Slashdot Mirror

Lauren Weinstein writes "Now, what's really going on with PRISM? The government admits that the program exists, but says it is being 'mischaracterized' in significant ways (always a risk with secret projects sucking up information about your citizens' personal lives). The Internet firms named in the leaked documents are denying that they have provided 'back doors' to the government for data access. Who is telling the truth? Likely both. Based on previous information and the new leaks, we can make some pretty logical guesses about the actual shape of all this. Here's my take."

benrothke writes "Phil Lapsley calls his book 'the untold story of the teenagers and outlaws who hacked Ma Bell.' The story is an old one, going back to the early 1960's. Lapsley was able to track down many of the original phone phreaks and get their story. Many of them, even though the years have passed, asked Lapsley not to use their real names." Read below for the rest of Ben's review. Exploding the Phone: The Untold Story of the Teenagers and Outlaws who Hacked Ma Bell author Phil Lapsley. Foreword by Steve Wozniak pages 416 publisher Grove Press rating 9/10 reviewer Ben Rothke ISBN 978-0802120618 summary Fascinating story of the early phone phreaks While parts of the story have been told before, Lapsley's far-reaching research brings many of the central characters into a single read, resulting in an extremely interesting and engrossing read.

When Alexander Graham Bell created his harmonic telegraph, which would later turn into the telephone, it was like the Internet, built for functionality, with no inherent security controls. Those security vulnerabilities were begging to be found, and when they were discovered by the phone phreaks, it was a wake-up call to AT&T.

Defining a phone phreak is like defining a hacker; it means different things to different people. Lapsley defines it as "someone who loves exploring the telephone system and experimenting with it to understand how it works.

What the phone phreaks did was to spend endless hours dialing different numbers to understand how the inner-workings of the telephone system operated. Meaningless sounds to most people were music to the phreaks as they could determine how calls were routed via these tones.

Many of the phreaks practiced what is today known as social engineering and would impersonate phone company employees and technicians.

The devices that enabled them to make phone calls were called black boxes, blue boxes, and red boxes. The book notes that Steve Wozniak (who wrote the forward to the book) and Steve Jobs sold blue boxes before they started Apple. In fact, Jobs is quoted as saying that if they hadn't built blue boxes, there wouldn't have been an Apple.

The book has many layers to it. One part is an interesting history of the telephone and long-distance communications. It then segues into phone phreaks, who much like early computer hackers, used the phone network as a portal for exploration and hacking. The vast majority of the phone phreaks did it for the thrill, rather than just to make free phone calls.

One of the things the phone phreaks did was to read as much corporate documentation and manuals (obtained both legally and serendipitously) as they could. Lapsley notes that many of the technical documents that the phone company shared were in truth highly confidential.

As AT&T was a monopoly with zero competition, the notion that someone would use their own technical documentation against them was unheard of. Lapsley writes that for reasons of corporate pride, national service and public relations, AT&T felt an obligation to share its latest and greatest technical feats with the public. For that reason, the Bell System Technical Journal was required reading for every phone phreak.

The web site for the book has available many of the technical documents detailed in the book that played a role in the development of phone phreaking.

The book details many similarities between the phone phreaks and the early Internet hackers. While law enforcement stated that Kevin Mitnick could launch missiles via whistling into the phone, law enforcement called the phone phreaks a public menace, mentally unstable, a national threat and much more.

Like early hackers, the phone phreaks showed how engineering insiders are often the last to know what is actually possible with the systems they design. Lapsley noted that part of the problem was pride, in that Bell Labs had created the public telephone switching network, and they didn't want to admit how vulnerable it was. Its engineers were spring-loaded to disbelieve reports to the contrary.

Another advantage the phone phreaks, like hackers, had is that the Bells Labs engineers only looked at the systems as how it was supposed to work. That blinded them to how the system actually did work and how it could be made to do things it was never designed to do,

The results were that they couldn't see the holes in their own network; holes that a blind teenager found. Even when that blind teenage told them of the problem, (the book tells the story of Joe Engressia), they didn't understand it when first described to them.

The book describes another major technical security oversight made by AT&T in 1970 with the introduction of the telephone credit card. Lapsley writes that fraud was epidemic as AT&T's credit card numbering system was a bad joke from a security perspective. The card numbers were easy to guess and highly predictable resulting in millions of dollars of related fraudulent calls.

One of the main recurring characters in the book is John Draper, better known as Captain Crunch. Draper made a lot of money as a legitimate software engineer, but lost it due to his business naiveté and personal demons. Draper had numerous arrests related to phone phreaking and served time in prison.

The book notes that Draper's arrest in 1976 is a textbook case of how not to deal with the FBI when arrested. One of the incredulous things Draper did when he was read his rights was to waive them. While the FBI didn't have a search warrant, he voluntarily allowed them to search his apartment and Volkswagen Van, where incriminating evidence was indeed discovered.

While Draper was later convicted, the book quotes a fascinating observation by a phone company employee in that 90% of the phone phreak and hacker cases, law enforcement in fact had no criminal case. Most of the evidence they had was things they couldn't be prosecuted for. Either there was no legitimate crime on the books or all they had was the phone phreaks confession, but no tangible evidence.

It wasn't just the phone phreaks who were raising havoc on the phone company networks. The book writes of others who used black boxes and blue boxes for free calls. From Mafia bookies, to the Hare Krishna movement making fraudulent long-distance phone calls.

The book closes in 1982 when the US Dept. of Justice and AT&T came to an agreement to break up Ma Bell in the Baby Bells.

Lapsley has a degree in electrical engineering from UC. Berkeley so he as a deep first-hand understanding of the technology he is writing about. He also has the unique ability to write about bland technical topics and make them both engaging and comprehensible. He understands directly the curiosity the phone phreaks had and the passion to understand the inner workings of the phone system.

For a book that ends over 30 years ago, Phil Lapsley does a superb job of writing the story of the glory days of phone phreaking. In 2013, the notion of a domestic long-distance call is for the most not in anyone's lexicon. But making free long-distance calls was the mantra of the phone phreaks.

Exploding the Phoneis the first comprehensive history of the era of phone phreaking and Lapsley has done a masterful job a making the story fascinating and readable.

Reviewed by Ben Rothke.

You can purchase Exploding the Phone: The Untold Story of the Teenagers and Outlaws who Hacked Ma Bell from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

benrothke writes "Phil Lapsley calls his book 'the untold story of the teenagers and outlaws who hacked Ma Bell.' The story is an old one, going back to the early 1960's. Lapsley was able to track down many of the original phone phreaks and get their story. Many of them, even though the years have passed, asked Lapsley not to use their real names." Read below for the rest of Ben's review. Exploding the Phone: The Untold Story of the Teenagers and Outlaws who Hacked Ma Bell author Phil Lapsley. Foreword by Steve Wozniak pages 416 publisher Grove Press rating 9/10 reviewer Ben Rothke ISBN 978-0802120618 summary Fascinating story of the early phone phreaks While parts of the story have been told before, Lapsley's far-reaching research brings many of the central characters into a single read, resulting in an extremely interesting and engrossing read.

When Alexander Graham Bell created his harmonic telegraph, which would later turn into the telephone, it was like the Internet, built for functionality, with no inherent security controls. Those security vulnerabilities were begging to be found, and when they were discovered by the phone phreaks, it was a wake-up call to AT&T.

Defining a phone phreak is like defining a hacker; it means different things to different people. Lapsley defines it as "someone who loves exploring the telephone system and experimenting with it to understand how it works.

What the phone phreaks did was to spend endless hours dialing different numbers to understand how the inner-workings of the telephone system operated. Meaningless sounds to most people were music to the phreaks as they could determine how calls were routed via these tones.

Many of the phreaks practiced what is today known as social engineering and would impersonate phone company employees and technicians.

The devices that enabled them to make phone calls were called black boxes, blue boxes, and red boxes. The book notes that Steve Wozniak (who wrote the forward to the book) and Steve Jobs sold blue boxes before they started Apple. In fact, Jobs is quoted as saying that if they hadn't built blue boxes, there wouldn't have been an Apple.

The book has many layers to it. One part is an interesting history of the telephone and long-distance communications. It then segues into phone phreaks, who much like early computer hackers, used the phone network as a portal for exploration and hacking. The vast majority of the phone phreaks did it for the thrill, rather than just to make free phone calls.

One of the things the phone phreaks did was to read as much corporate documentation and manuals (obtained both legally and serendipitously) as they could. Lapsley notes that many of the technical documents that the phone company shared were in truth highly confidential.

As AT&T was a monopoly with zero competition, the notion that someone would use their own technical documentation against them was unheard of. Lapsley writes that for reasons of corporate pride, national service and public relations, AT&T felt an obligation to share its latest and greatest technical feats with the public. For that reason, the Bell System Technical Journal was required reading for every phone phreak.

The web site for the book has available many of the technical documents detailed in the book that played a role in the development of phone phreaking.

The book details many similarities between the phone phreaks and the early Internet hackers. While law enforcement stated that Kevin Mitnick could launch missiles via whistling into the phone, law enforcement called the phone phreaks a public menace, mentally unstable, a national threat and much more.

Like early hackers, the phone phreaks showed how engineering insiders are often the last to know what is actually possible with the systems they design. Lapsley noted that part of the problem was pride, in that Bell Labs had created the public telephone switching network, and they didn't want to admit how vulnerable it was. Its engineers were spring-loaded to disbelieve reports to the contrary.

Another advantage the phone phreaks, like hackers, had is that the Bells Labs engineers only looked at the systems as how it was supposed to work. That blinded them to how the system actually did work and how it could be made to do things it was never designed to do,

The results were that they couldn't see the holes in their own network; holes that a blind teenager found. Even when that blind teenage told them of the problem, (the book tells the story of Joe Engressia), they didn't understand it when first described to them.

The book describes another major technical security oversight made by AT&T in 1970 with the introduction of the telephone credit card. Lapsley writes that fraud was epidemic as AT&T's credit card numbering system was a bad joke from a security perspective. The card numbers were easy to guess and highly predictable resulting in millions of dollars of related fraudulent calls.

One of the main recurring characters in the book is John Draper, better known as Captain Crunch. Draper made a lot of money as a legitimate software engineer, but lost it due to his business naiveté and personal demons. Draper had numerous arrests related to phone phreaking and served time in prison.

The book notes that Draper's arrest in 1976 is a textbook case of how not to deal with the FBI when arrested. One of the incredulous things Draper did when he was read his rights was to waive them. While the FBI didn't have a search warrant, he voluntarily allowed them to search his apartment and Volkswagen Van, where incriminating evidence was indeed discovered.

While Draper was later convicted, the book quotes a fascinating observation by a phone company employee in that 90% of the phone phreak and hacker cases, law enforcement in fact had no criminal case. Most of the evidence they had was things they couldn't be prosecuted for. Either there was no legitimate crime on the books or all they had was the phone phreaks confession, but no tangible evidence.

It wasn't just the phone phreaks who were raising havoc on the phone company networks. The book writes of others who used black boxes and blue boxes for free calls. From Mafia bookies, to the Hare Krishna movement making fraudulent long-distance phone calls.

The book closes in 1982 when the US Dept. of Justice and AT&T came to an agreement to break up Ma Bell in the Baby Bells.

Lapsley has a degree in electrical engineering from UC. Berkeley so he as a deep first-hand understanding of the technology he is writing about. He also has the unique ability to write about bland technical topics and make them both engaging and comprehensible. He understands directly the curiosity the phone phreaks had and the passion to understand the inner workings of the phone system.

For a book that ends over 30 years ago, Phil Lapsley does a superb job of writing the story of the glory days of phone phreaking. In 2013, the notion of a domestic long-distance call is for the most not in anyone's lexicon. But making free long-distance calls was the mantra of the phone phreaks.

Exploding the Phoneis the first comprehensive history of the era of phone phreaking and Lapsley has done a masterful job a making the story fascinating and readable.

Reviewed by Ben Rothke.

You can purchase Exploding the Phone: The Untold Story of the Teenagers and Outlaws who Hacked Ma Bell from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Bennett Haselton writes with his take on a case going back and forth in U.S. courts right now about whether a defendant can be ordered to decrypt his own hard drives when they may incriminate him. "A Wisconsin defendant in a criminal child-pornography case recently invoked his Fifth Amendment right to avoid giving the FBI the password to decrypt his hard drive. At the risk of alienating fellow civil-libertarians, I admit I've never seen the particular value of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. So I pose this logical puzzle: come up with a specific, precisely defined scenario, where the Fifth Amendment makes a positive difference." Read on for the rest of Bennett's thoughts.

Wisconsin computer scientist Jeffrey Feldman was arrested on child pornography charges and ordered to give his hard drive decryption password to the FBI. He refused, claiming a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to hand over his password. A magistrate agreed with Feldman, then later changed his mind, but then on June 4th a judge blocked the order demanding that Feldman decrypt the hard drive.

