"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Posts Tagged ‘Wireless Phone Service’

Radiation From Cell Phones & WiFi Networks Are Making People Sick — Are We All at Risk?

In Uncategorized on December 6, 2011 at 12:27 pm

Oldspeak:”We are now exposed to electromagnetic radio frequencies 24 hours a day. “radio-frequency radiation has a number of biological effects which can be reproducibly found in animals and cellular systems. The indications are that there may be very serious effects in humans. Exposure tests with animal and human cells show RF-EMF radiation causes genes to be activated.  RF-EMF causes the generation of free radicals, increases production of things called heat shock proteins, and alters calcium ion regulation. These are all common mechanisms behind many kinds of tissue damage.”-David O. Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the State University of New York  Double-strand breaks in DNA — one of the undisputed causes of cancer — have been reported in similar tests with animal cells. Swedish neuro-oncologist Leif Salford, chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at Lund University, has found that cell phone radiation damages neurons in rats, particularly those cells associated with memory and learning. The damage occurred after an exposure of just two hours. Salford also found that cell phone EMFs cause holes to appear in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain in rats. Punching holes in the blood-brain-barrier is not a good thing. It allows toxic molecules from the blood to leach into the ultra-stable environment of the brain. One of the potential outcomes, Salford notes, is dementia.” These are some of  the documented deleterious effects of prolonged exposure to RF-EMF radiation. It is reasonable to assume there are many more we are unaware of.  And we’re exposed to it CONSTANTLY. But hey as long as Big Pharma gets to keep getting paid pumping our kids full of the ADHD meds they need because this radiation is making them go haywire and adversely affecting their memory and learning abilities, everything is fine, pay no attention to the men behind the curtain. Welcome to the largest human experiment EVER. And very few people are even aware of it. What’s most disturbing is the non-partisan research is being ignored, in favor of obviously bought and paid for by industry research. Why? Watch the documentary below to understand what you’re up against. ” Ignorance Is Strength”

Related Video

FULL SIGNAL: The Hidden Costs of Cell Phones

By Christopher Ketcham  @ Earth Island Journal:

Consider this story: It’s January 1990, during the pioneer build-out of mobile phone service. A cell tower goes up 800 feet from the house of Alison Rall, in Mansfield, Ohio, where she and her husband run a 160-acre dairy farm. The first thing the Rall family notices is that the ducks on their land lay eggs that don’t hatch. That spring there are no ducklings.

By the fall of 1990, the cattle herd that pastures near the tower is sick. The animals are thin, their ribs are showing, their coats growing rough, and their behavior is weird – they’re agitated, nervous. Soon the cows are miscarrying, and so are the goats. Many of the animals that gestate are born deformed. There are goats with webbed necks, goats with front legs shorter than their rear legs. One calf in the womb has a tumor the size of a basketball, another carries a tumor three feet in diameter, big enough that he won’t pass through the birth canal. Rall and the local veterinarian finally cut open the mother to get the creature out alive. The vet records the nightmare in her log: “I’ve never seen anything like this in my entire practice… All of [this] I feel was a result of the cellular tower.”

Within six months, Rall’s three young children begin suffering bizarre skin rashes, raised red “hot spots.” The kids are hit with waves of hyperactivity; the youngest child sometimes spins in circles, whirling madly. The girls lose hair. Rall is soon pregnant with a fourth child, but she can’t gain weight. Her son is born with birth defects – brittle bones, neurological problems – that fit no specific syndrome. Her other children, conceived prior to the arrival of the tower, had been born healthy.

Desperate to understand what is happening to her family and her farm, Rall contacts the Environmental Protection Agency. She ends up talking to an EPA scientist named Carl Blackman, an expert on the biological effects of radiation from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) – the kind of radiofrequency EMFs (RF-EMFs) by which all wireless technology operates, including not just cell towers and cell phones but wi-fi hubs and wi-fi-capable computers, “smart” utility meters, and even cordless home phones. “With my government cap on, I’m supposed to tell you you’re perfectly safe,” Blackman tells her. “With my civilian cap on, I have to tell you to consider leaving.”

Blackman’s warning casts a pall on the family. When Rall contacts the cell phone company operating the tower, they tell her there is “no possibility whatsoever” that the tower is the source of her ills. “You’re probably in the safest place in America,” the company representative tells her.

The Ralls abandoned the farm on Christmas Day of 1992 and never re-sold it, unwilling to subject others to the horrors they had experienced. Within weeks of fleeing to land they owned in Michigan, the children recovered their health, and so did the herd.

We are now exposed to electromagnetic radio frequencies 24 hours a day. Welcome to the largest human experiment ever.

Not a single one of the half-dozen scientists I spoke to could explain what had happened on the Rall farm. Why the sickened animals? Why the skin rashes, the hyperactivity? Why the birth defects? If the radiofrequency radiation from the cell tower was the cause, then what was the mechanism? And why today, with millions of cell towers dotting the planet and billions of cell phones placed next to billions of heads every day, aren’t we all getting sick?

In fact, the great majority of us appear to be just fine. We all live in range of cell towers now, and we are all wireless operators. More than wireless operators, we’re nuts about the technology. Who doesn’t keep at their side at all times the electro-plastic appendage for the suckling of information?

The mobile phone as a technology was developed in the 1970s, commercialized in the mid-80s, miniaturized in the ‘90s. When the first mobile phone companies launched in the United Kingdom in 1985, the expectation was that perhaps 10,000 phones would sell. Worldwide shipments of mobile phones topped the one billion mark in 2006. As of October 2010 there were 5.2 billion cell phones operating on the planet. “Penetration,” in the marketing-speak of the companies, often tops 100 percent in many countries, meaning there is more than one connection per person. The mobile phone in its various manifestations – the iPhone, the Android, the Blackberry – has been called the “most prolific consumer device” ever proffered.

