As developers for tablets and smartphones we like to keep abreast of the latest mobile technology developments . This is a daily digest of mobile development and related technology news gathered from the BBC, the New York Times, New Scientist and the Globe and Mail to name a few. We scour the web for articles concerning, iPhone, iPad and android development, iOS and android operating systems as well as general articles on advances in mobile technology. We hope you find this useful and that it helps to keep you up to date with the latest technology developments.
Apple posts new AppleCare for Enterprise website, features IBM support
Following on from the partnership announcement Apple and IBM made in July, Apple has posted a new page to its website announcing a new AppleCare for Enterprise package that includes on-site hardware support from IBM, alongside a fleet of specially-developed apps for vertical markets. The new page is the most prominent sign that Apple and IBM’s plans for enterprise are taking shape, built on a bed of strong on-site hardware support, software support and business services.
Inflatable baby incubator wins award
A prototype inflatable incubator for prematurely born babies has been picked as 2014′s winner of the James Dyson Award for engineering.
Apple malware affects Chinese users
A new malware targeting Apple products is affecting hundreds of thousands of users – mostly Chinese, says an online security firm.
North Korea becomes tech-savvy
Surfing the net in the Hermit Kingdom
Headset guides blind people in cities
A headset that guides visually impaired people around cities has been developed by Microsoft and charity Guide Dogs.
David Kalac Accused Of Killing Amber Coplin, Posting Photos Of Her Body On 4chan
UPDATE Nov. 6, 2014, 12:15 a.m.: Police captured murder suspect David Kalac at a Wilsonville TriMet station on Wednesday night, Clackamas County dispatch told KGW.com. At the time of this writing, the details about his arrest have not been released.
UPDATE 9:19 p.m.: KIRO 7 reports that investigators found the car believed to have been stolen and driven by suspect David Kalac. The suspect remains at large.
Previously:
A Washington State man is on the run after killing his live-in girlfriend and posting photos of her body online, police said Wednesday.
Authorities in Port Orchard were called to the residence of 30-year-old Amber Lynn Coplin after a relative reported to police that she had been strangled to death.
The Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office has identified the suspect as 33-year-old David Kalac, according to the Associated Press. Police are now searching for Kalac, who they believe stole his victim’s car and fled.
David Kalac is accused of strangling a Washington woman
Less than an hour before police arrived on the scene, an anonymous user on the popular Internet forum, 4chan, posted photos of what appears to be the body of Coplin. Multiple images taken by the user show the body of a naked woman, her head tilted back and thin red marks around her neck, possibly indicating strangulation.
“Turns out it’s way harder to strangle someone to death than it looks on the movies,” the poster wrote. “She fought so damn hard.”
According to court documents, Coplin’s 13-year-old son said the suspect and victim were loudly arguing the night before her death. Police said her son was the one who first came upon her body.
Victim Amber Lynn Coplin
At 6:20 a.m. on Tuesday, Kalac sent a text message to a friend, according to the Kitsap Sun. The text allegedly read: “You’ll see me in the news…There will be no more me. Ever. You’ll read about it. That’s all.”
The user on 4chan stated he expected the woman’s son to arrive home from school and find the body. More from that post:
“Check the news for port orchard Washington in a few hours. Her son will be home from school soon. He’ll find her, then call the cops. I just wanted to share the pics before they find me. I bought a bb gun that looks realistic enough. When they come, I’ll pull it and it will be suicide by cop. I understand the doubts. Just check the fucking news. I have to lose my phone now.”
When police arrived at the scene, Kalac was nowhere to be found, but Coplin’s vehicle was missing. Authorities recovered the car on Wednesday, but Kalac was not found in the area.
According to court records, police found Coplin’s drivers license by her head with the word “dead” written on it. “Bad news” was written on her blinds.
A Portland officer was involved in a car chase with Kalac around 1:15 a.m. Wednesday, according to a Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office news release. The suspect swerved into oncoming traffic, causing the officer to call off the pursuit, police said.
Kalac has had a long history of arrests and convictions, according to court records obtained by The Huffington Post. The suspect has faced charges including felony assault and harassment, and was convicted of domestic violence.
Coplin’s sister declined comment, but on Facebook asked the public to “help us find this bastard David Kalac. He murdered my baby sister.”
The brother of Kalac posted on Facebook “Sick to my fucking stomach” after hearing the news. He also declined comment.
Coplin leaves behind four children.
Kalac is being charged with second degree murder with a bail set at $2 million. The warrant is extraditable nationwide, according to the news release.
