Bradley Howard's Blog

Why do age restrictions fail?

Feb 23, 2012 at 2:43pm

If a 10 year old child walked into a cinema and wanted to watch an 18 certified film, they wouldn't be able to buy the ticket. If a 10 year old child walked into a video rental shop (remember those?) and wanted to rent an 18 certified film, they wouldn't be served.

So I was pretty surprised recently when I discovered that I had been playing Battlefield 3, accidentally using my 10 year old son's XBox account. My son plays on the XBox much more than I do, and leaves his account signed in when he switches the console off.

I guess that in the (10 year old style!) excitement of receiving Battlefield 3 through the post one day, I switched on the XBox and started playing without checking which account was logged in.

Back to the original point, my XBox knows that my son is a minor because his age is part of his profile and Xbox doesn't allow him to accept new terms and conditions - it always asks for me to log in. So why does it allow him to play an 18 rated game?

In reality, it's easier for the XBox to block someone by age than the cinema or video shop, but in reality I suspect games sales would plummet. That's no defence to the games companies though.

And finally for the record, my son isn't allowed to play Battlefield or Call of Duty whatsoever...

tags:

XBox, games, legal,

0 Comments

A digital method to deal with illegal cyclists and motorists

Oct 4, 2011 at 9:28am

35746_443088797316_515682316_6276009_6815815_n

Although the weather is extremely warm for autumn in London, it’s still getting dark earlier during the day and I’m now cycling home from work after the sun has set. I cannot believe how many cyclists don’t have lights on their bikes, and for some reason it really irritates me.

As a rough guess I thought about a quarter of all cyclists between the City of London and my home in North West London don’t have any lights. Tonight I counted them (there isn’t a lot more to do when cycling 13 miles):

9 cyclists without lights from a total of 21 bikes
That’s over 40% of the cyclists I saw this evening didn’t have lights on when it was dark.

Unrelated (well it will be related later on) Mrs H and I hardly watch any television (it goes part way to explain how we have four children…) yet one of our favourite programmes is Road Wars, which follows a team of police officers who drive top end sports cars around at high speed pulling over offenders. And one of the most common offences is no insurance.

One in fifteen cars in the UK are uninsured. £30 of every premium goes towards a central organisation called MIB to cover drivers who can’t claim from an uninsured third party.

Back to my bicycle.

I started thinking that the Police should team up with a cycle retailer and stand at pretty much any junction in the City of London pulling over any cyclists without lights. Instead of fining the cyclists, they should make them pay £30 for a set of lights. That’s got to be better than an on the spot fine, because the outcome is better for the Police (less accidents) and the cyclist (less accidents!).

I have a similar solution for drivers with no car insurance. The Police should carry a laptop or a tablet computer and when they pull over an insured driver, instead of the £5,000 fine, penalty points and seizing the vehicle, they should offer an option for the driver to buy the insurance on the spot. Just hand over the laptop with a comparison engine and watch the driver buy a policy.

One of the tactics that uninsured drivers use is to buy insurance and cancel the policy or direct debit after the first month, so one of the terms of this on-the-spot-insurance-cover should be to pay for a full year.

For any other complex social problems, send me an email just before I get on the bike in the evening!

tags:

bicycles, legal,

2 Comments

Identity crisis

Sep 7, 2011 at 12:51pm

The photo above was taken eight years ago and shows my parents and my identical twin daughters Shelley and Natalie. I'm pretty certain that it's my dad on the left and my mum on the right, however I can't tell which baby is Shelley or Natalie.

Before I joined IMG I worked for a Finnish telco company called Sonera. At Sonera we enabled consumers to use mobile phones to 'sign' - to prove their identity. We used the SIM card in the phone as a secure, unique system. At the time (late 1990s) the system was designed from the ground up to be secure enough to sign mortgage papers.

As the Internet has matured over the last few years, the issue of identity hasn't gone away, however it has changed subtly. It's now possible to create an anonymous Twitter user, build up a few hundred followers and start a malicious rumour. This is why I find it hard to digest newspapers who reference Twitter for their news content.

It is quite secure for consumers to run a Google search for a product, land on a site they've never seen before, and hand over their credit card details. The main reason for this security is that your card issuer (bank) will provide a level of reimbursement if the website fail to deliver the goods.

However we are soon going to find that it's necessary for end users, the consumers, to have a valid identity.

We've read how some of the people accused in the British riots have been banned from using their Facebook account (which is ridiculous because they probably phoned someone as well, yet their mobile isn't being revoked, but I digress). There is nothing to stop that person from creating a new Facebook account straight away. In fact, Facebook's friend suggestion tool is so accurate that it will help recreate all that user's friends as well.

