Outdoor safety, avalanches and smartphones

Smartphones are everywhere these days, and they’re replacing our cameras, diaries, address books, maps, GPS, and many other things in an easy hand-held unit.  We take them everywhere, and wherever we may be we know communication is but a swipe of the finger away.

Listening to a podcast recently (on my phone) I learned how these devices might not be as helpful in an emergency as they at first seem.  The podcast was January 1sts special edition of the BBC Radio Scotland’s Out of Doors program, in which the show’s presenters went out on an avalanche rescue exercise in the Cairngorms with the Grampian Police Mountain Rescue Team and the Braemar Mountain Rescue Team.  During this fascinating show the rescue teams explained how although smartphones frequently included GPS functionality which could be helpful out on the mountains they also tended to consume battery power far faster than traditional phones, and in emergency situations this rapid loss of power could make maintaining communication with the rescue team extremely difficult if not impossible.

This set me thinking about my friends (both in the UK and the US) who enjoy skiing, hiking in the mountains and generally getting out and about outdoors, and how most of them are quite possibly permanently attached to their iPhones and other smart-devices.  I found myself wondering how many of them had thought about how that rapidly fading battery, which is usually just an annoyance requiring a charging cable at work and at home (and in the car if you’ve got an iPhone), could put them at greater risk in an emergency situation.

With that in mind I encouraged them, and you, to listen to the podcast if you head out off trail, or into the woods and wilderness, and to make sure you plan for the worst even though I hope you’ll never need it.  When global distress beacons (like the McMurdo Fast Find here) and avalanche transmitters (like the Backcountry Access Tracker here) cost less than a new smartphone it seems crazy not to take one with you!

You can download the podcast here, and please note that all title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the BBC Podcast remain the property of the BBC (alternatively it may still be available from the BBC Podcasts website here).

In addition you may want to check out the following links:

• BBC Radio Scotland Out of Doors podcast page
• Out of Doors page on Facebook
• Avalanche Safety equipment on the REI website
• Braemar Mountain Rescue Team website (and Just giving Donation link)

WikiLeaks, freedom, and the battle of words

WikiLeaks cyberwar: Hackers bring down Swedish government site (The Telegraph).

Now that is a headline to grab your attention with those glitzy buzzwords “cyberwar” and “hackers”.  Even Carole Theriault, a senior security consultant at Sophos, a multi-national computer security firm, is quoted as saying:

If the big companies weren’t locking down their information before, they’re definitely doing it now.

This is really unprecedented and Amazon could be next.

… Hacking is illegal and it’s not just the companies which are the victims of this, it’s also the people who are trying to use their services to shop and the sellers of those items who can’t sell them.

Now I’d like to look at this quote in more detail, so let us break it down:

If the big companies weren’t locking down their information before, they’re definitely doing it now.

Imagine your data is a car which you’re parking on a street that has everything from multi-national corporations to drug dealers and pimps, let’s call that street “The Internet”. Now I’m guessing that most of us would close the doors and lock the car, set the alarm if we’ve had one installed, maybe even go back and check a few times (I can’t be the only one), because we know the cost of locking the door is far less than the cost of replacing the car.  Now here’s my problem with the above statement, big companies have not been locking the car, some of them haven’t even been closing the doors and yet when they come back and find the car has been broken into and the change in the glovebox has been taken they blame everyone but themselves.  When the British government lost public data by leaving laptops on trains, etc. they blamed the forgetful peon who dropped the ball and did not appear to question why someone was carrying such critical data in such an insecure manner in the first place.  We seeing a similar media frenzy now around the persecution of the WikiLeaks website rather than the more interesting question as to why the United States allowed so much critical and private data to be stored so insecurely that a single person could easily remove so much information.

This is really unprecedented and Amazon could be next.

Well DDoS attacks happen pretty frequently, what is unprecedented is the media interest in the case.  I agree Amazon could be next since the group is targeting organisations involved in the case, and Amazon dropped their contract to host the WikiLeaks website.  So guessing that the group might target another major involved party isn’t rocket science.

