The spy in your pocket

Intriguing (and scary) research paper entitled “PlaceRaider: Virtual Theft in Physical Spaces with Smartphones”. Abstract reads:

As smartphones become more pervasive, they are increasingly targeted by malware. At the same time, each new generation of smartphone features increasingly powerful onboard sensor suites. A new strain of sensor malware has been developing that leverages these sensors to steal information from the physical environment (e.g., researchers have recently demonstrated how malware can listen for spoken credit card numbers through the microphone, or feel keystroke vibrations using the accelerometer). Yet the possibilities of what malware can see through a camera have been understudied. This paper introduces a novel visual malware called PlaceRaider, which allows remote attackers to engage in remote reconnaissance and what we call virtual theft. Through completely opportunistic use of the camera on the phone and other sensors, PlaceRaider constructs rich, three dimensional models of indoor environments. Remote burglars can thus download the physical space, study the environment carefully, and steal virtual objects from the environment (such as financial documents, information on computer monitors, and personally identifiable information). Through two human subject studies we demonstrate the effectiveness of using mobile devices as powerful surveillance and virtual theft platforms, and we suggest several possible defenses against visual malware.

PetaPixel has a useful summary of the essence of the idea:

The app, designed by Robert Templeman of the US Naval Surface Warfare Center and scientists at Indiana University, can run secretly in the background of any smartphone running Android 2.3 (after an unsuspecting “victim” launches the app, of course). It makes decisions on when to surreptitiously snap photos based on things like time, location, and orientation.

Useless images (ones that are too blurry or dark) are filtered out, while the rest are beamed to a central server, which creates virtual 3D spaces based on the content of the images. These 3D spaces can then be browsed by the person behind the malicious “hack”.

The whole thing isn’t just conceptual: the scientists actually gave infected phones to 20 oblivious test subjects, who were asked to use the devices like they normally would in office environments. The results were pretty crazy: 3D models were successfully obtained from every one of the 20 subjects, and it was easier to glean sensitive information from the 3D models than from the original photos.

Google’s self-guided car isn’t just about automobiles

This morning’s Observer column.

At the ceremony in Mountain View, Google’s co-founder, Sergey Brin, announced the company’s intention to bring autonomous vehicles to the market in five years. In a pre-emptive attack on critics, he pointed out that autonomous vehicles would be significantly safer than human-controlled ones. That seems plausible to me: 40,000 people are killed every year in road accidents in the US and many, if not most, of those are caused by human error. “This has the power to change lives,” Brin said. “Too many people are underserved by the current transport system. They are blind, or too young to drive, or too old, or intoxicated.” He also argued that manual operation of cars was inefficient: autonomous vehicles could make better use of the road and reduce the size of car parks by fitting into smaller areas than humans could get them into.

Ignore the evangelism for a moment and think about what Google has achieved. Its engineers have demonstrated that with smart software and an array of sensors, a machine can perform a task of sophistication and complexity most of us assumed would always require the capabilities of humans. And that means our assumptions about what machines can and cannot do are urgently in need of updating.

This isn’t just about cars, by the way…

Normal technology, ergo incremental change

Thomas Kuhn portrayed scientific research as long periods of “puzzle-solving” based on an accepted paradigm, with occasional bouts of revolutionary upheaval during which one paradigm is replaced by another. (See my extended essay on Kuhn, celebrating the 50th anniversary of his great book.) Much the same goes on in technology, IMHO. At the moment, we’re in a phase of “normal” technology with everything based around the paradigm of a smartphone laid down by Apple with the iPhone. This graphic (from CultOfMac) makes the point well.

This NYTimes piece starts to make the same point, but then gets a bit lost. Still, good in parts.

The iPhone 5 that Apple introduced last week with only incremental changes seemed to signal that the industry has entered an era of technological bunny hops.

Faster chips, bigger screens and speedier wireless Internet connections are among the refinements smartphone users can count on year after year in new models, most of them in familiar rectangular packages. They are improvements, to be sure, but they lack the breathtaking impact the first iPhone had, with its pioneering fusion of software and touch screens.

“Since then, it has been kind of incremental,” said Chetan Sharma, an independent mobile analyst. “It does not feel like there is a big shift.”

Yep. See also this Observer column about how we’re stuck in an app-centric rut for the time being.

After cameraphones…

… this. According to PetaPixel the spec is: it runs Android 4.1 Jelly Bean, a 16 megapixel 1/2.3″ BSI CMOS sensor, a 21x f/2.8-5.9 23-480mm (35mm equiv.) lens, a 4.8-inch HD LCD screen, a minimal smartphone-esque design, a 1.4Ghz quad core processor, 8GB of internet storage, ISO of up to 3200, and 3G/Wi-Fi or 4G/Wi-Fi.

Doesn’t make calls but, hey, who uses a smartphone for voice anyway?

Nice as (Raspberry) Pi

Quentin’s built a really neat gadget using a Raspberry Pi. The video explains the general idea. This blog post discusses some of the software issues.

It’s a lovely example of what happens when you put powerful kit in the hands of smart people.

Whatever happened to Microsoft?

This morning’s Observer Networker column.

