In its search for new markets and revenue, Google seems to be taking a bite out of Apple.

For months the two companies have competed in the mobile-phone market thanks to Google’s Android operating system, and that competition is fiercer now that Google has stamped its logo on the back of the Nexus One (designed by Google and manufactured by HTC). Despite some differences, the new Google smartphone looks a lot like an iPhone.

There’s competition on other fronts as well, including the operating system business.

In its initial blog post in July, Google positioned Chrome OS as “an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks.” That alone could harm Apple if Chrome-powered netbooks take sales away from Mac laptops. But now there’s talk about both Chrome and Android being used on tablet devices that could compete with Apple’s just announced iPad.

There have been no product announcements, but Google’s Chrome Web site is displaying “visual explorations of how a Chrome OS tablet UI (user interface) might look in hardware.” The illustrations provide only a vague idea of what such a tablet might be like, but their very existence indicates that Google may be eyeing the market that Apple hopes to bust open.

Just in case one tablet operating system isn’t enough of a threat to Apple, Google is potentially going after the iPad with two operating systems at once. Android, in addition to Chrome, could also be used to create a potential iPad killer.

At last month’s Consumer Electronics Show, MSI displayed a 10-inch tablet running Google’s Android operating system.

It’s important to emphasize that neither the Google concept drawings nor the MSI prototype represents a real product. But what they do represent is the possibility, and perhaps the intention, of Google to quickly enter the tablet marketplace.

To be sure, there are important differences between Apple and Google. Apple is more focused and disciplined — it works long and hard on a very small number of products and keeps quiet about them until they’re almost ready for prime time. Then, with great fanfare, Steve Jobs announces them to the world and puts them on sale shortly thereafter.

Google throws lots of things against the wall to see what sticks. The company’s experimental culture is so strong that employees are allowed to devote 20 percent of their time to any project that strikes their fancy, some of which actually see the light of day as products or services.

Apple’s formula — at least with the iPhone — worked like a charm. The hype was followed by a product that delighted most early reviewers and customers. And although I questioned in last week’s column whether the iPad can live up to its hype, I acknowledge that it is an innovative product that might do well when it hits the market.

Google’s approach is usually to pre-announce months in advance and rely on partners like HTC (and now Motorola) to build devices around its open source software. Unlike the first iPhone, the initial Android phone — the HTC G1 — got tepid reviews. But with the release of the Motorola Droid and Google’s Nexus One, Android is starting to win fans and respect.

Google’s initial foray into the browser market was also a bit disappointing but that, too, is starting to change. When the Chrome browser came out, it was a bit faster than market leaders Internet Explorer and Firefox but not nearly as versatile because it lacked support for extensions that allow third parties to add functionality. However, Google recently released a beta version of Chrome that fixes that problem.

Last month Chrome overtook Apple’s Safari as the third-place browser behind Internet Explorer and Firefox, according to Net Applications. As more extensions become available and more people download the newer version, I’m confident its market share will continue to grow. You can download the Chrome beta at google.com/landing/chrome/beta.

The biggest difference between Apple and Google has to do with control. Apps for both the iPhone and iPad will be distributed through Apple and be vetted and approved by Apple before being made available to users. Google has a more open approach, allowing anyone to create an app for their phone or their computer operating system.

The democrat (small d) in me sides with Google. But the part of me that’s concerned about safety and security understands the advantages of having a company like Apple examine the applications for its devices.

Mostly I’m just glad to see these two talented and resourceful companies compete with each other and, of course, Microsoft, which was once thought to be a monopoly but is now struggling to compete with both Google and Apple.

by Larry Magid

As I think about last week’s Apple iPad announcement, I recall PC-maker Lenovo showing off its IdeaPad U1 Hybrid at the Consumer Electronics Show in January.

The IdeaPad is an interesting cross between a laptop and a tablet. Unlike other tablet PCs, the screen actually peels away from the base station. In laptop mode it runs Windows 7. But when you use the screen by itself in “slate mode,” it runs a home-grown Lenovo operating system that’s optimized for use without a keyboard.