I don’t have an Internet connection at my home in Brooklyn, and, like a dinosaur, I still keep a landline. But if I stand on my roof, I see a hundred feet away, attached to the bricks of the neighboring parking garage, a panel of cell phone antennae – pointed straight at me. They produce wonderful reception on my cell phone. My neighbors in the apartment below have a wireless fidelity connection – better known as wi-fi – which I tap into when I have to argue with magazine editors. This is very convenient. I use it. I abuse it.

Yet even though I have, in a fashion, opted out, here I am, on a rooftop in Brooklyn, standing bathed in the radiation from the cell phone panels on the parking garage next door. I am also bathed in the radiation from the neighbors’ wi-fi downstairs. The waves are everywhere, from public libraries to Amtrak trains to restaurants and bars and even public squares like Zuccotti Park in downtown Manhattan, where the Wall Street occupiers relentlessly tweet.

We now live in a wireless-saturated normality that has never existed in the history of the human race.

It is unprecedented because of the complexity of the modulated frequencies that carry the increasingly complex information we transmit on our cell phones, smart phones and wi-fi systems. These EMFs are largely untested in their effects on human beings. Swedish neuroscientist Olle Johansson, who teaches at the world-renowned Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, tells me the mass saturation in electromagnetic fields raises terrible questions. Humanity, he says, has embarked on the equivalent of “the largest full-scale experiment ever. What happens when, 24 hours around the clock, we allow ourselves and our children to be whole-body-irradiated by new, man-made electromagnetic fields for the entirety of our lives?”

We have a few answers. Last May, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, a branch of the World Health Organization), in Lyon, France, issued a statement that the electromagnetic frequencies from cell phones would henceforth be classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The determination was based in part on data from a 13-country study, called Interphone, which reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell phone use, the risk of getting a brain tumor – specifically on the side of the head where the phone is placed – goes up as much as 40 percent for adults. Israeli researchers, using study methods similar to the Interphone investigation, have found that heavy cell phone users were more likely to suffer malignant tumors of the salivary gland in the cheek, while an independent study by scientists in Sweden concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. According to a study published in the International Journal of Cancer Prevention, people living for more than a decade within 350 meters of a cell phone tower experience a four-fold increase in cancer rates.

The IARC decision followed in the wake of multiple warnings, mostly from European regulators, about the possible health risks of RF-EMFs. In September 2007, Europe’s top environmental watchdog, the EU’s European Environment Agency, suggested that the mass unregulated exposure of human beings to widespread radiofrequency radiation “could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking and lead in petrol.” That same year, Germany’s environmental ministry singled out the dangers of RF-EMFs used in wi-fi systems, noting that people should keep wi-fi exposure “as low as possible” and instead choose “conventional wired connections.” In 2008, France issued a generalized national cell phone health warning against excessive cell phone use, and then, a year later, announced a ban on cell phone advertising for children under the age of 12.

We now live in a wireless-saturated normality that has never existed in the history of the human race.

In 2009, following a meeting in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, more than 50 concerned scientists from 16 countries – public health officials, biologists, neuroscientists, medical doctors – signed what became known as the Porto Alegre Resolution. The signatories described it as an “urgent call” for more research based on “the body of evidence that indicates that exposure to electromagnetic fields interferes with basic human biology.”

That evidence is mounting. “Radiofrequency radiation has a number of biological effects which can be reproducibly found in animals and cellular systems,” says David O. Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the State University of New York (SUNY). “We really cannot say for certain what the adverse effects are in humans,” Carpenter tells me. “But the indications are that there may be – and I use the words ‘may be’ – very serious effects in humans.” He notes that in exposure tests with animal and human cells, RF-EMF radiation causes genes to be activated. “We also know that RF-EMF causes generation of free radicals, increases production of things called heat shock proteins, and alters calcium ion regulation. These are all common mechanisms behind many kinds of tissue damage.”

Double-strand breaks in DNA – one of the undisputed causes of cancer – have been reported in similar tests with animal cells. Swedish neuro-oncologist Leif Salford, chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at Lund University, has found that cell phone radiation damages neurons in rats, particularly those cells associated with memory and learning. The damage occurred after an exposure of just two hours. Salford also found that cell phone EMFs cause holes to appear in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain in rats. Punching holes in the blood-brain-barrier is not a good thing. It allows toxic molecules from the blood to leach into the ultra-stable environment of the brain. One of the potential outcomes, Salford notes, is dementia.

Other effects from cell phone radiofrequencies have been reported using human subjects. At Loughborough University in England, sleep specialists in 2008 found that after 30 minutes of cell phone use, their subjects required twice the time to fall asleep as they did when the phone was avoided before bedtime. EEGs (electroencephalograms) showed a disturbance of the brain waves that regulate sleep. Neuroscientists at Swinburne University of Technologyin Australia discovered in 2009 a “power boost” in brain waves when volunteers were exposed to cell phone radiofrequencies. Researchers strapped Nokia phones to their subjects’ heads, then turned the phones on and off. On: brain went into defense mode. Off: brain settled. The brain, one of the lead researchers speculated, was “concentrating to overcome the electrical interference.”

Yet for all this, there is no scientific consensus on the risks of RF-EMFs to human beings.

The major public-health watchdogs, in the US and worldwide, have dismissed concerns about it. “Current evidence,” the World Health Organization (WHO) says, “does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields.” (The WHO thus contradicts the findings of one of its own research units.) The US Federal Communications Commission has made similar statements. The American Cancer Society reports that “most studies published so far have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors.” The cell phone industry’s lobbying organization, CTIA-The Wireless Association, assures the public that cell phone radiation is safe, citing studies – many of them funded by the telecom industry – that show no risk.

Published meta-reviews of hundreds of such studies suggest that industry funding tends to skew results. According to a survey by Henry Lai, a research professor at University of Washington, only 28 percent of studies funded by the wireless industry showed some type of biological effect from cell phone radiation. Meanwhile, independently funded studies produce an altogether different set of data: 67 percent of those studies showed a bioeffect. The Safe Wireless Initiative, a research group in Washington, DC that has since closed down, unpacked the data in hundreds of studies on wireless health risks, arraying them in terms of funding source. “Our data show that mobile phone industry funded/influenced work is six times more likely to find ‘no problem’ than independently funded work,” the group noted. “The industry thus has significantly contaminated the scientific evidence pool.”

