UAB Electrical and Computer Engineering EE 418

Twitter: The Heartbeat of Our Time

2010-04-25T15:35:00.001-07:00

It was a strange idea: a website that simply allows people to post short bursts of inconsequential information in 140 characters or less. Why would anyone be interested in publishing or reading daily minutiae? It seems like a ridiculous expression of modern narcissism. But since its creation in 2006, Twitter has generated more than $57 million for venture capitalists and has become the pulse of the online world.

In the midst of trivialities such as what a friend ate for breakfast, you can find helpful information about news, local events, or whatever piques your interest. Twitter filters through the vast amount of information on the Internet, providing a quick and personalized news feed from people who care about what you care about. You can form a list, which provides a stream of information only on a topic that interests you at the moment. Twitter can alert you about a bridge closing or an art festival going on in your area.

On a personal level, following your friends on Twitter gives you a type of E.S.P. as you absorb the ambient information. Each tweet may seem mundane and insignificant in itself, but the threads are woven together to reveal the tapestry of someone’s life. It is like being able to read someone’s mind at a distance. It would seem that trying to follow the continual updates of your friends would be an impossible task, but it is effortless to absorb ambient information. Unlike email, where you must open, assess, and respond to messages directed to you, tweets are easy to skim over and absorb. However, Twitter users should be careful that close, real-life relationships are not drowned in a veritable flood of Twitter stream. It is one thing to observe someone; it is quite another thing to know someone.

Beyond the personal level, Twitter has proved to be a powerful tool in times of crisis. It has been found that Twitter does a better job in getting out information than the traditional media. There are so many users that at any given time, there is usually someone who has heard about an event or even witnessed an event and tweets about it. The news spreads like wildfire. Twitter first gained international respect when it was used to spread political information and organize protests in the wake of the much-disputed June 2009 election. Using Twitter, Iranians circumvented the government blockage of text messaging. During the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Twitter was used to distribute vital information such as hospitals needing blood donations and emergency phone numbers.

From being scorned as a mundane triviality to becoming a vital tool for spreading information, Twitter has burst onto the modern world with surprising usefulness. It is, in a sense, a democratic platform for anyone who cares to tweet. The celebrity, the housewife, the factory worker, and the politician are all given equal voice. If you have something worthwhile to say, it will most likely be noticed. The conversation is continuous, and anyone can chime in. From the mundane to the monumental, Twitter truly is the heartbeat of our time.

The New Dot-Coms: Web Sharing

2010-04-25T13:08:00.001-07:00

You can tell the world how much you spend on your purchases, how many push-up reps you include in your workout, where you are at any given moment, and any thoughts you may have in between. Too much information? No one seems to think so. People seem to have an urge to publish every detail of their lives, and a new wave of Web start-ups are scrambling to offer them the opportunity. Blippy allows you to automatically share the details of every credit card transaction: the location, the amount, and the item. You can use Skimble to publish the details of your physical workout, and Foursquare to announce your precise location to the world. Dopplr shares your travel itinerary with friends, and you can share the social events you plan to attend along the way on Hot Potato. On DailyBooth, you can publish one photo of yourself per day. You can even publish your DNA profile on 23andMe. It’s a heyday for the exhibitionist. Do people really care that you spent $25 on a Snuggie at Wal-Mart this morning, are going to the dollar theater tonight, and are currently feeling irked by your co-worker snoring in the adjacent cubicle? Apparently, they do.

People don’t just use these Web applications to publish information about themselves, but to filter the vast amount of information on the Internet. People can search social websites to find out what real people feel about something in the news, a local restaurant, or even a humanitarian cause. Viewing the Internet through the eyes of your friends and even helpful strangers can make you feel more connected in a wireless world. Certainly, publishing your travel itinerary on Dopplr seems a bit loopy to the old-fashioned Internet user, but you can get travel trips from other savvy travelers, meet other people that share your interests, and find out when your travels intersect with your friends. Maybe you are hesitant to share the details of your credit card transactions online, but you can get beneficial consumer feedback by reviewing comments about items that interest you. By using these social websites, people find not just a comfortable dose of ego gratification, but also helpful advice and information.