I thought it was cool and it was a clever-enough idea to win CNET’s best-of-show award for computers and hardware. Still, there wasn’t a great deal of buzz around the product. And, despite its rather weird design, I didn’t see a lot of press either praising or damning it. It was just an interesting idea from a company that makes some of the most respected laptops on the market.

Contrast that with Apple’s iPad announcement. The amount of pre-announcement hype was out of control. The blogosphere and even the mainstream press had a feeding frenzy speculating over what Apple would unveil. Apple was officially mum, but it’s likely someone in the company was leaking bits and pieces to help build anticipation. There was even a report in TechCrunch ahead of the announcement claiming that Steve Jobs was overheard saying it “will be the most important thing I’ve ever done.” When Jobs finally took the stage to unveil the iPad, he called it “magical and revolutionary.”

With all of this hype in the back of my head, I was one of hundreds of tech journalists to show up at Yerbe Buena Center in San Francisco on Wednesday to find out what all the fuss was about. The street in front of the building was crowded with TV satellite trucks and the press — many arriving hours early — were anxiously speculating about exactly what Jobs would pull out of his hat.

The answer is the now much-written-about iPad, which is getting a mixed reception from the press and those who are Tweeting and blogging about it. Writing in Thursday’s Mercury News, my colleague Troy Wolverton said he wants to buy one but “just not yet.” He’s waiting for version 2.0, which he hopes will support Adobe’s Flash and allow multi-tasking.

My take on the device was less charitable. In my CBSNews.com post, I called it “underwhelming.”

But my verdict has to be put into the context of all the hype. Had Apple called this device the “Ipod Touch 2,” I would have praised it as a really good follow up to an excellent product. I would have still questioned whether there is a market for a device that’s too big to put in your pocket but not as easy to type on as a laptop, but I would have given Apple the benefit of the doubt, just as I did with Lenovo.

It’s great to innovate, it’s great to introduce new ideas to the market and it’s great to “throw it against the wall and see if it sticks.” After all, experimentation, including experiments that fail, are an important part of what drives innovation.

But this was more than just experimenting with a new concept. To begin with, the concept isn’t new. There have been dozens of tablets or slate computers and none of them has been able to attract more than a niche audience.

I was at the Comdex computer show in 2000 when Bill Gates introduced the tablet PC. A year later Gates predicted that the tablet “would become the most popular form of PC within five years.”

Of course Jobs’ tablet PC is different than the ones built to Gates’ specifications. For one thing, the iPad is mostly about content consumption, and it’s built on the successful foundation of several generations of iPods, iPhones and Apple’s iTunes and iPhone Apps stores. Apple is also doing content deals with book publishers to assure plenty of stock for its new iBook Store that will compete with Amazon.com towards Apple’s goal of turning the iPad into a book and periodical reader.

The content, the elegant design, reasonable starting price ($499 for one with 16 GB of storage and no 3G modem) of the iPad and Apple’s superb marketing skills all bode well for this new device. Yet, I’m one of many people who came away a little skeptical and a bit disappointed, not because it’s not a good device but because it didn’t (perhaps couldn’t) live up to all the hype.

I pretty much expected it to look and work like it does, but I also expected Jobs to delight the crowd with “one more thing” that would make me want to rush out and get one of my own as soon possible. That didn’t happen.

This column first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News

Security companies are warning consumers and Web site operators to be wary of iPad-related search scams.

“This is just the kind of opportunity fraudsters like to exploit by poisoning search terms,” said Symantec’s Candid Wueest. Wueest also warned about “iPad-related spam and phishing attacks hitting consumers hard over the coming weeks.”