Here’s a question you don’t often hear asked: whatever happened to Microsoft?

To many people, it will seem a silly question. Microsoft, they point out, is still around – with a vengeance. It’s a huge company worth $250bn (£160bn) that employs 94,000 people worldwide and earns vast profits. (OK, it made a loss last quarter for the first time in its history, but that’s because it had to write off $6bn it blew in 2007 on a company called aQuantive which turned out to be a turkey.) Microsoft dominates the market for PC operating systems and Office software, products that are still licences to print money: its Xbox game console sweeps all before it; its server software is a big seller in the corporate world. In 2012, the company’s net revenues totalled $74bn.

[…]

So why does it remind me of General Motors around the time that Toyota arrived in the US automobile market?

LATER: Nice meditation on the same theme by Karlin Lillington in her Irish Times column.

Broadband in Ruritania — and elsewhere

This morning’s Observer column.

A document has come into my possession. It appears to emanate from the government of Ruritania or some other insignificant country. The cover is illustrated by a low-resolution smartphone photograph of an out-of-focus bedspread, but this homely imagery is offset by the brave rhetoric inside.

“We should have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015,” it declares. “That’s a challenging goal but it’s one that we can and must achieve. It’s vital for the growth of the economy – especially to small businesses that are so often the engines of innovation.”

Quite so. The government of Ruritania is “committed to ensuring the rapid rollout of superfast broadband across the country. Rural and remote areas of the country should benefit from this infrastructure upgrade at the same time as more populated areas, ensuring that an acceptable level of broadband is delivered to those parts of the country that are currently excluded.” It is also believed something called “two-way video conferencing” may encourage Ruritarians to work from home.

There is much more in this vein, together with talk of “a world-class communications network” that will help the economy grow.

Next in line for obsolescence: sports photographers

From Wired.com.

At this year’s Olympic games, Reuters, in addition to its army of traditional photographers, will have 11 robots set up in places no shooter would otherwise be able to get. Photographers like Reblias are used to fixed remote-operated camera systems grabbing otherwise difficult shots. However, what Reuters will do is a whole new ball game: Their robotic camera system, armed with Canon’s newest body, the 1-DX, will have three-axis control and have a photographer at a computer operating its every movement with a joystick.

Developed by Fabrizio Bensch and Pawel Kopczynski, the 11 robo-cams at various venues will use a wide range of lenses: a 24-105mm, a 70-200mm and telephotos up to 400mm. In addition to three axes of movement, the cameras’ pilots control shutter speed, sensitivity and image size. Photos instantly stream into Reuters’ remote editing system, Paneikon, and are moved to clients just minutes after being captured.

Looking for a way to get dramatic shots at new angles, the Berlin-based photographers dreamed up the idea in 2009 and tested a two-axis prototype last year in the World Athletic Championships in Daegu, South Korea. The London Olympics will be the first showing of the three-axis control, and the first time using more than just one robotic camera.

“We are essentially able to put cameras and photographers where they’ve never been before, capturing images in ways they’ve never been captured,” Bensch said. “For example, I’ve installed a robotic camera unit on a truss, 30 meters high — in a position where no photographer has been in a previous Olympics.”

Oh well: sports photography was a nice job while it lasted.

Venture Capitalists: the slash-and-burn artists of technology

Eventually the generation that Fred Wilson [of Union Square Ventures] leads will fall behind, as did the one led by John Doerr at Kleiner-Perkins. What they will be replaced with is one that is not only aware of the usability of products, but also has a sense for the flow of open technologies to fuel the ecosystem. These VCs will make side investments in technologies that are not intended to produce an IPO or acquisition, rather are intended to produce a new layer of technology that a whole generation of startups can feed off. At the same time, some percentage of each fund will be plowed into programs designed to generate the next layer after that.

The VCs will tell you that it’s not their business to fund innovation for the sake of innovation. That’s as short-sighted as saying that an oil company wouldn’t invest in exploration or research into new extraction methods. Or if you got good service at a restaurant you wouldn’t leave a 15 percent tip. Of course you don’t have to do either. But if you don’t do some exploration or leave decent tips, you’ll be out of business one day, or get hot coffee spilled in your lap.

I’ve always felt that as long as Moore’s Law is operating, and it shows no sign of letting up, that we aren’t doing our jobs if the tech industry isn’t tracking its growth in a linear fashion. The boom-bust cycle is a product of the lack of vision of the VCs. Or our over-reliance on VCs to lead the investment decisions of the tech industry.

This post by Dave Winer is interesting because of its rarity. Insiders in the technology industry rarely write or talk in public about venture capitalists, probably because they think they might need them some day. Or they believe in appeasement (defined by Winston Churchill as “being nice to a crocodile in the hope that he will eat you last”.) As a result the public has a peculiarly rosy — and misleading — impression of them. There are, of course, good VCs: I know a few. But there are an awful lot of creepy, destructive ones too. One of the lovely stories in Michael Lewis’s great book about Jim Clark concerns Clark’s decision to exclude from the Netscape IPO the VC who had screwed him at Silicon Graphics. The guy committed suicide as a result, and I remember thinking at the time that it looked like a fitting conclusion to a sordid career.