The evidence about the long-term public health risks of exposure to RF-EMFs may be contradictory. Yet it is clear that some people are getting sick when heavily exposed to the new radiofrequencies. And we are not listening to their complaints.

Take the story of Michele Hertz. When a local utility company installed a wireless digital meter – better known as a “smart” meter – on her house in upstate New York in the summer of 2009, Hertz thought little of it. Then she began to feel odd. She was a practiced sculptor, but now she could not sculpt. “I couldn’t concentrate, I couldn’t sleep, I couldn’t even finish sentences,” she told me. Hertz experienced “incredible memory loss,” and, at the age of 51, feared she had come down with Alzheimer’s.

One night during a snowstorm in 2010 her house lost power, and when it came back on her head exploded with a ringing sound – “a terrible piercing.” A buzzing in her head persisted. She took to sleeping on the floor of her kitchen that winter, where the refrigerator drowned out the keening. There were other symptoms: headaches and nausea and dizziness, persistent and always worsening. “Sometimes I’d wake up with my heart pounding uncontrollably,” she told me. “I thought I would have a heart attack. I had nightmares that people were killing me.”

Roughly one year after the installation of the wireless meters, with the help of an electrician, Hertz thought she had figured out the source of the trouble: It had to be something electrical in the house. On a hunch, she told the utility company, Con Edison of New York, to remove the wireless meter. She told them: “I will die if you do not install an analog meter.” Within days, the worst symptoms disappeared. “People look at me like I’m crazy when I talk about this,” Hertz says.

Her exposure to the meters has super-sensitized Hertz to all kinds of other EMF sources. “The smart meters threw me over the electronic edge,” she says. A cell phone switched on in the same room now gives her a headache. Stepping into a house with wi-fi is intolerable. Passing a cell tower on the street hurts. “Sometimes if the radiation is very strong my fingers curl up,” she says. “I can now hear cell phones ringing on silent. Life,” she says, “has dramatically changed.”

Hertz soon discovered there were other people like her: “Electrosensitives,” they call themselves. To be sure, they comprise a tortured minority, often misunderstood and isolated. They share their stories at online forums like Smartmeters.org, the EMF Safety Network, and the Electrosensitive Society. “Some are getting sick from cell phones, some from smart meters, some from cell towers,” Hertz tells me. “Some can no longer work and have had to flee their homes. Some are losing their eyesight, some can’t stop shaking, most cannot sleep.”

In recent years, I’ve gotten to know dozens of electrosensitives. In Santa Fe, New Mexico, I met a woman who had taken to wearing an aluminum foil hat. (This works – wrap a cell phone in foil and it will kill the signal.) I met a former world record-holding marathoner, a 54-year-old woman who had lived out of her car for eight years before settling down at a house ringed by mountains that she said protected the place from cell frequencies. I met people who said they no longer wanted to live because of their condition. Many of the people I talked to were accomplished professionals – writers, television producers, entrepreneurs. I met a scientist from Los Alamos National Laboratories named Bill Bruno whose employer had tried to fire him after he asked for protection from EMFs at the lab. I met a local librarian named Rebekah Azen who quit her job after being sickened by a newly installed wi-fi system at the library. I met a brilliant activist named Arthur Firstenberg, who had for several years published a newsletter, “No Place to Hide,” but who was now homeless, living out of the back of his car, sleeping in wilderness outside the city where he could escape the signals.

In New York City, I got to know a longtime member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) who said he was electrosensitive. I’ll call him Jake, because he is embarrassed by his condition and he doesn’t want to jeopardize his job or his membership in the IEEE (which happens to have for its purpose the promulgation of electrical technology, including cell phones). Jake told me how one day, a few years ago, he started to get sick whenever he went into the bedroom of his apartment to sleep. He had headaches, suffered fatigue and nausea, nightsweats and heart palpitations, had blurred vision and difficulty breathing and was blasted by a ringing in the ears – the typical symptoms of the electrosensitive. He discovered that his neighbor in the apartment building kept a wi-fi transmitter next door, on the other side of the wall to his bedroom. When Jake asked the neighbor to shut it down, his symptoms disappeared.

The government of Sweden reports that the disorder known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity, or EHS, afflicts an estimated 3 percent of the population. A study by the California Department of Health found that, based on self-reports, as many as 770,000 Californians, or 3 percent of the state’s population, would ascribe some form of illness to EMFs. A study in Switzerland recently found a 5 percent prevalence of electrosensitivity. In Germany, there is reportedly a 6 percent prevalence. Even the former prime minister of Norway, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, until 2003 the director general of the World Health Organization, has admitted that she suffers headaches and “strong discomfort” when exposed to cell phones. “My hypersensitivity,” she told a Norwegian newspaper in 2002, “has gone so far that I react to mobile phones closer to me than about four meters.” She added in the same interview: “People have been in my office with their mobile hidden in their pocket or bag. Without knowing if it was on or off, we have tested my reactions. I have always reacted when the phone has been on – never when it’s off.”

“People are reporting these symptoms all over the globe. It’s not likely a transcultural mass hallucination.”

Yet the World Health Organization – the same agency that Brundtland once headed – reports “there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure.” WHO’s findings are corroborated by a 2008 study at the University of Bern in Switzerland which found “no evidence that EHS individuals could detect [the] presence or absence” of frequencies that allegedly make them sick. A study conducted in 2006 at the Mobile Phone Research Unit at King’s Collegein London came to a similar conclusion. “No evidence was found to indicate that people with self-reported sensitivity to mobile phone signals are able to detect such signals or that they react to them with increased symptom severity,” the report said. “As sham exposure was sufficient to trigger severe symptoms in some participants, psychological factors may have an important role in causing this condition.” The King’s College researchers in 2010 concluded it was a “medically unexplained illness.”