So I will give up some civil libertarian cred and admit that, compared to, say, the free speech guarantees in the First Amendment, I've never seen what's so great about the Fifth Amendment "right against self-incrimination" -- not just as it applies to computer passwords, but in general. (Hereinafter I'm just going to refer to the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent as the "Fifth Amendment", even though there are other rights encapsulated in the Fifth Amendment, such as the right against double jeopardy.) I'm not debating the legal technicalities of the judges' decisions, since they take the "right against self-incrimination" as a given; I'm questioning the value of that "right" in itself.

Before you read any further, this is a pseudo-contest in which I'm soliciting answers in the form of a specific, precisely defined scenario in which you think that the Fifth Amendment makes a positive difference (i.e. that the outcome in a world with the Fifth Amendment, is better than the outcome in a world without the Fifth Amendment, even if you hold all other assumptions constant). If you disagree with everything I say, then the way to show that is to post a scenario that follows all the rules of the contest.

Now, obviously, I am not saying that the police ought to be able to beat information out of you. (The right not to be tortured by the police exists separately from the right to remain silent -- more on that later.) But the "right against self-incrimination" says two things that never made sense to me. The first is that you can refuse to answer a point-blank question asking whether you committed a crime, even if the question elicits no other information that ought to remain private. The second is that if you refuse to answer, a court cannot even consider that as a factor in determining the likelihood of guilt. The first seems dubious as a moral principle; the second actually departs from reality, for no good reason that I can see.

Take first the "right" to refuse to answer. Now, I agree that if the government asks you, say, "What books are you reading these days?", the correct answer is "None of your damn business." Nobody else has the right to know what's on your reading list. However, if a murder is committed, pretty much everyone agrees that it is the state's legitimate business (that is, everyone's business) whether you committed the murder or not. What's the philosophical argument that you shouldn't have to answer "Yes" or "No" if the police ask if you committed the murder?

Compare that to the collateral damage caused by, for example, a search warrant. If you accept that the police have a "right" to know whether your house contains a bloody knife used in a recent murder, then a search could turn up the knife, but there's always the risk that a search of an innocent person's house would penalize them by exposing their private information and belongings. By contrast, the direct question "Did you do it?" is like a "search" that targets only the evidence that is relevant to the case, and nothing else. A physical analogy might be the police scanning a neighborhood with a Geiger counter that detects only illegal weapons-grade plutonium; I'd be kind of OK with that. (Actually, being asked a question is even less invasive, since you don't have the option of refusing the search or the Geiger counter, but you have the option of refusing to answer a question and facing the consequences.)

Now, you shouldn't have to answer questions that are none of anyone else's business; if your alibi for the night of the murder is that you were at a somewhere you're embarrassed to mention, you should be allowed to say, "I didn't commit the murder, but I would prefer not to tell you where I was." But Fifth Amendment absolutists would say that you don't even have to answer the question of whether you committed the murder at all. That, to me, seems absurd. Isn't society entitled to know whether you committed the murder or not?

Perhaps people's discomfort with this reasoning stems from a feeling that the government has no right to interfere with your life at all, unless you've been convicted of a crime. But, rightly or wrongly, the police are empowered to make arrests, search people's houses with a warrant, chase after people feeling the scene of a crime, and take other actions even against people who haven't been convicted of anything. Law enforcement wouldn't be able to function at all without most of these powers, and while those powers can be and have been grossly abused, the solution is to limit those powers, not abolish them entirely. (That might be an argument for giving people the right to remain silent when questioned or arrested by the police, but still empowering judges to issue warrants requiring a defendant to answer a question, even if the answer could be "self-incriminating".) Compared to the possibility of getting arrested or having your house searched, the possibility of simply being required to have the exchange -- "You were walking away from the apartment after the murder, did you do it?" "No" -- seems like a pretty minor inconvenience. (Yes, if the police keep badgering and harassing me with the same questions, or if courts refuse to believe me and try to railroad me anyway, then that's a problem, but it's a separate problem -- we'll get to that in a second.)

Moving on to the second implication, which is that courts cannot weigh your silence in determining the likelihood of your guilt. This goes against the common sense that you would use in your everyday life. If you had two roommates, you knew one of them stole your laptop, you asked both where they were at the time, and one of them immediately told you where they were (giving a story that their friends could corroborate), and other refused even to answer "Yes" or "No" to the question of whether they stole it, what would you think? I'm not saying that a person's silence should ever be considered proof of guilt, but the likelihood of guilt is a probability question, which can be assessed using multiple factors, each of which individually might not be enough to prove guilt by itself. Is the second roommate's silence relevant to your estimation of their guilt? Of course it is. If you would use that factor in your own reasoning, why shouldn't a court? (And in fact, your silence can be considered relevant in a civil lawsuit, just not in a criminal case.)

Now, there are times when the government's evidentiary standards should deviate from common sense. For example, if you find evidence of an affair by snooping in your spouse's email, you may feel guilty about snooping, but you're certainly not going to forget what you found, just because the "evidence" was obtained improperly. The state, on the other hand, is mandated to "forget" any evidence that's obtained in violation of a defendant's rights (for example, if the police break in and search a residence without a warrant) -- that evidence cannot be used in a trial. However, in that case the bar on improperly obtained evidence serves a clear purpose -- it removes any incentive for the police to obtain evidence by breaking and entering. There's no obvious similar reason why a person's refusal to answer a question shouldn't be considered relevant to the likelihood of their guilt.

For these two reasons, I can't think of a precisely defined scenario in which the Fifth Amendment makes a positive difference, i.e. the outcome in the case where the Fifth Amendment does exist, is better than the outcome in a hypothetical world where the Fifth Amendment does not exist, if you hold all other assumptions constant.

My own high school civics teacher gave the example of an overzealous prosecutor determined to convict an innocent defendant of murder, as an example of the importance of the Fifth Amendment. I asked why, even without Fifth Amendment rights, the defendant couldn't just say that they were innocent. "Aha!" said the teacher, mimicking the evil tone of a corrupt prosecutor, "We know you're lying, now we'll convict you of murder and for lying to the court!"

This was the first of many "scenarios" that I've heard supposedly illustrating the benefits of the Fifth Amendment, that didn't hold up under scrutiny. For the government to convict you of lying about not committing the murder, they would also have to convict you of the murder, and if they can convict you of murder, then you're already screwed anyway, regardless of whether they also convict you of lying about being innocent. Now, obviously we should stop corrupt prosecutors from being able to railroad people, but that's a separate problem. The right to remain silent doesn't do you much good if the government is going to forge enough "evidence" (or ignore the lack of evidence) to convict you of murder anyway.

So what I'm looking for (email me below, and also post in comments) is a precisely defined scenario that meets all of the following criteria:

1. The outcome in the world where we do have the Fifth Amendment, is clearly different from the outcome in a hypothetical world where the Fifth Amendment does not exist, even while holding all other assumptions constant. (So the "corrupt overzealous prosecutor" scenario fails that test, because if you assume the government can convict an innocent person of murder without regard for facts or evidence, they can do that even if you refuse to testify.)

2. The outcome in the "Fifth Amendment" world is better than the outcome in the "no Fifth Amendment" world. We can be very permissive about what is considered "better", but there are some limits -- one person, for example, gave me an example of a guilty person who used the Fifth Amendment to avoid giving testimony that might contradict evidence that is discovered later. I pointed out that giving a guilty person a chance to avoid tripping himself up was hardly a good thing, to which he replied, "Oh... right."

3. The "benefit" can't be something that benefits all suspects equally, whether they're innocent, guilty of violating a just law, or guilty of violating an unjust law. Several people have brought up to me the example of the McCarthy hearings, when those being questioned cited the Fifth Amendment as the basis for refusing to answer red-hunt questions.

   Now, most people today remember the McCarthy hearings as an example of grotesque government overreach, and anything that hampers enforcement of an unjust law would be viewed positively in that light. The problem with this defense of the Fifth Amendment is that if it hampers all law enforcement efforts equally, then you might as well just roll a dice every time a suspect is arrested, and let them go if it comes up a 6. Clearly, this is a "limit on government power", which would benefit suspects who are innocent, as well as benefiting people who are guilty of violating an unjust law (however you define that). But since it would "help" all other criminal defendants, too, most people would consider it a silly idea. A defense of the Fifth Amendment along those lines would have to show how it disproportionately benefits people who are innocent, or who have violated an unjust law. (Your argument could depend on what you consider an "unjust law", but you would have to at least make the argument.)

4. The "benefit" can't be something that exists separately from the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. I've had it suggested to me that without the Fifth Amendment, the police would just beat people into confessing. But of course the right not to be beaten by the police is separate from the right to remain silent.

   The easiest way to see this is to consider cases where the Fifth Amendment right to silence does not apply. For example, if the government grants you immunity, then your answers cannot incriminate you, but since nothing you say will incriminate you, the government can then force you to answer the question or go to jail for contempt of court. (There is actually no literal "right to remain silent"; it's a "right against self-incrimination". So take away the possibility of self-incrimination, and you have to talk.) This is a controversial exception, but it's useful for this discussion because it demonstrates that certain rights exist separately from the right against self-incrimination. Obviously, even if the government grants you immunity so that you have to answer questions or go to jail, they still can't torture you for information.

   Similarly, someone suggested that without the Fifth Amendment, the police could just keep on questioning you as a means of detaining you without making an arrest. But, separately from the Fifth Amendment right to silence, there are limits (albeit fuzzy ones) on how long the police can detain you if they don't arrest you. (And then once you're arrested, limits on how long they can hold you without charging you.) As Flex Your Rights (with multiple lawyers on their board) says, "If you choose to challenge a detention, your lawyer will have to argue that police kept you longer than necessary under the circumstances." That's an important curb on police power, and that could be apply if the police keep asking you repetitive or irrelevant questions just as a means of holding you without arresting you.

   So again, even if the government grants you immunity so that you have to answer, they still can't keep asking you the same questions as a means of detaining you indefinitely. That means that right exists separately from the right against self-incrimination.

5. If the argument has major implications for the competency of the courts generally, then address those implications. This is not really a "pass/fail" criterion, because implications can be open-ended.

   I'm thinking in particular of the following argument: Without the Fifth Amendment, the police might adopt a strategy of arresting a suspect and asking him questions in such a way to make him flustered and contradict himself, even if he's innocent. That testimony might then be used to convict him.

   Now, this scenario passes criterion #1 above (with the Fifth Amendment, suspects can clam up and avoid this trap). It also obviously passes criterion #2 - innocent suspects remaining free is better than innocent suspects going to jail. I do think it might fail criterion #3 -- if innocent suspects become flustered and contradict themselves, that should happen at least as often for guilty suspects, too, who are after all lying.

   But there's actually a bigger problem here. It's well known that innocent people can become flustered and contradict themselves under prolonged grilling. If the police, judges, and juries, are so incompetent at evaluating evidence that they would convict you because you contradicted yourself while being questioned about a murder, then that is the real problem -- that the state simply cannot evaluate evidence competently. By giving people a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent under questioning, you've just applied a band-aid by exempting one type of evidence from being used to railroad an innocent person. You haven't solved the competency problem as it applies to circumstantial evidence, unreliable eyewitness testimony, the Prosecutor's fallacy, compromised physical evidence, untrustworthy witnesses, and a host of other potential sources of error.

   So yes, this is a logically consistent defense of the Fifth Amendment -- but realize that it implies we're living under a criminal justice system that can't find its ass with both hands, and perhaps that's the larger problem that should be addressed.

So. I'm interested in whether there is a precisely defined scenario that passes all of the criteria above. You can email me at Bennett at peacefire dot org and put "Fifth Amendment" in the subject line, and also post your suggestion in the comments.

Since I might not be by my computer when the story runs, I'm deputizing our readers to call out FAIL codes for certain responses that are missing obvious points. If the poster is being a dick, then be a dick when calling FAIL codes on them; if the person is participating constructively in the discussion and at least trying to solve the posed problem, then still use the FAIL codes if they apply, but try not to be a dick. Your arsenal:

• FAIL0 -- not specifying a scenario. This does not apply to informative comments; someone might have something useful to say even if it's not an answer to the challenge posed by the article. However if someone starts spouting off trashing the whole article and thinking that they have negated its conclusion, then unless they actually specify a scenario, call them out with a FAIL0. "If you ever bothered to read your American history, you would understand that the Fifth Amendment was adopted as an important bulwark agai--" FAIL0. "Bennett never went to law school so he clearly isn't qual--" FAIL0. "This article has so many errors that I scarcely know where to--" FAIL0. You need to pose a scenario or you haven't answered the question.

  Also, anything with "Go and read... [some third-party source]" without specifying a scenario is a FAIL0. It doesn't take more than a few sentences to summarize a scenario.

• FAIL1 -- not explaining how the scenario gives different outcomes depending on whether we have a Fifth Amendment or not. (I keep hearing the example of the police beating a suspect to extract a confession; like I said, the right against torture whether you have the Fifth Amendment right to silence or not.)

