• ZD Net, Telstra Attacks Terabyte Fad
• IT News, Telstra says: Don’t take terabyte broadband bait

At  McAfee’s  Focus 2010 Security Seminar, one of the more interesting sessions  was an analysis of Operation Arurora presented by McAfee’s head of Threat Research,  Dmitri Alperovitch.  Outside of  IT security circles, the name Operation Aurora probably doesn’t ring any bells.  But in January 2010,  the Aurora cyber-attack  was making headlines across the globe due to Google’s sensational claims it had been the victim of a security breach which had its origins in China.

Google wasn’t the only company infiltrated.  A number of other US companies in industries such as finance, defence and technology, were also targeted. But it was  Google’s actions – publicly outing itself as a victim, naming China as the source of the attacks and threatening to stop censoring its search results in China – which made it the public face of the Aurora attacks.

Whilst those with a background in IT security would probably get more from Dmitri’s presentation, the analysis of Aurora was presented in a way that made it accessible to a more general audience. Which is a great thing given some of the thought provoking issues raised.

1. Theft was the primary objective: Whilst much of the media attention was on Google’s claim  hackers had targeted the email of two Chinese human rights activists, the primary goal of the attack was theft. Aurora was a sustained attempt to steal intellectual property –  for example by targeting  software that would give the hackers the ability to steal source code. Dmitri’s view – the targeting of the Gmail accounts was an opportunistic exploitation of already compromised systems.

2.  Brilliantly planned, brilliantly executed:  Listening to the Aurora story unfold was like listening to  the plot of a spy movie.  To give an idea of the scale (and hence resources) involved, consider these points:

• The number of companies simultaneously attacked. It’s been claimed up to 34 companies were attacked. Whilst a simultaneous attack  may yield some economies of scale (reuse of code, sharing of  infrastructure and human agents), to target so many companies at once is both impressive – and worrying.
• The hackers had a common modus operandi , but customised their attacks based on the targeted company and the specific individuals in the organisation they were after.  This suggests some fairly detailed intelligence  gathering and preparation must have gone in to the set up for the main attack.
• When targets were compromised, there were hackers standing by to take control of the compromised systems. Forget kids breaking in during their spare time, whoever was behind Aurora could afford to have people on stand by to capitalise on opportunities as soon as they came up.

3. Deterrence – attribution and/or retribution: One of the key themes of the McAfee event was that reactive and purely defensive security is no longer enough. Typically this was presented in the context of security software and hardware that works on threat prospecting and reputation scoring, rather than blacklists and traditional signature files.

But Dmitri also raised another idea – being able to identify the source of attacks (attribution) and create suitable deterrents – including “kinetic responses”.  (i.e. physical attacks).  But would any nation state really have the confidence to openly stage a physical attack in response to a cyber attack? Would a nation really order some form of direct military action if it were ‘proved’ that another nation had been engaged in some form of cyber attack?

Up until a few weeks ago I would have said no. But in the wake of Stuxnet I’m becoming more inclined to think that in the future, the answer may be yes.

Stuxnet is reportedly one of the most sophisticated pieces of malware seen to date. The latest speculation from the IT security community is that it was developed by a well funded organisation (nation state) to cripple Iran’s nuclear program.  Like Aurora,  it is likely to have taken a long time to plan, develop and execute the Stuxnet attack.

So how will countries targeted by this type of  incredibly destructive attack respond? Will they be prepared to bide their time before they stage an equally surreptitious counter-attack, or will they pursue the simpler and quicker “kinetic” option?  Will nations pre-emptively position themselves to be able to stage cyber-strikes; and create a virtualised state of mutual assured destruction that (mostly) keeps the peace?

Whatever the outcome, Aurora and Stuxnet have moved cyberwar from the stuff of Hollywood fiction to public reality.  Welcome, to the new world order?

But as a writer, there’s a different challenge in writing for a specific audience or in a particular format. This is part of the reason I’ve become an official  blogger at Telstra Exchange (TEX). Writing for TEX means pushing ones self to write to someone else’s requirements.

For example,  whilst conciseness is something I strive for , my more analytical posts tend to be around a thousand words, or even longer. By contrast, the recommended word count for TEX is about half that. Sticking to the suggested limits requires careful selection of both the blog topic and the key points to be covered.  It’s a challenge, but being able to work within the guidelines and still produce a post I’m happy with is quite rewarding.

The other reason for blogging at TEX is exposure.  My first post at TEX was a review of Kindle for Android, and in one afternoon it’s generated more comments, likes and shares than anything posted on MinimalState. TEX  looks like being a good platform for building a personal blogging brand, which can hopefully be leveraged to boost the profile of MinimalState.

So whilst there will still be new and original posts appearing here at MinimalSate, I’ll also be directing readers to posts on TEX.  And if you have any suggestions for topics you’d like to see covered here or at TEX, please  let me know.

The clip is cleverly put together – superimposing the faces of  political figures on to the bodies of Hollywood action heroes amd tying together action sequences  with a dramatic soundtrack interspaced by political ‘sound-bites’. It looks and feels like a genuine Hollywood movie trailer, no doubt helped by the fact that GetUp! have utilised footage from actual blockbusters such as The Matrix and The Fifth Element.