Anyone with information is urged to call the sheriff’s office at 360-307-5400. Kalac is considered armed and dangerous, and police are asking that no one approach the suspect if he is spotted.
Like Us On Facebook |
Follow Us On Twitter |
Contact The Author
Crowdsource Your Remote and Save Democracy
I think it is safe to say that everyone is fed up with political attack ads. What if there was a legal way to make them all go away, rendering the Citizen’s United decision mute… er, moot?
There is.
We have the power to make it happen before 2016. We can neutralize the bazillionaires who bring their slime into our living rooms. There’s an app for that. Or at least there will be, because it’s too obvious and easy. Calling all geeks: start writing the code!
It is hard to argue that the obscene amount money spent on this year’s elections didn’t influence the outcome. Why else would tycoons, multinational corporations, and “social welfare” organizations like the NRA and NARAL finance political campaigns? If your candidate lost, then you probably agree that the election was bought, at least to some extent.
Maybe if you had just donated more money to your candidate or cause, he she or it would have prevailed. Maybe if enough of us little people got out our checkbooks, we could nullify the fat cats. That’s exactly what the current system is designed to get you to believe. But it’s a scam. There is a better way to fight back that will cost you nothing.
The first thing you need to understand is that a large sum of money, by itself, doesn’t help a candidate all that much. A million dollars in a campaign fund seems like an incredible amount of dough, and it is. But if a Koch brother or a George Soros matches it and raises it by another couple million for the other guy, your guy will probably lose. With the overturning of campaign finance laws, there is really no limit to how much the wealthy can spend. They can buy elections, and they do. It’s not the amount of money that counts. It’s the difference in the amount of money.
The second thing to know is that when you make a political contribution, your candidate doesn’t keep it. The campaign immediately spends it on advertising. When you donate your hard-earned money, you are actually giving it to broadcast corporations. Campaign funding has become an arms race and neither side wants to be outspent by the other. This year’s midterm election is projected to break all records, costing nearly $4 billion (or raising nearly $4 billion in revenue for those on the profit side of the equation). Broadcasters get the lion’s share of this easy money, which apparently goes straight into the pockets of executives and shareholders (I haven’t noticed an improvement in programming in even-numbered years, have you?)
The third thing is that the media are not disinterested, fair, truthful or objective. The job of broadcast television is not to inform you, but to maximize its revenue by selling advertising and attracting viewers. The mantra of local TV news is, “If it bleeds, it leads.” If the goal was to update you about what’s happening in your city, there would be no teasers showing mayhem with scrolling “BREAKING NEWS” banners telling you to “WATCH AT ELEVEN” to find out what happened. If they wanted to inform you, they would just tell you. So your political contribution only fuels a corrupt system that is aided and abetted by the industry that benefits most, and has no incentive to be a honest broker.
Anybody who watches sports knows that part of the job description of sportscaster is to keep you from tuning out. Even when a game is a boring blowout, announcers keep telling you that the losing team is “still in the game” and that “it ain’t over till it’s over” (even if it was over by half time). If they could make the score closer they would. Fewer people would change the channel, and they would make more money from advertising. Imagine how much more money they could make if supporters of the teams were buying ads too. Especially if the game were rigged in such a way that the commercials improved the chances that their team would win!
Why would anyone think that political reporting is any different? Doesn’t it seem like a conflict of interest that the very industry that is getting all the money is the same industry that is entrusted to report the facts? If they could do something to make the polls closer, would they? How tempting would it be to run just a few more negative stories about the frontrunner and positive stories about the underdog, just to tighten the race a bit to make it more newsworthy, and sell more ads? After all, what people see on TV influences the way they vote. The billionaires know that, and the companies who are getting their money to run attack ads know that too.
According to a story in the Fiscal Times last week:
National Republicans, feeling a spending pinch, recently pulled their advertising from the race for an open Senate seat in Michigan after polls showed that Democratic Rep. Gary Peters was almost certain to beat former secretary of state Terri Lynn Land, the GOP nominee. With some of those savings, Republicans then pumped $400,000 more into the race for another open seat in Iowa, where GOP state senator Joni Ernst holds a slight lead over Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley.
Does anybody think that Michigan broadcasters are happy about losing this revenue stream to their Iowa brethren?
So… what can we do to neutralize the slime?
When my daughter was little, I would let her watch TV only on the condition that she mute all the ads. She got really good at it, turning the sound off the instant the commercial started, and then restoring it as soon as the show came back on.