  Or suppose you assume the police would lie and say, "We never laid a hand on him, but he signed the confession anyway." Well, even in a world with the Fifth Amendment, clearly if the police are going to beat you into submission and lie about it, they can still just beat you into submission and say, "He voluntarily waived his Fifth Amendment rights without us touching him, and confessed." For that matter, if the police are willing to lie, they can lie about your confession even if you don't confess at all. In either case, it's not clear that the Fifth Amendment would affect the outcome if you hold all other assumptions constant about whether the police are willing to lie, how much the suspect can hold out under coercion, etc.

• FAIL2 -- not explaining why the outcome in the Fifth Amendment case is better. (So no, "It gives a guilty person time to come up with an alibi.")

• FAIL3 -- the alleged "benefits" of the Fifth Amendment apply equally to the innocent and guilty, or disproportionately favor the guilty. Yes, it's harder for the state to get a conviction if you're allowed to remain silent and no inferences can be made from that, and yes, that will benefit some innocent people who refuse to speak to the government as a matter of deeply held principle, but it's going to benefit guilty people at least as often who just don't want to be caught in a lie. As I said, if you want to benefit all criminal defendants equally, you could just roll a dice and acquit whenever it comes up a 6. In terms of helping the innocent vs. helping the guilty, the right to silence scores even worse than that, since it disproportionately benefits the guilty (who might make a mistake while coming up with an alibi).

• FAIL4 -- confusing a different "right" that is separate from the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. An easy test is that if you still have certain rights even when your right against self-incrimination does not apply because you've been granted immunity, then those rights must exist separately. (e.g. the right not to be tortured, and the right not to be held indefinitely without a trial.)

In addition, feel free to call out SUPERFAIL for any comments along the lines of:

• "This article has so many false premises that I scarcely know where to begin. I would have cited at least one example to support my point, but I was masturbating to the sound of my own superbly polished writing skills and I just came all over the keyboard."
• "Dammit Bennett! I am a [Supreme Court justice / federal prosecutor / law professor / frequent TiVo'er of Law And Order: Mattress Tag Removal] and you are writing about things you know nothing about! There is a reason we don't do things the way you're suggesting! In fact there's a very good reason we don't do things that way, and I'm going to tell you what it is: It's because that's not the way we do things."
• "I read as far as the second syllable of the fourth word and then stopped reading. The problem must be with the article, because the problem couldn't possibly be with my oh hey look a cloud."

So perhaps someone will email me a scenario illustrating the benefits of the Fifth Amendment that I haven't considered here. At least, I hope so. It would be disturbing to think that we've built a whole legal edifice in the United States (and many other countries) on a "right" that has no rational basis.

Unfortunately, even if such a rational defense of the Fifth Amendment does exist, I still believe that many of the defenses of the Fifth Amendment that people have been giving me, are flawed, for the reasons listed above. (If people ever thought about it for one minute, wouldn't they realize that the right not to be tortured by the police is logically distinct from the right to refuse to answer a question about whether you committed a crime?) If large numbers of people believe the Fifth Amendment is sacred without ever thinking about whether it makes sense, that's a broader problem. What other cherished beliefs that we hold, that we don't think carefully about?

Bennett Haselton writes with his take on a case going back and forth in U.S. courts right now about whether a defendant can be ordered to decrypt his own hard drives when they may incriminate him. "A Wisconsin defendant in a criminal child-pornography case recently invoked his Fifth Amendment right to avoid giving the FBI the password to decrypt his hard drive. At the risk of alienating fellow civil-libertarians, I admit I've never seen the particular value of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. So I pose this logical puzzle: come up with a specific, precisely defined scenario, where the Fifth Amendment makes a positive difference." Read on for the rest of Bennett's thoughts.

Wisconsin computer scientist Jeffrey Feldman was arrested on child pornography charges and ordered to give his hard drive decryption password to the FBI. He refused, claiming a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to hand over his password. A magistrate agreed with Feldman, then later changed his mind, but then on June 4th a judge blocked the order demanding that Feldman decrypt the hard drive.

So I will give up some civil libertarian cred and admit that, compared to, say, the free speech guarantees in the First Amendment, I've never seen what's so great about the Fifth Amendment "right against self-incrimination" -- not just as it applies to computer passwords, but in general. (Hereinafter I'm just going to refer to the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent as the "Fifth Amendment", even though there are other rights encapsulated in the Fifth Amendment, such as the right against double jeopardy.) I'm not debating the legal technicalities of the judges' decisions, since they take the "right against self-incrimination" as a given; I'm questioning the value of that "right" in itself.

Before you read any further, this is a pseudo-contest in which I'm soliciting answers in the form of a specific, precisely defined scenario in which you think that the Fifth Amendment makes a positive difference (i.e. that the outcome in a world with the Fifth Amendment, is better than the outcome in a world without the Fifth Amendment, even if you hold all other assumptions constant). If you disagree with everything I say, then the way to show that is to post a scenario that follows all the rules of the contest.

Now, obviously, I am not saying that the police ought to be able to beat information out of you. (The right not to be tortured by the police exists separately from the right to remain silent -- more on that later.) But the "right against self-incrimination" says two things that never made sense to me. The first is that you can refuse to answer a point-blank question asking whether you committed a crime, even if the question elicits no other information that ought to remain private. The second is that if you refuse to answer, a court cannot even consider that as a factor in determining the likelihood of guilt. The first seems dubious as a moral principle; the second actually departs from reality, for no good reason that I can see.

Take first the "right" to refuse to answer. Now, I agree that if the government asks you, say, "What books are you reading these days?", the correct answer is "None of your damn business." Nobody else has the right to know what's on your reading list. However, if a murder is committed, pretty much everyone agrees that it is the state's legitimate business (that is, everyone's business) whether you committed the murder or not. What's the philosophical argument that you shouldn't have to answer "Yes" or "No" if the police ask if you committed the murder?

Compare that to the collateral damage caused by, for example, a search warrant. If you accept that the police have a "right" to know whether your house contains a bloody knife used in a recent murder, then a search could turn up the knife, but there's always the risk that a search of an innocent person's house would penalize them by exposing their private information and belongings. By contrast, the direct question "Did you do it?" is like a "search" that targets only the evidence that is relevant to the case, and nothing else. A physical analogy might be the police scanning a neighborhood with a Geiger counter that detects only illegal weapons-grade plutonium; I'd be kind of OK with that. (Actually, being asked a question is even less invasive, since you don't have the option of refusing the search or the Geiger counter, but you have the option of refusing to answer a question and facing the consequences.)

Now, you shouldn't have to answer questions that are none of anyone else's business; if your alibi for the night of the murder is that you were at a somewhere you're embarrassed to mention, you should be allowed to say, "I didn't commit the murder, but I would prefer not to tell you where I was." But Fifth Amendment absolutists would say that you don't even have to answer the question of whether you committed the murder at all. That, to me, seems absurd. Isn't society entitled to know whether you committed the murder or not?

Perhaps people's discomfort with this reasoning stems from a feeling that the government has no right to interfere with your life at all, unless you've been convicted of a crime. But, rightly or wrongly, the police are empowered to make arrests, search people's houses with a warrant, chase after people feeling the scene of a crime, and take other actions even against people who haven't been convicted of anything. Law enforcement wouldn't be able to function at all without most of these powers, and while those powers can be and have been grossly abused, the solution is to limit those powers, not abolish them entirely. (That might be an argument for giving people the right to remain silent when questioned or arrested by the police, but still empowering judges to issue warrants requiring a defendant to answer a question, even if the answer could be "self-incriminating".) Compared to the possibility of getting arrested or having your house searched, the possibility of simply being required to have the exchange -- "You were walking away from the apartment after the murder, did you do it?" "No" -- seems like a pretty minor inconvenience. (Yes, if the police keep badgering and harassing me with the same questions, or if courts refuse to believe me and try to railroad me anyway, then that's a problem, but it's a separate problem -- we'll get to that in a second.)

Moving on to the second implication, which is that courts cannot weigh your silence in determining the likelihood of your guilt. This goes against the common sense that you would use in your everyday life. If you had two roommates, you knew one of them stole your laptop, you asked both where they were at the time, and one of them immediately told you where they were (giving a story that their friends could corroborate), and other refused even to answer "Yes" or "No" to the question of whether they stole it, what would you think? I'm not saying that a person's silence should ever be considered proof of guilt, but the likelihood of guilt is a probability question, which can be assessed using multiple factors, each of which individually might not be enough to prove guilt by itself. Is the second roommate's silence relevant to your estimation of their guilt? Of course it is. If you would use that factor in your own reasoning, why shouldn't a court? (And in fact, your silence can be considered relevant in a civil lawsuit, just not in a criminal case.)

Now, there are times when the government's evidentiary standards should deviate from common sense. For example, if you find evidence of an affair by snooping in your spouse's email, you may feel guilty about snooping, but you're certainly not going to forget what you found, just because the "evidence" was obtained improperly. The state, on the other hand, is mandated to "forget" any evidence that's obtained in violation of a defendant's rights (for example, if the police break in and search a residence without a warrant) -- that evidence cannot be used in a trial. However, in that case the bar on improperly obtained evidence serves a clear purpose -- it removes any incentive for the police to obtain evidence by breaking and entering. There's no obvious similar reason why a person's refusal to answer a question shouldn't be considered relevant to the likelihood of their guilt.

For these two reasons, I can't think of a precisely defined scenario in which the Fifth Amendment makes a positive difference, i.e. the outcome in the case where the Fifth Amendment does exist, is better than the outcome in a hypothetical world where the Fifth Amendment does not exist, if you hold all other assumptions constant.

My own high school civics teacher gave the example of an overzealous prosecutor determined to convict an innocent defendant of murder, as an example of the importance of the Fifth Amendment. I asked why, even without Fifth Amendment rights, the defendant couldn't just say that they were innocent. "Aha!" said the teacher, mimicking the evil tone of a corrupt prosecutor, "We know you're lying, now we'll convict you of murder and for lying to the court!"

This was the first of many "scenarios" that I've heard supposedly illustrating the benefits of the Fifth Amendment, that didn't hold up under scrutiny. For the government to convict you of lying about not committing the murder, they would also have to convict you of the murder, and if they can convict you of murder, then you're already screwed anyway, regardless of whether they also convict you of lying about being innocent. Now, obviously we should stop corrupt prosecutors from being able to railroad people, but that's a separate problem. The right to remain silent doesn't do you much good if the government is going to forge enough "evidence" (or ignore the lack of evidence) to convict you of murder anyway.

So what I'm looking for (email me below, and also post in comments) is a precisely defined scenario that meets all of the following criteria:

1. The outcome in the world where we do have the Fifth Amendment, is clearly different from the outcome in a hypothetical world where the Fifth Amendment does not exist, even while holding all other assumptions constant. (So the "corrupt overzealous prosecutor" scenario fails that test, because if you assume the government can convict an innocent person of murder without regard for facts or evidence, they can do that even if you refuse to testify.)

2. The outcome in the "Fifth Amendment" world is better than the outcome in the "no Fifth Amendment" world. We can be very permissive about what is considered "better", but there are some limits -- one person, for example, gave me an example of a guilty person who used the Fifth Amendment to avoid giving testimony that might contradict evidence that is discovered later. I pointed out that giving a guilty person a chance to avoid tripping himself up was hardly a good thing, to which he replied, "Oh... right."

3. The "benefit" can't be something that benefits all suspects equally, whether they're innocent, guilty of violating a just law, or guilty of violating an unjust law. Several people have brought up to me the example of the McCarthy hearings, when those being questioned cited the Fifth Amendment as the basis for refusing to answer red-hunt questions.

   Now, most people today remember the McCarthy hearings as an example of grotesque government overreach, and anything that hampers enforcement of an unjust law would be viewed positively in that light. The problem with this defense of the Fifth Amendment is that if it hampers all law enforcement efforts equally, then you might as well just roll a dice every time a suspect is arrested, and let them go if it comes up a 6. Clearly, this is a "limit on government power", which would benefit suspects who are innocent, as well as benefiting people who are guilty of violating an unjust law (however you define that). But since it would "help" all other criminal defendants, too, most people would consider it a silly idea. A defense of the Fifth Amendment along those lines would have to show how it disproportionately benefits people who are innocent, or who have violated an unjust law. (Your argument could depend on what you consider an "unjust law", but you would have to at least make the argument.)

4. The "benefit" can't be something that exists separately from the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. I've had it suggested to me that without the Fifth Amendment, the police would just beat people into confessing. But of course the right not to be beaten by the police is separate from the right to remain silent.

   The easiest way to see this is to consider cases where the Fifth Amendment right to silence does not apply. For example, if the government grants you immunity, then your answers cannot incriminate you, but since nothing you say will incriminate you, the government can then force you to answer the question or go to jail for contempt of court. (There is actually no literal "right to remain silent"; it's a "right against self-incrimination". So take away the possibility of self-incrimination, and you have to talk.) This is a controversial exception, but it's useful for this discussion because it demonstrates that certain rights exist separately from the right against self-incrimination. Obviously, even if the government grants you immunity so that you have to answer questions or go to jail, they still can't torture you for information.