In order for the Internet to truly grow up and allow us to vote online and perform all the duties we've previously done in the Post Office, we need to sort out digital identities. Digital identities in the UK have always been seen in a negative light, despite the irrational xenophobic fear whipped up by some of our national newspapers. However we're going to need to jump over this fear if we can issue these digital identities.

These digital identities will be used to sign into most websites and will work across mobile, web, TV and anything else that springs up.

In order to apply for a digital identity, financial services organisations will require stringent checks - just like a passport, but probably with someone physically checking the photos and documents face to face. This is why Facebook Connect isn't the right platform for an Internet-wide ID platform.

The Internet is truly global, and the identities will need to work globally too. They will probably be government run, although it's feasible for some of the larger financial services companies to run them.

Like so many technology vendors, Sonera was doing the right thing, just at the wrong time - about 15 years too early.

tags:

Facebook, digital media, ecommerce, identity, legal, mobile, payment,

1 Comment

Voice mail hacking vs website security

Jul 29, 2011 at 1:26pm

Whilst I think the actions of the journalists at News of the World (and perhaps other 'press' organisations) have been totally guilty of their conduct, I find it interesting how the phone companies have managed to get away relatively unscathed.

When a website user database is hacked, the press consider the lack of security of the website to be the guilty party. In the voicemail scenario, I've hardly seen any commentary around the mobile phone operators.

There are two main ways of hacking voicemails:

The first method is to use the remote dial in number to access voicemails, enter the phone number of the person you're trying to gain access to, and guess the PIN code. The PIN is usually 4 digits, and companies simply 'brute force' their way into mailboxes. Brute force is simply a case of guessing 0000, then 0001 and so on.
The second method is to clone a user's phone number using a proxy-style service. It's very simple - you dial a phone number (the proxy) and you'll hear a message asking what number you want your phone number to appear to be to the person you're about to call. You stay on the call and then enter the phone number you want to call, and the recipient sees the 'new' phone number you entered earlier. A number of offshoring cold call sales companies use this type of service to make it look like they are calling you from the UK. Voicemail hackers phone a proxy, enter the phone number of the person they are trying to hack, and the mobile phone voicemail thinks the incoming call is from that victim's number (and there's no need to enter a PIN number).

Neither of these methods are particularly elaborate. A simple Google search provides a long list of companies who offer the proxy service (although to be fair all the ones I went to said they didn't allow the service to be run for UK phone numbers).

In my opinion, the phone companies should do the following:

Every time the remote voicemail is accessed a text message should be sent to the phone number. At the very least, each unsuccessful PIN number attempt should send a text message to the mobile warning of the attempt.
If the wrong PIN number is entered more than say, four times, the voicemail should be "locked".
Phone companies should be able to work out if a phone number has been cloaked (run through the proxy) more accurately.

tags:

legal, mobile, news, web security,

0 Comments

Why Internet scams are becoming harder to detect

Jul 21, 2011 at 9:04am

Internet scams are becoming more and more elaborate and easier to fall for, according to the Howard household. Here are two scams that we've experienced in the last couple of months:

Trial products

Mrs H signed up for a trial product which arrived quickly and was good value at £29.95. The next month we noticed a number of significant transactions on our credit card (we always use the credit card for Internet purchases so that we can appeal to the credit card company, rather than having to claim back money into our own debit account).

We called the company we'd bought the trial from, and they asked us to look at the terms and conditions of the trial.

How often do you check the terms and conditions on ecommerce sites? How often do you even click through to the terms and conditions page?

On this site, number one term was "the cost of the product will be £200 from the second month".

The second term was that we would be automatically registered and charged for other products.

Luckily, the person on the phone was extremely rude and ended up putting the phone down on us. I called the credit card company who, as soon as I said I think we've fallen for a scam, they said "Is it xxxxxxx company, because we've had a number of complaints about them, however they are adamant they are not hiding anything, it's all in the terms and conditions. It's morally wrong, but not illegal."

I then wrote an email to the company and focussed on the rude phone support rather than the product, and they agreed to refund the additional items and the second month's "full" cost.

The trust had already been broken and I asked the credit card company to reinssue our cards with new numbers, so there was no way we could be charged at a later point.

A few key lessons from this:

Read the terms and conditions. Even if it's a quick glance, it's important to read them.
Always use a credit card and not your debit card for Internet purchases.
If you regularly buy from Internet sites, I think it's worth changing your card number from time to time (even if it's every couple of years).

