With some systems, this happens at boot time too. To heck with it. One core should be dedicated to continuous deep scanning—24/7. You'd never even notice. Except for the noise, that is.
YouTube Streaming The third core? It can be used to stream idiotic video clips from YouTube onto your machine. This core will just stay on YouTube. Forever.
Webcam-Casting You may as well use a core to stream a video of yourself onto the Web. People love to watch other people sitting at their computers typing.
Twittering Today, computers are mostly used for inane things such as Twitter—a blog-like environment where you report on your activities minute by minute. Thanks to Twitter, people can see what a fascinating life you lead and can live vicariously through everything you do. The fifth core will be for Twitter. And instant messaging.
Second Life Bots For all those fans of online virtual worlds like Second Life: You might as well have one core dedicated to your 3D avatar. Of course, it'll just sit around vegetating most of the time—kinda like what you do when you use Second Life.
Well, I'm out of cores. Can I have more?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2129596,00.asp
But it's this dual/quad/octo-core chip thing that's really the issue. The software needed to take full advantage of these chips continues to lag behind. It's like the old lady in the checkout line at the grocery store who's certain she has that much-needed penny in the bottom of her change purse but can't seem to find it. "It's in here somewhere. I just know it."
Nobody wants to face the fact that Linux, Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows XP, and Vista are based on OS designs that are as old as the hills. Sure, OS X and Windows have been gussied up with pretty icons and lots of colors, but that's just lipstick on a pig. The difference today between the Mac and the PC is that the Mac has better lipstick.
Meanwhile, none of these operating systems has the power to make multicore chips work as advertised. In the end, these chips are little more than novelties. Intel actually has the gall to claim that its extra cores can save power by automatically shutting down when they're not in use. This just means they'll be shut down most of the time. If the software could take advantage of these extra cores, there wouldn't be any need to shut them down.
With that in mind, I give you my CORE DEDICATION PROPOSAL. Why can't operating systems simply dedicate extra cores to housekeeping chores and cool background tasks? It's simple enough to work. Here are a few choice uses for core dedication. There are six of them, since we may see a six-core chip on the road ahead.
Disk Maintenance At one time or another, your PC's hard drive starts grinding away, doing God knows what. Sometimes, as you type on your word processor, your machine slows to a crawl, and each character takes its sweet time showing up on-screen (or they show up all at once, long after you typed them). Why not dedicate a CPU core to disk maintenance? That way, your machine can grind away without disturbing anything else.
Virus and Spyware Scanning One of the most painful PC experiences is when a virus or spyware scan begins in the middle of the night—and you're still trying to work. Everything stops. With some systems, this happens at boot time too. To heck with it. One core should be dedicated to continuous deep scanning—24/7. You'd never even notice. Except for the noise, that is.
YouTube Streaming The third core? It can be used to stream idiotic video clips from YouTube onto your machine. This core will just stay on YouTube. Forever.
Webcam-Casting You may as well use a core to stream a video of yourself onto the Web. People love to watch other people sitting at their computers typing.
Twittering Today, computers are mostly used for inane things such as Twitter—a blog-like environment where you report on your activities minute by minute. Thanks to Twitter, people can see what a fascinating life you lead and can live vicariously through everything you do. The fifth core will be for Twitter. And instant messaging.
Second Life Bots For all those fans of online virtual worlds like Second Life: You might as well have one core dedicated to your 3D avatar. Of course, it'll just sit around vegetating most of the time—kinda like what you do when you use Second Life.
Well, I'm out of cores. Can I have more?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2129596,00.asp
The Power of Negative Thinking
Accentuating the positive doesn't make products better.
Stephen Manes, PC World
It's guaranteed: whenever I say mean things about some third-rate bloatware that doesn't remotely live up to its hype--like, say, Windows Vista--I get a batch of e-mail berating me for being negative. And I'm not the only one: In online forums, fans of whatever item is under the microscope enjoy dissing "whiners" who pick apart the failings in products and services, from high-end hotels to nose-hair trimmers.
Sorry, Pollyannas, but you're missing the point. To borrow a phrase from Spiro Agnew's speechwriters, nattering nabobs of negativism--including professional complainers like me and savvy online amateurs--are all that keep us from a world where marketing and public-relations messages are the only ones that matter.
Vendors often give professional reviewers access to new products and services before their release, but many companies have adopted the clever strategy of announcing products long before they actually exist. The idea is to garner plenty of positive buzz before negative hands-on reviews can show up. When you read a report that "this slim device delivers driving directions throughout the U.S." without any evidence that the writer tried it, you can be sure that this bland information came directly from the company's literature. Only later will you learn that the unit takes forever to lock on to the satellite signals, is unreadable on sunny days, eats batteries, and takes a perverse pleasure in sending you the wrong way down one-way streets.
Hands-on experience is the difference between information and hype. Those of us who test products for a living often hear from vendors who don't like it when we point out the drawbacks of what they sell. But is Microsoft going to take out full-page ads to proclaim "Lots of incompatibilities remain"? Is your cellular provider going to erect a billboard trumpeting "New phone: Minor improvement, if that!" or "Entering dropped-call zone"?
And the Internet's ability to give every frustrated customer a soapbox has ushered in a Golden Age of Negativity--for which I am supremely grateful. When a recent Windows update led my audio software to deliver an error message every time my machine booted up, a ticked-off Slashdot post from another victim of the same glitch pointed the way to a fix. When you google an error message, the solution often comes from some sadder but wiser user rather than the offending company's support database.