   Similarly, someone suggested that without the Fifth Amendment, the police could just keep on questioning you as a means of detaining you without making an arrest. But, separately from the Fifth Amendment right to silence, there are limits (albeit fuzzy ones) on how long the police can detain you if they don't arrest you. (And then once you're arrested, limits on how long they can hold you without charging you.) As Flex Your Rights (with multiple lawyers on their board) says, "If you choose to challenge a detention, your lawyer will have to argue that police kept you longer than necessary under the circumstances." That's an important curb on police power, and that could be apply if the police keep asking you repetitive or irrelevant questions just as a means of holding you without arresting you.

   So again, even if the government grants you immunity so that you have to answer, they still can't keep asking you the same questions as a means of detaining you indefinitely. That means that right exists separately from the right against self-incrimination.

5. If the argument has major implications for the competency of the courts generally, then address those implications. This is not really a "pass/fail" criterion, because implications can be open-ended.

   I'm thinking in particular of the following argument: Without the Fifth Amendment, the police might adopt a strategy of arresting a suspect and asking him questions in such a way to make him flustered and contradict himself, even if he's innocent. That testimony might then be used to convict him.

   Now, this scenario passes criterion #1 above (with the Fifth Amendment, suspects can clam up and avoid this trap). It also obviously passes criterion #2 - innocent suspects remaining free is better than innocent suspects going to jail. I do think it might fail criterion #3 -- if innocent suspects become flustered and contradict themselves, that should happen at least as often for guilty suspects, too, who are after all lying.

   But there's actually a bigger problem here. It's well known that innocent people can become flustered and contradict themselves under prolonged grilling. If the police, judges, and juries, are so incompetent at evaluating evidence that they would convict you because you contradicted yourself while being questioned about a murder, then that is the real problem -- that the state simply cannot evaluate evidence competently. By giving people a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent under questioning, you've just applied a band-aid by exempting one type of evidence from being used to railroad an innocent person. You haven't solved the competency problem as it applies to circumstantial evidence, unreliable eyewitness testimony, the Prosecutor's fallacy, compromised physical evidence, untrustworthy witnesses, and a host of other potential sources of error.

   So yes, this is a logically consistent defense of the Fifth Amendment -- but realize that it implies we're living under a criminal justice system that can't find its ass with both hands, and perhaps that's the larger problem that should be addressed.

So. I'm interested in whether there is a precisely defined scenario that passes all of the criteria above. You can email me at Bennett at peacefire dot org and put "Fifth Amendment" in the subject line, and also post your suggestion in the comments.

Since I might not be by my computer when the story runs, I'm deputizing our readers to call out FAIL codes for certain responses that are missing obvious points. If the poster is being a dick, then be a dick when calling FAIL codes on them; if the person is participating constructively in the discussion and at least trying to solve the posed problem, then still use the FAIL codes if they apply, but try not to be a dick. Your arsenal:

• FAIL0 -- not specifying a scenario. This does not apply to informative comments; someone might have something useful to say even if it's not an answer to the challenge posed by the article. However if someone starts spouting off trashing the whole article and thinking that they have negated its conclusion, then unless they actually specify a scenario, call them out with a FAIL0. "If you ever bothered to read your American history, you would understand that the Fifth Amendment was adopted as an important bulwark agai--" FAIL0. "Bennett never went to law school so he clearly isn't qual--" FAIL0. "This article has so many errors that I scarcely know where to--" FAIL0. You need to pose a scenario or you haven't answered the question.

  Also, anything with "Go and read... [some third-party source]" without specifying a scenario is a FAIL0. It doesn't take more than a few sentences to summarize a scenario.

• FAIL1 -- not explaining how the scenario gives different outcomes depending on whether we have a Fifth Amendment or not. (I keep hearing the example of the police beating a suspect to extract a confession; like I said, the right against torture whether you have the Fifth Amendment right to silence or not.)

  Or suppose you assume the police would lie and say, "We never laid a hand on him, but he signed the confession anyway." Well, even in a world with the Fifth Amendment, clearly if the police are going to beat you into submission and lie about it, they can still just beat you into submission and say, "He voluntarily waived his Fifth Amendment rights without us touching him, and confessed." For that matter, if the police are willing to lie, they can lie about your confession even if you don't confess at all. In either case, it's not clear that the Fifth Amendment would affect the outcome if you hold all other assumptions constant about whether the police are willing to lie, how much the suspect can hold out under coercion, etc.

• FAIL2 -- not explaining why the outcome in the Fifth Amendment case is better. (So no, "It gives a guilty person time to come up with an alibi.")

• FAIL3 -- the alleged "benefits" of the Fifth Amendment apply equally to the innocent and guilty, or disproportionately favor the guilty. Yes, it's harder for the state to get a conviction if you're allowed to remain silent and no inferences can be made from that, and yes, that will benefit some innocent people who refuse to speak to the government as a matter of deeply held principle, but it's going to benefit guilty people at least as often who just don't want to be caught in a lie. As I said, if you want to benefit all criminal defendants equally, you could just roll a dice and acquit whenever it comes up a 6. In terms of helping the innocent vs. helping the guilty, the right to silence scores even worse than that, since it disproportionately benefits the guilty (who might make a mistake while coming up with an alibi).

• FAIL4 -- confusing a different "right" that is separate from the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. An easy test is that if you still have certain rights even when your right against self-incrimination does not apply because you've been granted immunity, then those rights must exist separately. (e.g. the right not to be tortured, and the right not to be held indefinitely without a trial.)

In addition, feel free to call out SUPERFAIL for any comments along the lines of:

• "This article has so many false premises that I scarcely know where to begin. I would have cited at least one example to support my point, but I was masturbating to the sound of my own superbly polished writing skills and I just came all over the keyboard."
• "Dammit Bennett! I am a [Supreme Court justice / federal prosecutor / law professor / frequent TiVo'er of Law And Order: Mattress Tag Removal] and you are writing about things you know nothing about! There is a reason we don't do things the way you're suggesting! In fact there's a very good reason we don't do things that way, and I'm going to tell you what it is: It's because that's not the way we do things."
• "I read as far as the second syllable of the fourth word and then stopped reading. The problem must be with the article, because the problem couldn't possibly be with my oh hey look a cloud."

So perhaps someone will email me a scenario illustrating the benefits of the Fifth Amendment that I haven't considered here. At least, I hope so. It would be disturbing to think that we've built a whole legal edifice in the United States (and many other countries) on a "right" that has no rational basis.

Unfortunately, even if such a rational defense of the Fifth Amendment does exist, I still believe that many of the defenses of the Fifth Amendment that people have been giving me, are flawed, for the reasons listed above. (If people ever thought about it for one minute, wouldn't they realize that the right not to be tortured by the police is logically distinct from the right to refuse to answer a question about whether you committed a crime?) If large numbers of people believe the Fifth Amendment is sacred without ever thinking about whether it makes sense, that's a broader problem. What other cherished beliefs that we hold, that we don't think carefully about?

JonZittrain writes "Projects like the New American Foundation's Commotion are designing ad hoc mesh networking to keep communications open when governments want to censor. Former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and I argue that mutual-aid-based networks can be helpful for public safety, too, after attacks or natural disasters. There should be easy practices for anyone to open up an otherwise-closed Wi-Fi access point if it's still connected to broadband and is near people in trouble, and separately, to develop delay- and fault-tolerant fallback ad hoc networks so users' devices can communicate directly with one another and in a mesh. This can happen even while full packet-based ad hoc mesh is being figured out. The ideas have been developed a little in workshops at Harvard's Berkman Center and the FCC. Why not bring the human rights and public safety communities together towards a common goal?"

Nerval's Lobster writes "James R. Clapper, the nation's Director of National Intelligence, claimed that recent reports about the NSA monitoring Americans' Internet and phone communications are inaccurate. 'The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,' he wrote in a June 6 statement. 'They contain numerous inaccuracies.' While the statement didn't detail the supposed inaccuracies, it explained why the monitoring described in those articles would, at least in theory, violate the law. 'Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States,' it read. 'It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.' Those newspaper articles describe an NSA project codenamed Prism, which allegedly taps into the internal databases of nine major technology companies: Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, and Apple. Both publications drew their information from an internal PowerPoint presentation used to train intelligence operatives. Speaking to Slashdot, Google, Microsoft and Facebook all again denied knowledge of Prism; the Google spokesperson suggested he didn't 'have any insight' into why Google would have appeared in the NSA's alleged PowerPoint presentation. But many, many questions remain."

Following the confusion surrounding Microsoft's announcement of the Xbox One, the company has now clarified many of the hot-button issues in a set of posts on their official site. First, they confirmed that the console will need to phone home in order to continue playing games. On your primary console, you'd need to connect to the internet and check in once every 24 hours. They also announced that you'll be able to access and play any of your games by logging in on somebody else's console, but the internet connection will be required every hour to keep playing that way. Other media don't require the connection. Microsoft also explained how game licensing will work. On the upside, anyone using your console will be able to play your games, and you can share your games with up to 10 members of your family for free. The downside is the news about used games; Microsoft says they've "designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers." The key word there is can, which implies that you can't without the publisher's express permission. Finally, the company made a set of statements about how Kinect's audio and video sensors will collect and share your data. "When Xbox One is on and you're simply having a conversation in your living room, your conversation is not being recorded or uploaded." They also say data gathered during normal use won't leave the console without your explicit permission.

darthcamaro writes "One year ago today was the the official 'Launch Day' of IPv6. The idea was that IPv6 would get turned on and stay on at major carriers and website. So where are we now? Only 1.27% of Google traffic comes from IPv6 and barely 12 percent of the Alexa Top 1000 sites are even accessible via IPv6. In general though, the Internet Society is pleased with the progress over the last year. '"The good news is that almost everywhere we look, IPv6 is increasing," Phil Roberts,technology program manager at the Internet Society said. "It seems to be me that it's now at the groundswell stage and it all looks like everything is up and to the right."'"

itwbennett writes "'Find My iPhone' is neat, but it's time for smartphone makers and carriers to stop pretending their anti-theft measures are anything more than minimum viable products, says blogger Kevin Purdy. He's not the first to point this out: As reported in Slashdot, 'NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said overall crime in New York City was up 3.3% in 2012 due to iPhone, iPad and other Apple device thefts.' And now San Francisco and New York attorneys general are calling a 'Smartphone Summit' where representatives from Apple, Google, Samsung, and Microsoft are due to meet and discuss the implementation of a industry-wide 'kill switch' system."

Rick Zeman writes "Hot on the heels of Verizon's massive data dump to NSA comes news of 'PRISM' where The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person's movements and contacts over time. This program, established in 2007, includes major companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook...and more."

1sockchuck writes "As its current data collection makes headlines, the National Security Agency is continuing to expand its data storage and processing capabilities. The agency recently broke ground on an $860 million data center at Fort Meade, Maryland that will span more than 600,000 square feet. The project will provide additional IT capacity beyond the NSA's controversial Utah data center. The new facility will be supported by 60 megawatts of power and use both air-cooled and liquid-cooled equipment."

Nerval's Lobster writes "Strengthened by an agreement with Apple that set the prices for their respective e-books higher, publishers strong-armed Amazon into giving them similar terms, an executive for the online retailer has testified in Manhattan federal court. The U.S. Department of Justice has taken Apple to court over the alleged price-fixing, after reaching out-of-court settlements with five publishers (HarperCollins Publishers LLC, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Penguin Group, and MacMillian). Apple, which competes with Amazon in the e-book space, refused a similar settlement. "Certainly if someone offered reseller, we would have taken them up on that offer," Russell Grandinetti, Amazon's vice president for Kindle content, testified before the court, according to Reuters. "Reseller" means a company sells goods to a retailer for a particular price (usually wholesale), allowing the retailer to set the actual sales price. Under the terms of that model, Amazon could sell e-books for super-cheap, even if it meant going beneath the publisher's wholesale price. Macmillan and Amazon ended up in conflict over the issue, with Amazon temporarily yanking the publisher's e-books from its digital shelves. "We will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books," Amazon wrote in a statement at the time. "Amazon customers will at that point decide for themselves whether they believe it's reasonable to pay $14.99 for a bestselling e-book." But Amazon eventually relented to Macmillan's demands, along with those of other publishers, and submitted to the agency model, in which publishers have a heavier hand in setting retail pricing."

Trailrunner7 writes "For many observers of the privacy and surveillance landscape, the revelation by The Guardian that the FBI received a warrant from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to require Verizon to turn over to the National Security Agency piles of call metadata on all calls on its network probably felt like someone telling them that water is wet. There have been any number of signals in the last few years that this kind of surveillance and data collection was going on, little indications that the United States government was not just spying on its own citizens, but doing so on a scale that would dwarf anything that all but the most paranoid would imagine." And now the Obama administration has defended the practice as a "critical tool."