Viruses

We haven't had a virus on our home PC for several years. I make sure our anti-virus software is regularly up to date and configured correctly. The kids also have parental controls on their accounts, which prevents them going to many sites.

This morning Mrs H woke me up and called me over the computer to show me the screenshot below:

At first glance, I looked at it and agreed that it looked like we had a virus. I paused, and thought "Why is this screen inside Internet Explorer?" and then I realised it was just an elaborate web page.

Mrs H had been looking for a photo to use on a birthday card (she'd searched on Google Images) and when she clicked on a site, this came up.

I've seen a number of virus warning ads and websites over the years, but this one was the most accurate-looking of them all.

A few key lessons if you see a virus warning:

Take a screenshot (just press the Print Screen button, and email it to yourself in Gmail/ Hotmail). You might need this evidence later.
Close all windows and applications.
Open anti-virus, and run a scan. Only follow instructions from your anti-virus program, nothing else.

tags:

Microsoft, ecommerce, google, legal, scams, virus,

1 Comment

Chromebooks are expensive

Jun 3, 2011 at 10:19am

On June 15th, the Google Chromebooks will go on sale.

The price of the new Chromebook is $499. That’s the same as a Windows laptop, only you can’t run Windows applications on a Chromebook, including office apps, games, or use external devices such as video cameras, scanners, etc.

I thought that we’d see a $250 laptop with a Chrome browser. We’ve ended up with an expensive laptop with a Chrome browser. Put another way, it’s cheaper to buy a $450 Dell Windows laptop and install Chrome (plus you get the benefit of a using Internet Explorer for sites that don't support Chrome!).

If the laptop looked as beautiful as a Macbook Air, I could understand a premium, but it doesn’t. To most people the Chromebook looks identical to a Windows laptop.

On another note, Microsoft is required by EU law to ship Windows without Internet Explorer because of its monopolistic position. If Chromebooks [first become cheaper and] become widely used, will Google need to start shipping them without a browser? Or ship them with Windows?

Any thoughts on why it costs so much?

tags:

Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Microsoft, browser, business, google, legal,

2 Comments

The war on pirates

Mar 10, 2011 at 9:27am

Photo courtesy of Scott Vandehey on Flickr

I've often said it's unfair that YouTube is a virtual broadcaster yet not held to account for hosting so many videos which would not be allowed on traditional (i.e. TV or radio) channels. With yesterday's news of YouTube (Google) acquiring one of the highest traffic (over 2.8 billion channel views) YouTube channels, perhaps YouTube will start to change their 'moderation' approach?

To further help YouTube in the war on pirates, I think Amazon and Facebook could soon join sides with Google.

Amazon (who recently acquired Netflix), Facebook (partnering with Warner Bros) and YouTube are all trying to promote video 'rentals' (they really need to change the term) at the $3-$5 price point. One major problem is that it's too easy to download a BitTorrent client and head to any of the very good BitTorrent search engines to download the movie for free.

Most of us know a number of people who do not work in the computer industry yet download movies illegally, then transfer them to a media player or stream to a device plugged into the TV.

What the three Internet giants need to do is compete with that ease-of-downloading-illegally - including getting the video on to the TV. They also need to ensure the price point is correct - Internet history has shown this is a difficult art rather than a science.

The giants also need to get together to ensure hosting a BitTorrent search engine (without which, by definition finding the torrent to download will be much more difficult) is as difficult as hosting Wikileaks. They need to get the payment partners on their side as well - just like the Wikileaks war.

tags:

Amazon, Facebook, YouTube, business, google, legal, payment,

0 Comments

My view of Wikileaks

Dec 2, 2010 at 6:08pm

I've been asked a number of times this week about my view of the huge amount of publicity of the Wikileaks stories. I have a number of different views on this, so here they are, from a pro stance, to negative:

Pros:

It's nice to see some behind the scenes communications rather than the public facing toned-down-to-suit-my-allies media sound bites that we're usually fed. I'm specifically referring to the Arabic countries asking the US (read: "indirectly Israel") to help solve 'the Iranian issue'. The Arabic countries can't do this in front of camera, so it's nice to see that behind the media façade, they're actually thinking sensibly.
Many of the articles on the site seem to be more embarrassing than serious. I'm sure that some of the descriptions of key politician's personalities are no worse than those same politicians hear from comedians or the press. One would hope that the politician's have thick enough skin not to be affected.
David Cameron wants an open government. Well Prime Minister, like you probably warn your children to "be careful what you wish for", Wikileaks is what you wished for. Every commercial brand who has ventured into social media has wanted to be seen open and transparent, and then tightly clenched their buttocks when someone on a social platform says something negative. The really open, transparent and consumer facing brands then use the platform and customer comments to respond and demonstrate customer service. OK, I've ventured off topic so returning to the main point - don't try anything half hearted on the Internet, because the Internet population will make sure you go the whole way. The Open Government initiative is an excellent start, but people want the fluffy bits in between the publicly available stats.
If you don't want to be quoted saying something, don't say it. Why were some of the embarrassing emails ever written? Most people wouldn't write an email at work describing their boss in any level of negative detail, for fear of it ever ending up in HR or their boss's Inbox. Or they might not say anything negative because they are trying to be morally correct about their views (which is why we all prefer people who are positive and aren't two faced about other people). Granted I understand that not all the leaks are like this (such as minutes of meetings), although most of the newspaper's quotes related to descriptions of individuals that should never have been said in the first place.

Negatives:

After reading a few of the newspaper articles, which seemed to hold up Julian Assange (the founder of Wikileaks) as some sort of superhero (including the Evening Standard's "if in doubt, a journalist should always publish first and question later", I didn't realise until today that Assange is a 'wanted man', with every country in Interpol looking for him. I think Mr Assange should be attacked in the press, because of the next point...
Due to the simplicity of the site, it's just too easy for a copycat Wikileaks to appear. I'm sure there are already a few hundred. Unless the press make the practice of Wikileaks 'socially' unacceptable, Pandora's box will remain open.
My final worry is about how this might will extend into the corporate world. A couple of years ago a website was setup where upset, anonymous employees could publicise internal memos/emails within companies. It was mainly used for companies announcing redundancies, hence it was called 'FuckedCompany.com'. The site has since been shut down. At the time it was very similar to Wikileaks. I'm not sure how much publicity the site generated, however you can imagine that with the level of publicity of Wikileaks, it would hit share prices very hard. It's a real worry that these sites may return because share prices rely on secrecy, hence 'Chinese Walls' exist within investment banking (a key role of the FSA) and the public companies.

Other comments:

Tongue in cheek - I did joke with a a friend yesterday that the government and large corporations who spend hundreds of thousands of pounds a year trying to integrate their electronic documents together to make them easy to navigate, are probably scratching their heads at Wikileaks from a technical perspective! Mr Assange has received documents in all formats, from CDs to whatever else, and organised them in one site.
How is Wikileaks funded? The site has gathered a lot of publicity, which will have sent a huge amount of traffic. Bandwidth needs to be paid for, and the cheaper hosting providers limit the amount of bandwidth for a website. I just can't believe that many people are donating money to the site, and the only advertising on the site is to it's own donation page.
To demonstrate how far behind the curve the authorities are, if you go to the Interpol page for Assange, it says a picture is unavailable. Yet Google has about 2.9 million of him.

My overall view of Wikileaks is that it's illegal and should be shut down. Publicising what everyone else can be tried for treason for is illegal. Assange needs to be made to account for these potentially damaging secrets and politically unstabling releases. Governments also need to behave more, and watch what is said rather than worry if it's leaked. I think Assange will be caught, and governments won't change, for the time being.

tags:

business, future, google, legal,

2 Comments

The expensive telecoms war

Oct 6, 2010 at 1:11pm

As Samuel Butler said, "In law, nothing is certain but the expense". And there's a lot of expense going on these court cases in the telecoms space at the moment.

You can read the background to this article and image on Information Is Beautiful.

tags:

Microsoft, Nokia, apple, economy, legal, mobile, telephone,

0 Comments

Why YouTube is Not Like the Postal Service

Feb 25, 2010 at 7:53pm

What a ridiculous comment David Drummond, chief legal officer at Google made about the Italian verdict.

He told the BBC News "It is like prosecuting the post office for hate mail that is sent in the post". There's a fundamental difference here though - the Postal Service can't see what's inside each envelope and parcel. YouTube can see every video that is posted.

Until now, YouTube have been on a honeymoon period of ignoring all copyright infringements and legal requirements in becoming a broadcaster. This is changing very quickly.

I applaude the Italian courts for having the backbone to becoming the first country to stand up to the most powerful company on the Internet.

tags:

Rights, YouTube, google, legal, video,

0 Comments

Tags

Why do age restrictions fail?

A digital method to deal with illegal cyclists and motorists

Identity crisis

Voice mail hacking vs website security

Why Internet scams are becoming harder to detect

Chromebooks are expensive

The war on pirates

My view of Wikileaks

The expensive telecoms war

Why YouTube is Not Like the Postal Service

Bradley Howard

Other ways to find me: