Category: Communications

16 year old Miami highschool student hacks school system

Big Data, Business, Communications, Data Management & Networks, Digital Systems Technology, Education, Government, North America, Politics, Regulation News, Software, Technology, Technology News

It’s every kids dream for school to be cancelled, but for many students 2020 has already been stressful enough. Students in Florida, USA however were shocked to find themselves locked out of their online classrooms come the first day of term this September. Having to adapt to new online learning environments already, students found themselves rightfully confused by their failed attempts for online access. 

So what happened?

Miami-Dade Schools’ online classes were brought down, a crash of the entire school system that saw students locked out of their online classes for the first three days back to school. Students and teachers alike however were taken a back to find out this was not the result of a complex hacking attack or situation: it was a 16 year student from the same school district. An unlikely teenager to carry out the attack, the result made national and international news headlines.

The 275,000 students in the school’s districts who tried to log on that morning found the system to be overloaded by data. The 16 year old junior in high school – who’s personal details have not been released – was called ‘polite’ and ‘intelligent’ by his neighbours. One neighbour, a Ben Herrera was quoted by the Miami Herald as saying: “He’s an awesome kid, […] What saddens me is how he’s going to be portrayed, and we’ve got to realize with this pandemic that kids are bored, isolated, stuck with too much time on their hands and maybe they do something irresponsible.” 
While neighbours might be showing sympathy for the boy, the school district is persuing their multiple charges of Distributed Denial-of-Service attacks. The boy claims his attack was constituted from a free and easily available free software download, which begs the question: why was the My School Online learning platform so vulnerable to an amateur attack?

Trump pooh-poohs potential TikTok deal

Big Data, Business, China, Communications, General, Government, Info Tech, Main, North America, Social Media, Technology News

The TikTok saga continues in the US, with Donny Trump expressing a lack of enthusiasm over the prospect of American tech company Oracle taking over the popular video app (or at least part of it). Details of Oracle’s bid are expected any time now, but Trump has already poured cold water on the idea.

“I’m not prepared to sign off on anything. I have to see the deal,” Trump told reporters at the White House Wednesday.“It has to be 100 percent as far as national security is concerned.”

Trump, along with many others in Washington, maintains that TikTok represents a threat to US national security. The argument is that ByteDance has a sort of 2 way radio going with the Chinese Communist Party, collecting data from American TikTok users (there are reportedly 100 million of them) and then handing it over to Beijing.

ByteDance denies that such a relationship exists but, needless to say, Washington isn’t convinced. In August Trump has announced that he will ban the app in the US unless ByteDance sells it to an American company. In addition to the privacy concerns, Trump alleged that TikTok “censors content that the Chinese Communist Party deems politically sensitive.” It also serves as a platform for political disinformation, he charged.

At first it appeared that Microsoft would save the day, but talks with ByteDance fell through, opening the door for Oracle.

The word now is that Oracle is seeking a minority stake in the Chinese company, rather than taking it over completely. AP reports that, according to the terms of this deal, ByteDance would give control of user data to Oracle and allow the US corporation to review—but not author—code and updates.

Trump stated he would be against such a deal.

“Conceptually, I can tell you I don’t like that,” he said. “If that’s the case, I’m not going to be happy with that.”

Trump was apparently hoping the US government would get a piece of the deal, and was distraught to be told otherwise.

“Amazingly, I find that you’re not allowed to do that,” he told reporters. “If they’re willing to make big payments to the government they’re not allowed because … there’s no legal path to doing that. How foolish can we be?”

The deadline for a deal is 20 September. Whether or not that can be extended is unclear.

Australian police take a page out of the Gestapo playbook

Australia, Big Data, Communications, General, Government, Health

There’s nothing worse than being rousted by the fuzz when you’re in your pajamas—and pregnant to boot. Zoe-Lee Buhler, a 28 year old from Ballarat, knows what that’s like. On Wednesday Buhler was confronted in her home by Victorian police who arrested her for encouraging Australians to protest the government’s lockdown policies on Facebook.

She has been charged with the crime of incitement, which means Australian Federal Police (AFP) police checks aren’t not going to be her friend going forward.

Here is what “incitement” looks like in 2020: “Anyone from Ballarat please join us in our fight for freedom and human rights!” Buhler posted that on Facebook 30 August.

Footage of Buhler’s arrest was livestreamed on Facebook and has been viewed millions of times. The video begins with Buhler, who is clad in pink flannel pajamas, asking the officers to produce a search warrant, which they subsequently do.

“You’re under arrest in relation to incitement,” one of the officers says.