So, what is in it for the entrepreneurs who are starting these social websites? The most obvious answer is advertising revenue. Once these websites have gained enough popularity to become valuable to advertisers, generate advertising revenue by including some promoted information among the shared information. For example, Twitter now has an advertising program called Promoted Tweets that will appear when Twitter users search for keywords that advertisers have bought to link to their ads. Also, these websites have ability to collect a vast amount of data published by users. Blippy plans to one day use this data directly to collect a commission when users are inspired to imitate their friends’ purchases. Other websites plan to monetize and resell collected data. Will this data actually be useful to other individuals or companies? Many venture capitalists are banking on it.

Health and Wireless Technology

2010-04-23T19:21:00.000-07:00

In the scientific community and in the media, there is much clamorous debate about whether electromagnetic frequency radiation from wireless devices can cause cancer. Thousands of articles have been written and millions of dollars of research has been performed, and so far the conclusion has been that the detrimental impact of electromagnetic frequency radiation on one’s health is insignificant, perhaps even nonexistent. The real menace lurks unnoticed in the shadow of sensationalist hype.

Every day, consumers use wireless technology while driving, without considering that distracted driving can be just as dangerous as drunk driving. If a user looks down at a mobile device for only five seconds at typical highway speed, he travels more than the length of a football field in only five seconds. Thus, wireless technologies that are visual and draw the driver’s eyes away from the road should be avoided. According to a study performed by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), dialing a cell phone increases the risk of collision by 2.8 times for light vehicles and 5.9 times for heavy vehicles and trucks that are more difficult to stop. The risk of merely talking or listening to a cell phone, however, was less significant than expected, increasing the risk of a crash or near-crash event by only 1.3 times.

The risk incurred by texting while driving makes the risk of talking on a cell phone while driving appear relatively insignificant by comparison. According to Rich Hanowski, who oversaw the study at VTTI, “texting while driving is in its own universe of risk.” For heavy vehicles, collision risk was a staggering 23 times greater when drivers were texting than when they were not texting. As the generation of frequent text message senders reach driving age, text messaging while driving has the potential to cause a crash epidemic.

The dangers of texting are not limited to distracted driving. The texting craze is rapant among teenagers; the average teenager sends and receives 80 messages a day, or nearly 2,300 per month. This can lead to repetitive stress injuries in the thumbs, similar to carpal tunnel syndrome in the wrists.

Texting also has an impact on the social development and education of teenagers. Rather than speaking to their friends face-to-face, many teenagers communicate predominantly at a distance through short text messages. It is quite possible that this can lead to under-developed communication skills, both written and oral. Psychologically, the pressure to answer text messages in a short time is high, leading to incomplete, fragmented thoughts and short attention spans. Finally, texting is difficult to regulate in the classroom, so many students send texts during classes rather than paying attention to the material presented.

These are the hidden dangers of wireless technology. They get no recognition because they aren’t as sensational as cancer-causing radiation. Thus, addressing these dangers should begin with increasing consumer awareness. Consumers should realize how texting while driving is as irresponsible as drunk driving because of the increased collision risk. Parents should recognize the detrimental effect texting can have on the social and educational well-being of their children and decide what limitations to place on their child’s texting habit. However, it should not be assumed that raising consumer awareness will guarantee more responsible use of wireless technology. Some consumers may be reluctant to change their habits, so legislation should be passed to ban texting while driving and perhaps even to ban cell phone use completely by teenage drivers.

Finally, new technologies should be developed to reduce the distractions of wireless technology in the car. Ford has already developed a technology called the Sync system, which uses voice commands to control cell phones and music devices in the car. Technologies like this should continue to be promoted in order to reduce or eliminate the need to visually interface with a wireless device while driving. With these solutions, consumers can reduce hidden risks without being deprived of the convenience provided by wireless technology.

EMF Radiation: Are We Safe?