“The scientific data so far just doesn’t help the electrosensitives,” says Louis Slesin, editor and publisher of Microwave News, a newsletter and website that covers the potential impacts of RF-EMFs. “The design of some of these studies, however, is questionable.” He adds: “Frankly, I’d be surprised if the condition did not exist. We’re electromagnetic beings. You wouldn’t have a thought in your head without electromagnetic signals. There is electrical signaling going on in your body all the time, and the idea that external electromagnetic fields can’t affect us just doesn’t make sense. We’re biological and chemical beings too, and we know that we can develop allergies to certain biological and chemical compounds. Why wouldn’t we also find there are allergies to EM fields? Shouldn’t every chemical be tested for its effects on human beings? Well, the same could be said for each frequency of RF radiation.”

Dr. David Carpenter of SUNY, who has also looked into electrosensitivity, tells me he’s “not totally convinced that electrosensitivity is real.” Still, he says, “there are just too many people with reports of illness when chronically near to EMF devices, with their symptoms being relieved when they are away from them. Like multiple chemical sensitivity and Gulf War Syndrome, there is something here, but we just don’t understand it all yet.”

Science reporter B. Blake Levitt, author of Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues, says the studies she has reviewed on EHS are “contradictory and nowhere near definitive.” Flaws in test design stand out, she says. Many with EHS may be simply “too sensitized,” she believes, to endure research exposure protocols, possibly skewing results from the start by inadvertently studying a less sensitive group. Levitt recently compiled some of the most damning studies of the health effects from cell towers in a report for the International Commission on Electromagnetic Safetyin Italy. “Some populations are reacting poorly when living or working within 1,500 feet of a cell tower,” Levitt tells me. Several studies she cited found an increase in headaches, rashes, tremors, sleep disturbances, dizziness, concentration problems, and memory changes.

“EHS may be one of those problems that can never be well defined – we may just have to believe what people report,” Levitt says. “And people are reporting these symptoms all over the globe now when new technologies are introduced or infrastructure like cell towers go into neighborhoods. It’s not likely a transcultural mass hallucination. The immune system is an exquisite warning mechanism. These are our canaries in the coal mine.”

Swedish neuroscientist Olle Johansson was one of the first researchers to take the claims of electrosensitivity seriously. He found, for example, that persons with EHS had changes in skin mast cells – markers of allergic reaction – when exposed to specific EM fields. Other studies have found that radiofrequency EMFs can increase serum histamine levels – the hallmark of an allergic reaction. Johansson has hypothesized that electrosensitivity arises exactly as any common allergy would arise – due to excessive exposure, as the immune system fails. And just as only some people develop allergies to cats or pollen or dust, only some of us fall prey to EM fields. Johansson admits that his hypothesis has yet to be proven in laboratory study.

One afternoon not long ago, a nurse named Maria Gonzalez, who lives in Queens, New York, took me to see the cell phone masts that irradiate her daughter’s school. The masts were the usual flat-paneled, alien-looking things nested together, festooned with wires, high on a rooftop across from Public School 122 in Astoria. They emitted a fine signal – five bars on my phone. The operator of the masts, Sprint-Nextel, had built a wall of fake brick to hide them from view, but Maria was unimpressed with the subterfuge. She was terrified of the masts. When, in 2005, the panels went up, soon to be turned on, she was working at the intensive care unit at St. Vincent’s Hospital. She’d heard bizarre stories about cell phones from her cancer-ward colleagues. Some of the doctors at St. Vincent’s told her they had doubts about the safety of their own cellphones and pagers. This was disturbing enough. She went online, culling studies. When she read a report published in 2002 about children in Spain who developed leukemia shortly after a cell phone tower was erected next to their school, she went into a quiet panic.

Sprint-Nextel was unsympathetic when she telephoned the company in the summer of 2005 to express her concerns. The company granted her a single meeting that autumn, with a Sprint-Nextel technician, an attorney, and a self-described “radiation expert” under contract with the company. “They kept saying, ‘we’re one hundred percent sure the antennas are safe,’” Maria told me as we stared at the masts. “‘One hundred percent sure! These are children! We would never hurt children.’” She called the office of Hillary Clinton and pestered the senator once a week for six months – but got nowhere. A year later, Gonzalez sued the US government, charging that the Federal Communications Commission had failed to fully evaluate the risks from cell phone frequencies. The suit was thrown out. The judge concluded that if regulators for the government said the radiation was safe, then it was safe. The message, as Gonzalez puts it, was that she was “crazy … and making a big to-do about nothing.”

I’d venture, rather, that she was applying a commonsense principle in environmental science: the precautionary principle, which states that when an action or policy – or technology – cannot be proven with certainty to be safe, then it should be assumed to be harmful. In a society thrilled with the magic of digital wireless, we have junked this principle. And we try to dismiss as fools those who uphold it – people like Gonzalez. We have accepted without question that we will have wi-fi hotspots in our homes, and at libraries, and in cafes and bookstores; that we will have wireless alarm systems and wireless baby monitors and wireless utility meters and wireless video games that children play; that we will carry on our persons wireless iPads and iPods and smart phones. We are mesmerized by the efficiency and convenience of the infotainment appendage, the words and sounds and pictures it carries. We are, in other words, thoughtless in our embrace of the technology.

Because of our thoughtlessness, we have not demanded to know the full consequences of this technology.
Perhaps the gadgets are slowly killing us – we do not know. Perhaps they are perfectly safe – we do not know. Perhaps they are making us sick in ways we barely understand – we do not know. What we do know, without a doubt, is that the electromagnetic fields are all around us, and that to live in modern civilization implies always and everywhere that we cannot escape their touch.