Buhler expresses shock and, as she is handcuffed, explains that she has an appointment for an ultrasound in one hour.

When the officer tells her that she is being arrested for posting about anti-lockdown demonstrations on Facebook, Buhler protests that she wasn’t violating any laws by doing so.

“You are, actually,” the officer replies. “You are breaking the law. That’s why I’m arresting you.”

Buhler and her husband both suggest that the police allow them to remove the offending Facebook post rather than take her to jail, which they maintain is “unfair” and “ridiculous.” But that doesn’t deter the officer, who states that, in accordance with the search warrant, they will be seizing any computers or mobile devices they find in the house, regardless of who they belong to.

Reminder: this took place in Australia, not Bahrain.

Police later announced that “Those still thinking of attending the protest in Ballarat on Saturday can expect a swift and firm response from police. We will have no hesitation in issuing $1,652 fines to anyone who is breaching the restrictions on the day, or making arrests if necessary.”

Reporters caught up with Buhler the following day. She expressed regret and accused herself of suffering “a bit of a bimbo moment.”

UK becomes the next country to ban Chinese tech company Huawei

Australia, Big Data, Business, China, Communications, Data Management & Networks, Digital Systems Technology, Europe, Social Issues, Technology, Technology News

Following the ban of Huawei from Australia back in August 2018, the Chinese giant tech firm has been making headlines in the UK recently in a recent controversial battle. The debate stems from a wide range of concerns, with some conspiracy theories ranging from the 5g network it was working on being the cause of the coronavirus, or rumours of it being able to supposedly break down blood cells like acid, to more serious concerns regarding data privacy. 

Similar to the decision from the Australian government back in 2018 to ban Huawei and fellow Chinese firm ZTE from supplying Australia with 5g technology. The ban came over much discussion and investigation into the companies as a security risk. This sentiment has not been successfully dissipated by Huawei, who have continued to face trouble around the world. At the time the responded in a tweet with the following statement: ‘We have been informed by the Govt that Huawei & ZTE have been banned from providing 5G technology to Australia. This is a [sic] extremely disappointing result for consumers. Huawei is a world leader in 5G. Has safely & securely delivered wireless technology in Aust for close to 15 yrs’. 

The most recent trouble comes as Huawei is banned from the UK from taking part in setting up its 5g wireless network for heightened connectivity. With much debate and protest from both sides the decision was made in July 2020 that there would be no more sale of Huawei technology in the UK after December of this year, and removed entirely from Britain’s 5g network by 2027, it was announced by the government. 

The decision has been suggested to be influenced by geopolitical tensions between the USA and China currently, with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declaring last month that “The tide is turning against Huawei as citizens around the world are waking up to the danger of the Chinese Communist Party’s surveillance state.” 

Let them eat packages

Business, Communications, Data Management & Networks, General

As of this writing, nearly 640,000 people around the world have died from COVID-19. Many millions more have lost their jobs due to the pandemic. A good percentage of those jobs are gone for good. Scientists are scrambling for a vaccine as “second waves” of the virus sweep across the globe. The overall damage caused by the pandemic is incalculable and much of it is irreversible.

In other news, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos made $13 billion in one day this week. That’s not $13 billion for his company—it’s $13 billion for Bezos himself. His net worth now stands at a modest $186 billion.

As Business Insider reports, Bezos is now worth more than some of the largest corporations in the world, including Nike, Costco, McDonald’s, and IBM. The article continues: “His wealth is more than double the market caps of Starbucks ($88 billion) and Goldman Sachs ($73 billion), and more than triple the market caps of General Electric ($62 billion) and Target ($60 billion).”

I think it is safe to say that Bezos has achieved Marie Antionette status. Unless you’re a technocrat, working for Amazon is a living hell. Go ahead and read some of the stories out of Amazon’s sweat shops—or “fulfillment centers” in corporate-speak. Last year the Atlantic published an article detailing how often Amazon workers are injured on the job.

“Taken together, the rate of serious injuries for [23 Amazon warehouse] facilities was more than double the national average for the warehousing industry: 9.6 serious injuries per 100 full-time workers in 2018, compared with an industry average that year of 4.”

In other words, if you’re an Amazon “fulfillment worker,” you have a 10 percent chance of getting seriously injured when you’re at work.

The Atlantic piece goes on to list some of the other ways in which Amazon abuses and exploits its workforce. For example, mandatory 12-hour shifts and impossible packaging quotas. One worker—a disabled veteran—was fired after performing at a rate of 98.45 percent. (“He had to pick 385 small items or 350 medium items each hour.”)