Virtually everyone who owns a TV also owns a smart phone. Smart phones can be used as TV remotes. They can also be used to connect to social media. Social media is a means of crowd sourcing. I think there would be a lot of like-minded people who would be willing to take their virtual turn with the mute button. Or maybe there’s an even easier, fully automated way involving pattern recognition and learning algorithms. Do I really need to say more?
I know there are many gifted app programmers who care about the future of our democracy. I won’t write the specifications for you, but I would also like to be able to adjust the settings. Can I pre-select something to appear on my screen during the ad? Also, can I have the option of a musical interlude until my show comes back on?
Why the Traditional Career Fair Will Soon Be Obsolete
Remember the days of circling ads in papers, and walking into a business when you were looking for a job, or how cool we thought it was when you could fax in your resume? The job search process has changed quite a bit over the last few decades, but sadly, the same cannot be said of the career fair.
What are you really accomplishing when attending a career fair? How much time, money, and energy is spent on getting to the venue, and what are you typically greeted with when you visit a table? Does this sound familiar? “Thanks for stopping by, here is some information on our company, and you are welcome to apply when you get home” Company recruiters are not telling the job seeker this because they have no interest in them. The reality is all companies are going to want you to start the job application with them online to show that they are giving equal opportunity to all who apply. Most companies will not even accept resumes at a career fair anymore.
So, if you are unable to hand in a resume, land an interview, or walk away with a job offer, what is really being accomplished? At best, the career fair is an opportunity to network with recruiters who represent companies who you may have an interest in working with, and if that is your goal, then I would strongly encourage you to continue to attend the career fairs. If you feel disappointed after attending a career fair because it did not meet your expectations, you may want to give the virtual career fair a try.
The term virtual career fair is thrown around quite loosely, and in the interest of full disclosure, my company, Veteran Recruiting hosts virtual career fairs for the military community. Regardless of the platform, virtual career fairs will soon surpass the traditional career fair as a means to connect job seekers with employers, and here is why…
1. Traditional career fairs can only focus on one location at a time, but virtual career fairs allow the company to recruit worldwide.
2. Traditional career fairs require the company and job seeker to travel to and from a physical venue, but virtual career fairs can be attended from anywhere.
3. Virtual career fairs are held online, therefore, when a company tells you to apply online first, you can do that in real time
4. Virtual career fairs save the company time, money, and resources needed to attend, and greatly reduce their time to hire.
5. Virtual career fairs attract passive job seekers who may not attend a traditional career fair because they do not want to take the time off work.
A few examples of virtual career fairs include;
Veteran Recruiting- Military Community
http://www.veteranrecruiting.com
MedVeterans- Veterans in Healthcare
http://www.medveterans.com
CareerEco- College Focused
http://www.careereco.com
ChattyJob- All Industries
http://www.chattyjob.com
A good example of how effective the virtual career fairs have proven to be is the Veteran Recruiting events. More than 94,000 veterans have been hired as a result of attending the virtual career fairs since 2011, and more than 800,000 have attended the online career fairs.
So if you find yourself in the market for a job, or perhaps you are just looking for a more rewarding career, keep an eye out for a virtual career fair that might suit your needs.
Happy Hunting
Tinder Has, Apparently, Found the 'Key' to Online Dating
The latest NYT article about a certain dating app that begins with the letter T has gone right ahead and added to the swelling compost heap of male-oriented buzz and money circulating around that app. It’s also gone and added to that merry discourse about what is “the key to online dating” — a set of conversations that has to be one of the world’s most pointless, and yet one of its most popular, at least where weekend newspaper fillers are concerned.
The article, by (the man) Nick Bilton, starts with his rather superfluous — but no doubt pleasurable — observation about models entering the Tinder building in Hollywood. Evidently, a modelling agency shares a building with Tinder offices (a coincidence?), and Bilton is there, waiting for a meeting with Tinder “executives” who, judging from the “boardroom” picture by Kendrick Brinson, are all male. That tallies with what I thought. (The app has employed a female in-house “dating and relationship expert,” Jessica Carbino, with whom I communicated last year when she was finishing a PhD thesis on online dating at UCLA. Her title as “expert,” though, does not suggest executive function. Please let her correct me if I’m wrong.)
Anyway, the models spark the metaphor with which Bilton, our eye on Tinder’s genius, opens and closes the piece. The models, fascinatingly enough, are wearing cut-off jean shorts and flip flops when they enter the building, then transform, like magic!, into models ready for a shoot, complete with “globs of lip gloss”.
So this models-change-clothes insight was used to contextualize new findings — namely, that Tinder has figured it all out. Tinder understands that people base all pick-up decisions on looks. But! Stop press, not looks in the purely attractiveness sense, but looks in terms of visual clues.