Christopher Ketcham has contributed to ORION, Harper’s, and GQ, where portions of this reporting appeared previously. Find more of his work at ChristopherKetcham.com

Carrier IQ Is Watching You – Secret App On Millions Of Phones Logs Key Taps, Geographic Locations & Received Messages Of Users

In Uncategorized on December 2, 2011 at 2:04 pm

Oldspeak:“So apparently it’s not just iPhones that keep a secret record of your movements. Surveillance companies can use your iPhone to take photos of you and your surroundings without your knowledge. If you use an Apple, Android, BlackBerry, or Nokia smartphone then you may be at risk of being illegally wire-tapped by Carrier IQ. Carrier IQ’s “mobile intelligence platform”, currently on at least 150 million devices surreptitiously records keystrokes, SMS messages, and internet search topics. Without your knowledge or consent. It can’t be turned off or opted out of. It’s always running even, when your phone’s screen is off. The ostensible reason given for this spyware on your phone is it is “a diagnostic tool designed to give network carriers and device manufacturers detailed information about the causes of dropped calls and other performance issues.” -Carrier IQ VP of Marketing Andrew Coward I’m not sure what your private information  has to do with dropped calls and performance. But if it’s simply a ‘diagnostic tool’ Why is its purpose not explicitly delineated? Why is it not accessible to users? Why is there no privacy policy as there is with every other app? These troubling questions remain unanswered by Carrier IQ? But more people are beginning to ask questions. “Without controls on this industry, the threat that surveillance poses to freedom on expression and human rights in general is only going to increase.” -Steven Murdoch of Cambridge Security Group “Ignorance Is Strength”

Related Video:

Related Stories:

Does your smartphone run Carrier IQ? Find out here

Secret app on millions of phones logs key taps

By James Mulroy @ PC World:

If you use an Android, BlackBerry, or Nokia smartphone then you may be at risk of being illegally wire-tapped by Carrier IQ–a provider of performance monitoring software for smartphones–according to reports.

Earlier this month, security researcher Trevor Eckhart announced that he found software made by Carrier IQ that may be logging your every move on your mobile phone. Trevor referred to it as a “rootkit“, a piece of software that hides itself while utilizing privileged access like watching your every move. Carrier IQ didn’t take too kindly to this accusation, and responded aggressively with acease-and-desist letter, and went on to deny this accusation. However, to further back his accusation, Eckhart released a video that he says shows the software in action.

In the video, Eckhart navigates to a list of running applications on his phone, and he found that the application IQRD–made by Carrier IQ–was not shown. However, when he searched all of the applications on the device, Eckhart discovered that IQRD showed up with the option to force stop it; therefore, he determined that the app must have been running. However, when he tried to stop the application, the force stop function did absolutely nothing. Additionally, this application always runs when the device is started, according to his research.

After connecting his HTC device to his computer, Trevor found that IQRD is secretly logging every single button that he taps on the phone–even on the touchscreen number pad. IQRD is also shown to be logging text messages.

In the video, Eckhart shows that Carrier IQ is also logging Web searches. While this doesn’t sound all that bad by itself, it suggests that Carrier IQ is logging what happens during an HTTPS connection which is supposed to be encrypted information. Additionally, it can do this over a Wi-Fi connection with no 3G, so even if your phone service is disconnected, IQRD still logs the information.

Wired goes on to say that the application “cannot be turned off without rooting the phone and replacing the operating system.”

While Eckhart tested his accusation on an HTC device it is likely that Carrier IQ is logging information on millions of more devices. According to Carrier IQ (pdf)”Carrier IQ’s Mobile Intelligence platform is currently deployed with more than 150 million devices worldwide.”

While Carrier IQ has since backed off and apologized for its aggressive legal action against Eckhart, this isn’t the end of the story for Carrier IQ. Paul Ohm, a former Justice Department prosecutor and professor at the University of Colorado Law School, told Forbes that this isn’t just creepy, but it’s also likely grounds for a class action lawsuit, citing a federal wiretapping law.

Make sure to check out the video below to see what Trevor discovered.

 

Update, Nov 30, 2011: iOS jailbreak developer Grant Paul (AKA chpwn) points out on Twitter that earlier versions of iOS appear to have included Carrier IQ. And Erica Sadum of The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) notes that iOS 5 makes references to Carrier IQ as well. In the TUAW post, Erica analyzes the Carrier IQ references and concludes that Carrier IQ in iOS 5 doesn’t appear to be collecting much data–if any at all (i.e. it may need to be explicitly turned on). Read her story for the full details.

Update 2: The Verge claims that neither the Nexus-branded Android phones nor the Motorola Xoom tablet include Carrier IQ, and suggests that the carriers insist on including the software. We haven’t been able to verify this, but if you have any more information, feel free to tip us off.

 

 

Apple’s iPhone Keeps A Secret Record Of Everywhere You Go, Your Permission Is Not Required

In Uncategorized on April 20, 2011 at 6:02 pm

20th Century Telescreen

Oldspeak: ” ‘Big Brother is watching you’ -George Orwell. As the surveillance state continues to expand under the guise of “convenience” and “personalization” your privacy is invaded and your rights are contracted. Contemplation complete, I’m officially trashing my iPhone. You should too. Your personal “Telescreen” is recording your movements 24-7, sans your permission. It’s not accidental, and it’s not being transmitted to Apple. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Except stop using it.  ‘Apple declined to comment on why the file is created or whether it can be disabled’. Why? Who is this information shared with? Where could it be transmitted? Why is this information not disclosed to users?!”

By Charles Arthur @ The U.K. Guardian:

21st. Century Telescreen. Apple’s iPhone saves every detail of your movements to a file on the device.

Security researchers have discovered that Apple‘s iPhone keeps track of where you go – and saves every detail of it to a secret file on the device which is then copied to the owner’s computer when the two are synchronised.

The file contains the latitude and longitude of the phone’s recorded coordinates along with a timestamp, meaning that anyone who stole the phone or the computer could discover details about the owner’s movements using a simple program.

For some phones, there could be almost a year’s worth of data stored, as the recording of data seems to have started with Apple’s iOS 4 update to the phone’s operating system, released in June 2010.

“Apple has made it possible for almost anybody – a jealous spouse, a private detective – with access to your phone or computer to get detailed information about where you’ve been,” said Pete Warden, one of the researchers.