There’s also the well-known fact that Amazon traces the movements of its warehouse workers—right down to the positioning of their hands—by making them wear bracelets, and uses a heat map to show which of its locations are most at risk of unionizing. That includes its pretentious Whole Foods locations.

Last month demonstrators put a mock guillotine outside of Bezos’ DC mansion. The sentiment is understandable. Where is Robespierre when you need him?

Tick-tock, tick-tock: time is running out for TikTok in the US

Asia, Australia, Big Data, Business, China, Communications, Countries, Data Management & Networks, Digital Systems Technology

Here is a syllogism: TikTok is owned by a company called ByteDance. ByteDance is based in Beijing. Therefore, Washington is moving to ban TikTok in the United States.

Just this week the US House of Representatives voted to prohibit federal employees, including senators and reps, from using TikTok on government devices. Politico reports that the amendment (it’s part of a $741 billion “defense” budget bill) passed comfortably—336-71.

Why any federal employee would want to use TikTok in the first place is beyond me. Last I checked it was an app for preteens. But I suppose that is neither here nor there.

The point, according to Washington, is that TikTok represents a unique national security threat. Asked whether Americans ought to use TikTok, America’s top diplomat—the fleshy Mike Pompeo—said:

“Only if you want your private information in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party.”

The argument being that TikTok collects its users’ data and then shares said data with the sordid Politburo. It’s not a frivolous concern, and TikTok’s insistence that it would never ever do such a wicked thing is not impressive. It’s just really hard to agree with Mike Pompeo, who went on to say that banishing TikTok, along with other Chinese apps, is “something we’re looking at.”

Well, this has reportedly engendered a frenzy in the American business world. A group of investors is considering purchasing a majority stake in the app with a view to saving it. TikTok hasn’t commented on this development yet, simply stating that “We are very confident in the long-term success of TikTok and will make our plans public when we have something to announce.”

But even if such a change in majority ownership were to occur, Washington probably wouldn’t be mollified. Paul Triolo, head of global tech policy at Eurasia Group, put it this way to CNN:

“It does not seem likely that US investors alone buying a majority ownership stake would satisfy CFIUS or broader US government concerns about the Chinese ownership piece and the potential for US personal data to find its way back to Beijing.”

TikTok is under fire elsewhere too. India has already banned it and other Chinese apps following a deadly skirmish between Indian and Chinese soldiers along their mutual border in the Himalayas.

NEW NAME FOR MCT

Communications

15 November 2004 by Richard Chirgwin

But Macquarie Telco’s Big News is in Services

Last Thursday (November 11) Macquarie Corporate Telecommunications unveiled a new identity – as Macquarie Telecom – and also lifted the lid on plans for a new range of services based on its own access network.

Faced with every telco’s problem – how to protect margin in a world where access to the customer is governed by Telstra’s access network – MT is to start creating services based on an Ethernet access network.

MT’s CEO David Tudehope said the company has spent 12 months planning its own metropolitan access network.

In corporate services, he said, “The critical success factor is the quality of the network”, and by creating an access network, “We create a real opportunity for business and corporate clients.”

The MT access network will embrace all of its existing offerings, but where possible, the access network will embrace a planned fibre rollout to customer premises. This, according to (title) Glen Noble, will depend on the economics.

Those economics, however, are helped by MT’s existing customer base. Noble told CommsWorld that instead of having to build a network and then recruit customers, MT can migrate an existing customer base to the access network. All-MT network rollout will chiefly focus on fibre loops in CBD areas, Noble said.

An Ethernet-based fibre rollout means MT will be able to support converged customer connections, with voice, data and video on a single QoS-enabled high speed customer tail. Noble also said the company will consider expanding the definition of “on-network” traffic; for example, allowing corporates using the MT access network for VoIP traffic to make on-network calls between each other.

TELSTRA VS CRAZY JOHN’S –

Communications, Technology

30 November 2004 by Richard Chirgwin

Are Wholesale Services `Up to Scratch’?

The lawsuit between Crazy John’s and Telstra is, in my mind, just as important to the privatisation debate as the ongoing and pointless discussion about whether services are ‘up to scratch’.

When Australians think of telecommunications services, they’re apt to think of what reaches the retail consumer. However, in a contestable market, with a wholesale-retail split, services are also what reaches the retailer from its upstream wholesaler.

What’s sold at wholesale is quite different from retail, and not just in volume.

The retailer buys a lot of things from wholesalers, but they all add up to this: retailers are buying the ability to make money. They’re buying the services themselves (mobile, fixed, or data); they’re sometimes buying a supply of physical products; they’re buying some level of tech support to keep the services running.