Stop press one more time. When singles walk into a bar, they aren’t asked to fill in compatibility forms. They just look around and then pick someone to talk to based on a mishmash of signs about their comportment and appearance. And — how’s this for nuance? — just because a guy or gal is hot doesn’t mean they’ll get picked up — after all, they might be scary and evoke the rejection ding dong.
Where experts, such as Dr Eli Finkel, a regular on the psychology of digital dating comment circuit, say Tinder beats the usual dating sites is that it “acknowledges [like the experts!] that the only thing that matters when matching lovers is someone’s picture.”
I honestly can’t tell you where the models fit into this — something about how you can have two personas; one online and one off. But it doesn’t matter. Because Tinder’s popularity is nothing to do with scientists figuring out that all clues are based on pictures. If that was the case, then normal internet dating sites would work just as well since daters can browse all they like.
Nor does it matter that Tinder’s platform provides something closer to “real life” in this mythical bar that people used to (indeed apparently still do) meet people when they aren’t dating online. Tinder, indeed the whole array of digital interfaces, including virtual reality, are NOT OFFLINE LIFE. They present a different material reality; a different texture; different philosophies, modes of being, and different affordances (ie, things that let you do things like select or click or message).
What people forget is that the point of dating apps, or online dating, is to provide an alternative to real life. In real life you can’t flick through someone’s face dismissively even if you want to. There’s no “nope” stamp, in just those words, in real life. You have to pretend to go to the bathroom.
And people like that online-ness. It’s other. It’s fun. It’s when you meet up that things tend to get less fun.
The other big thing it’s to do with that isn’t “cracking the key” to attraction or whatever, is EASE. Tinder is so goddamn easy. And with lives ever-fuller of registration and Pay Pal account set ups that are an arse to complete, Tinder is a piece of cake.
Never mind that once you get on it, the array of human life presenting itself pictorially is something to regard with sobriety as well as humor.
Now, the people that REALLY are understanding what offline life is off are the less-publicized, soon to launch Pozee app, which is as simple as Tinder. It’s business is to alert you to other singles in your proximity — the only info members give is that they’re single and up for meeting someone. You can then look at them and decide whether to say hi. And according to these guys, far more plausibly than all the gumph about pictoral clues, knowing someone else is single and on the market is leads to chat. And with Pozee, as an alert system, you can pursue the person through face-to-face interaction, without which — am I right? — it’s hard to actually get the love, dates and sex that all those Tinderites say they’re after.
(NB: I wanted to end with that flourish, but then I thought, hmm, Pozee could lead to some fairly painful encounters — imagine the types that might come up to you on the train and sit down in the seat next to you… and there’s still 36 minutes to go till London Bridge! No, this definitely wasn’t what you had in mind…)
The Human Lab Rat in the Lab
When I was 10 months old, I was diagnosed with an anaphylactic food allergy to wheat, rye, oats and barley. As I’ve written about in my article, “Pizza and Oreos Would Have Killed Me, But They’re Now My Medicine,” which can be found here, I was always extremely cautious, for only a couple of crumbs could have put me into anaphylactic shock. And over the years, I’ve had my share of scares, involving trips to the hospital and epi-pen injections. My family and I were hoping that some day, a genius researcher/doctor would appear and help do something about food allergies. We finally found that person and I enrolled in a food allergy study at Stanford University led by Kari Nadeau. Ever since then, my life has changed dramatically.
As I have been a participant in the study for roughly two years now, I have never fully understood what has been happening to me. It occurred to me a few months ago that I should probably try to learn about the science behind my food allergy, and how the oral immunotherapy was scientifically changing my body. These changes in my lifestyle were infinite, but how was all of this even possible? Who was behind the scenes, making sure that everything was safe, and okay to be conducted? My brain swelled with all of the questions racing through my mind, so I needed to think of a way to at least try to find out about what was happening to my body.
I am fortunate enough to attend a school which provides students in their junior or senior year the opportunity to create independent studies. The student designs the curriculum, builds a framework for the class and chooses the best fit teacher to guide the research.
I thought to myself, why not try an independent study? How often is it that a student can do research on a project that is directly affecting their life, while simultaneously changing their body? Especially, a science project. I kept thinking of ways that I could go about the independent study. I sat with my parents, and asked them about what I should do. They suggested that I write down 10 or so questions that I have developed throughout the course of the study. And so I did. I brought them in to my science teacher the next day. He looked them over, and we decided to think about ways that we could find the answers to these questions. We scheduled a conference call with the lead doctor of the allergy study at Stanford, Kari Nadeau.
