The Conficker worm was slated to “phone home” on April 1st but based on reports from security experts, machine’s that made the call didn’t get an answer from the master computers designed to give them instructions. But don’t take this as a sign to relax. The worm — which currently doesn’t have a “payload” — can lie dormant in a PC and strike at any time. In fact, given the world-wide attention to the April 1st trigger, many experts say that the criminals behind Conficker may have deliberately programmed their master PCs to hold off with the intention of doing something later when people aren’t paying attention.
Conficker’s authors put in code that allows the worm to communicate with a master computer to get instructions. Once it gets them, any infected machine can carry them out. What instructions it might get isn’t known but it could be to turn individual machines into “spambots,” which means your PC could wind up relaying spam to others. It could also install a “keylogger” program on PCs which gives the hackers access to people’s user names and passwords.
Even if everything is fine now, it’s important to make sure that your machine doesn’t have Conficker or any other worm, virus or other “malware.” Not only can Conficker strike later, but it has lots of cousins. In fact, there are thousands of worms and viruses floating around and this is a continual threat.
Below are some free tools that can help scan your machine. These tools work only with machines running Microsoft Windows. Although Macs are vulnerable to some (though not as many as Windows) threats, Mac users don’t have to worry about Conficker.
If your computer is infected and (therefore) can’t reach any of the security websites, download a removal tool from another computer and install it on your using a USB drive, CD or other removable media.
Security experts are advising Windows users to disable the auto-run function. The reason is because the Conficker worm can infect a PC through a USB drive or other USB device including, for example, an electronic picture frame.
”Sexting” is the practice of taking a sexually revealing picture of yourself, typically from a cell phone, and sending it to someone. Legal consequences aside, it’s a dumb thing to do, especially for younger age groups in which it has become something of a fad.
Even if you are comfortable with the person receiving the image, you never know for sure where else it might land. Digital images are easy to copy and forward and, even if you trust your friend’s discretion, it can be accidentally forwarded or seen by others with access to your friend’s phone or computer. It’s not uncommon for such images to find their way to other people’s cell phones and even Web pages, where they can be seen by anyone, copied, searched for and redistributed, perhaps forever.
For minors, there’s another risk — serious legal consequences. Creating, transmitting and even possessing a nude, semi-nude or sexually explicit image of a minor can be considered child pornography. It can be prosecuted as a state or federal felony and can even lead to having to register as a sex offender.
Crazy as it seems, some prosecutors have gone after kids for taking and sending pictures of themselves. There was a case in Florida a couple of years ago where a teenage boy and girl photographed themselves nude and engaged in “unspecified sexual behavior.” One kid sent the picture to the other and somehow the police got involved. They were tried and convicted for production and distribution of child porn and the teen who received the image had the additional charge of possession. An appeals court upheld the convictions.
In January this year, three teenage girls from Pennsylvania were charged for creating child porn and the three boys who received the images were charged for possessing it. And, according to CBS News, a Texas eighth-grader in October spent a night in jail after a coach found a nude picture on his cell phone, sent by another student.
It’s sadly ironic that the very child porn laws that were written to protect children from being exploited by adults could wind up having a devastating impact on the lives of children who, while acting stupid, have no criminal intent. For some perspective on whether this issue is or isn’t overblown, see Anne Collier’s piece in NetFamily News.
It’s hard to know how prevalent the practice is. But if you believe the results of an online survey commissioned by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, about 22 percent of teenage girls and 18 percent of boys admit to having “electronically sent, or posted online, nude or semi-nude pictures or video of themselves.” I’m not completely confident about the results of this study, which was carried out by a market research firm and not subject to academic peer review. But I think it’s fair to assume that a significant number of kids are doing this.
Perhaps more interesting than the survey’s overall number is the breakdown of why teens take and send these pictures. Of those who reportedly sent such pictures, 71 percent of girls and 67 percent of boys said they sent or posted content to a boyfriend or girlfriend, while 21 percent of the girls and 39 percent of the boys say they sent it to someone they wanted to date.
As you might expect, peer pressure plays a role. Of those who sent such content, 51 percent of teen girls cited “pressure from a guy,” while 18 percent of teen boys blamed pressure from girls.