2010-04-09T20:12:00.000-07:00

Millions of people today spend hours each week with a cell phone held to their ear. Thus, the potential danger of electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation emitted from cell phones is a topic of great concern and interest. The Internet is rife with tales of cell phones causing cancer and cooking the brain like an egg. One must sift through urban legends and lies to discover whether dangers are real or imaginary.

We are surrounded by EMF radiation every day…sources include everything from power lines to common household appliances. However, nearly all of these sources don’t exceed the safety threshold of EMF radiation, due to radiation decreasing significantly with operating distance. High voltage power lines can induce eddy currents in the body, but these currents are so small that they have no health effects. Microwaves exceed the safety threshold of EMF radiation, but they must adhere to strict insulation standards that keep the user from being exposed to dangerous levels of electromagnetic fields.

There has been some speculation that people who live in close proximity to cell phone base stations have a greater risk for cancer. However, research has been performed that shows that radio frequency exposures in close proximity to base stations varies between 0.002% and 2% of international safety guidelines. Also, radio frequencies are propagated horizontally rather than vertically from base stations, the high levels of radiation do not occur close to base stations, but are distributed horizontally outward. There have been some areas near base stations that have had a higher cancer incidence rate than average, but cancer does not have an even distribution and there are many possible contributing factors to cancer incidents in a given area.

Cell phones themselves remain the greatest concern for deleterious EMF radiation. Cell phones and health has been the topic of thousands of research articles, and evidence is being examined by over twenty expert panels and government agencies. There are many controversial and inconclusive studies, so it is a monumental task to sift through them and to determine which studies merit attention and which studies are merely sensational hype. First, there is concern that EMF radiation from cell phones will cause cancer, but there has been no correlation found in scientific studies between cell phone usage and cancer. If a correlation exists, the increase in risk is very small. In 2008, the World Cancer Report stated: “There is some evidence that long-term and heavy use of mobile cellular phones may be associated with moderate increased risks of [cancer]; however, evidence is conflicting and a role of bias in these studies cannot be ruled out…With reference to radio frequency, available data do not show any excess risk of brain cancer and other neoplasm’s associated with the use of mobile phones.”

A second concern is that EMF radiation from mobile phones will raise the temperature of sensitive biological tissue. This is the only effect of EMF radiation that has, in fact, been proven. However, the temperature increases by less than one degree Celsius.

The international consensus, according to the World Health Organization, is that “the overall evidence available to date does not suggest that the use of mobile phones has any detrimental effect on human health.” This is partially due to the adaptive power control feature of cell phones. If more power is needed to receive a signal, the power is adapted to a higher level; otherwise, the power level is reduced. Nonetheless, the maximum power level of a cell phone rarely exceeds 0.25 W, which is far from being dangerous. However, if consumers are especially concerned, they can use a hands-free device such as Bluetooth, which reduces EMF exposure by a factor of ten.

Although much of the publicity about EMF radiation is sensationalist hype, it still is not taken for granted as a potential risk to consumer health. The specific absorption rate (SAR) of electromagnetic fields is regulated by the Federal Communiciations Commision in the United States and the ICNIRP provides international safety guidelines. Although evidence suggests that EMF radiation poses no hazard to one’s health, research continues in order to establish this assumption with certainty and to silence forever the scare tactics of sensationalist pseudo-science.

iFeud: Google vs. Apple

2010-03-14T23:47:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the biggest technological feud of all time is brewing in Silicon Valley. Google has recently expanded its domain into producing Androids, smart phones that rival the Apple iPhone. Steve Jobbs, co-founder of Apple, feels that Google has picked his pocket and stolen the soul of the iPhone, violating the trust between the two companies. This month, Apple sued HTC, the maker of mobile phones that support the Android platform, claiming that iPhone patents had been violated. The dispute will undoubtedly escalate into a battle royale as Google aggressively challenges Apple for a well-established position in the smartphone market. Ultimately, however, this is more than a feud between two rival companies. It is a contention between two disparate philosophies: proprietary control vs. open source freedom.