Don Debolt, CA’s director of threat research, warned about “black hat search optimization”–a scam whereby hackers take advantage of security flaws in blogs and other sites that use PHP scripting language to embed popular search terms like iPad to trick search engines into directing people to compromised legitimate sites that may have nothing to with the subject matter at hand. If people click on the link to a page on that infected site, they are then redirected to a malicious site that can implant malware on their machine or tempt them to install a rogue security product.

It has nothing to do with the iPad itself. Similar techniques have exploited other popular searches such as the Haitian earthquake and the death of Michael Jackson. Google has a trends page that shows hot topics and hot searches. On Thursday afternoon, the iPad was represented four times on the Top 10 list. “Obama State of the Union” led the list.

The entire process is automated, said Debolt. “We found that it’s a very systematic and programmatic process right now.” The attackers, he said, are using software to query search engines to find out the popular search topics and then “feeding that information into compromised Web sites so that those compromised sites and the content they put on those sites get indexed by the search engine bots.” To the end user it looks as if those sites have relevant content, but when you click on those pages, you are immediately taken to another site that has the malware.

Debolt warns people to be careful if a search engine points to a site where “the root domain of the URL doesn’t have any type of affiliation to the topic or is not an information portal you’re familiar with.” He warns site operators, especially those with a content management system that uses PHP, including Joomla, WordPress, and Droopa, to be sure they are using the latest version of their Web software.

I have a bit of experience with injected code. I operate a number of WordPress blogs including SafeKids.com which, a few years ago started serving up Google ads for Viagra and other male enhancement products. These were far from appropriate context-sensitive ads for an Internet safety site and when I took a look at my site’s code, I discovered that there were hundreds of links and terms that had been injected to my site as a result of a security flaw in my WordPress template. I replaced the template and updated the WordPress software and the problem went away. Now I’m careful to make sure I’m always running the latest version of WordPress.

As usual, people are cautioned to make sure they are using up-to-date security software and that both their operating system and browser are up to date.

This column originally appeared on CNET News.com

by Larry Magid

As I walked into San Francisco’s Yerbe Buena Center Wednesday for the Apple iPad unveiling, I pretty much expected Steve Jobs to announce a tablet computer optimized for video, web surfing, reading, music and game playing that runs iPhone applications. And that’s exactly what I got. But I also expected something more. I expected to be delighted with some not-so-obvious features that would make me crave the device.

I was underwhelmed.

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with the iPad. It’s a pretty good product with some nice features, but I don’t agree with Steve Jobs claim that it’s “magical and revolutionary.”

True, it can run any iPhone application but — obviously — so can an iPhone and an iPod touch. Had they called it the “iTouch-2″ I would have considered it an excellent evolution to an already great product.

In announcing the iPad, Apple is trying to create a third category of devices somewhere in between a smartphone and a laptop but the problem with the iPad is that it doesn’t do anything that you can’t already do with a smartphone and a laptop. In terms of raw innovation I was actually more impressed with the IdeaPad U1 hybrid laptop that Lenovo introduced at CES. It’s a traditional laptop with the ability to peel off the screen to use it as a tablet. They won’t sell a lot but it is a radical design with two operating systems and user interfaces — Windows 7 for laptop mode and another when it’s used as a tablet.

Some bright spots

There were some bright spots. In addition to its ability to run any iPhone and iPod Touch application, Apple has released an iPad Software Developer Kit to encourage developers to create applications specifically designed for the device’s larger screen. And Apple jumped started development with its new iWork suite that lets you the iPad for word processing, spreadsheets and to create and show presentations.

I’m also glad that Apple is releasing an external keyboard but I would have been happier if there were a USB port so users could use any keyboard or pointing device and plug in other industry standard accessories including external hard drives or at least thumb drives. It would also have been nice if the operating system allowed more than one application to run at a time – something that PC and Mac users have been able to do for years.

Cheaper than expected, but not cheap

Jobs made a big deal about the low price and, indeed the starting price of $499 is less than most people expected. But for that you get an iPad with only 16 gigabytes of storage and no 3G modem. If you want the fully decked out model, it will cost you $829. That’s still less than the $999 some people expected, but for about $400 you can get a netbook that does everything the iPad does, albeit without the panache.