Kari Nadeau: A mother of five; two sets of twins, and an older boy, proud owner of multiple pets, ranging from rodents to dogs, wife of a brain surgeon and lead doctor of a food allergy study at Stanford. This woman made the time to talk to me, and my science teacher. She is just incredibly organized. Kari explained to us what she and her employees do in the lab at Stanford, and why they do the things they do. I presented my questions, and asked her how I should go about researching them. She graciously invited me to her lab in Palo Alto to meet the lab assistants and get a little taste of what they do. At the lab I could research some of my questions and her mysterious lab assistants could direct me on the path to find answers and plan out an independent study.
I was so overwhelmed, yet so excited. When I get an opportunity like that, I take advantage of it. My parents and I planned the summer, and made adjustments so that I could go to Dr. Nadeau’s lab. We had figured out a way to make it work.
As I boarded the plane to San Francisco with my cousin as chaperone, I was anxious and excited, ready for the journey that lay ahead. I, the human lab rat, was about to enter the lab. I was about to see what these researchers were doing to my body, and discover how they were changing my life in a scientific way. I was honestly very nervous, worried that I was not equipt to be in the presence of such scientific genius, but the thrill of the upcoming experience overrode my nervousness.
The next day, I pulled up to the hospital in the rental car, and was greeted by Shu-chen Lyu, a member of the Nadeau lab since 2011. She greeted me with a huge smile, and was eager to show me around. We took the elevator up, and walked across the many hallways to finally arrive to the lab. She pointed to go to the left, and so I did. And there it was. The fabled lab where Dr. Nadeau and her team did all of their research. Here I was introduced to a few of the lab members: Jennifer, Erik, Unni, etc. It was honestly a bit strange to meet the people behind all of this research. And I’m sure it must have been odd for the researchers in the lab to see their human lab rat, so to speak. We reminisced about life in the study, how it has changed my life, why I was at the lab, etc. I was instructed to go with Erik, to watch him conduct a series of tests. It was interesting to see him test the blood of patients in the study, (obviously he did not tell me who the people were, because that would violate their rules). I did not have my blood drawn at the time, but when I go back out there within the next few months, I will be sure to test my own blood. Now that will be a bit strange: Having the opportunity to see how my blood has evolved/changed.
I explained to all of the people in the lab that as a patient in the study, I really wanted to know exactly what they were possibly doing to my body. I gave them a list of some of my questions. Some of those questions included: What even is an allergy? What is Xolair, and how is it changing my immune system? (Xolair was the drug that I took in the beginning of the study.) What does the Epipen actually do? My questions ranged from basic, to extremely sophisticated. In my next article, I hope to have some answers for you all!
During my week at the lab, I was able to get a few readings from the people there, learn a bit about what they do and also the process of how they do things. It was amazing to get exposed to this, and I look forward to learning much more about food allergies!
I just wanted to conclude with a brief note. The work that Dr. Nadeau and her Stanford team are accomplishing is life-changing and cutting edge. The whole team is so passionate about their research, and they really want to find the cure for food allergies. They have a wonderful sense of urgency to solve an important problem, and they do it so well. It is these kinds of people who enhance the world as we know it.
The Motivating and Scary Allure of Expressing Yourself in Your Work
The thing with lines in the sand is that they create division.
What if you draw one and your audience, customers or the people you care about are on the other side of it? What if you offend or turn off the people you’re trying to serve? What if people see the real you and your true expression, and simply aren’t interested?
Most lines in the sand come from opinions on self-expression — which isn’t a necessity. I don’t have to swear in books. I don’t have to talk about feminism if it’s not my job. I don’t have to be public about my passions, pet rats, or vegan ramblings.
So why bother?
For me, it comes down to who I want to surround me. So if someone is offended that I think gay and women’s rights are really just human rights (and just as necessary), then I’m happy to offend someone like that. I would not enjoy being hired by them any more than, as a vegan, I’d enjoy being hired by a butcher. If someone thinks I’m an uncreative writer with invalid opinions due to my occasional use of profanity, that’s on them to find someone else to read, not on me to change. Dissent and critical thought are important, even if it’s of my own work (it’s encouraged even). But there must be openness to discussion and learning, and not closed-minded thinking and hate.
I’m often asked if being open about what I care about hurts or helps my business. To be honest, I don’t know. Maybe I’d get more clients or sell more books if I shut up about certain topics or didn’t express my personality as much. Or, as I’m often told, if I just wrote without cuss words because it’s possible to write without swearing. And mostly I do actually write without swearing. So why not always do that?