Apple maintains tight control over its product in every aspect. The iPhone software is integrated into Apple hardware design and uses iTunes for setup, updates, and application management. Mobile providers of the iPhone must agree to certain user-friendly restrictions. Apple even determines where the iPhone will be sold. As a result, if something goes wrong, Apple will take full responsibility for their product. By restricting hardware and service providers, Apple tailors their product to have optimum performance. Consumers are assured that the iPhone will be user-friendly and reliable, although they may be irked by the lack of freedom.

By contrast, Google has no restrictions on hardware and service providers and has released the Android code under the Apache License. To further nurture innovation, Google hosted the Android Development Challenge, a competition in which the company offered a total of ten million dollars in prizes for developing the most innovative applications for the Android. This approach grants the freedom necessary for collective innovation and improvement. However, there are some disadvantages, as well. Unless Google sets limits on what will work on a particular instance of a platform, Google will have to commit to supporting anything on an open platform. This inefficiency does not guarantee the seamless integration of the Android. Consumers are seeking reliability, user-friendliness, and efficient performance in mobile phone devices. The Android is still in the development stage, so its fulfillment of these consumer requirements are not guaranteed. Also, with an open source environment, the responsibility for a problem is not readily apparent.

It is difficult if not impossible to say which mobile operating system is better. The Android provides versatility, multitasking, and the ability to customize. The iPhone offers reliability, a shallow learning curve, and a smoothly integrated product. Which is better? Ultimately, the choice lies in the personal preferences of the individual consumer. It seems that, despite the rankling feud, Android and the iPhone will continue to possess unique and equally important positions in the mobile phone market.

Online Privacy: Big Brother is Watching You

2010-02-28T22:26:00.000-08:00

Big Brother is watching you. And not only Big Brother, but also Google, tracking cookies, some Internet Service Providers, and social networking sites. A typical Internet user posts hundreds of pictures on facebook, gives away personal information online, and uses Twitter as a streaming feed of their every thought and activity. All the while, this unsuspecting Internet user does not know that tracking cookies are following their browsing habits, Google is recording search history, and malicious spyware lurks in the shadows to secretly collect personal information. In the blissful convenience of online transactions, in the frenzied scramble for self-publication, is the lack of privacy cause for concern?

The current modus operandi for protecting Internet privacy is severely inefficient and outdated. Sites state a privacy policy rife with obfuscation, knowing full well that users will not read them or will not understand them. Nonetheless, Internet users are left to browse at their own risk. Data harvesting is so commonplace and complex that new measures must be taken to protect user privacy on the Internet.

First, there should be more governmental regulations that restrict tracking of Web browsing in certain privacy-sensitive areas. However, there should be a careful balance of regulation. The collection of online data and profiling is a powerful economic tool in order to generate revenue. Some Internet Service Providers, such as British Telecom, use deep packet inspection technology to build up a browsing profile, which is sold for the purpose of targeted advertising. The ethical implications of this profiling procedure are a matter of debate.

Second, users should be better informed of privacy risks and should be offered convenient options to avoid them. Research has shown that users are concerned about their privacy, but do not consistently take actions to protect it; most likely because it is inconvenient to do so. The CyLab Usable Privacy and Security Laboratory (CUPS) of Carnegie Mellon University is researching and developing innovative ways to help promote Internet privacy. Realizing that privacy policies are often virtually invisible, the CUPS lab researches how users make privacy decisions and how to make information available to consumers. Projects include a Privacy Finder search engine and a “nutrition label” for privacy. The CUPS research team is also working on developing software for “privacy nudges”, which provides real-time reminders about the privacy implications of information the user is about to send.

Some computer scientists advocate re-designing the Web browser for Internet security. This complete overhaul approach would allow for anonymous browsing, and is actually feasible in the latest browser software. However, the economic and security implications of this solution need to be considered. Sometimes tracking is desirable…not only for targeted advertising, but also for following criminal activity.

In the meantime, as innovative research continues to help protect online privacy, remember this as you publish your date of birth on facebook or give your email address to a random website to claim a prize: Big Brother is watching, and he could be an identity thief.