The one pleasant surprise of the day was Jobs’ announcement that the 3G model will feature contract-free AT&T data plans that start at $14.99 for 250 megabytes a month or $29.99 for unlimited data. That unlimited plan is half the price of most other data plans. My hope is that Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile will counter by cutting the price of their data plans for other computing devices. My only worry is that if the iPad is a success, it could further overwhelm AT&T’s already clogged data network.

Not a game changer

The iPhone was a revolutionary device because it was the first easy-to-use powerful computer that you can put in your pocket. But, even though it’s a bit thinner and lighter than other personal computing devices, the iPad is far from pocket-sized. It’s basically a laptop without a physical keyboard that runs iPhone apps. That makes it an interesting product but hardly one that will change the world.

I’m not saying the iPhone will fail – there may indeed be a market for the device, but it’s not a game changer.

Speaking on CNBC McGraw-Hill CEO Terry McGraw said the Apple tablet (to be announced at 10:00 AM Pacific time today) is “based on iPhone operating system” so apps will be transferable. His comments on the tablet are towards the end of this clip

Youtube video on how configure Facebook’s new privacy settings

How to hide your Facebook friends list

by Larry Magid

Sec. Clinton speaks at Newseam in DC

I have mostly positive feelings about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech on Internet freedoms that she delivered Thursday at the Newseum in Washington DC.

Although the speech was reportedly in the works for weeks, she addressed the alleged attacks on Google’s servers in China designed to spy on Chinese dissidents. She also alluded to Google’s announcement that it would no longer censor results of searches in China by suggesting that American businesses should resist censorship: “Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere. And in America, American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I’m confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles.”

Committing U.S. Resources

She also committed U.S. resources to the cause of Internet freedom. “Today I’m announcing that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals.”

And she sort of announced a product, or at least an idea for one. “Let’s say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries, including ours, on their responsiveness and efficiency and also to ferret out and report corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work (mobile phones) is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy.

Note to Sec. Clinton: Even bad guys deserve free speech

While most of her comments encouraged freedom of speech, she did hedge her bet in one respect. She said “we do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people across the world And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible.” While I agree with her on both counts, it’s important that our government and our allies realize that the suppression of any form of speech — even speech we despise — is a step down a slippery slope towards censorship. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t condemn speech that promotes terrorism and hate but it does mean that we need to be extremely thoughtful about any attempts to supress it with anytng other than more speech to counter lies, hate and extremist proportional.

Lessons for American families and schools

Anne Collier of NetFamilyNews (who is my co-director at ConnectSafely.org analyzed the speech from her perspective as an advocate of young people’s use of technology, saying that she “couldn’t help but think about how much we need to respect, teach, and model good citizenship at home and school (here and in every country) – using the media kids use and love – in order to realize Secretary Clinton’s vision for Internet freedom.” In response to Sec. Clinton’s suggestion that we need to “create norms of behavior among states and encourage respect for the global networked commons,” Collier added that ” we need to start here at home, promoting and modeling norms of good behavior online and in homes and classrooms using the social (behavioral) media and technologies where so much kid behavior occurs now.”

A bold line in the ‘cyber-sand’

Adam Theirer, president of the Progress & Freedom Foundation blogged at Technology Liberation Front that Clinton’s remarks “will go down as a historic speech in the field of Internet policy since she drew a bold line in the cyber-sand regarding exactly where the United States stands on global online freedom.”

He reminded his readers that “less than 15 years ago in this country we had a heated debate over whether American citizens should even be allowed to use encryption technology, or if the government should “hold the keys” to such technologies.” That was during Mrs. Clinton’s husbands’ administration. At the risk of name dropping I was on Air Force 2 with Al Gore when the vice president admitted — perhaps for the first time — that the administration was thinking of abandoning its policy of supporting what now seems like an archaic policy.