Hacking is illegal…

Okay here we’re not using the dictionary to it’s fullest are we, and some clarification is needed.  Let’s take a look at how Merriam-Webster define hacking:

Definition of HACK
transitive verb

1. to cut or sever with repeated irregular or unskillful blows b : to cut or shape by or as if by crude or ruthless strokes <hacking out new election districts> c : annoy, vex —often used with off
2. to clear or make by or as if by cutting away vegetation <hacked his way through the brush>
3. to manage successfully <just couldn’t hack the new job> b : tolerate <I can’t hack all this noise>

intransitive verb

1. to make chopping strokes or blows <hacked at the weeds>; also : to make cuts as if by chopping <hacking away at the work force> b : to play inexpert golf
2. to cough in a short dry manner
3. loaf —usually used with around
4. 1. to write computer programs for enjoyment
   2. to gain access to a computer illegally

So hacking isn’t illegal in most usages of the word.  Even in the realm of computers most hackers are just people who write computer programs, or in a broader sense people who modify electronic systems to perform tasks beyond which the system was initially designed for enjoyment.  In this sense I would describe myself as a hacker.

What the media describes as hacking is the criminal act of gaining access to a computer system illegally.  Again, the key words here are “criminal act” and “illegally” since many hackers are gainfully employed to use their skills to try and break into computer systems for governments and corporations to test the security which is in place.

What is the purpose of this rant?  Well, it is three fold:

1. Governments, companies, and private individuals need to think more about how their data is stored, and how they secure it.  For too long it has been easier to blame the individual attack rather than the massive security oversight.  This impacts every one of us, because when your personal information gets left on a train, stolen by a disgruntled employee, or accidentally mailed to the wrong person (aren’t governments great), it will be each of us individually footing the bill to prove we are who we claim to be and that the problem was not caused by us.
2. “Hacking” is not illegal.  “Hacking into a computer system with criminal intent” is illegal.  Society needs to understand this, since the continued negative image of hackers in the media encourages a neo-Luddite approach to technology and that in turn leads to the kind of data issues described in #1 above!
3. “Don’t shoot the messenger” – I agree that WikiLeaks was not wise in publishing all this information without some form of fact checking or review.  However, it is vital the members of the public be able to blow the whistle on unfair practices and WikiLeaks performed a useful task in providing a credible location for this.  The problem here is that instead of releasing just information pertaining to wrong-doings (I agree that details about the Blair/Brown British Government’s dodgy dealings over the Lockerbie Bomber’s release should be made public, we need to know how corrupt our political ministers can be) but embassy communications are out of the public domain for a reason, and where they do not specifically unveil a wrong doing they should not be released for no reason.  In this instance the media frenzy around WikiLeaks seems bizarre, if one wrote a threatening letter one wouldn’t expect the authorities to hunt down the typewriter!

Now the big question I find myself pondering is this: Did the US citizen who stole the information and published it on WikiLeaks commit an act of treason?

Raoul Moat, Facebook, and Freedom of Speech

Story updated – scroll to the finish for the latest news.

******

I read this in The Telegraph today – Facebook defies David Camron and keeps Moat tribute page.

I became quite angry reading the article and posted the following on Facebook:

Guess this shows all Facebook security and privacy policies are worthless, thousands have complained and reported this sick fan page (me included) via emails to Facebook, and via the Report Page links. The page incites violence against the police and those that support them and yet Facebook decides that all these user complaints plus the complaints from the British Government aren’t enough reason to shut down the page. DISGUSTING!

Which lead to a good friend of mine (and fellow ex-Stratford College media student) posting that although it was disgusting, the page should stay since Britain allows for freedom of speech.

Now I am a definite advocate of freedom of speech and expression, I’ve been a member of Reporters without Borders for a number of years (in fact they are the first link on the “Other Places of Interest” page on this blog) and believe strongly in the right to state your own opinion, as long as in doing so you don’t break any laws, personal contracts, or infringe on another persons civil liberties. However, in this case I feel anyone who defends the page’s continued existence under freedom of speech laws is misguided, and hear is why…

Freedom of speech allows you to say what you like, however other laws exist to ensure what you say doesn’t libel anyone, or encourage illegal acts of violence or hatred.  So even walking down the street your freedom of speech is limited in certain ways.  On the internet these freedoms are limited further by the ways we access the web.  You have a contract with your internet service provider, another with your email provider, and even one with Facebook, and these contracts have their own little stipulations and clauses regarding how free you are to say what you please.

Any user of Facebook has by creating their account entered into a contract with Facebook the corporate entity.  Usage of their service is free and available to all as long as you agree to these terms and do not breach the contract.   The terms and conditions can be viewed in the Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities which is visible even to those who have not yet created an account.  Therefore although you are allowed by freedom of speech to air your views, you may not air them on Facebook if those views are in breach of the agreement you made with them to use their service in the first place.