An anonymous reader writes "Mt. Gox is the the largest Bitcoin exchange in the world, and as such it and its users are being repeatedly targeted by attackers. Some two months ago, it battled a massive DDoS attack that was likely aimed at destabilizing the virtual currency and allow the criminals to profit from the swings. Now, according to Symantec researchers, the criminals have turned to spoofing Mt. Gox' site and tricking its customers into downloading malware — the Ponik downloader Trojan, which is also able to steal passwords."

kkleiner writes "The long anticipated Chinese construction project called Sky City, a 220-story building that can house 30,000 people, has finally received approval from the central government to break ground. The firm Broad Sustainable Building previously constructed a prefab 30-story building in 15 days, but for Sky City, they have an even more aggressive schedule: 90 days to build 2,750 feet into the air. Once completed, the building will be a place for people to both live and work, with recreational facilities, theaters, a school, and a hospital all within the structure."

New submitter lemur3 writes "After multiple months of discussing possible changes to the prohibited items list, the Transportation Security Administration in the United States has determined that it is best to go ahead without any changes to the list of items passengers may have in their carry-on baggage when traveling by air. Under the proposed change (discussed previously on Slashdot) pocket knives and other items, such as hockey sticks and ski poles, would have been allowed."

ananyo writes "Electrical engineers have used lasers to create a cloak that can hide communications in a 'time hole', so that it seems as if they were never sent. The method is the first that can cloak data streams sent at the rapid rates typically seen in telecommunications systems. It opens the door to ultra-secure transmission schemes, and may also provide a way to better shield information from noise corruption (abstract). The researchers manipulated laser light in time to create regular periods with zero light intensity (a Talbot carpet) in which to hide data. Unfortunately, the current set up erases the data-adding event entirely from history. Though they are confident that future modifications will allow them, or others, to send secret messages successfully, the more immediate use of the technology will be to cut down crosstalk when multiple data streams share the same fibre." Also at Slash Datacenter.

Peter Wayner is no stranger to Slashdot. Not only that, he's written a bunch of books, plus articles for InfoWorld, PC World, the New York Times, and many other publications. Now he's working on a book about Autonomous Cars. Last year Peter wrote an article for Car & Driver about the privacy implications of vehicle recorders. Driverless cars will bring us a whole new set of problems, questions, and -- no doubt -- legislation. We're hoping to have more conversations on this topic (and others) with Peter in the future, so with any luck this video will be the first of a long series. With all that said, take it away, interviewer Timothy Lord... Update: 06/05 21:56 GMT by T : Peter's book is still in progress, but it's got a website, if you'd like an early glance.

Nerval's Lobster writes "Monsanto is more infamous for growing its genetically modified crops than its use of software, but a series of corporate acquisitions and a new emphasis on tech solutions has transformed it into a firm that acts more like an innovative IT vendor than an agribusiness giant. Jim McCarter (the Entrepreneur in Residence for Monsanto) recently detailed for an audience in St. Louis how the company's IT efforts are expanding. Monsanto's core projects generate huge amounts of bits, especially its genomic efforts, which are the focus of so much public attention. Other big data gobblers are the phenotypes of millions of DNA structures that describe the various biological properties of each plant, and the photographic imagery of crop fields. (All told, there are several tens of petabytes that need storage and analysis, a number that's doubling roughly every 16 months.) With all that tech muscle, the company has launched IT-based initiatives such as its FieldScripts software, which uses proprietary algorithms (fed with data from the FieldScripts Testing Network and Monsanto research) to recommend where to best plant corn hybrids. 'Just like Amazon has its recommendation engine for what book to buy, we will have our recommendations of what and how a grower should plant a particular crop,' said McCarter. 'All fields aren't uniform and shouldn't be planted uniformly either.' Despite its increasingly sophisticated use of data analytics in the name of greater crop yields, however, Monsanto faces pushback from various groups with an aversion to genetically modified food; a current ballot initiative in Washington State, for example, could result in genetically modified foods needing a label in order to go on sale here. The company has also inspired a 'March Against Monsanto,' which has been much in the news lately."

hansamurai writes with an update to a story we've been following for a while. Jeffrey Feldman is at the center of an ongoing case about whether or not crime suspects can be forced to decrypt their own hard drives. (Feldman is accused of having child pornography on his hard drives.) After initially having a federal judge say Feldman was protected by the Fifth Amendment, law enforcement officials were able to break the encyption on one of his many seized storage devices. The decrypted contents contained child pornography, so a different judge said the direct evidence of criminal activity meant Feldman was not protected anymore by the Fifth Amendment. Now, a third judge has granted the defense attorney's emergency motion to rescind that decision, saying Feldman is once again (still?) protected by the Fifth Amendment. Feldman's lawyer said, "I will move heaven and earth to make sure that the war on the infinitesimal amount of child pornography that recirculates on the Internet does not eradicate the Fifth Amendment the way the war on drugs has eviscerated the Fourth Amendment. This case is going to go many rounds. Regardless of who wins the next round, the other side will appeal, invariably landing in the lap of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and quite possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. The grim reality facing our country today is one where we currently have a percentage of our population behind bars that surpasses even the heights of the gulags in Stalinist Russia. On too many days criminal lawyers lose all rounds. But for today: The Shellow Group: 1, Government: 0."

hansamurai writes with an update to a story we've been following for a while. Jeffrey Feldman is at the center of an ongoing case about whether or not crime suspects can be forced to decrypt their own hard drives. (Feldman is accused of having child pornography on his hard drives.) After initially having a federal judge say Feldman was protected by the Fifth Amendment, law enforcement officials were able to break the encyption on one of his many seized storage devices. The decrypted contents contained child pornography, so a different judge said the direct evidence of criminal activity meant Feldman was not protected anymore by the Fifth Amendment. Now, a third judge has granted the defense attorney's emergency motion to rescind that decision, saying Feldman is once again (still?) protected by the Fifth Amendment. Feldman's lawyer said, "I will move heaven and earth to make sure that the war on the infinitesimal amount of child pornography that recirculates on the Internet does not eradicate the Fifth Amendment the way the war on drugs has eviscerated the Fourth Amendment. This case is going to go many rounds. Regardless of who wins the next round, the other side will appeal, invariably landing in the lap of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and quite possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. The grim reality facing our country today is one where we currently have a percentage of our population behind bars that surpasses even the heights of the gulags in Stalinist Russia. On too many days criminal lawyers lose all rounds. But for today: The Shellow Group: 1, Government: 0."

dcblogs writes "Vinton Cerf is warning that digital things created today — spreadsheets, documents, presentations as well as mountains of scientific data — may not be readable in the years and centuries ahead. Cerf illustrates the problem in a simple way. He runs Microsoft Office 2011 on Macintosh, but it cannot read a 1997 PowerPoint file. 'It doesn't know what it is,' he said. 'I'm not blaming Microsoft,' said Cerf, who is Google's vice president and chief Internet evangelist. 'What I'm saying is that backward compatibility is very hard to preserve over very long periods of time.' He calls it a 'hard problem.'" We're at an interesting spot right now, where we're worried that the internet won't remember everything, and also that it won't forget anything.

An anonymous reader writes "IBM this morning announced a deal to acquire the Dallas based hosting company Softlayer, the largest privately held cloud computing provider in the world. Formerly known as The Planet, they have a dark past and hopefully a bright future. Interesting that ISS and Softlayer will now be under the same roof. 'IBM will integrate SoftLayer’s public-cloud services with its own IBM SmartCloud portfolio. In theory, that will allow IBM to more speedily deliver a combination of private, public and hybridized cloud platforms to business clients. CloudLayer features include the ability to deploy virtual cloud servers (with processors 2.0GHz or faster), a content-delivery network with scalability and security, an object-storage platform based on OpenStack Object Storage, and private-cloud solutions.'"

Nerval's Lobster writes "In his latest Asymco blog post, analyst Horace Dediu suggested that Windows' share of the personal-computing market is declining at a faster rate than many believe, once Microsoft's cash cow is put in direct competition with Android, iOS, and other platforms built for tablets. In that context, Windows' share of the personal-computing market has dipped past 60 percent on its way to 50 percent. The big question is whether it'll keep plunging. 'If Windows tablets start growing as fast as the tablet market overall then Windows could stabilize in share,' Dediu wrote. 'But if Android and iOS tablets follow their phone brethren in growth then it will be far harder for Microsoft to maintain share.' Yet despite that gloomy scenario, Dediu doesn't necessarily see a market-share dip as a cause for concern on Microsoft's part: 'Even if Windows dips to only 20 [percent] of the world's computing market it will still be perfectly 'viable' for some time to come,' he wrote. But even if Windows can perpetuate, will its decline fatally undermine Microsoft as a company? All that Windows (and Office) money also allows Microsoft to launch projects that lose money for years before they gain traction. Without that monetary base, for example, it's possible that the Xbox (which bled money for the first few years of its existence) wouldn't have survived long enough to become a viable platform from a financial perspective—much less the center of Microsoft's future plans for living room domination."

GMGruman writes "Windows 8 is simply not selling, and everyone but Microsoft knows it's a mess of an OS. And the Windows 8.1 'Blue' that Microsoft revealed some details of late last week doesn't address the fundamental flaws. So a team at InfoWorld worked up a serious proposal to rework Windows 8 for both PCs and tablets that fixes those flaws and lets Microsoft's true innovations break free of today's Windows 8, complete with mockups of the proposed Windows 'Red.'"

Alsee writes "Center of flaming controversy across the Internet and here on Slashdot for claiming to travel 'Directly Downwind Faster Than The Wind, Powered Only By The Wind, Steady State' (DDWFTTW), the Blackbird is now up for auction on Ebay. It has been certified by the North American Land Sailing Association and Guinness World Records to have reached 2.8 times wind speed directly downwind and was subsequently modded to also achieve more than double windspeed directly upwind. It has been the subject of an MIT physics paper and was included as a model problem in the International Physics Olympiad, yet many still argue it would violate the laws of physics. Let the bidding (and debate) commence!"

hypnosec writes "Mozilla has confirmed reports that indicated a probable collaboration with Foxconn for development of Firefox OS based devices. Announcing the 'wide ranging partnership' with Foxconn, Mozilla's SVP of Mobile Devices noted in a blog post that collaboration between the two companies 'demonstrates the full potential of Firefox OS,' and it would not only enable the smartphone 'but also a wide range of mobile devices.'"

sagecreek writes "You can judge this book, at least in part, by the lengthy tagline on its cover: 'Learn to make practical, unique, real-world sites that span a variety of industries and technologies with the world's most popular mobile development library.' jQuery might not be your favorite framework on the long, long list of JavaScript possibilities. But Shane Gliser unabashedly describes himself as a jQuery 'fanboy...if it's officially jQuery, I love it.' Gliser is an experienced mobile developer and blogger who operates Roughly Brilliant Digital Studios. He also has some background in mobile UX (user experience), and both qualities show in this smoothly written, well-illustrated, 234-page how-to book that focuses on jQuery Mobile, a 'touch-optimized' web framework for smartphones and tablets." Read below for the rest of sagecreek's review. Creating Mobile Apps With JQuery Mobile author Shane Gliser pages 234 pages publisher Packt Publishing rating 9/10 reviewer sagecreek ISBN 9781782160069 summary Takes the reader from mobile prototyping and creating templates to mobile development and creating versatile mobile sites, with a project in each chapter. Don't be surprised when you extract the book's code examples and related items from a ZIP file that is almost 100MB in size. Gliser covers a lot of ground, and he covers it well in his 10 chapters. And each chapter contains a project.

The first thing you don't do in Chapter 1, "Prototyping jQuery Mobile," is work at a computer. In the true spirit of UX, Gliser briefly has you work with a pen and some 3x5 note cards. (Remember those?) Your initial goal is to roughly sketch out some designs for a jQuery Mobile website for a new pizzeria. But why the ancient technology? "We are more willing to simply throw out a drawing that took less than 30 seconds to create," Gliser writes. And: "Actually sketching by hand uses a different part of the brain and unlocks our creative centers." Furthermore, those on your team who are not coders can contribute comments, suggestions, and corrections to the emerging design.

In Chapter 2, "A Mom-and-Pop Mobile Website," you step over to your computer with Chapter 1's paper prototype in hand. You start converting the sketched design "into an actual jQuery Mobile (jQM) site that acts responsively and looks unique." You also begin building "a configurable server-side PHP template," and you work with custom fonts, page curl effects using CSS, and other aspects of creating and optimizing a mobile site.

"Mobile is a very unforgiving environment," Gliser cautions, "and some of the tips in this section will make more difference than any of the 'best coding practices.'" Indeed, he wants you to be aware of optimization "at the beginning. You are going to do some awesome work and I don't want you or your stakeholders to think it's any less awesome, or slow, or anything else because you didn't know the tricks to squeeze the most performance out of your systems. It's never too early to impress people with the performance of your creations."

Chapter 3, "Analytics, Long forms, and Front-end Validation," moves beyond "dynamically link[ing] directly into the native GPS systems of iOS and Android." Instead, Gliser introduces how to work with Google static maps, Google Analytics, long and multi-page forms, and jQuery Validate. As for static maps, he says, "Remember to always approach things from the user's perspective. It's not always about doing the coolest thing we can." Indeed, a static map may be all the user needs to decide whether to drive to a business, such as a pizzeria, or just call for delivery. And, as for Google Analytics: "Every website should have analytics. If not, it's difficult to say how many people are hitting your site, if we're getting people through our conversion funnels, or what pages are causing people to leave our site."