Watch speech, listen to 8 minutes of excerpts or read the transcript

If you have an hour to watch Sec. Clinton’s speech you can do so here. If you have 8 minutes to spare, you can listen to my podcast with excerpts and brief comments. Here is a complete transcript.

By Larry Magid

Like other tech journalists, I got my invitation for an Apple press event on January 27th inviting us to “Come see our latest creation.”  Apple didn’t offer any details but the speculation is that the company will announce some type of tablet device, probably optimized for watching video and reading books.

Colorful invitation to Apple press event on Jan 27th

Not the first tablet

If Steve Jobs does announce a tablet device when he takes the stage at San Francisco’s Yerba Buena Center next week, he won’t be the first famous tech executive to do so.

I was at the Comdex computer trade show in November 2001 when Bill Gates announced Windows software for the tablet PC.  Gates, at the time, predicted that the Tablet would become the most popular form of PC within 5 years.  That was 9 more than years ago and even though a number of PC vendors have come out with tablet PCs, they remain one of the least popular forms of PCs.

The PCs that Gates showed off were running a version of Windows XP designed to allow users to write on the screen instead of type on a keyboard.

A Microsoft press release at the time quoted Ted Clark, vice president of Tablet PC at Compaq, as saying “We see the Tablet PC as a business tool that lets you work the way you want to work, bringing the power of the PC anywhere you want to work. He added, “This will be your primary computer — it’s not a ‘companion’ device to anything else, except a companion to you.”

Ted Clark, Bill Gates and everyone else who predicted the domination of the tablet PC were wrong.  Despite some inroads in medical, government, military and vertical markets like delivery personnel, tablets have largely been ignored by consumers.  But the reason might be because Microsoft positioned them as work machines instead of as media players.

The reason I never bought into the tablet craze is because they replaced the keyboard with a stylus, encouraging people to write rather than type.  If I preferred writing to typing, I never would have taken that junior high school typing class so many years ago.  Not only does typing produce more legible copy, it’s also faster.  A good typist can type as many as 70 words per minute but it’s hard to handwrite at more than 20 words per minute.  What’s more, hand writing is more tiring than typing. Why would anyone want to use a stylus instead of a keyboard if the stylus is harder to use, slower and less accurate?

But the rumored Apple tablet – and it’s important to remember that it’s still just a rumor – is said to be optimized not so much for productivity but for entertainment and reading. If that’s the case, it could change the ballgame.  While a tablet might be terrible for productivity, it’s actually a good form factor for reading and watching video.  And, depending on its features and software, it might also be pretty good for web surfing and light email use.

My wish list

Of course, if Apple were to launch a tablet and if that tablet had a USB port, then it might be possible to plug in a keyboard and a mouse to use the device for productivity applications.  I’m not sure that will be the neither case, nor do I know what operating system and software the device will use. But my guess is as good as anyone’s so I’m going to lay out what I think the device should be.

I would like to see an Apple tablet that runs a custom version of the same OS X operating system that Apple uses for the Mac (and also the iPhone).  I’d like to see the default user interface look pretty much like the iPhone does, but I’d also like to see a way for it to more closely resemble the Macintosh desktop for those people who might want to use it for productivity purposes.  When it’s emulating the iPhone it could be used to run all iPhone applications including, of course, the iPod software for watching video and listening to music. There would also be plenty of book reading apps, including perhaps a version for reading Amazon Kindle books as well as software from competing book sellers and software for an open e-book format that could be used by any publisher.  The device will almost certainly support the read electronic newspapers and magazines.

But if someone wanted to use it for productivity, I’d like to see the device transform itself into a Macintosh with the ability to run all Mac applications, including Microsoft Office.  I’m not convinced that people would buy it for this purpose, but I do think that people who had the device might be interested in using it for productivity when necessary. For example, someone might use the tablet to read a book or watch a movie on a plane but – after landing – they might plug in a small external keyboard to (or use an onscreen virtual keyboard) to use it for email, web research or report writing from their hotel room.