So which rules does the R.I.P RAOUL MOAT YOU LEGEND! ♥ page infringe upon?

Let us go back and take a look at Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:

3.6 You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.
3.7 You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
3.10 You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.

5.1 You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law

As the page consists mainly of comments celebrating Moat’s attack on the police, encouraging more acts of violence against the police and their supporters, and accusing the police of Moat’s eventual suicide we can rapidly tick the boxes marked “infringement” next to the laws above.

I would assume that many hundreds, if not thousands of Facebook users have already clicked the “Report Page” button, since the postings from the page owner, and the “fans” of the page comments include hate speech against the police and those who abhor Moat’s actions, and also direct calls to violence encouraging the shooting of police officers and glorifying Moat’s actions and the shooting of police officers in Northern Ireland over the last few days.

So why do Facebook ignore these complaints, and the request of the Prime Minister to remove the offensive material from their site.  Their official statement on the matter states:

‘Facebook is a place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way as they can and do in many other places, and as such we sometimes find people discussing topics others may find distasteful, however that is not a reason in itself to stop a debate from happening.”

Apparently even when that debate is in breach of their own terms and conditions.  I feel the real reason is far easier to explain, while they allow the page to exist they are benefiting from vast amounts of free publicity on every news bulletin and in every newspaper, magazine, and web article that references the site.  Even my own link above is contributing to their appalling behaviour.

Those that left tributes in Rothbury and Fenham may be idiots in my opinion, but are free to leave their gifts as offerings and enjoy their freedom of expression, when the council collect the rubbish and throw it out it is again their freedom to do so.  My post here is me enjoying my freedom of speech and my ability to express my opinion without calling for violence or partaking in hate speech.

In not removing the page Facebook has shown it is more interested in tawdry self promotion than acting responsibly.

UPDATE — UPDATE — UPDATE

July 15, 2010 – Raoul Moat tribute page deleted – The Telegraph

Unfortunately not because Facebook decided apply their terms of service, but because the idiot that created it was getting too much attention for their own comfort.  If you wonder what kind of person creates a page like that, just read the following quote from a radio interview page creator Siobhan O’Dowd had with Talksport’s Ian Collins, broadcast last night:

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Legends get talked about and he’s being talked about so in my eyes he’s a legend.

“I think he’s a legend for keeping them [the police] on their toes. I think it’s funny how he hid. It’s not just me who thinks this.

“It’s about time someone gave the police something to do, that’s what they get paid for trying to catch criminals so at least their wage was deserved.”

Interesting that she uses the freedom of speech argument I discussed earlier!  In other developments I can also report that the floral “tributes” in Rothbury have also been disposed of.

Guess this shows all Facebook security and privay policies are worthless, thousands have complained and reported this sick fan page (me included) via emails to Facebook, and via teh Report Page links. The page incites violence against the police and those that support them and yet Facebook decides that all these user …complaints plus teh complaints from the British Government aren’t enough reason to shut down the page. DISGUSTING!

European Grand Prix 2010 and Fox TV

I’ve moaned before about Fox TVs inability to schedule Formula 1 motorsport in a reasonable manner.  Looks like they’ve done it again…

For those wondering, the European Grand Prix will be aired as follows:

• on Fox and not Speed TV.
• at 12 Noon, and not either live or at a more traditional 1pm.
• clashing with the end of the England vs Germany world cup knockout game, which since most F1 fans are expats from Europe, and this is a world cup grudge match of two well known European nations I’d expect a small dent in viewing figures!
• with continual distractions and animated pools of vomit across the lower third of the screen for Fox shows you don’t want to watch, which will invariably obscure the telemetry or driver information at a critical moment.

So all I need to do now is avoid all media sources until noon…

The Railway Children – remembering Lionel Jeffries

I read today that Lionel Jeffries had died (The Telegraph: Lionel Jeffries, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang actor dies).   He will be remembered by many for playing Dick Van Dyke’s father in Ian Flemming’s Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, here singing “POSH”:

He had a very broad acting career, from The Quatermass Experiment to television appearances in the likes of Boon and Lovejoy and the surreal science fiction of Lexx.  What surprised me was to discover he had also directed, and written the screenplay for, The Railway Children which starred a young Jenny Agutter.  He is a talent who will be sadly missed.