While sexting is troubling, I think it’s important for us all to take a deep breath and refrain from passing new laws or using child pornography laws that were designed to protect children from exploitation by adults.
I suspect that sexting will diminish over time. Kids aren’t stupid and, faced with the facts, most will wise up. We also know that kids who get in trouble online are the same kids who get in trouble offline, so when teens repeatedly do sexting or other stupid or risky things online, it’s important to intervene early and often.
The best thing for a parent to do is to have a non-confrontational conversation — perhaps over dinner — to ask your kids if they’ve heard about sexting and what they think about it. You might not get a straight answer but you’ll open up a dialog that can go a long way toward helping your kids understand how to minimize legal, social and reputation risks. There are more tips on ConnectSafely.org, a non-profit Internet safety site I help operate.
Boy, am I glad the Internet and camera phones weren’t around when I was a kid.
Like millions of other people, I’m on Twitter. I’m not glued to it all day, but I try to check in at least once or twice daily to catch up on what others are saying and tell anyone who cares to “follow” me to find out what’s on my mind at the moment.
Unlike some, I don’t use it to signal my every move. But my tweets — Twitter’s term for messages — have ranged in significance from my thoughts on a major issue of the day to “going to bed now,” all in 140 characters or less as dictated by Twitter’s technology.
I also use Twitter to update my followers on my latest articles and blog posts. Indeed, a link to this article will find its way to anyone who happens to follow me at twitter.com/larrymagid.
As a Twitter user I’m in good company. Nielsen Online reported last week that “unique visitors to Twitter increased 1,382 percent year over year, from about 475,000 unique visitors in February 2008 to about 7 million in February 2009, making it the fastest-growing site in the member communities category for the month.”
The survey also found that the largest age group of people on Twitter is 35 to 49 and that “the majority of people visit Twitter.com. while at work.” In a recession, it’s fair to wonder if Twitter is costing employers billions of dollars in lost productivity.
But despite the fact I’ve been “tweeting” for several months and consider myself relatively hip to the tech scene and culture, I have admit there is something about Twitter that I don’t fully “get.”
I thought (and blogged attinyurl.com/dz48c3.) about Twitter last week when I read a transcript of a “twiitterview” between George Stephanopoulos of ABC News and Sen. John McCain. In a session which reportedly lasted about 20 minutes, Stephanopoulos asked McCain a series of questions — all in 140 characters or less — which McCain answered with equal brevity.
While it was in some ways refreshing to see a reporter and politician be so succinct, it was also unsatisfying and a bit scary to see an interview about important subjects like Iraq, Iran, terrorism and the economy reduced to tiny tweets that make TV sound bites seem like in-depth journalism.
When it comes to Twitter, I find myself more quizzical than cynical. Clearly it has appeal to millions of people and it must appeal to me. I find myself drawn to it not only to avoid missing news from those I follow but also to be sure I remain relevant in this ever-changing media environment.
I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that eschewing Twitter would have any negative impact on my journalism career. But I feel that I have to be there even though the number of people who follow me on Twitter is dwarfed by the numbers who have access to my columns and broadcasts.
When it comes to influence, it’s not just about numbers. It’s also about being an early adopter. Early last century, some newspaper people ignored radio at their peril, and there were radio personalities whose careers languished because they weren’t quick enough to add TV to their repertoire. And virtually every media company — for years — has been scrambling to build a Web audience even though few have yet been able to turn a profit from it.
That said, I’m still not convinced that Twitter adds value over other media. Radio added sound to news reporting, TV added pictures to radio and the Web added timeliness, frequency and depth to all of the above. But when it comes to the depth of the messages it can deliver, Twitter doesn’t add anything other than the ability for people to grab messages quickly and respond in kind. But it’s not as if everyone who responds to a New York Times tweet is reaching all New York Times readers or even Twitter followers. When you tweet, you only reach the people who have elected to follow you and, for most people, that’s a pretty small number.
Maybe the reason I don’t “get” Twitter is that I’m thinking about it as a medium rather than a means for people who know each other to chat among themselves. Of course, that doesn’t explain why Stephanopoulos and McCain and plenty of other people in the media and politics find Twitter to be worth their time.
Have a thought on this? Why not send it to me, naturally, via Twitter at @larrymagid. I may be quizzical but I’m covering my bets.