Only the iPhone records the user’s location in this way, say Warden and Alasdair Allan, the data scientists who discovered the file and are presenting their findings at the Where 2.0 conference in San Francisco on Wednesday. “Alasdair has looked for similar tracking code in [Google's] Android phones and couldn’t find any,” said Warden. “We haven’t come across any instances of other phone manufacturers doing this.”

Simon Davies, director of the pressure group Privacy International, said: “This is a worrying discovery. Location is one of the most sensitive elements in anyone’s life – just think where people go in the evening. The existence of that data creates a real threat to privacy. The absence of notice to users or any control option can only stem from an ignorance about privacy at the design stage.”

Warden and Allan point out that the file is moved onto new devices when an old one is replaced: “Apple might have new features in mind that require a history of your location, but that’s our specualtion. The fact that [the file] is transferred across [to a new iPhone or iPad] when you migrate is evidence that the data-gathering isn’t accidental.” But they said it does not seem to be transmitted to Apple itself.

Map shows location data collected from an iPhone that had been used in the southwest of England

Although mobile networks already record phones’ locations, it is only available to the police and other recognised organisations following a court order under the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act. Standard phones do not record location data.

MPs in 2009 criticised the search engine giant Google for its “Latitude” system, which allowed people to enable their mobile to give out details of their location to trusted contacts. At the time MPs said that Latitude “could substantially endanger user privacy”, but Google pointed out that users had to specifically choose to make their data available.

The iPhone system, by contrast, appears to record the data whether or not the user agrees. Apple declined to comment on why the file is created or whether it can be disabled.

Warden and Allan have set up a web page which answers questions about the file, and created a simple downloadable application to let Apple users check for themselves what location data the phone is retaining. The Guardian has confirmed that 3G-enabled devices including the iPad also retain the data and copy it to the owner’s computer.

If someone were to steal an iPhone and “jailbreak” it, giving them direct access to the files it contains, they could extract the location database directly. Alternatively, anyone with direct access to a user’s computer could run the application and see a visualisation of their movements. Encrypting data on the computer is one way to protect against it, though that still leaves the file on the phone.

Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at the security company Sophos, said: “If the data isn’t required for anything, then it shouldn’t store the location. And it doesn’t need to keep an archive on your machine of where you’ve been.” He suggested that Apple might be hoping that it would yield data for future mobile advertising targeted by location, although he added: “I tend to subscribe to cockup rather than conspiracy on things like this – I don’t think Apple is really trying to monitor where users are.”

The data inside the file containing the location and time information. This is used to plot the map above

The location file came to light when Warden and Allan were looking for a source of mobile data. “We’d been discussing doing a visualisation of mobile data, and while Alasdair was researching into what was available, he discovered this file. At first we weren’t sure how much data was there, but after we dug further and visualised the extracted data, it became clear that there was a scary amount of detail on our movements,” Warden said.

They have blogged about their discovery at O’Reilly’s Radar site, noting that “why this data is stored and how Apple intends to use it — or not — are important questions that need to be explored.”

The pair of data scientists have collaborated on a number of data visualisations, including a map of radiation levels in Japan for The Guardian. They are developing a Data Science Toolkit for dealing with location data.

Davies said that the discovery of the file indicated that Apple had failed to take users’ privacy seriously.

Apple can legitimately claim that it has permission to collect the data: near the end of the 15,200-word terms and conditions for its iTunes program, used to synchronise with iPhones, iPods and iPads, is an 86-word paragraph about “location-based services”.

It says that “Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. This location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services. For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services.”

Privacy invasions via technology

April 2011: iPhone location

British researchers on Wednesday revealed that iPhones (and 3G-enabled iPads) keep track of where you go, including timestamps, on a file that is backed up on your computer and shifted onto any new iPhone or iPad you get. Apple hasn’t said why the file is created or whether the tracking can be prevented.

October 2010: US Transportation Security Agency’s X-ray scanners

The “porno scanners” (as they quickly became known) offered a clothes-free vision of people passing through the backscatter machines (whose level of X-ray exposure was also questioned). People who objected to going through those were obliged to go through remarkably intimate examinations – none of which endeared the TSA to air travellers.

April 2010: Google captures Wi-Fi data

In a series of increasingly embarrassed blogposts over the course of April, May and June, Google admitted that while its cars were driving around to capture its (already slightly controversial) Street View pictures of locations around the world, it had also captured Wi-Fi network names – and data from the open ones, potentially including passwords and usernames. The dispute over whether Google should delete the data, and whether it had broken the law in various countries, rumbled on for months.

December 2009: Eric Schmidt

In a speech, Google’s then-chief executive Eric Schmidt suggested that: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines – including Google – do retain this information for some time and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.”

His words provoked an outcry from privacy rights campaigners, who pointed out that privacy is a right, and that it protects every citizen from abuses by those in power.

AT&T To Buy T-Mobile: Great For Them, Bad For You

In Uncategorized on March 20, 2011 at 10:34 pm

Oldspeak:“Corporate consolidation continues its march on a path of destruction of choice and flouting of anti-trust laws. “Less competition always results in higher prices” -Sascha Segan. Coming soon, from AT&T/T-Mobile, higher prices, poorer service…. I might have to switch to CREDO MOBILE.  B & L soon come:”

By Sascha Segan @ PC Magazine:

AT&T just announced it will buy T-Mobile USA for $39 billion. If the transaction gets approved by the government and closes in a year as planned, it will create the nation’s largest wireless carrier by far.

While this is great news for both companies, it’s an awful idea for consumers – and I desperately hope the US antitrust authorities rake this merger over the coals.

An AT&T/T-Mobile merger at least makes more sense than the silly T-Mobile/Sprint idea which was being bandied about. Both carriers use the same technologies: GSM, HSPA+ and LTE. While they’re on different frequency bands, radios which use all of the relevant bands are becoming easier to build.

The merger neatly solves T-Mobile’s long-term problem of not having enough spectrum for LTE, the 4G technology which will soon be a global standard. It gives T-Mobile’s struggling parent, Deutsche Telekom, a gigantic cash infusion. And it lets AT&T once again position itself as the number-one carrier against Verizon Wireless, which leapfrogged AT&T technologically this year with Verizon’s 4G LTE launch.

