News & Commentary

28June

How Viable are VPNs for your Online Privacy Needs?

By Quandary Peak Research

In a recent piece on internet privacy legislation, Quandary Peak’s editorial team addressed the Congressional vote in March to overturn Obama-era internet privacy laws. In short, the new law gives telecommunications companies greater flexibility in how they can track, collect, and sell customer data. From a consumer standpoint, the implications of this legislation may largely depend on one’s Internet Service Provider (ISP)’s specific policies – and whether those policies may change as a result of the new law.

In reality, a majority of consumers will be unaware and/or indifferent to this shifting landscape in online privacy rules. But for those increasingly concerned about the issue, part of the narrative has shifted to whether VPNs (virtual private networks) can be a potential solution for restoring a lost layer of privacy.

VPNs have long been used by businesses to allow employees in remote/foreign locations to connect to a business’s private computer network. VPNs have steadily become more mainstream for private citizens, but remain unfamiliar to a vast swath of internet users. This unfamiliarity begs a number of questions: what, exactly, are VPNs? What are their advantages and disadvantages? Are any VPNs a cut above the rest? And, if a person is concerned about their online privacy, is a VPN an adequate solution?

What is a Virtual Private Network (VPN), and How Does it Work?

A virtual private network (VPN) is a service that allows a user to connect to the internet over a public network as if it were a private network. A common analogy is to consider a tunnel that links a user’s computer directly to a server operated by the VPN provider. When a request is sent for information (like entering a website address), it is ‘funneled’ through the VPN’s secure connection, and the information is sent back through the same private […]

Comments (0)|Read more

10May

A Briefing on Internet Privacy Legislation (2017)

By Quandary Peak Research

On March 28, 2017, Congress voted to overturn Obama-era internet privacy laws that were scheduled to go into effect later this year. As one of their first orders of business under President Trump, Congress targeted the FCC rule that required Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to “protect the privacy of their customers…[ensuring] broadband customers have meaningful choice, greater transparency and strong security protections for their personal information collected by ISPs (emphasis ours).”

The goal of the Obama-era legislation was to provide customers with the information and tools needed to make informed decisions about the use and sharing of personal information. In many cases, that meant having some power in restricting an ISP from collecting browsing history data and selling that information on the open market (mainly to advertisers).

In order to understand the new legislation, it is worth taking a look at how the now-repealed Obama-era regulations were structured, essentially on three tiers:

Opt-in

Internet Service Providers were “required to obtain affirmative ‘opt-in’ consent from consumers to use and share sensitive information.” Sensitive information that could not be collected or shared without a customer’s approval included “precise geo-location, financial information, health information, children’s information, social security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history and the content of communications. ”

Opt-out

ISPs “would be allowed to use and share non-sensitive information (our emphasis) unless a customer ‘opts-out.’” Email addresses or other “service tier” information was considered non-sensitive, and “use and sharing of that information would be subject to opt-out consent, consistent with consumer expectations. ”

Exceptions to Consent Requirements

Exceptions existed when pertaining to basic services related to a consumer opening and maintaining an account with the broadband service, including “the provision of broadband service or billing and collection.”

The rules also included transparency requirements, rules that required broadband services to utilize “reasonable data security practices,” and […]

Comments (0)|Read more

27February

Code is Tricky, Part 2: Source Code Never Runs

By Jason Frankovitz

Every software expert at Quandary Peak regularly reads and analyzes large volumes of source code, and while understanding the specific programming language can help, it’s not the only skill we bring to a project. Knowing the unique qualities and nuances that apply to programming code can be the difference between winning and losing a trial. In this eight-part series of posts I’ll describe a few of the unintuitive aspects of source code that experts have to keep in mind when working on your case.

Source Code Never Runs

Like attorneys, software programmers are in the business of technicalities, where small distinctions can sometimes make a big difference. This is particularly important in software patent cases, which can often hinge on very minor, esoteric aspects of code (very minor to a non-computer-scientist, at least.) One of those potential trivialities is the distinction between the code written by programmers and what instructions the computer executes. As we shall see, virtually all the code written by programmers never runs on any computer. How is this possible? To explain this apparent contradiction, we need a bit of history.

Computers prefer numbers

Alan Turing was an early computer scientist who was instrumental in the Allies’ World War II victory. Seventy years ago he theorized a device, now called a Turing machine, that could read and write limitless numbers on an endless paper tape, to complete arbitrary mathematical tasks.

Later, in the 1970s, the first build-it-yourself home computer, the Altair 8800, was great at mathematical tasks, but not so great at inputting them: it had no keyboard. To enter a number into the Altair, you had to look up which switch positions on the front panel represented the number you wanted to enter, flip the switches accordingly, then flip a final switch to commit the number into memory.

Comments (0)|Read more

10February

Code is Tricky, Part 1: Dead Code

By Jason Frankovitz

Every software expert at Quandary Peak regularly reads and analyzes large volumes of source code, and while understanding the specific programming language can help, it’s not the only skill we bring to a project. Knowing the unique qualities and nuances that apply to programming code can be the difference between winning and losing a case. In this eight-part series of posts we’ll describe a few of the unintuitive aspects of source code that experts have to keep in mind when working on your case.

What is dead code?

Dead code is source code that is present in the program but doesn’t actually get used by the program. It’s not uncommon for a software product to have hundreds of thousands (even millions) of lines of code, and not all of them are used every time they’re run. Essentially, there are two situations which can result in dead code: one, if a condition required to run a piece of code is never fulfilled, or two, if the program provides no execution path into the code. In both cases the code exists in the program, but the program never executes it, resulting in dead code.

Unsatisfied conditions

For the first situation, here’s an oversimplified example to illustrate the mechanism:

Code can be dead because of unsatisfied conditions

Above, if the $DAY_OF_WEEK variable has the value of “Monday” or “Friday”, either the complain_about_work or the make_dinner_reservations method will run. The method infringe_valuable_patent will never run because there’s no such day as “Kronsday”. Because the condition to execute the patent-infringing code will never be true, the infringe_valuable_patent method will never run; it is dead code.

No route to execution

With just a small change we can illustrate how the second […]

Comments (0)|Read more

7February

If You Have a Slow Network Connection, You Can Prove It

By Jason Frankovitz

It can be hard to know if the Internet connection you’re paying for (at home or at work) is really giving you the speed that you’re paying for. With almost 90% of Americans using the Internet regularly, and a market size around $100 billion, both companies and consumers want to know if they’re getting their money’s worth. Simply trusting that your ISP is doing the right thing might not be wise. According to the Seattle Times, the Attorney General of New York is suing Charter Communications for false claims about the speed of its Internet services.

Fortunately, discovering how fast your network connection doesn’t require some arcane knowledge or special equipment. The venerable speedtest.net will test your network connection for free. The site clearly show you your available bandwidth and latency (ping), but there are other benefits too. What’s less well-known about the site is a feature that lets you easily log your network testing over time. Using your log, you can see if today is just a slow network day, or if your ISP is consistently cheating you out of the bandwidth you’re paying for.

How to make your free network speed log

Go to www.speedtest.net, click “Create Account”, and make a new account using your email address and a secure password.

speedtest_home_page

After you log in using your new account, perform a test of your network speed by clicking the “BEGIN TEST” button. You’ll see the site check your ping timing, download and upload speeds.

speedtest_1st_test_start

After the test ends, see the results you just got under the Recent Results table.

speedtest_1st_test_results

It’s easy to compare those results against new test results. Just run another speed test and the site will add […]

Comment (1)|Read more

3October

Google vs. EU: Antitrust Conflict Timeline

By Quandary Peak Research

The European Commission’s investigation of Google’s alleged misconduct has done nothing but expand and intensify over the last six years. Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s Competition Commissioner appointed in the midst of the investigations, has spearheaded the ‘don’t back down’ attitude taken by the EU. She resisted her predecessors’ efforts to settle the case with the tech giant, and has instead added to the list of accusations in the anti-trust lawsuit.

The accusations against Google now include earlier claims that the company abused its market dominance with unfair business practices pertaining to its comparison shopping services and search advertisements, as well as more recent allegations that it engaged in predatory business practices by imposing unfair restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators. Earlier this year, the European Commission sent its second and third Statement of Objections to Google formalizing its charges against the company and heightening the profile of the case. Google continues to deny the charges and is working to settle the disputes, while avoiding heavy penalties. In other words, the battle is very much alive and well.

It may surprise many readers to realize this case is now well into its sixth year, so we’ve created a timeline to track the major developments and key findings of the case.

February 24, 2010 – The European Commission confirms receipt of three antitrust complaints against Google. The complaints were authored by Foundem, Ciao, and eJustice. The Commission informs Google of the complaints and asks the company to address the allegations.

November 30, 2010 – The European Commission opens an antitrust investigation of Google, citing allegations that Google has “abused a dominant position in online search”. The Commission’s press release indicates the investigation will explore three claims:

That Google lowered the rank of unpaid search results of competing services
That Google lowered the […]

Comments (0)|Read more

25September

Jury Finds Apple Infringed Smartphone Patent

By Quandary Peak Research

A patent trial in the District of Delaware between MobileMedia Ideas (MMI) and Apple ended with a jury finding of infringement by Apple and an award of $3 million to MMI. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. RE 39,231, described the invention of the “polite ignore” feature on cell phones for silencing an incoming call in a way that prevents the caller from knowing that the call was ignored.

During the trial, which lasted a week, the jury heard expert testimony from Dr. Sigurd Meldal, a Professor of Computer Engineering and Software Engineering at San Jose State University and an expert with Quandary Peak Research. Dr. Meldal’s testimony related to technical aspects of the Apple devices at issue, the iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 4. Dr. Meldal, who was the sole technical expert called by MMI, had previously testified as a smartphone expert in other patent cases, including another trial between MMI and Apple that concluded with a favorable verdict for MMI in 2012.