While I don’t know if being open and expressive helps the bottom line of my business, I do know — for 100 percent certain — that it attracts the type of people I enjoy working with and interacting with. There is no doubt that I attract these sorts of people, because it’s easy for them to see what I stand for. And more importantly, they see themselves standing on my side of the line.
To (unfortunately) mix oceanfront metaphors, the line in the sand is a like a lighthouse beacon. Standing for something puts out into the world a set of beliefs that others can be drawn to. Yes, sometimes it can attract the pirates, pillagers, trolls, haters. Because that spotlight makes for easier target practice. But it also lets others who are like you, or relate to you, draw closer.
I always come back to the line in the sand. The line is what defines me — as a person, as a creative, as someone who puts work out into the world. Without that line there’s no difference between myself and any other designer, any other writer, or any other creative. The line is how and why I’m different. The line is how any of us are different. The expression we have, while not a necessity, speaks to who we are. Why not amplify that?
As someone who “makes stuff” for a living, I know that I’m responsible for what I put out into the world. So why not let it be a true reflection of me? I’m flawed, sometimes crass, opinionated as all get out, and I don’t back down (to a fault).
I’m also often told that it’s all well and good for me to be opinionated because I’ve already established myself in what I do. [Insert already having an audience, already having books that sell, already having web design clients, etc.] I would posit, however, that that’s precisely what established me in the first place.
Not being able to compete with better writers, better designers, better programmers, better role models, I instead focused on just being myself, publicly. That way, the only one I have to compete with is myself. Not exactly always easy, but definitely doable.
Like most other creatives, I struggle with self-sabotage, self-doubt, and feeling like an imposter more often than not. I struggle with expressing myself, because it does sometimes feel easier or “safer” not to.
There’s obviously a time and place for everything, though. I’m not going to go to an elementary school to talk about working in a creative field and drop f-bombs left and right (as funny as that might be to imagine for a minute). Or launch into a two-hour diatribe about pet rats on a sales call. But I’m also not going to hide who I am when the occasion calls for it.
What makes any of us us isn’t our set of skills, experience or accolades — it’s how we use our personalities and self-expression in our work. Otherwise, we’d all be the same, with the same pitches for the work we do, the same books on the same topics, and the same everything else.
I’d rather succeed or fail as myself than do it pretending to be someone else, or worse, do it without infusing any of myself into my work.
So I’m going to keep expressing myself and drawing those lines in the sand. The alternative would both bore the heck out of me and be so un-motivating that I wouldn’t want to continue creating.
The Axiom Report: Cybersecurity and Its Impact on China-U.S. Relations
The latest revelations surrounding the Chinese cyberespionage group Axiom have once more highlighted the increasing tensions between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in cyberspace. According to a recently published report by a group of cybersecurity researchers spearheaded by Novetta Solutions, a U.S.-based cybersecurity firm, the Axiom hackers have displayed some of the most sophisticated cyberespionage tactics ever to emerge from China. Over a period of more than four years, the hacker group infiltrated around 43,000 computers worldwide, infecting a vast array of targets ranging from individuals to corporations as well as government institutions.
“Novetta has moderate to high confidence that the organization-tasking Axiom is a part of Chinese Intelligence Apparatus. This belief has been partially confirmed by a recent FBI flash released to Infragard stating the actors are affiliated with the Chinese government,” states the report cautiously in its key findings. The circumstantial evidence (e.g., an analysis of Axiom targets) makes a compelling case that the Chinese state security apparatus is almost certainly involved in the activities of Axiom.
The Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C., stuck to its now already well-known script when it comes to cyberespionage charges and diligently denied any involvement, emphasizing that “judging from past experience, these kinds of reports or allegations are usually fictitious.” Other official statements and comments in Chinese state-run newspapers were to the same effect, denying any Chinese wrongdoing and seeking refuge in counter-allegations often summarized in a single name: Edward Snowden.
The U.S. private sector has repeatedly voiced its discontent with the slow response of the Obama administration to Chinese cyberattacks. “I think the White House needs to do more from the diplomatic side and other pieces of this to call out this bad behavior,” underlines one U.S. private sector representative. Nevertheless, the past has shown that “naming and shaming” Chinese attackers does not alter their behavior. After the U.S. Justice Department’s indictment of five PLA officers on cyberespionage charges in May 2014, China — according to the 2014 Mandiant Report — has even expanded the scope of its cyber operations.