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos is an excellent reporter and Senator John McCain has given some great interviews. But while yesterday’s “twitterview” may have been a watershed moment for Twitter, it was far from a high point for either journalism or politics.
After reading a transcript of the interview, I have to question whether the 140 character format makes any sense as an interview technique, especially when dealing with life and death questions such as “What worries you more: Pakistan or Iran?” to which Senator McCain responded, “Both. The challenges are different but both significant.”
Senator John McCain
(Credit: mccain.senate.gov)
Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer a little more depth in my interviews. While brevity has its place, I found both the questions and the answers to be artificially short thanks to the limit of 140 characters per “tweet.”
In an age where we get much of our political information from sound bites and commercials, I appreciate the tradition of a well-seasoned journalist sitting down with a politician to ask in-depth questions, get candid responses and be able to ask equally in-depth follow-up questions. In most cases, in person or at least telephone interviews are a better way to do that than short bursts of typing.
Having said that, I do like the fact that Stephanopoulos used Twitter prior to the interview to get his followers to submit questions for the Senator and I would like to see more online forums where politicians answer questions not just from journalists but from citizens as well. But asking the likes of Stephanopoulos and McCain to reduce their dialog to 140 characters per question is, in my opinion, an interesting experiment but a bad precedent. Twitter is fine for casual conversation and occasional punditry, but when it comes to the affairs of our nation, we need to hear a lot more than 140 characters from our leaders and our leading journalists.
It won’t grab headlines like the newest version of the iPhone operating system, but a Palo Alto, Calif. non-profit today announced a suite of open-source applications that aids in communications and collaboration for humanitarian workers dealing with diseases and disasters.
InSTEDD (Innovative Support to Emergencies, Diseases and Disasters) has released three applications to empower aid workers to use inexpensive off-the-shelf mobile phones to better detect and respond to disasters, diseases and economic catastrophes.
The organization currently runs projects in Southeast Asia including the Mekong Basin Disease Surveillance project and the Phnom Penh Innovation Lab.
InSTEDD CEO Dr. Eric Rasmussen
(Credit: InSTEDD)
One of the new software programs, GeoChat, allows people with cell phones to post their location, communicate with each other and see the location of others on a map using standard SMS text messaging. This service, according to InSTEDD CEO Eric Rasmussen, can take advantage of geolocation technology like GPS but most often involves people typing in their location followed by a message. GPS, said Rasmussen,”is valuable but relatively uncommon in places where we work.”
Another program, called Mesh4X integrates data from a variety of sources, including Excel spreadsheets and Google maps, to create a “data mesh” that allows aid workers to synchronize data. It’s ideal in situations where multiple agencies — each with different communications and data analysis tools — need to collaborate. You can enter or view data on a cell phone or a PC and if Internet access isn’t available locally, you can plug a cell phone into a laptop to synchronize data.
The third product, InSTEDD Evolve allows teams of experts to analyze streams of information to better detect and respond to emerging threats.
InSTEDD was conceived by Larry Brilliant, former director of the Google Foundation and winner of the 2006 Ted Prize who spoke about the concept during his acceptance speech and later helped launch the organization with support from the Google Foundation.
It’s perhaps ironic that these applications were announced on the same day as Apple’s unveiling of its iPhone OS 3.0 software. Although most of the features Apple showed off for the new operating system are designed for productivity or fun, Apple did feature a couple of potentially life saving applications such Lifescan’s product that will integrate the iPhone or iPod Touch with a blood glucose monitoring device not only making it easier to take readings but to maintain a history and, if necessary, transmit that data to one’s care provider. Apple also hinted that there may be iPhone compatible blood pressure cuffs once the new operating system ships. One big difference between the InSTEDD product and the highly useful new iPhone applications is that people won’t have to shell out hundreds of dollars to use InSTEDD’s products. Not only are they free and open-source, but they work on the lowest common denominator of phones. Still both Apple and InSTEDD remind us that mobile technology can do a lot more than just help us communicate, be more productive and have phone. It can also help
Podcast: Larry speaks with Dr. Eric Rasmussen, CEO of InSTEDD
Google’s new Google Voice has a few rough edges but for many users, it could be a life-changing experience.