Meanwhile, desktop users are familiar with (and frequently irritated by) long forms and multi-page forms. Lengthy forms can be real deal-breakers for users trying to negotiate them on mobile devices. The author presents some ways to shorten long forms and break them "into several pages using jQuery Mobile." And he emphasizes the importance of using the jQuery Validate plug-in to add validation to any page that has a form, so the user can see quickly and clearly that an entry has a problem.

The focus in Chapter 4, "QR Codes, Geolocation, Google Maps API, and HTML5 Video," is on handling concepts that can be "applied to any business that has multiple physical locations." Gliser uses a local movie theater chain as his development example. It is "considering throwing its hat into the mobile ring," so a site is created that makes use of QR codes, geolocation, Google Maps, and linking to YouTube movie previews. Then, he shows how to use embedded video to keep users on the movie chain's site rather than sending them off to YouTube.

In Chapter 5, the goal is "to create an aggregating news site based off social media." So the emphasis shifts to "Client-side Templating, JSON APIs, and HTML5 Web Storage." Notes Gliser: "Honestly, from a purely pragmatic perspective, I believe that the template is the perfect place for code. The more flexible, the better. JSON holds the data and the templates are used to transform it. To draw a parallel, XML is the data format and XSL templates are used to transform. Nobody whines about logic in XSL; so I don't see why it should be a problem in JS templates."

Next, he shows how to patch into Twitter's JSON API to get "the very latest set of trending topics" and "whittle down the response to only the part we want...and pass that array into JsRender for...well...rendering" in a manner that will be "a lot cleaner to read and maintain" than looping through JSON and using string concatenation to make the output.

Other topics in Chapter 5 include programmatically changing pages in jQuery Mobile, understanding how jQuery Mobile handles generated pages and Document Object Model (DOM) weight management, and working with RSS feeds. Gliser points out that there is still "a lot more information out there being fed by RSS feeds than by JSON feeds." The chapter concludes with looks at how to use HTML5 web storage (it's simple, yet it can get "especially tricky on mobile browsers"), and how to leverage the Google Feed API. Explains Gliser: "The Google Feeds (sic) API can be fed several options, but at its core, it's a way to specify an RSS or ATOM feed and get back a JSON representation."

Chapter 6 jumps into "the music scene. We're going to take the jQuery Mobile interface and turn it into a media player, artist showcase, and information hub that can be saved to people's home screens," Gliser writes. He proceeds to show how "ridiculously simple it can be to bring audio into your jQuery Mobile pages." And he explains how to use HTML5 manifest "and a few other meta tags" to save an app to the home screen. Furthermore, he discusses how to test mobile sites using "Google Chrome (since its WebKit) or IE9 (for the Windows Phone)" as browsers that are shrunken down to mobile size. "Naturally, this does not substitute for real testing," he cautions. "Always check your creations on real devices. That being said, the shrunken browser approach will usually get you 97.5 percent of the way there. Well...HTML5 Audio throws that operating model right out the window."

Since "mobile phones are quickly becoming our photo albums," Gliser's Chapter 7, "Fully Responsive Photography," begins with creating a basic gallery using Photoswipe. Then, in a section focused on "supporting the full range of device sizes," he shows how to start using responsive web design (RWD), "the concept of making a single page work for every device size." The issues, of course, range from image sizes and resolutions to text sizes and character counts per line, on screens as small as smart phones and tablets, or larger.

In Chapter 8, "Integrating jQuery Mobile into Existing Sites," three topics are key: (1) "Detecting mobile — server-side, client-side, and the combination of the two"; (2) "Mobilizing full site pages — the hard way"; and (3) Mobilizing full site pages — the easy way." Gliser avoids some potential "geek war" controversies over "browser sniffing versus feature detection" when detecting mobile devices. He zeroes in first on detection using WURFL for "server-side database-driven browser sniffing." He also shows how to do JavaScript-based browser sniffing, which he concedes may be "the worst possible way to detect mobile but it does have its virtues," especially if your budget is small and you want to exclude older devices that can't handle some new JavaScript templating. He also describes JavaScript-based feature detection using Modernizer, plus some other feature-detection methods.

As for mobilizing full-site pages "the hard way," he states that there is really "only one good reason: to keep the content on the same page so that the user doesn't have one page for mobile and one page for desktop. When emails and tweets and such are flying around, the user generally doesn't care if they're sending out the mobile view or the desktop view and they shouldn't." He focuses on how "it's pretty easy to tell what parts of a site would translate to mobile" and how to add data attributes to existing tags "to mobilize them. When jQuery's libraries are not present on the page, these attributes will simply sit there and cause no harm. Then you can use one of our many detection techniques to decide when to throw the jQM libraries in."

Mobilizing full-size pages "the easy way" involves, in his view, "nothing easier and cleaner than just creating a standalone jQuery Mobile page...and simply import the page we want with AJAX. We can then pull out the parts we want and leave the rest." His code samples show how to do this.

Chapter 9, "Content Management Systems and jQM" looks at the pros and cons of using three different content management systems (CMS) with jQuery Mobile: WordPress, Drupal, and Adobe Experience Manager. "The key to get up and running quickly with any CMS is, realizing which plugins and themes to use," Gliser writes. "For WordPress, I would not recommend a jQuery Mobile plugin. As I was experimenting for this chapter, it broke the admin interface and was, in general, a miserable experience. However, there are several jQuery Mobile themes that will serve you well. Some are free, some paid." He explains how to use mobile theme switchers.

Meanwhile, Drupal offers some standard plugins that provide contact forms, CAPTCHA, and custom database tables and forms, and enable you to "create full blown web apps, not just brochureware sites." But: "The biggest downside to Drupal is that it has a bit of a learning curve if yo want to tap its true power, Also, without some tuning, it can be a little slow and can really bloat your page's code," he says.

As for Adobe Experience Manager (AEM), Gliser merely introduces it as a "premier corporate CMS" and a "major CMS player that comes with complete jQuery Mobile examples." He doesn't show "how to install, configure, or code for AEM. That's a subject for several training manuals the size of this book." He adds: "If you work for a company that can afford AEM, you'll already be well-versed in the mobile implementation. The power this platform gives to content authors is astounding."

Chapter 10, the final chapter, is titled "Putting It All Together — Flood.FM." Using what you've learned in the book, including paper prototyping the interfaces, you create "a website where listeners will be greeted with music from local, independent bands across several genres and geographic regions."

Along the way, Gliser introduces Balsamiq, "a very popular UX tool for rapid prototyping." He discusses using Model-View-Controller (MVC), Model-View-ViewModel (MVVM), and Model-View-Whatever (MV*) development structures with jQuery Mobile. He introduces how to work with the Web Audio API , and he illustrates how to prompt users to download the Flood.FM app to their home screens. He finishes up with brief discussions of accelerometers, cameras, "APIs on the horizon," plus "To app or not to app, that is the question" and whether you should compile an app or not. Finally, he shows PhoneGap Build, the "cloud-based build service for PhoneGap."

Shane Gliser's book does indeed cover a lot of ground, clearly and with good examples. If you truly demand that some nits must be picked, I can report that an occasional dash is missing or a comma sometimes shows up out of place, such as this example in Chapter 2: "A practice is only best until a new practice, [misplaced comma] comes along that is better." In the printed book's table of contents, there are style and spelling glitches in the heading for Chapter 3. "Analytics, long forms, and frontend validation" should be "Analytics, Long Forms, and Front-end Validation." And, in Chapter 5, Gliser refers to the "Google Feeds API" when it's actually "Google Feed API." But the term "Google Feeds API" commonly is misused by developers on Stack Overflow and other sites.

I am not a mobile developer. I am a tech writer, frequent book reviewer, and occasional coder. I have played with some of the code examples in this book, but I have not tried them all. So I can't say if there are code glitches. However, the book was reviewed before publication by at least four software professionals with impressive resumes.

Aside from occasional spots where the text needed tighter editing, this book is, in my view, well written and rich with information, examples, sources, and tips for working effectively with jQuery Mobile. I intend to put it to good use as I continue learning.

You can purchase Creating Mobile Apps with jQuery Mobile from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

sagecreek writes "You can judge this book, at least in part, by the lengthy tagline on its cover: 'Learn to make practical, unique, real-world sites that span a variety of industries and technologies with the world's most popular mobile development library.' jQuery might not be your favorite framework on the long, long list of JavaScript possibilities. But Shane Gliser unabashedly describes himself as a jQuery 'fanboy...if it's officially jQuery, I love it.' Gliser is an experienced mobile developer and blogger who operates Roughly Brilliant Digital Studios. He also has some background in mobile UX (user experience), and both qualities show in this smoothly written, well-illustrated, 234-page how-to book that focuses on jQuery Mobile, a 'touch-optimized' web framework for smartphones and tablets." Read below for the rest of sagecreek's review. Creating Mobile Apps With JQuery Mobile author Shane Gliser pages 234 pages publisher Packt Publishing rating 9/10 reviewer sagecreek ISBN 9781782160069 summary Takes the reader from mobile prototyping and creating templates to mobile development and creating versatile mobile sites, with a project in each chapter. Don't be surprised when you extract the book's code examples and related items from a ZIP file that is almost 100MB in size. Gliser covers a lot of ground, and he covers it well in his 10 chapters. And each chapter contains a project.

The first thing you don't do in Chapter 1, "Prototyping jQuery Mobile," is work at a computer. In the true spirit of UX, Gliser briefly has you work with a pen and some 3x5 note cards. (Remember those?) Your initial goal is to roughly sketch out some designs for a jQuery Mobile website for a new pizzeria. But why the ancient technology? "We are more willing to simply throw out a drawing that took less than 30 seconds to create," Gliser writes. And: "Actually sketching by hand uses a different part of the brain and unlocks our creative centers." Furthermore, those on your team who are not coders can contribute comments, suggestions, and corrections to the emerging design.

In Chapter 2, "A Mom-and-Pop Mobile Website," you step over to your computer with Chapter 1's paper prototype in hand. You start converting the sketched design "into an actual jQuery Mobile (jQM) site that acts responsively and looks unique." You also begin building "a configurable server-side PHP template," and you work with custom fonts, page curl effects using CSS, and other aspects of creating and optimizing a mobile site.

"Mobile is a very unforgiving environment," Gliser cautions, "and some of the tips in this section will make more difference than any of the 'best coding practices.'" Indeed, he wants you to be aware of optimization "at the beginning. You are going to do some awesome work and I don't want you or your stakeholders to think it's any less awesome, or slow, or anything else because you didn't know the tricks to squeeze the most performance out of your systems. It's never too early to impress people with the performance of your creations."

Chapter 3, "Analytics, Long forms, and Front-end Validation," moves beyond "dynamically link[ing] directly into the native GPS systems of iOS and Android." Instead, Gliser introduces how to work with Google static maps, Google Analytics, long and multi-page forms, and jQuery Validate. As for static maps, he says, "Remember to always approach things from the user's perspective. It's not always about doing the coolest thing we can." Indeed, a static map may be all the user needs to decide whether to drive to a business, such as a pizzeria, or just call for delivery. And, as for Google Analytics: "Every website should have analytics. If not, it's difficult to say how many people are hitting your site, if we're getting people through our conversion funnels, or what pages are causing people to leave our site."

Meanwhile, desktop users are familiar with (and frequently irritated by) long forms and multi-page forms. Lengthy forms can be real deal-breakers for users trying to negotiate them on mobile devices. The author presents some ways to shorten long forms and break them "into several pages using jQuery Mobile." And he emphasizes the importance of using the jQuery Validate plug-in to add validation to any page that has a form, so the user can see quickly and clearly that an entry has a problem.

The focus in Chapter 4, "QR Codes, Geolocation, Google Maps API, and HTML5 Video," is on handling concepts that can be "applied to any business that has multiple physical locations." Gliser uses a local movie theater chain as his development example. It is "considering throwing its hat into the mobile ring," so a site is created that makes use of QR codes, geolocation, Google Maps, and linking to YouTube movie previews. Then, he shows how to use embedded video to keep users on the movie chain's site rather than sending them off to YouTube.

In Chapter 5, the goal is "to create an aggregating news site based off social media." So the emphasis shifts to "Client-side Templating, JSON APIs, and HTML5 Web Storage." Notes Gliser: "Honestly, from a purely pragmatic perspective, I believe that the template is the perfect place for code. The more flexible, the better. JSON holds the data and the templates are used to transform it. To draw a parallel, XML is the data format and XSL templates are used to transform. Nobody whines about logic in XSL; so I don't see why it should be a problem in JS templates."

Next, he shows how to patch into Twitter's JSON API to get "the very latest set of trending topics" and "whittle down the response to only the part we want...and pass that array into JsRender for...well...rendering" in a manner that will be "a lot cleaner to read and maintain" than looping through JSON and using string concatenation to make the output.

Other topics in Chapter 5 include programmatically changing pages in jQuery Mobile, understanding how jQuery Mobile handles generated pages and Document Object Model (DOM) weight management, and working with RSS feeds. Gliser points out that there is still "a lot more information out there being fed by RSS feeds than by JSON feeds." The chapter concludes with looks at how to use HTML5 web storage (it's simple, yet it can get "especially tricky on mobile browsers"), and how to leverage the Google Feed API. Explains Gliser: "The Google Feeds (sic) API can be fed several options, but at its core, it's a way to specify an RSS or ATOM feed and get back a JSON representation."

Chapter 6 jumps into "the music scene. We're going to take the jQuery Mobile interface and turn it into a media player, artist showcase, and information hub that can be saved to people's home screens," Gliser writes. He proceeds to show how "ridiculously simple it can be to bring audio into your jQuery Mobile pages." And he explains how to use HTML5 manifest "and a few other meta tags" to save an app to the home screen. Furthermore, he discusses how to test mobile sites using "Google Chrome (since its WebKit) or IE9 (for the Windows Phone)" as browsers that are shrunken down to mobile size. "Naturally, this does not substitute for real testing," he cautions. "Always check your creations on real devices. That being said, the shrunken browser approach will usually get you 97.5 percent of the way there. Well...HTML5 Audio throws that operating model right out the window."

Since "mobile phones are quickly becoming our photo albums," Gliser's Chapter 7, "Fully Responsive Photography," begins with creating a basic gallery using Photoswipe. Then, in a section focused on "supporting the full range of device sizes," he shows how to start using responsive web design (RWD), "the concept of making a single page work for every device size." The issues, of course, range from image sizes and resolutions to text sizes and character counts per line, on screens as small as smart phones and tablets, or larger.

In Chapter 8, "Integrating jQuery Mobile into Existing Sites," three topics are key: (1) "Detecting mobile — server-side, client-side, and the combination of the two"; (2) "Mobilizing full site pages — the hard way"; and (3) Mobilizing full site pages — the easy way." Gliser avoids some potential "geek war" controversies over "browser sniffing versus feature detection" when detecting mobile devices. He zeroes in first on detection using WURFL for "server-side database-driven browser sniffing." He also shows how to do JavaScript-based browser sniffing, which he concedes may be "the worst possible way to detect mobile but it does have its virtues," especially if your budget is small and you want to exclude older devices that can't handle some new JavaScript templating. He also describes JavaScript-based feature detection using Modernizer, plus some other feature-detection methods.

As for mobilizing full-site pages "the hard way," he states that there is really "only one good reason: to keep the content on the same page so that the user doesn't have one page for mobile and one page for desktop. When emails and tweets and such are flying around, the user generally doesn't care if they're sending out the mobile view or the desktop view and they shouldn't." He focuses on how "it's pretty easy to tell what parts of a site would translate to mobile" and how to add data attributes to existing tags "to mobilize them. When jQuery's libraries are not present on the page, these attributes will simply sit there and cause no harm. Then you can use one of our many detection techniques to decide when to throw the jQM libraries in."

Mobilizing full-size pages "the easy way" involves, in his view, "nothing easier and cleaner than just creating a standalone jQuery Mobile page...and simply import the page we want with AJAX. We can then pull out the parts we want and leave the rest." His code samples show how to do this.

Chapter 9, "Content Management Systems and jQM" looks at the pros and cons of using three different content management systems (CMS) with jQuery Mobile: WordPress, Drupal, and Adobe Experience Manager. "The key to get up and running quickly with any CMS is, realizing which plugins and themes to use," Gliser writes. "For WordPress, I would not recommend a jQuery Mobile plugin. As I was experimenting for this chapter, it broke the admin interface and was, in general, a miserable experience. However, there are several jQuery Mobile themes that will serve you well. Some are free, some paid." He explains how to use mobile theme switchers.

Meanwhile, Drupal offers some standard plugins that provide contact forms, CAPTCHA, and custom database tables and forms, and enable you to "create full blown web apps, not just brochureware sites." But: "The biggest downside to Drupal is that it has a bit of a learning curve if yo want to tap its true power, Also, without some tuning, it can be a little slow and can really bloat your page's code," he says.

As for Adobe Experience Manager (AEM), Gliser merely introduces it as a "premier corporate CMS" and a "major CMS player that comes with complete jQuery Mobile examples." He doesn't show "how to install, configure, or code for AEM. That's a subject for several training manuals the size of this book." He adds: "If you work for a company that can afford AEM, you'll already be well-versed in the mobile implementation. The power this platform gives to content authors is astounding."

Chapter 10, the final chapter, is titled "Putting It All Together — Flood.FM." Using what you've learned in the book, including paper prototyping the interfaces, you create "a website where listeners will be greeted with music from local, independent bands across several genres and geographic regions."

Along the way, Gliser introduces Balsamiq, "a very popular UX tool for rapid prototyping." He discusses using Model-View-Controller (MVC), Model-View-ViewModel (MVVM), and Model-View-Whatever (MV*) development structures with jQuery Mobile. He introduces how to work with the Web Audio API , and he illustrates how to prompt users to download the Flood.FM app to their home screens. He finishes up with brief discussions of accelerometers, cameras, "APIs on the horizon," plus "To app or not to app, that is the question" and whether you should compile an app or not. Finally, he shows PhoneGap Build, the "cloud-based build service for PhoneGap."

Shane Gliser's book does indeed cover a lot of ground, clearly and with good examples. If you truly demand that some nits must be picked, I can report that an occasional dash is missing or a comma sometimes shows up out of place, such as this example in Chapter 2: "A practice is only best until a new practice, [misplaced comma] comes along that is better." In the printed book's table of contents, there are style and spelling glitches in the heading for Chapter 3. "Analytics, long forms, and frontend validation" should be "Analytics, Long Forms, and Front-end Validation." And, in Chapter 5, Gliser refers to the "Google Feeds API" when it's actually "Google Feed API." But the term "Google Feeds API" commonly is misused by developers on Stack Overflow and other sites.

I am not a mobile developer. I am a tech writer, frequent book reviewer, and occasional coder. I have played with some of the code examples in this book, but I have not tried them all. So I can't say if there are code glitches. However, the book was reviewed before publication by at least four software professionals with impressive resumes.

Aside from occasional spots where the text needed tighter editing, this book is, in my view, well written and rich with information, examples, sources, and tips for working effectively with jQuery Mobile. I intend to put it to good use as I continue learning.

You can purchase Creating Mobile Apps with jQuery Mobile from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Nerval's Lobster writes "In the early 2000s, three young programmers without much money gathered in a basement and started coding what would become one of the most widely used pieces of software in the video game industry. 'Nobody really remembers how we survived in that period except we probably didn't eat much,' said David Helgason, the CEO and co-founder of Unity Technologies, maker of the Unity3D game engine. A decade later, untold numbers of developers have used Unity3D to make thousands of video games for mobile devices, consoles, browsers, PCs, Macs, and even Linux. The existence of Unity3D and similar products (such as the Unreal Engine and CryEngine) helped democratize game development, making the kinds of tools used by the world's largest game companies available to developers at little or no cost. This has helped developers focus less on creating a video game's underlying technology and more on the artistic and creative processes that actually make games fun to play. In this article, Helgason talks about how Final Cut Pro helped inspire his team during the initial building stages, how it's possible to create a game in Unity without actually writing code, and how he hopes to make the software more of a presence on traditional consoles despite Unity3D being several years late to supporting the PS3 and Xbox 360."

An anonymous reader writes "With help from a draft report (PDF) from Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Jack Dongarra, who also spearheads the process of verifying the top of the pack supercomputer, we get a detailed look at China's Tianhe-2 system. As noted previously, the system will be housed at the National Supercomputer Center in Guangzhou and has been aimed at providing an open platform for research and education and to provide a high performance computing service for southern China. From Jack's details: '... was sent results showing a run of HPL benchmark using 14,336 nodes, that run was made using 50 GB of the memory of each node and achieved 30.65 petaflops out of a theoretical peak of 49.19 petaflops, or an efficiency of 62.3% of theoretical peak performance taking a little over 5 hours to complete.The fastest result shown was using 90% of the machine. They are expecting to make improvements and increase the number of nodes used in the test.'"

MojoKid writes "Hot Hardware recently set out to design a custom mini desktop system with the popular Raspberry Pi single board computer. People have configured the device for a variety of applications, from micro-servers to low cost media players. Basically, the goal was to turn what is currently one of the cheapest bare-bones computer boards into a fully enclosed mini desktop computer that could be taken anywhere without the need for cabling or setup. This small DIY project is just one of many examples of the flexibility of the Raspberry Pi's open architecture. And to think you can even run Quake and Minecraft on it."

Yesterday, we mentioned a just-approved effort to uncover the remains of goods dumped by Atari in New Mexico decades ago. New submitter Essellion writes "Among the games that legend has it are there is the Atari 2600 E.T. game, infamous for how bad it was. However, an excavator of another kind has cast doubts on how bad it was by exploring in depth the E.T. ROM, how it played and why, and designing some bug fixes for it."

An anonymous reader writes "The presence of 0-day vulnerability exploitation is often a real and considerable threat to the Internet — particularly when very popular consumer-level software is the target. Google's stance on a 60day turnaround of vulnerability fixes from discovery, and a 7-day turnaround of fixes for actively exploited unpatched vulnerabilities, is rather naive and devoid of commercial reality. As a web services company it is much easier for Google to develop and roll out fixes promptly — but for 95+% of the rest of the world's software development companies making thick-client, server and device-specific software this is unrealistic. Statements like these from Google clearly serve their business objectives. As predominantly a web services company with many of the world's best software engineers and researchers working for them. One could argue that Google's applications and software should already be impervious to vulnerabilities (i.e. they should have discovered them themselves through internal QA processes) — rather than relying upon external researchers and bug hunters stumbling over them."

An anonymous reader writes "Search engines such as Google should do more to restrict access to online pornography, a government adviser on child internet safety has said. John Carr said increasing the number of sites automatically blocked by search engines would make it more difficult for paedophiles to get images of abuse. It comes after Mark Bridger was found guilty of the abduction and murder of five-year-old April Jones in Powys." It sounds like a continuation of the blocked-by-default porn white-listing plan that's been going around in the UK for a few years now.

An anonymous reader writes "CNet reports that a U.S. District Court Judge has rejected Google's attempt to fight 19 National Security Letters, which are used by the FBI to gather information on users without a warrant. Quoting: 'The litigation taking place behind closed doors in Illston's courtroom — a closed-to-the-public hearing was held on May 10 — could set new ground rules curbing the FBI's warrantless access to information that Internet and other companies hold on behalf of their users. The FBI issued 192,499 of the demands from 2003 to 2006, and 97 percent of NSLs include a mandatory gag order. It wasn't a complete win for the Justice Department, however: Illston all but invited Google to try again, stressing that the company has only raised broad arguments, not ones "specific to the 19 NSLs at issue." She also reserved judgment on two of the 19 NSLs, saying she wanted the government to "provide further information" prior to making a decision.' This does not affect the Electronic Frontier Foundation's challenge to the constitutionality of the letters in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals."

An anonymous reader writes "CNet reports that a U.S. District Court Judge has rejected Google's attempt to fight 19 National Security Letters, which are used by the FBI to gather information on users without a warrant. Quoting: 'The litigation taking place behind closed doors in Illston's courtroom — a closed-to-the-public hearing was held on May 10 — could set new ground rules curbing the FBI's warrantless access to information that Internet and other companies hold on behalf of their users. The FBI issued 192,499 of the demands from 2003 to 2006, and 97 percent of NSLs include a mandatory gag order. It wasn't a complete win for the Justice Department, however: Illston all but invited Google to try again, stressing that the company has only raised broad arguments, not ones "specific to the 19 NSLs at issue." She also reserved judgment on two of the 19 NSLs, saying she wanted the government to "provide further information" prior to making a decision.' This does not affect the Electronic Frontier Foundation's challenge to the constitutionality of the letters in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals."

An anonymous reader writes "A new study based on observations last September by the Curiosity rover on Mars has confirmed that pebble-containing slabs of rock found on the Martian surface were part of an ancient streambed. The work provides some of the most definitive evidence yet that water once flowed on Mars. '[The pebbles'] smooth appearance is identical to gravels found in rivers on Earth. Rock fragments that bounce along the bottom of a stream of water will have their edges knocked off, and when these pebbles finally come to rest they will often align in a characteristic overlapping fashion. ...It is confirmation that water has played its part in sculpting not only this huge equatorial bowl but by implication many of the other landforms seen on the planet.' According to NASA, 'The stream carried the gravels at least a few miles, or kilometers, the researchers estimated. The atmosphere of modern Mars is too thin to make a sustained stream flow of water possible, though the planet holds large quantities of water ice. Several types of evidence have indicated that ancient Mars had diverse environments with liquid water. However, none but these rocks found by Curiosity could provide the type of stream flow information published this week. Curiosity's images of conglomerate rocks indicate that atmospheric conditions at Gale Crater once enabled the flow of liquid water on the Martian surface.'"

Nerval's Lobster writes "Back in the ancient days of 2009, Motorola Mobility earned considerable buzz with its Droid smartphone. Marketed as an iPhone alternative, the device featured a sliding QWERTY keyboard and a chunky black body that seemed positively Schwarzenegger-esque in comparison to its svelte Apple rival. But Motorola failed to translate that buzz into sustained momentum in the smartphone space. Instead, Samsung became the dominant Android smartphone manufacturer, battling toe-to-toe with Apple for market-share and profits. Even Google acquiring Motorola for the princely sum of $12.1 billion didn't really seem to alter the equation very much. Motorola CEO Dennis Woodside wants to change all that. In a May 29 talk at AllThingsD's D11 conference, he told the audience that Motorola has a 'hero phone' in the works, dubbed the Moto X—and that it's self-aware. 'It anticipates my needs,' he said, according to AllThingD's live blog of the event. But what does that actually mean? Thanks to embedded sensors, the phone knows when the user removes it from his or her pocket; in theory, that capability could serve broader applications, such as the phone recognizing where the user is located within a city and serving up content and applications accordingly. In fact, it sounds a bit like Google Now on steroids—or like the smartphone precursor to SkyNet, the supercomputer from the Terminator movies that's so intelligent, it decides that the world would be better off if it ruled over humanity."

Velcroman1 writes "On May 15, the Department of Homeland Security seized a digital bank account used by 'MtGox,' the world's largest exchange, where people buy and sell bitcoins. DHS alleged, and a judge agreed, that there is 'probable cause' that MtGox is an 'unlicensed money service business.' If proven, the penalty for operating such a business is a fine and up to 5 years in jail. FoxNews.com caught up with several bitcoin exchanges, including CampBX, MtGox, CoinLab and more, to ask them how they've navigated the regulatory waters — and how to go legit." In other shady bitcoin news, it appears the demise of Liberty Reserve has caused hackers to find a new alternative. twoheadedboy writes "Despite suggestions Bitcoin might be the ideal currency for dealers on the dark web, it appears Perfect Money, a Panama-based operation, is proving the most popular alternative to the now-defunct Liberty Reserve. A source working the underground forums told TechWeekEurope that, for now, fraudsters are rapidly migrating to Perfect Money. Many vendors have started accepting it, having previously primarily used Liberty Reserve, which was shut down following the arrest of its founder and four other members this past week. Internet fraudsters might be interested in Perfect Money as it has distanced itself from the U.S., cutting off all new American registrations. However, one forum user said he was turned down by Perfect Money as their 'type of activity is not welcome.' Other currencies may yet win out."

Velcroman1 writes "On May 15, the Department of Homeland Security seized a digital bank account used by 'MtGox,' the world's largest exchange, where people buy and sell bitcoins. DHS alleged, and a judge agreed, that there is 'probable cause' that MtGox is an 'unlicensed money service business.' If proven, the penalty for operating such a business is a fine and up to 5 years in jail. FoxNews.com caught up with several bitcoin exchanges, including CampBX, MtGox, CoinLab and more, to ask them how they've navigated the regulatory waters — and how to go legit." In other shady bitcoin news, it appears the demise of Liberty Reserve has caused hackers to find a new alternative. twoheadedboy writes "Despite suggestions Bitcoin might be the ideal currency for dealers on the dark web, it appears Perfect Money, a Panama-based operation, is proving the most popular alternative to the now-defunct Liberty Reserve. A source working the underground forums told TechWeekEurope that, for now, fraudsters are rapidly migrating to Perfect Money. Many vendors have started accepting it, having previously primarily used Liberty Reserve, which was shut down following the arrest of its founder and four other members this past week. Internet fraudsters might be interested in Perfect Money as it has distanced itself from the U.S., cutting off all new American registrations. However, one forum user said he was turned down by Perfect Money as their 'type of activity is not welcome.' Other currencies may yet win out."

Nintendo says, "With Wii Street U powered by Google, you can step into Google Street View with an immersive experience that feels like you’re actually there! View a 360-degree Google Maps Street View of locations all over the world using the Wii U GamePad motion controls. Use the GamePad touch screen to type in an address or location and explore, or instantly travel to over 70 fascinating, hand-picked locations around the globe." It all looks lovely, but can't we do most of this with Android phones? And couldn't a smart developer make the Google Street View Android phone experience even more immersive, so we wouldn't all need to buy a Wii U? Nintendo, we love you, but the Wii U still looks pretty dead unless it gets some major rethinking, and this Street View app doesn't seem to be it.

New submitter agizis writes "Alex from Connectify here. I wanted to say thanks to all of you who commented on the Slashdot story about our Kickstarter campaign It was super-educational discussing Switchboard with all of you: you wanted your own servers, and we weren't doing enough to communicate what was so special about Switchboard. Based in a large part on your feedback, we blew up our Kickstarter campaign, and changed almost everything. Thanks, Slashdot. This isn't reddit, but ask me anything."

Ars Technica has taken a look at Microsoft's newly released preview of Windows 8.1. As widely rumored, the point release features a clamored-for concession to Windows users who rankled at the loss of Windows' Start button in the taskbar. In addition to various tweaks to 8's search capabilities and icon presentation, says the article, "Some of Windows 8's obvious limitations are being lifted. In 8.1, Metro apps can be run on multiple monitors simultaneously. On any single monitor, more than two applications can be run simultaneously. Instead of Windows 8's fixed split, where one application gets 320 pixels and the other application gets the rest, the division between apps will be variable. It'll also be possible to have multiple windows from a single app so that, for example, two browser windows can be opened side-by-side." Similar reports on these changes at Wired, Engadget, and SlashCloud.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a formal objection to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5, saying that a draft proposal from the W3C could hurt innovation and block access to people around the world. From their press page: '"This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared of technological evolution, it could also create serious impediments to interoperability and access for all."'

An anonymous reader writes "After having first decided against forcing a suspect to decrypt a number of hard drives that were believed to be his and to contain child pornography, a U.S. judge has changed his mind and has now ordered the suspect to provide law enforcement agents heading the investigation with a decrypted version of the contents of his encrypted data storage system, or the passwords needed to decrypt forensic copies of those storage devices. Jeffrey Feldman, a software developer at Rockwell Automation, has still not been charged with any crime, and the prosecution initially couldn't prove conclusively that the encrypted hard drives contained child pornography or were actually Feldman's, which led U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan to decide that forcing him to decrypt them would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. But new evidence has made the judge reverse his first decision (PDF): the FBI has continued to try to crack the encryption on the discs, and has recently managed to decrypt and access one of the suspect's hard drives... The storage device was found to contain 'an intricate electronic folder structure comprised of approximately 6,712 folders and subfolders,' approximately 707,307 files (among them numerous files which constitute child pornography), detailed personal financial records and documents belonging to the suspect, as well as dozens of his personal photographs."

Nerval's Lobster writes "Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg told an audience at AllThingsDigital's D11 conference that the social network's 'Home' app for Android has a viable future despite needing some work. 'I think it will be a long road,' she told the audience. 'We believe that the phone will get reorganized around people—Home is the first iteration of that.' But Home could require a good deal of tweaking, at least if user feedback is any sort of indication. After installing the Home app, the Android user's screen displays a modified version of the Facebook news feed, with an emphasis on images; other features include 'Chat Heads,' a messaging interface that sprinkles the screen with little icons of friends' heads. While that's a great way to get Facebook front-and-center on someone's phone, the software's one-star reviews on the Google Play storefront greatly outnumber the four- and five-star reviews."

twoheadedboy writes "Nasdaq has been fined $10 million by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over 'poor systems and decision-making' during the Facebook initial public offering. When Facebook went public on 18 May 2012, it was hoping for a major success, but technical glitches and poor decision making at Nasdaq caused real problems. The SEC said 'a design limitation' in the system to match IPO buy and sell orders was at the root of the disruption, thought to have cost investors $500 million. Orders failed to register properly, leaving banks like Citigroup and UBS in the lurch and making additional, unnecessary bids. They may still win money back from Nasdaq if legal challenges go their way."

stoolpigeon writes "How would humanity fare in a universe filled with other sentient races and the technology for all of them to interact? If human history is any indication there would be conflict. That conflict would be between many groups that saw themselves as people and the rest as monsters. What that universe and those interactions would look like is a key theme in John Scalzi's Old Man's War series. The latest offering, The Human Division continues to dig deeply into a wide range of questions about what makes someone a person and how people treat one another at their best and worst." Keep reading for the rest of stoolpigeon's review. The Human Division author John Scalzi pages 432 publisher Tor Books rating 9/10 reviewer stoolpigeon ISBN 978-0765333513 summary Following the events of The Last Colony, John Scalzi tells the story of the fight to maintain the unity of the human race It's been five years since the publication of the last book in John Scalzi's Old Man's War series, Zoe's Tale. That entry saw Scalzi explore new ground with his first juvenile. The newest Old Man's War book is another first for Scalzi. The Human Division was released on the web as a serial prior to being published in a complete volume in hardback and as an e-book. This was planned from the start and made for an interesting experience as those who chose to purchase chapters as they came out worked through the book together.

I have to admit I skipped out on reading the chapters as they were released. It seemed like a fun thing to do but I wanted to see what it would all cost in the end. Scalzi repeatedly said that the fully compiled story would cost the same as buying it in parts but I wanted to see how it would play out. So I avoided on-line discussion of the chapters as they were released and when it became available about a week ago I purchased the e-book version. The price was basically the same, though buying the complete book was a couple bucks cheaper and did include some extra content. I'd already read a big part of that extra content as it had been available earlier via Tor.com.

From what I've read on Scalzi's blog, his experiment with serializing the book was a success from a business standpoint. And I got the impression that most readers enjoyed the process as they went along, though I did try to avoid most discussion as it was happening to avoid spoilers. Publishing stories in this manner has been around for a long time, but I think the results may encourage others to do the same and we may see more of this in the near future. Scalzi has already agreed to do season 2, or the next book, in the same fashion.

Reading it all at once, I could still appreciate that it was written this way. Each chapter is self contained to a large extent. There are glimpses into the lives of various characters, changes of setting, and some wonderful storytelling. It all fits together and is certainly a novel, not a collection of short stories, but much more episodic. I thought it allowed for a nice amount of flexibility in the flow of the story and I appreciated the end result even if I got it all in one package at the end.

Aside from interest in the method of delivery, I was very excited to read The Human Division for the story itself. I hadn't enjoyed Scalzi's last sci-fi outing, Redshirts and was really looking forward to his return to my favorite universe he has created. The Old Man's War series, fitting into the military sci-fi genre, has of course brought many comparisons between Scalzi and Heinlein. I imagine part of the enjoyment I get from Scalzi's books are that he does have some commonality with R.A.H. who is one of my favorite authors. But really Scalzi does have his own voice, style and message and this comes more and more to the fore as the series moves on. The Human Division has all of the excitement, action and wit that makes reading Scalzi so fun. I think his ability to put together strong dialogue is unparalleled. And it is still military sci-fi, with our main protagonist being a soldier. Yet the world is so much more complex and rich than a simple kill or be killed scenario that moves from one point of action to the next. And even what would be slow points in a book that used action to carry a lack of plot, are full of rewarding interaction. We get to know and care about characters, lose some all too quickly and feel a sense of real people engaging one another as opposed to cardboard cutouts.

I wouldn't put the Old Man's War books into the hard sci-fi category but they aren't just fantasy dropped into space either. Scalzi obviously gives some thought to settings and technology and so I find it easy to overlook some of the issues that are skipped over for the sake of story. In the end it is entertainment and interesting questions about people and society that draw me to these books, more than a desire to learn more about physics or astronomy.

I did read follow on comments after the series was complete and noticed a few people who felt that there was a cliffhanger ending. While the book does end with some larger scale issues unresolved, I think that to call it a cliffhanger is not really accurate. I found the ending to be an appropriate point of closure, to step away from the characters. As I would tell me kids if they have to pause a movie, it was a "good place to stop." If we followed everyone to the completion of all that was going on in their lives, the book would be immense. As it is, it is already a solid read. It might feel a bit abrupt to some as it does set up some questions that are left unanswered that normally would be in a more formulaic treatment, but I'm glad Scalzi left them rather than a hasty or awkward finish.

As I mentioned, there are two extra stories in the newly published compilation of all 13 chapters. They are After the Coup and Hafte Sorvalh Eats a Churro and Speaks to the Youth of Today and both can be downloaded for free at Tor.com. After the Coup actually takes place prior to the events in The Human Division and was originally made available earlier. It can be read before or after the book. Hafte Sorvalh Eats a Churro and Speaks to the Youth of Today is shorter but very sweet and let me finish the book with a smile.

I've enjoyed every entry in the OMW series and I am very pleased to see it continue strongly. While reading the previous books is not necessary to enjoying this one, I can't imagine not wanting to read the other four. If someone is unsure, feel free to start with The Human Division and if they enjoy it, jumping back and reading the others will still be very enjoyable. There will be some spoilers but I don't think they'll take much away from Scalzi's real strengths in these stories, which are much more driven by character than plot. I think Scalzi will stand as a sci-fi great for some time to come and it is a lot of fun to get to watch it happen rather than just idolizing the masters of the past.

You can purchase The Human Division from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.