AT&T is ahead of T-Mobile on building LTE. T-Mobile is far ahead of AT&T on building HSPA+, a intermediate 4G technology that fits right between the carriers’ existing 3G networks and LTE. Together, they could have a smooth and powerful nationwide network.

AT&T’s press release for the merger backs this up. The combined carrier will be able to build out much more LTE Than AT&T could alone, by combining AT&T’s 700 Mhz spectrum with T-Mobile’s AWS spectrum.

For stockholders, this all sounds great. With reduced competition and the efficiencies of a combined network, the new company will probably be quite profitable.

For phone owners, tech lovers, and American consumers, this is a total disaster.

Rates Will Rise, Customer Service Will Drop

Let’s start with a basic fact: less competition always results in higher prices than you would have had otherwise. T-Mobile has always been a value leader, offering low prices and some innovative plans, such as its Even More Plus plans which gave monthly discounts in exchange for paying the full up-front price for phones. These plans will go away and the combined carrier will normalize at AT&T’s higher rates.

In AT&T’s press release for the merger, the company doesn’t bother to rebut this idea. Rather, the carrier says there’s already plenty of competition and implies that prices are so low that Americans shouldn’t be too concerned. AT&T also shows a disingenuous chart explaining that prices dropped when carriers merged over the past ten years. Of course, it doesn’t show what would have happened to prices if those carriers hadn’t merged.

This merger also means less phone choice for US consumers. Unlike in most other countries, the American phone market is dominated by the carriers; the carriers have to approve and sell most phones. The process of making it through approval labs, and the space on carrier store shelves, limit the number of phones each carrier can handle at once. I’m pretty sure that the number of phones carried by AT&T/T-Mobile will be less than the current number carried by the two carriers separately, because they will want to create efficiencies and unify their product lines.

This doesn’t mean T-Mobile’s phones will go away – I see the merged carrier cherry picking an iPhone here, a MyTouch 4G there. But it means that there will be fewer choices overall for American consumers, and fewer chances for new manufacturers or ideas to appear in the marketplace.

From a customer service perspective, make no mistake, AT&T will subsume T-Mobile. The merged carrier will not have T-Mobile’s friendliness, nimbleness, or level of customer service. Just like in the horrifying Sprint-Nextel mess or during the long, slow, grinding AT&T/Cingular merger, the merged carrier will sink to the minimum customer service level of its parts.

I’ve sung this song before. I don’t see how the biggest carriers getting bigger improves anything for consumers. We’ve seen many times around the world how duopolies or cozy tri-opolies can retard innovation and drag up prices (hello, Canadians!) and the US government should do everything in its power to prevent the US wireless market from becoming wholly owned by AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Short of killing this merger entirely, I’m not sure what the government could do to maintain competition here. AT&T and T-Mobile are the only major GSM carriers; everybody else is CDMA. That means if the government forced the merged carrier to divest some markets to be picked up by someone else, the buyer of the divested markets won’t be able to integrate them easily into its existing network.

If this merger goes through, it only becomes more urgent for MetroPCS, Cricket and US Cellular to band together into a new, single low-cost force in the wireless market. Together, the three carriers would have around 20-21 million users. They all use the same CDMA technology, and their spectrum holdings largely don’t overlap. A new nationwide value leader could help reduce the negative effects of this merger for US consumers.

AT&T-T-Mobile USA deal may face regulatory hurdles

Oldspeak:”But it might not be a done deal just yet, maybe regulators will actually regulate this industry. ‘The biggest issue for the FCC and for the Department of Justice, which also needs to approve this merger, is whether a merger between these companies would concentrate too much power in the hands of a single company, which could affect pricing and services for consumers.’ -Marguerite Reardon’ Heres hoping the FCC and DOJ don’t roll over on this one too.”

By Marguerite Reardon @ CNET:

From a network and technology perspective, the $39 billion marriage between AT&T and T-Mobile USA is a no-brainer, but the companies may have to do some smooth talking to get the deal approved by regulators.

AT&T and T-Mobile USA, which is owned by German phone company Deutsche Telekom, each use the GSM technology and each company plans to deploy the 4G technology known as LTE in the future. AT&T plans to launch its LTE network this summer, and T-Mobile has said in the past that LTE is on its roadmap.

Currently, each company has been upgrading its network to the latest version of 3G wireless technology called HSPA+. (T-Mobile stirred up controversy last summer when it began marketing the HSPA+ network as 4G. AT&T, which initially criticized T-Mobile for this, began calling its own HSPA+ network 4G earlier this year.)

The technology synergies between T-Mobile and AT&T are stark contrast to how T-Mobile lined up with Sprint Nextel, which had been rumored to be eying T-Mobile for more than two years. Sprint uses a different network technology called CDMA, which is the same technology that Verizon Wireless uses. What’s more Sprint is using WiMax for its next generation wireless network.

While regulators would have been much more eager to see No. 3 Sprint Nextel merge with No. 4 T-Mobile so that they could take on No. 1 Verizon Wireless and No. 2 AT&T, the reality is that such a scenario would have been an integration nightmare for Sprint. Sprint is still struggling to make sense of its 2005 acquisition of Nextel, which also used a completely different technology.

“There’s no question that AT&T and T-Mobile are a very good fit from a technology standpoint,” said Charles Golvin, an analyst with Forrester Research. “A Sprint-T-Mobile deal would have given these companies scale, but it made sense from an integration standpoint.”

But even though the deal makes sense from a technology standpoint, it won’t necessarily be smooth sailing. For one, regulators are likely to scrutinize this deal closely. And secondly, even though AT&T and T-Mobile use the same technology, they use different wireless spectrum bands to deliver their services. This means that AT&T will have to move T-Mobile’s customers to different spectrum bands in order to integrate the networks.

Regulatory scrutiny
First let’s look at the regulatory picture. The biggest issue for the FCC and for the Department of Justice, which also needs to approve this merger, is whether a merger between these companies would concentrate too much power in the hands of a single company, which could affect pricing and services for consumers. T-Mobile has always been a price leader. It’s safe to say that AT&T will likely not adopt T-Mobile pricing, which means that consumers will be losing a more affordable player in the wireless market.

And the reason is simple. It won’t need to. AT&T and Verizon Wireless already control more than 40 percent of the existing wireless market. And T-Mobile, the smallest of the major wireless operators, would concentrate AT&T’s market power further. A combined AT&T and T-Mobile would have nearly 130 million subscribers, which is a third more than Verizon Wireless, the No. 1 nationwide player in the country. The new AT&T-T-Mobile would also have twice as many customers as No. 3. Sprint Nextel.

The FCC has already expressed concern over the competitive landscape in wireless. In May the FCC warned that the industry is getting too concentrated. In its report, the agency said that since 2003, market concentration in wireless has increased 32 percent. The report indicates that 60 percent of the nation’s subscribers and revenue come from the country’s two largest wireless providers: AT&T and Verizon Wireless. The FCC noted that these companies are continuing to gain customers as other national operators, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile USA, have been losing subscribers.

So far the FCC hasn’t issued a statement regarding the proposed AT&T-T-Mobile merger. But insiders at the agency have said previously that they would be more concerned with an acquisition between AT&T and Verizon Wireless and either Sprint Nextel or T-Mobile USA than a merger involving Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile.

AT&T and Verizon Wireless have scoffed at the FCC’s assertion that the wireless industry is not competitive. And the companies have repeatedly pointed to the fact that there are often four to five players in almost every major market in the U.S. Smaller players such as MetroPCS and Leap Wireless have aggressively moved into new markets. And U.S. Cellular, a regional wireless carrier, has gotten high marks in terms of customer satisfaction in many national surveys.

But the fact remains that AT&T and Verizon Wireless have far more customers than any of these smaller players. Indeed, Golvin estimates that a combined AT&T and T-Mobile would mean that three out of four wireless subscribers in the U.S. would be a customer of either AT&T or Verizon Wireless.

What’s more, combining AT&T and T-Mobile, means that there would be only one national wireless carrier using the GSM technology. Verizon and Sprint Nextel use CDMA, as mentioned above. This would give consumers, who want to use their phones overseas in places such as Europe, only one choice in national U.S. carrier.

At least one congressional leader is already pushing the FCC and Department of Justice to take a hard look at this deal.

“With every passing day, wireless services are becoming more and more important to the way we communicate,” John D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Virginia), chairman of the Senate’s Commerce Science and Transportation committee, said in a statement. “So it is absolutely essential that both the Department of Justice and the FCC leave no stone unturned in determining what the impact of this combination is on the American people.”

While it is possible that the FCC and/or the Justice Department could simply stop the merger from happening, it’s unlikely they’d do that, Golvin said. Instead, it’s more likely that these agencies would put conditions on the merger and require AT&T to divest some of its wireless spectrum assets, he added.

“I don’t believe this will have a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ outcome,” Golvin said. “I think what the regulators do will be more about the extent of AT&T’s divestiture.”

In fact, the FCC took this approach when it approved Verizon’s $28.1 billion merger of regional carrier Alltel Wireless, which closed in January 2009. Instead of analyzing this merger on a national basis, the FCC analyzed each individual market where Verizon and Alltel operated. And in markets where there was too much concentration, the FCC required that the Verizon sell those wireless assets. All told, Verizon agreed to sell operations in 105 markets where Alltel also operated.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson spoke to the Wall Street Journal on Sunday and said that he is confident that the company will get regulatory approval. He said that the merger will help “conserve spectrum at a time when that resource is in tight supply.”

He also said that the wireless market is already very competitive.

“This is probably the most fiercely competitive wireless market in the world,” he was quoted as saying. “The majority of Americans have the option of five different wireless carriers.”

Spectrum issues
Regulatory issues may be only one hurdle the companies face as they look at integrating the two wireless networks. While it’s true that T-Mobile and AT&T each use GSM technology, the carriers also use different bands of spectrum to deliver their services. Specifically, T-Mobile uses the spectrum it bought in the AWS spectrum auction in 2006 to build its 3G wireless network.

AT&T also acquired spectrum in that auction. And it is using this AWS spectrum to build its LTE network. AT&T uses its 850MHz and 1900MHz spectrum to deliver its 3G service. Part of the reason that AT&T wanted T-Mobile in the first place was to get more of the AWS spectrum for its LTE network.

Meanwhile, T-Mobile has no additional spectrum to deploy LTE, since it’s been using the AWS spectrum for its 3G service. What this means is that once AT&T and T-Mobile merge, AT&T will have to move all of T-Mobile’s existing 3G customers (which includes the supposed 4G HSPA+ customers) to AT&T’s 850MHz and 1900MHz spectrum. This means T-Mobile customers will need new handsets, since the existing T-Mobile 3G HSPA and 4G HSPA+ handsets will no longer work on the AWS spectrum.

The migration of additional T-Mobile customers to AT&T’s already congested 3G network could also be painful for existing AT&T customers. But Golvin believes that in the long run, AT&T will actually benefit from the merger with T-Mobile because it will allow AT&T to use the newly upgraded backhaul systems that T-Mobile has put in place to link its radio network to the hard-wired Internet and telephone backbone.

“For some period of time, customers from either network may find that the quality is not what they would like,” Golvin said. “But AT&T won’t be able to just turn off the T-Mobile network. It will take time and it will be done in stages. I think what might be more painful for some T-Mobile customers is that they were T-Mobile customers because they didn’t want to be AT&T customers.”

The deal comes just days before the wireless industry meets in Orlando, Fla., for the CTIA’s spring trade show and conference. On Tuesday morning, CEOs from all four major U.S. wireless carriers–AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile–will take the stage for a roundtable discussion. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is also expected to give a speech Tuesday morning from CTIA. It’s unclear how much if anything the players involved in the merger will say at CTIA. But CNET will be there, so stay tuned.

 

 


 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 403 other followers