The service, a relaunch of GrandCentral, which Google bought in 2007, allows you to choose a local number, which will simultaneously ring up to six phones such as your cell phone, home phone, office phone, and the phone at that vacation home that most of us can only dream about.
In addition to forwarding your calls, it also takes voice messages that you can listen to on the Web, from a phone, or read, thanks to a new feature that transcribes voice messages and sends them as e-mail and text messages.
If you have multiple phones, having a single number to reach them all can make you and your callers’ lives a bit easier, and it can save space on your business card by not having to list separate numbers. The concept is simple: people are trying to reach you–not one of your phones–and Google Voice lets you decide how to route the calls.
The simultaneous ring feature can also be used by groups. Team HOPE, a support network for families of missing children, gives callers a GrandCentral number that rings the phones of several staff members to ensure that calls are always answered.
I’ve been using a very similar “simulring” feature on Vonage for several years and like the fact that I get to control where my calls are forwarded. Both Google and Vonage let you configure forwarding from the Web, but Google also allows you to assign a temporary forwarding number directly from the phone. That could come in handy, if you suddenly find your cell phone out of range but have access to another number where you can be reached.
The call-recording feature is very cool. At any time during an incoming call, you can press 4 to start the recorder and 4 again to stop it. That can be handy if you’re driving and someone is about to give you a phone number, address, or something else that you can’t write down.
The recording feature can also be used by podcasters to record phone calls that can be exported as MP3 files. And yes, there is an announcement to inform the other party that you’re recording the call.
You also get free conference calls. Up to four people can dial your phone number and can be patched into the call.
Cheap international calls
People who make occasional international calls from a cell phone will get incredible savings, compared to what the carriers charge. Using Google Voice to call a landline in London, for example, costs 2 cents a minute, compared to the whopping $1.49 that Verizon Wireless and AT&T charge, if you don’t purchase an international calling plan.
Even with a calling plan, the carrier rates, though much cheaper, are still higher than what Google charges. Making calls could be easier. You dial your Google number, press 2, and then punch in 011 plus the country code and phone number.
Bugs and rough edges
I have encountered a few annoying bugs in my day 1 experience with the service. For one, I’m not able to delete voice mail from my cell phone, despite following the instructions to press 7 to “archive” messages. Every time I call my voice mail, those messages are still there, as if they were new. Although the voice mail transcription service works, the message isn’t always delivered promptly. Sometimes it arrives in a few minutes, but at other times, it’s taken up to 20 minutes.
Although not a bug and not Google’s fault, it’s unfortunate that you can’t use your Google number as your outgoing caller ID when you dial directly from a cell phone. Although there are ways to spoof that, for security reasons, phone companies don’t allow it.
The problem is that people are in the habit of you calling back on your caller ID, which makes it harder to train them to dial your Google number. Your Google caller ID will show up correctly, however, if you initiate the call from your Google Voice Web page or if you dial your own Google number and then press 2 to dial out and type in the number. This process, I suspect, is more of a hassle than it’s worth.
There also isn’t yet a way to transfer an existing phone number to Google, so you’re stuck having to give out the new Google number. The service works only with U.S. phone numbers; you can’t forward calls overseas.
Because it’s an incoming service only, you can’t record outbound calls, and you can’t use Google Voice to add people to a call. They have to call you.
The service is currently available only to people who had previously signed up for GrandCentral. Google hasn’t announced when others can sign up.
Still, despite some flaws and limitations, this could turn out to be one of Google’s most beloved services. Being able to read your voice mail and having one number that rings all your phones is terrific, especially at the amazingly low price of free.
(This post has been updated to note that your Google caller ID will display correctly if you dial via the service’s Web site or use the service’s dial-out feature.)
Listen to Larry’s interview with Craig Walker, Google Voice guru and co-founder of GrandCentral
A new report from the London-based International Center for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence is yet another indication that the Internet is not the main culprit for society’s woes. The report, “Countering Online Radicalization: A Strategy for Action,” debunks the myth that the Internet is a major recruiting and training tool for extremists and would-be terrorists. The report focuses primarily on the United Kingdom but has implications for the United States and elsewhere.
The authors found “little evidence to support the contention that the Internet plays a dominant role in the process of radicalization.”
That’s not to say that extremists don’t ever use Web sites to reinforce their messages but that “self-radicalization and self-recruitment via the Internet with little or no relation to the outside world rarely happens, and there is no reason to suppose that this situation will change in the near future.”