After deliberating for less than two days, the jury found the patent valid and returned an infringement verdict with a damages award to MMI. Additional details about the case are available at Law360 and Delaware Law Weekly.

Comments (0)|Read more

13September

Lacking in Transparency: The Google Transparency Project

By Quandary Peak Research

In April 2016, the Campaign for Accountability (CfA) launched the Google Transparency Project (GTP), aimed at creating an online resource for the public to explore the relationship between Google and the government—and the impact of this relationship on American lives. In a statement, CfA Executive Director Anne Weisman said, “Google has long been a strong advocate of transparency in government, business, and even users’ private lives. It has not, however, been transparent about its own dealings with the government.” While other issues targeted by the CfA appear to have a more industry-wide spotlight, the Google Transparency Project focuses specifically on Google’s relationship with the government and its influence on public policy.

Major reports released by the GTP thus far examine the scope of Google’s access to the White House during Obama’s presidency as well as the suggested ‘revolving door’ shared between Google employees and those of the White House. Data compiled in the reports is accessible for public review and is accompanied by analysis from the CfA.

On the surface, this effort seems like it would be cut-and-dry in the public’s interest. Google is the second largest company in the world by market capitalization (second only to Apple Inc.), and it spent over $16 million on lobbying in 2014. Not a meaningful number to Google, but certainty a meaningful number in the lobbying world. $16 million in 2014 puts Google just below Comcast and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in lobbying dollars spent.

Knowing what goes on in the lobbying world and between government and business is critical, but the GTP has a transparency problem of its own. As Fortune’s Jeff John Roberts noted back in April, “The folks running the Google Transparency Project won’t say who is paying for it, which is odd […]

Comments (0)|Read more

23August

Open to Content: A Look at the Case for Net Neutrality

By Quandary Peak Research

On June 14, 2016 the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Open Internet Rules. The Court’s ruling came after more than a decade of intense debate over the relationship between Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the Federal Government, and internet users. Twice before, attempts by the FCC to implement rules that would allow them to regulate discriminatory behavior by ISPs have been overturned by the Court of Appeals. For the FCC, it appears the third time was in fact the charm.

While the arguments heard by the court focused heavily on the scope of the FCC’s regulatory authority, the larger debate has revolved around the term ‘net neutrality,’ which can be defined as the open and indiscriminate movement of content (movies, songs, news, etc…) over a network. For many, net neutrality implies a level playing field for all internet users—an uncompromised venue that incentivizes innovation and investment and allows everyone to access content and pursue their objectives equally. In a rare turn, public interest groups actually find themselves on the same side as large tech firms like Google and Facebook supporting the millions of internet subscribers that have rallied in favor of net neutrality.

Summarizing the argument for net neutrality, Google wrote: “If internet access providers can block some services and cut special deals that prioritize some companies’ content over others, that would threaten the innovation that makes the internet awesome…” So, without net neutrality, an ISP would be able to decide what content you can access and the speed at which you can access it.

On the other side of the debate are special interest groups representing a host of ISPs and others whose platform was focused generally on being anti-regulation. Prominent in this group, the USTelecom Association believes the regulations, […]

Comments (0)|Read more

15June

It’s Not Over Yet: Apple Inc. and the FBI Continue Fight Over Encrypted Data Access

By Quandary Peak Research

In what could’ve been the highest-profile case the tech world has ever seen, Apple Inc. (ticker: AAPL) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) locked horns for months over gaining access to an iPhone belonging to one of the shooters in the San Bernardino attacks. The world watched as the tech giant held its position seeking not to undermine the security of its products, and the FBI attempted to force Apple’s hand in creating code that would enable them to access information on a locked iPhone.

Normally, the force of the federal government would have this case framed as a David vs. Goliath. But Apple Inc. is the world’s second largest company by market capitalization (Alphabet is the first), and with $215 billion in cash as of year-end 2015, it is better capitalized than the federal government—Apple’s debt to cash ratio is around 30% while the federal government’s debt to GDP ratio is over 100%. This is Goliath vs. Goliath, where both entities seemingly have unlimited resources to fight this case to any end. And there’s sufficient pride on both sides to expect just that.

In a world where tech security is a growing paramount concern, the case was—and still is—poised to set a new precedent governing the complicated relationship between the U.S. government, tech companies, and access to private data. In the case of the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone, the FBI argued (inaccurately) that they would not be able to access important information contained on the phone without Apple’s help. They obtained a court order from a Federal Magistrate demanding Apple’s assistance after citing the All Writs Act, a 227-year-old law that can be used by the government to compel companies to perform actions by government order, so long as they are legal and for good reason. […]

Comments (0)|Read more