And most of all, they’re buying an income stream.

That income stream depends on accurate record-keeping – a point brought home years ago in the One.Tel collapse – but it’s still one of the most difficult and challenging parts of the wholesale-retail relationship.

In part, that’s because Australia is still relatively new to the wholesale-retail business. The Telecom of old had no need for the kind of wholesale business IT systems it now needs: there was no retail sector.

That changed throughout the 1990s, but we’re still only into perhaps the second or third generation of wholesale business process in this country.

The retail business, however, continues to change much faster than the systems which support it. This is partly because the wholesale market has become so contestable. When Telstra was the only source of wholesale business, products were available in ‘any colour, so long as it’s black’. Wholesale competition has brought with it the need to differentiate products; this, in turn, makes the products and the relationships more complex.

Herein lies the importance of the Telstra-Crazy John’s court case.

It’s possible that Australia’s telecommunications market is too monolithic for true contestability, at least for another decade to come.

Whether or not that’s true, a contestable market demands that the wholesale-retail relationship functions properly.

In trying to determine whether or not Telstra’s services are ‘up to scratch’, the federal government is gazing with a fixed stare at rural and regional services – not even the whole of the carrier’s retail business.

As a result, the government is ignoring whether or not the carrier’s wholesale services – upon which the storefront retailers depend – are also ‘up to scratch’. This seems strange, because most retailers (by number if not by value) are the kind of business which is supposed to be the Liberal Party’s core constituency: the owner-operated, probably franchise-based SME.

The Crazy John’s lawsuit is more important than the industry thinks.

IN DEFENCE OF ZIGGY

Business, Communications

02 December 2004 by Richard Chirgwin

The Low Share Price is Structural, Not Personal

If nobody’s listening, I’ll tell you a secret: it’s not Ziggy’s fault.

Some things were Ziggy’s fault – the Asian expeditions, the Fairfax follies, the conviction that Telstra should become a dotcom.

But the share price? Only a brain donor blames the share price on Ziggy. A brain donor – and an institutional investor.

For a while now, a rumour that Ziggy was going to leave Telstra would send the share price upwards; this was the institutions’ signal that they wanted Ziggy gone. The reasoning, instantly seized upon by the business pages that the institutions were blaming Ziggy for the low share price.

They wanted to send that signal, but they were lying through their teeth, and worse still, they’re lying as a cartel. With the lie endorsed by all the institutions (whose representatives can be relied to ask the most clue-free questions any journalist can ever hope to hear), all they need do is act in concert and cast their vote.

The reason Telstra’s share price is between $4.50 and $5.00 is because that’s what the company is worth . The reason it was sold for a much higher price is that the government fudged its value, because the buyers were captive to the stupid idea that a utility stock was somehow magically transformed into a growth stock by the Internet; because the world believed that ‘Internet traffic is doubling every 180 days/three months/six months’. All of this was endorsed by the same goons who now play with the share price to punish an individual.

Three lies, put together, inflated the share price, which the government liked because it let them pay down government debt.

Back to Ziggy. He went along for the ride, and therefore deserves his share of the criticism, but for the institutions to personalise the share price in this way is reprehensible; particularly because it lets the institutional fee-farmers continue pretending they had nothing to do with the whole Telstra share debacle.

Why are the instututions lying to us?

First, because they don’t want the blame sheeted home to the government. They’ve eaten well at the hands of Canberra, and don’t want to ever close a door in Parliament.

Second, because blaming the CEO lets them divert attention away from their own role. The institutions were just as enthusiastic at priming the “Telstra is worth $10” as anyone else. They were either suckers or knaves.

Third, because most of all they want the Telstra privatisation to keep yielding fees for the financial industry.

Hence the share price rose on the news of rumours.

Strangely, when the reality came the first response was a fall in the share price.

My bet is that the institutions knew damn well that a change at the top is not going to help any of the things they want. It’s not going to roll back the competitive market, which caps Telstra’s growth capacity. It’s not going to materially affect the schedule of the privatisation fee-fest. It’s not going to change the economy of telecommunications, or the need to spend money on network upgrades, or the fact that there’s only so much fat you can cut from the carrier before you cut services.

In other words, with Ziggy’s departure, the truth becomes clear: it was personal. On rumours of his imminent resignation, the institutions gave the world their view of Ziggy the person, and pumped up the share price. When the rumour became fact, the real view became clear, and the share price went down.

Ziggy is responsible for some things. But the depressed Telstra share price? The institutions are far more responsible – and they don’t resign.