From open-source intelligence the Novetta report appears to be only vicariously part of the U.S. “naming and shaming” campaign against China. The report is meant to be a shot across the bow, trying to signal China to slow down its massive espionage activities in cyberspace. While the Chinese public response was predictable, the disclosures nevertheless may have created a temporary diplomatic tabula rasa in order for both China and the United States to negotiate cybersecurity issues on a level playing field in the near-term future.
Before the revelations of the Novetta report, Chinese state counselor Yang Jiechi emphasized, “Dialogue and cooperation between China and the U.S. in the field of cybersecurity is faced with difficulty due to the wrong actions taken by the American side. The American side should take positive actions so as to create conditions for the restart of dialogue and cooperation between the two countries in the field of cyber security.” However, after the release of the report, Lu Wei, head of the State Internet Information Office, characterized the U.S.-China dialogue on cybersecurity as “unhindered” and furthermore argued that both countries had “differences but also commonalities.” Consequently it is fair to assess that the Axiom disclosures have caused the PRC to somewhat ease up its uncompromising rhetoric vis-à-vis the United States on cyberespionage.
Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Barack Obama are scheduled to meet informally in November 2014 to discuss pressing bilateral issues. The meeting will be a follow-up to the Sunnylands summit held in June 2013. Cybersecurity was one of the most contentious issues at the 2013 summit. Back then, President Xi Jinping pledged to solve concerns over cybersecurity in a “pragmatic way,” and both countries agreed to cooperate more closely on the legal aspects involving norms and laws in cyberspace. Yet little has happened since then, and the bilateral relationship has markedly suffered from the lack of engagement on cybersecurity issues in the last few months — mostly due to the Snowden leaks.
While the actual impact of the Novetta report on making U.S. systems more secure from Chinese attacks in the long run will be negligible on the diplomatic front, the recent Axiom revelations will allow the U.S. government to press the Chinese side harder on contentious cybersecurity issues. As I have written in the past (“It Is China’s Turn to Act!”), the United States has clearly signaled that Washington is interested in a deescalation of tensions in cyberspace. However, this approach has gained no traction so far due to the diplomatic fallout largely caused by the NSA scandal.
In that sense the timing of the report could not have been more fortunate, since, despite the obvious accusatory nature of the Novetta findings, the report — by leveling the diplomatic playing field as outlined above — could in fact have the reverse effect and make both sides more amendable to cooperation in cyberspace in the weeks ahead.
A version of this post first appeared on ChinaUSFocus.com.
Twitter makes it 'easier' to tweet
A new website layout has made it “easier” to tweet, says Twitter, but some users are not so pleased.
The A-Z Of Slang Will Help You Avoid FOMO, Turn Up, And Impress Your Bae
Between “basic b-tch” and “normcore” and “can’t even,” keeping track of the words the kids are using can be hard.
This video by i-D Magazine, wants to make things easier for you. In their words, “[T]his is urban dictionary’s super sexy older sibling. Word up.”
Watch the video above and pay attention! You DON’T want to be the awkward older cousin at Thanksgiving that doesn’t know how to turn up. Sorry not sorry.
Michael Bloomberg Urges Employees To Display ID Badges So He Can Learn Their Names
NEW YORK — Michael Bloomberg began showing up again at his namesake financial data and media company earlier this year, just weeks after wrapping up three terms as New York City’s mayor. He has since decided to resume his old role running the company, which he founded in 1981.
Bloomberg is now settling in as CEO, and on Wednesday he let the company’s 16,000 employees know that he’s trying to learn their names.
“Obviously, it’ll take some time to learn everyone’s name, so if I don’t recognize you immediately, please bear with me,” Bloomberg wrote in a memo obtained by The Huffington Post.
The former mayor, a technocrat renowned for seeking ways to improve the efficiency of businesses and political institutions, unsurprisingly offered a solution to make the process run more smoothly.
“One thing that helps are the badges we all wear around our necks,” Bloomberg wrote in the memo. “Unfortunately, when one puts our B-unit on the same lanyard as the badge, 50% of the time we block our names and photos.” (The B-UNIT is a small piece of hardware with a fingerprint scanner that allows users to access the Bloomberg terminal system.)
“It makes the memory process for someone my age difficult (and creates an issue for our hard working security guards),” he continued. “To help everyone, it makes sense to do what I do: badge on the lanyard, B-Unit in your pocket.”
A spokesman for Bloomberg, the company, declined to comment for this article.
#AlexFromTarget Goes On 'Ellen,' Proves He Is Even Better In Real Life
Unless you’ve been living under a rock without WiFi for the past couple of days, then you know about #AlexFromTarget — the teen who scanned items and stole the hearts of fangirls everywhere. “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” was lucky enough to snag the heartthrob-turned-meme for his first interview since going viral.