It also found that “much of the jihadist Web presence was about ‘preaching to the choir’” and that “it is largely ineffective when it comes to drawing in new recruits.”
After examining a variety of ways to block, filter, or remove offensive sites, the report found that “many of the filtering technologies that are currently in use are either too crude or too expensive to operate” and that they fail to deal with the conversational part of the Internet.” Even though it may be possible to “remove, filter or hide content that is available from relatively static Web sites,” such efforts will be largely ineffective when it comes to “chat rooms, instant messaging, virtual worlds and networking sites.” Like the rest of us, it seems as if terrorists have discovered Web 2.0.
And the costs associated with efforts to ferret out such sites are more than just financial. There is the issue of false positives and that the concern that “blacklists would come to serve as virtual guides to all the material the government doesn’t want you to see.”
And, of course, there is the issue of creating a false sense of security by thinking that stamping out radical sites will in any way stop terrorism or interrupt the work of the networks which are mostly “real-world social relationships.” Any attempt to remove all potentially radicalizing content from the Internet “would generate social and political costs that would far outweigh the benefits that might be gained from having certain materials removed, especially in the context of a liberal democracy.”
The report advocates empowering online communities to self-regulate and enforce their own community standards and, to enhance media literacy to “improve young people’s capacity to deal with extremist internet content critically.”
Because of my work with Internet safety–another widely misunderstood issue– I found this report particularly interesting. Just as with terrorism, there are many in politics and the media who want to blame the Internet for problems that stem mostly from the real world. The implication that pedophiles rely heavily on the Internet to find and groom their victims is another widespread myth, considering that the vast majority of child-sexual assault victims know the perpetrator in the real world. As with terrorist Web sites, it’s easy to imagine incredible danger, but there is little evidence to back it up. And there are other parallels, including the observation that education and media literacy will go a long way toward solving the problems that do exist.
I’m also struck by the report’s reluctance to rely on technological solutions to keep us safe. I served on the Harvard Berkman Center’s Internet Safety Technical Task Force which, like this British study, came to the conclusion that technological tools–while promising–are not the best first line of defense against a problem that has its roots in the real offline world.
Larry talks about the report with KCBS News Radio’s Patti Reising and Jeff Bell
U.S. District Judge Thomas J. Marten gets it. He’s the judge who has allowed a reporter to Twitter court proceedings in a trial of six Crips gang defendants taking place in his Wichita, Kan., courtroom.
“The more we can do to open the process to the public, the greater the public understanding,” Marten told the Associated Press. And when asked about lawyers’ concerns that jurors might be influenced by the tweets, he said that jurors are always told to avoid broadcasts, newspaper, and online reports.
The tweets are from Ron Sylvester, a reporter from the Wichita Eagle who had previously used Twitter in state courts, but the use of a computer to live blog a federal case is extremely rare. You can follow his tweets here. During Friday’s session, he updated about every two minutes–sometimes more often
According to CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen, federal court procedures generally prohibit cameras, microphones, or computers. In an interview with KCBS radio in San Francisco, Cohen noted that there is an effort in Congress to create a rule that would give federal judges the green light to allow cameras if they want to. “It’s a matter of convincing the federal courts, which are notoriously slow to move forward on these sorts of things, to finally make the move,” he said.
Cohen said he thinks federal courts are likely to be less reluctant to allow twittering and blogging than to permit cameras or microphones. “There is a difference between broadcasting the audio or video of the witnesses testifying and allowing for reporters’ perception of that,” he said. “The difference between a reporter doing that in the courtroom and a reporter doing it during the breaks and phoning it in is not that great.”
I’m no legal expert, but I agree with Cohen. Trials in America are the public’s business and, with rare exceptions, what is said in a trial is a matter of public record. Requiring reporters to rely on hand-written notes or their memory and filing reports during breaks does nothing to add to our understanding of what is happening in the courtroom.
Although I’d also like to see live-steaming of most trials, I can understand why some lawyers and judges are reluctant to have witnesses testify in front of cameras. But I see no reason why they can’t be blogged, twittered or simply covered by journalists using computers and other modern tools of our trade.
It won’t grab headlines like the newest version of the 