Before I go on vacation, I head straight to TripAdvisor for the truth about the hotel room that's too small to turn around in or the "luxury resort" whose renovation means jackhammers at 6 a.m. Before shelling out for home theater components, I turn to AVS Forum to see what the unhappiest buyers are saying about devices whose HDMI connectors don't always connect. Before I buy a car, I seek out the least-satisfied customers I can find on sites like Edmunds.com to flesh out my worst-case scenarios.
Amazon.com customers who bestow five-star ratings on tech products can be worth reading, but first I want the no- and one-star reviews. Sometimes they come from outright cranks, but more often they're written by experts who snicker at the glowing notices from novices who think "640 by 480" is tech talk for high resolution--and then point out the flaws the newbies missed.
Everyone wants high-quality, high-value products and services. The truth is, you don't discover and encourage them by dwelling on the bright side.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/132073-1/article.html
Stephen Manes, PC World
It's guaranteed: whenever I say mean things about some third-rate bloatware that doesn't remotely live up to its hype--like, say, Windows Vista--I get a batch of e-mail berating me for being negative. And I'm not the only one: In online forums, fans of whatever item is under the microscope enjoy dissing "whiners" who pick apart the failings in products and services, from high-end hotels to nose-hair trimmers.
Sorry, Pollyannas, but you're missing the point. To borrow a phrase from Spiro Agnew's speechwriters, nattering nabobs of negativism--including professional complainers like me and savvy online amateurs--are all that keep us from a world where marketing and public-relations messages are the only ones that matter.
Vendors often give professional reviewers access to new products and services before their release, but many companies have adopted the clever strategy of announcing products long before they actually exist. The idea is to garner plenty of positive buzz before negative hands-on reviews can show up. When you read a report that "this slim device delivers driving directions throughout the U.S." without any evidence that the writer tried it, you can be sure that this bland information came directly from the company's literature. Only later will you learn that the unit takes forever to lock on to the satellite signals, is unreadable on sunny days, eats batteries, and takes a perverse pleasure in sending you the wrong way down one-way streets.
Hands-on experience is the difference between information and hype. Those of us who test products for a living often hear from vendors who don't like it when we point out the drawbacks of what they sell. But is Microsoft going to take out full-page ads to proclaim "Lots of incompatibilities remain"? Is your cellular provider going to erect a billboard trumpeting "New phone: Minor improvement, if that!" or "Entering dropped-call zone"?
And the Internet's ability to give every frustrated customer a soapbox has ushered in a Golden Age of Negativity--for which I am supremely grateful. When a recent Windows update led my audio software to deliver an error message every time my machine booted up, a ticked-off Slashdot post from another victim of the same glitch pointed the way to a fix. When you google an error message, the solution often comes from some sadder but wiser user rather than the offending company's support database.
Before I go on vacation, I head straight to TripAdvisor for the truth about the hotel room that's too small to turn around in or the "luxury resort" whose renovation means jackhammers at 6 a.m. Before shelling out for home theater components, I turn to AVS Forum to see what the unhappiest buyers are saying about devices whose HDMI connectors don't always connect. Before I buy a car, I seek out the least-satisfied customers I can find on sites like Edmunds.com to flesh out my worst-case scenarios.
Amazon.com customers who bestow five-star ratings on tech products can be worth reading, but first I want the no- and one-star reviews. Sometimes they come from outright cranks, but more often they're written by experts who snicker at the glowing notices from novices who think "640 by 480" is tech talk for high resolution--and then point out the flaws the newbies missed.
Everyone wants high-quality, high-value products and services. The truth is, you don't discover and encourage them by dwelling on the bright side.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/132073-1/article.html
Think You Have On-Site Service? Maybe Not
My purchase of an ABS Awesome 6300 PC in April 2004 included a three-year on-site service contract. So when my PC failed to start last November, I called ABS. A technician walked me through potential fixes, but none worked. I told him I had an on-site service contract, but he and a manager said the company that was supposed to provide the on-site service had gone out of business, and he and ABS could do nothing about it. I purchased the service contract from ABS, but I have received from them as yet neither service nor a refund.
Luis Garcia-Bunuel, Prescott, Arizona
On Your Side responds: According to ABS, Garcia-Bunuel's on-site service agreement wasn't actually with ABS, but with 2NET, a company that ABS partnered with for several years. Later, ABS terminated its relationship with 2NET, which has since gone out of business. An ABS spokesperson said the company clearly stated on its Web site and in material accompanying the PC that the service was provided by 2NET. Garcia-Bunuel says the only indication that his service was with 2NET was an item on his initial invoice. ABS gave free phone tech support to Garcia-Bunuel, and a company rep said he can call if he has more problems.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/131872-1/article.html
Luis Garcia-Bunuel, Prescott, Arizona
On Your Side responds: According to ABS, Garcia-Bunuel's on-site service agreement wasn't actually with ABS, but with 2NET, a company that ABS partnered with for several years. Later, ABS terminated its relationship with 2NET, which has since gone out of business. An ABS spokesperson said the company clearly stated on its Web site and in material accompanying the PC that the service was provided by 2NET. Garcia-Bunuel says the only indication that his service was with 2NET was an item on his initial invoice. ABS gave free phone tech support to Garcia-Bunuel, and a company rep said he can call if he has more problems.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/131872-1/article.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)