Alex recalled the moment he found out about his stardom. “My manager came up to me and she showed me the actual picture,” he told DeGeneres, during a taping on Tuesday. “I thought it was fake.”
Since gaining Internet fame, #AlexFromTarget, who normally goes by Alex Christopher LaBeouf (but that doesn’t roll of the tongue as easily), has gained over half a million Twitter followers and even grabbed the attention of Nicki Minaj.
However, like most celebrities, Alex quickly discovered that fame comes with a price. On Tuesday evening, a marketing company called Breakr tried to take credit for the birth of #AlexFromTarget, though without the help of Alex or Target. Breakr CEO, Dil Domine Jacobe Leonares, stated in a LinkedIn post that Breakr was the force behind intentionally making Alex go viral.
Alex debunked those rumors on Twitter:
Apparently there is a company trying to take credit for how the pic taken of me went viral.
— DGM_Alex (@acl163) November 5, 2014
My family and I have never heard of this company.
— DGM_Alex (@acl163) November 5, 2014
Well, we don’t really care how #AlexFromTarget got onto our Twitter feeds — we’re just glad he did.
[h/t Slate]
Follow HuffPost Teen on Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr | Pheed |
Google overhauls Maps apps, adds right-click app launches to Drive
Google has announced a collection of important app updates. The Google Maps apps for iOS and Android are both making the switch to “material design,” the new aesthetic behind Android Lollipop. The scheme is more bright and colorful, and uses touches like animations and drop shadows to reinforce the connection between interface elements. Google has also integrated OpenTable reservations for US restaurants, and pickup times and prices for Uber cars. In the latter case, users must also have their platform’s Uber app installed.
iPhone Spider Prank Is So Evil, We Can't Help But Laugh At It
The crippling fear of spiders crawling on you cannot be understated. Prepare to activate heebie-jeebies.
We’ve seen phone pranks before, and everyone appreciates a good scare even if they’re the butt of the joke. But some fears you should never prey on. Because with clowns, you can avoid the circus and kid’s birthday parties. With heights you can stay ground level. But fear of spiders, that’s different … they’re EVERYWHERE.
With that in mind, watch magician Chris Ballinger’s spider phone prank on Youtube star Glozell, and think about what you would do in her shoes. And after all, she told him not to do it.
Gold Apple Watch Could Have Highest Starting Price Of Any Current Apple Product
If you want the height of digital luxury, you’re going to have to pay up.
According to a new rumor from French site iGeneration (interpreted by MacRumors via Google Translate), gold versions of the upcoming Apple Watch will run between $4,000 and $5,000.
Seen here: Three models of Apple Watch, with an 18-karat gold edition on the right
Just to put that $4,000 figure in perspective, the most expensive computer Apple currently offers is the Mac Pro, which starts at $2,999. That doesn’t include a monitor, mouse, or keyboard: Adding basic options for each of those from Apple will bump the price up to $4,096, which might still be a cheaper prospect than the upcoming gold smartwatch if the rumor is true.
But that computer is also able to render 4K graphics your current monitor probably isn’t capable of displaying and looks like it could power the Death Star. By comparison, the Apple Watch lets you check your email without pulling your smartphone out of your pocket. (OK: It does some neat other things, too.)
Of course, you won’t have to pay thousands to get an Apple Watch: A stainless steel version of the watch is rumored to cost $500. When the watch was announced in September, Apple said the starting price — presumably for the aluminum model — would be $349. It’s expected to hit in spring 2015.
Apple did not respond to a request for comment, but entering the luxury market is a logical move for the company. According to Fortune, global luxury spending will rise by 5 percent this year, and that trend is expected to continue until at least 2017. Apple is already positioning the Apple Watch as a luxury item: It appeared on the cover of Chinese Vogue in October, and they showcased it in a pop-up at Paris Fashion Week.
Luxury item or not, the Apple Watch arrives at a time when the company needs to diversify its product line. In recent quarters, iPhone sales have accounted for over half of Apple’s revenue.
There’s also precedent for the pricey item from Apple’s own past: When the Apple II launched in 1977, it cost $1,278 — about $5,019 adjusted for inflation today.
The Apple II
The boxy beige computer may not have looked like a luxury item, but at the time, Byte magazine noted that it was perhaps the first computer that consumers could buy and use straight off the shelf — an expensive first-step into a new technological space. In other words, just like the Apple Watch.
Thanks for reading our digest. Opinions in the articles above are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Digital Workshed ltd.