Of course, Apple didn’t consult me on what the tablet should be and I admit I have no idea what they will announce. I’m not even 100% certain they will announce a tablet but, whatever it is, it’s fun to speculate.

Many major TV makers are preparing to introduce eye-popping high-definition sets that let you view video in three dimensions, assuming you’re wearing the requisite 3-D glasses.

A few content providers are also on board. ESPN announced that it will start broadcasting in 3-D beginning with the World Cup soccer matches in June. Satellite provider DirecTV announced that it, too, will begin broadcasting in 3-D in June. Although you may have to replace your TV to watch the programs, DirecTV will offer a software update to enable 3-D on its existing high-definition set-top boxes.

And now that Hollywood is producing 3-D content for the big screen, those movies will eventually be available on Blu-ray in 3-D. To watch those shows you may need a new Blu-ray player, though people who watch Blu-ray via a Sony PlayStation 3 are in luck. It will be compatible via a software upgrade.

I wish there were a free software upgrade to enable 3-D on the 55-inch high-definition TV I bought two years ago for about $1,800. I realize that $1,800 might not seem like a lot of money to the well-heeled TV-maker executives, but for average consumers it’s a lot of money. Other than the furnace, it’s the most expensive appliance in my home, costing far more than my washer, dryer, dishwasher or refrigerator.

As of November, 34 percent of American households (40 million) already had an HD TV, and that was before the Christmas and Super Bowl buying spree. I

wouldn’t be surprised if that number were now closer to 50 percent. I doubt whether many of those recent HD buyers are going to want to shell out for a 3-D set any time soon.

The good news about 3-D TV is that the sets won’t be much more expensive than similar two-dimensional HD TVs. It’s my understanding that they will have to display at a minimum of 120Hz refresh rate (that’s the number of frames that are refreshed per second) but most current-model mid- to high-end sets already achieve that. The extra hardware costs to display 3-D are relatively low, so we shouldn’t see a huge premium for these sets.

In the early days of HD TV, sets were very expensive — $6,000 and up — but that was because there was a yield problem that limited the number of LCD panels that could be used. There is no such limit when it comes to 3-D.

Still, for those who already have an HD TV, it means buying another one at a likely cost of $1,800 and up for a relatively big-screen model.

Another issue is 3-D glasses. Unlike those old green-and-red ones used in theatres many years ago, the glasses required for viewing 3-D TV are sophisticated and are expected to cost $30 to $60 each for normal ones and a lot more for designer or prescription glasses.

I’m sure sets will come with one or two pairs. But in my family, four or more people sometimes gather in front of the TV. In fact, the early adopters are likely to want to show off their TVs to all their friends, meaning they’ll need plenty of pairs of glasses.

My biggest problem will be finding my glasses. It will be one more thing to add to that gaggle of remote controls in my living room.

Don’t get me wrong — I love 3-D. I enjoy watching 3-D movies at the theater and got a kick out of the demos I’ve seen. I’m sure I’d watch an occasional movie or sporting event in 3-D if I had a set at home, but I’m not so sure I’d make it a regular habit. Of course, we won’t have to worry about forming such a habit until there is plenty of 3-D content to watch. That may take awhile.

For filmmakers and broadcasters, the primary way to create 3-D content is to use special cameras with two lenses aimed just a small distance apart from each other to create that stereoscopic effect. Professional 3-D cameras are still very expensive, but consumer-level models are much more affordable.

Fuji’s FinePix REAL 3-D W1 costs about $600 and not only takes 3-D stills and video but displays 3-D on its built-in LCD screen without the use of glasses. Yes, the technology does exist for glasses-free 3-D, but it works best with very small personal screens that can be repositioned for each viewer. There is also technology to convert regular 2-D programming to 3-D.

