Over at Ars, Ken, Jacqui, and Clint have written their magnum opus on the iPhone. On page 9 (yes, the review is more than 10 pages long), we get an interesting tidbit about the visual voicemail feature:
Visual voicemail is a new feature introduced by AT&T and Apple with the iPhone that currently only “works” over AT&T’s network. Instead of requiring the user to dial up the carrier’s voicemail number and listen to his or her voicemails in the order that they were received, visual voicemail lists each message out in visual format on the iPhone, almost like e-mail. It displays who the voicemail is from (and if it doesn’t recognize the number, it will analyze the area code and tell you what geographical area it’s from, which is helpful), and the user can tap whichever one in the list that he or she wants, no matter its position in the list. When the voicemail is playing, the user can pause it, scrub back and forth in the message, or skip.
The way it works is actually not as magical as AT&T might like you to believe, although the technology is still AT&T-specific. The iPhone actually downloads sound clips of the voicemail messages off of AT&T’s server, presumably over EDGE, and stores them in temporary files on the iPhone’s flash storage. This allows the iPhone user to select messages to listen to out of order, because all he or she is doing is listening to an audio file. This is also what enables the user to scrub with the touchscreen and listen to different parts of the message. It’s a nifty bit of technology, but really only required AT&T’s voicemail servers to tell the iPhone when to download a new message, and then the iPhone takes care of the rest. In our tests, visual voicemail worked as advertised, and we had no trouble with it. It is, however, a feature that we would be more than willing to sacrifice if we had the opportunity to use an unlocked iPhone on another network. That said, Ken believes that this is a very significant development in the world of voicemail, and he hopes and prays that this becomes standard everywhere.
This is a question we’ve discussed several times here: how much special support is required on the network side to make visual voicemail work? The answer seems to be “some, but not as much as you might think.” That is, the network does have to notify the phone of when new messages are available, provide them for download to the phone, and accept status change notifications from the phone when the user has listened to or deleted them. But there doesn’t need to be tight integration between the phone and the network when the user is actually listening to the messages.
Come to think of it, another advantage this approach presumably has is that you shouldn’t have to be connected to the network to listen to your voicemail messages. Once they’re downloaded to your phone, you should be able to listen to them anywhere, even if you’re in a location that doesn’t get good reception.
Federal Computer Week reports on the anemic funding for REAL ID in the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bills that spend money on DHS for fiscal year 2008, which begins October 1st. This is a reflection of the lacking enthusiasm for a national ID in Congress (as in the Administration, which also underfunded REAL ID in its budget).
The House bill has only $50 million in it for REAL ID, and the Senate bill has no money at all. But the Information Technology Association of America is on the case.
That’s not much, but at least it’s a start, said Jennifer Kerber, senior director of homeland security programs at the Information Technology Association of America, whose members are high-tech companies. Many states look at Real ID as an unfunded mandate from the federal government, which could undermine the program, she added.
“If the federal government doesn’t come up with funding, then some states will not implement Real ID,” Kerber said. “We’ve already seen some cases where [state departments of motor vehicles] have asked for money to improve their processes, but the state legislatures have turned them down because they don’t see anything coming from the feds.”
Without doubt, Jennifer and her colleagues are up on Capitol Hill warning of this awful fate. ITAA issued a shabby “
white paper” in May arguing for full funding of REAL ID and saying that it would “enhance” privacy. Embarassing.
It’s unfortunate to see an otherwise solid trade association acting as a government supplicant and working to undermine freedom, supposedly on behalf of the information technology industry.
Please join me in welcoming the newest addition to the TLF roster. Cord Blomquist is a technology policy analyst and assistant to the president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. You might remember our friendly disagreement over the DMCA and the Digg incident. He’s also written some smart stuff on other topics, such as video game ratings, and he appeared on our podcast a couple of weeks ago to discuss Google’s newfound interest in public policy. Welcome aboard, Cord!