Eventually, 3-D will be just part of the landscape, but that won’t happen until millions of people have 3-D compatible sets. I don’t expect those to be jumping off the shelves. But if they do, I’m sure jumping TV sets will look really cool in 3-D.

Taser International, the company that makes Taser guns to help law enforcement subdue unruly suspects, now has a product aimed at children. At CES, the company announced the Protector Family Safety Program–a series of products designed to help parents monitor and control what their kids are doing with their phones.

Lets parents listen in
Protector goes further than most parental control products in that it doesn’t just provide a summary of activity–such as the incoming and outgoing numbers of people the kids call or text–but allows parents to listen to actual calls and read text messages.

Depending on how the product is configured, parents will be able to intercept all calls and messages to or from their child’s phone, according to Steve Tuttle, Taser’s vice president of communications. The series of products includes software parents can load on the kid’s phone so that their own phone will, according to Tuttle, route “any inbound call, text, or e-mail. Anything that comes into the child’s phone would actually be routed to the parent’s phone.” At that point, the parent can allow it, block it, send it through, listen in, or record the conversation. Parents can set a “favorites” list to let some calls and messages go through so, for example, the child can have unfettered and unmonitored communications with grandma or anyone else the parent specifies. Parents can also examine e-mail attachments–including photos–to help detect or prevent inappropriate incoming or outgoing images.

“We’re trying any prevent damage coming in on the inbound, and at the same time it does the same thing coming out, so I can monitor what’s being texted out by my child,” said Tuttle.

The service, which will work on a variety of smartphones, will be rolled out later this year. To its credit, the service, said Tuttle, will not work in stealth mode. There is no way for a parent to hide the software from their children. Kids know they are being monitored.

Overparenting?
While I can understand why a lot of parents would be tempted to use a product like this, I think it should be applied cautiously and only when necessary. It’s true that this software could prevent sexting–kids sending out nude or partially nude photos of themselves–and could cut down on cyberbullying and other issues, including the risk of kids having conversations or exchanging messages with people who are potentially dangerous or annoying. But before parents employ this technology, they should try something far less invasive like having a conversation with their kids to review basic safety and etiquette issues and to ask their kids what they are doing with their phones and what problems–if any–they are having. I know that this won’t work with all kids, but it will work with most.

I acknowledge that there are some high-risk kids who need very close supervision and monitoring, but several surveys have shown that the majority of young people have a pretty good idea as to what is appropriate and safe. Also, despite cyberbullying and other issues, kids are a bit more resilient than some adults give them credit for. Again, there are kids who could definitely benefit from monitoring or filtering products on their phones, but products like Taser’s Protector are not a universal solution.

Also, there is a big difference between knowing who your kids are talking with and listening in on their conversation. When my kids would go out with friends, my wife and I would want to know who they were hanging out with, but we didn’t follow them around or record their conversations.

Dr. Patti Agatston, a licensed professional counselor with the Prevention/Intervention Center of the Cobb County School District in Georgia, thinks that technology like this “would probably do more harm than good” for most kids. “The only place I can see this is with kids who are already exhibiting dangerous behavior, such as kids who are in gangs,” she said. “In general, I don’t see this as an appropriate solution for the risky behaviors that are generating headlines because it’s still a relatively small percentage of kids who are engaging in those activities.

“Kids need to have some type of privacy, it’s developmentally appropriate as kids get older,” said Agatston. She added that “part of my fear is that this type of technology appeals to the type of parents who are already being too controlling in their children’s lives.” With these families, “kids will want to have nothing to do with their parents once they leave the home.”

How about a hybrid phone/Taser gun?
Of course, Taser International could find a way to incorporate its other technology into this product as well. Why not make a cell phone that shocks and stuns a child whenever they do something inappropriate?

ConnectSafely.org, a Web site I help operate, has lots of advice for keeping kids safe with technology, including tips on cell phone use, cyberbullying, and sexting.

This story first appeared on News.com