Don Marti, a writer for LinuxWorld, describes “the other side” of the software patent debate:
To the “think tank” types [on the Technology Liberation Front], lawyers are basically free and software innovation is hard to get. Most of the think tanks are in Washington, DC, where you can’t swing a cat without hitting a bunch of lawyers. To a think tank staffer, it’s just as obvious that you’d get a lawyer to patent your software idea as that you’d back up your files. Lawyers are background noise, and software innovation is something that you see on the cover of Wired and wonder “how did they do that?” (If there’s a breeze on Technology Liberation Front, it’s all the pro-software-patent posters hand-waving the transaction costs.)
To the people opposed to software patents, lawyers are expensive, and software innovation is abundant. As a working programmer with a white board, software innovation comes to you faster than you could actually get the software working, so software innovation might as well be free. The limiting factor in producing software value is debugging, testing and integration time, not patentable ideas.
In the real world, transaction costs around software patents—mainly the price of lawyers—matter way more than the think tankers are able to see, what with taking swarms of lawyers for granted. And software innovation, to most people, isn’t just a nusiance that leaves you with a stack of notes and half-baked programs, it’s actually rare.
Is this a fair criticism? One of the things I like about TLF is that we have a non-trivial number of both lawyers and geeks in our audience, so there’s some opportunity for these “two cultures” to become better acquainted with one another’s perspectives.
TechCrunch has a write-up of a Belgian court ruling, based on the EU copyright directive, that Internet Service Providers bear responsibility for stopping illegal file-sharing on their networks. Apparently, though, the ruling doesn’t create a general obligation to monitor.
We get a lot of benefit from treating ISPs as common carriers, empty vessels without any obligation other than to serve their customers. I wrote a piece in Regulation magazine a while back arguing against imposing a responsibility on ISPs to control viruses. Though they can do so as a service to customers, requiring it of them sets a precedent that leads to all kinds of regulation and monitoring being imposed through the ISP bottleneck.
The podcast is taking the week off. In the meantime, check out the smart comments on last week’s episode. This one from john b. was particularly interesting:
Your discussion of discovery was a bit off. (1) Coca Cola actually *was* once required to divulge a formula in discovery. It refused to comply. Famous case in lots of CivPro casebooks. (2) The usual result of not divulging information requested in discovery is that all inferences are drawn against you that could be reasonably drawn from the evidence. In this case, the inference would have to be that the code was flawed and threw off the election results. Or, they could simply do what happens routinely in such matters and work with the judge and opposing counsel to keep the discovered material private and so on. Their choice.
We’ll be back next week with fresh content for your listening pleasure.
Longtime TLF readers may recall the Great Shopping Cart Debate of 2006, in which Jim Delong, Jim Harper, myself, and others made increasingly strained analogies between DRM and those wheel locks you find on shopping carts.
At the time, the debate was entirely theoretical, since the shopping cart cartel had succeeded in keeping a tight rein on the supply of shopping cart circumvention devices. Well no longer. Slashdot reports that some troublemakers have reverse-engineered those shopping cart wheel locks:
The two major shopping cart theft prevention systems are called CAPS and the GS2. From our escapades, we have found the GS2 system is far more effective at actually stopping carts on smooth ground. It also has a longer range (!) and a more sophisticated locking and unlocking signal. Best of all, it can be reset remotely, meaning double the fun as you play “red light/green light” with unsuspecting customers.
The picture below is of the GS2 wheel, found only at your finer supermarkets.
Discussion topic for the day: it appears that such a device could be used to steal shopping carts, at least the type of cart that can be reset remotely. If that’s true, should these “circumvention devices” be illegal? Should
information about them be illegal? If someone wrote software that could be installed onto software-defined radio to perform the same function, should that software be illegal?
There’s a commendable piece called “Strictly Confidential” (summarized; full article behind paywall) by Jacob Shapiro in the current issue of Foreign Policy.
Shapiro makes an intelligent case that opening government improves security. “When government officials curb access to information,” he writes, “they cut themselves off from the brain power and analytical skills of a huge community of scientists, engineers, and security experts who are often far better at identifying threats, weaknesses, and solutions than any government agency.” Shapiro provides a couple of examples where openness has improved security systems.
“Putting information behind lock and key does not make targets safe from attack. It leaves security analysts unable to find solutions to other weaknesses in the future. It also leaves government and industry less motivated to find safeguards of their own.”
Good stuff.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.