Which raises the question of whether this video will land GetUp! trouble for copyright infringement?

Note: I am not a lawyer. The following discussion is based on my experience as a competitive intelligence analyst who has worked in support of  legal teams dealing with issues of copyright and fair dealing. The following discussion is not legal advice. If you have a specific legal issue relating to copyright, please consult a legal practitioner certified to practice in your  jurisdiction.

At the end of the YouTube video, GetUp! acknowledge the copyrighted works they have drawn material from and the associated copyright owners. They also claim that the material has been used for the purpose of parody and satire, potentially bringing them within one of the ‘fair dealing’ categories under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

The Copyright Act defines neither ‘parody’ or ‘satire’, however using the definitions put forward in the fact sheets by the Australian Copyright Council and the Attorney General’s Department,  GetUp’s video could arguably be;

• a parody – it mocks the  Hollywood blockbusters from which the clips are drawn; and/or
• a satire  - it ridicules the contest between politicians through hyperbolically comparing it to a fight between action heroes.

But simply being a parody or satire isn’t enough to avoid running afoul of copyright. According to the Australian Copyright Council’s fact sheet:

“ The use of copyright material for parody or satire must be “fair”. It is unclear how courts will assess “fairness” whenit comes to this new exception.  However, factors such as the following could be relevant:

• how much of the copyright material is used;

• the context in which the parody or satire is used; and

• whether or not the copyright owner generally licenses such uses.” (Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G079v05, June 2008)

When the David Campbell story broke,  LE  pointed out the mixed messages being sent out on this topic.  At the same time some members of the media where busy berating Jason Akermanis for discouraging gay AFL players from coming out, “gay sex scandal” was rapidly becoming the headline of the day as the David Campbell story escalated.

Seven’s original story was accompanied by allegations Campbell had misused his ministerial car in order to attend “Kens at Kensington” and that he had been at “Kens” during the debacle involving the closure of the F3 freeway. It was subsequently shown that the car and F3 allegation were false.

Channel Seven  defended their actions as being in the public interest,  claiming the public had a right to know that  ”Mr Campbell was leading a double life unknown to his family and had campaigned for election as a family man including sending Christmas cards with a photograph of his wife and children.” They also alleged that Campbell’s actions put him in a position where  he may be blackmailed.

Both of these arguments are relatively weak justifications for Seven’s actions.

Campbell has acknowledged he led a double life, and apologised for the embarrassment some of his decisions have caused.  However being interested in sex with men does not necessarily mean that David Campbell is not a family man. That he chose to keep an aspect of his personal life “personal” is his choice, and there appears to have been nothing said so far that rules out the possibility that Campbell’s wife knew about her husbands other interests.

On the potential for blackmail arising from Campbell’s lifestyle, that’s all it appears to have been … potential. Had Seven produced evidence Campbell was actually being blackmailed, it may have been in the public interest to run a story about  corruption of a government minister. But Campbell wasn’t being blackmailed.

The David Campbell story also suggests that for some elements of the media (and their audience), sexuality and lifestyles that lie outside the heteronormative paradigm are still considered scandalous in their own right.  That many of the media stories headlined with “gay sex scandal” suggests Campbell’s sexuality was a newsworthy element of the story. In a society that was truly accepting of  homosexuality,  the  David Campbell story would simply have been simply  headlined “sex scandal”.

After all, when was the last time the mainstream media headlined with “hetero sex scandal” ?

When Apple launched the iPhone 4, stories  emerged of users experiencing a drop-off in the number of bars of reception when they held the outside antenna band in a certain way. Speculation arose  that there was an issue with the design of the antenna and Apple created something of a stir with it’s initial response to the problem – hold the phone differently or get a case that covers the antenna.

But as Apple investigated the issue further, they made what they acknowledge was a rather “simple and surprising” discovery that impacts all iPhones, not just iPhone 4:

“ Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong. Our formula, in many instances, mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength. For example, we sometimes display 4 bars when we should be displaying as few as 2 bars.

Users observing a drop of several bars when they grip their iPhone in a certain way are most likely in an area with very weak signal strength, but they don’t know it because we are erroneously displaying 4 or 5 bars. Their big drop in bars is because their high bars were never real in the first place.

To fix this, we are adopting AT&T’s recently recommended formula for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal strength. The real signal strength remains the same, but the iPhone’s bars will report it far more accurately, providing users a much better indication of the reception they will get in a given area.” (Apple media release, 02/07/2010)

In short – iPhones have been overstating signal strength,  typically by two bars.

Whilst this is certainly egg on Apple’s face… it could also lead to some awkward moments for  mobile network operators  such as AT&T.

Mobile operators who in the past may have been able to blame poor voice or data performance on the iPhone,  claiming that the signal strength showed the network coverage was fine… will potentially find they have one less excuses for poor coverage once the accuracy of the iPhone signal strength indicator is resolved.

Whilst Apple’s software engineers and testers are probably experiencing similar red faces to Google’s Streetview team, Apple’s open and honest acknowledgement of the issue  will probably help calm the online storm around the iPhone’s  reception issue. The interesting question will be whether Apple’s fix will create a whole new set of  challenges for mobile operators.

The new PM has wasted no time in seizing the opportunity to  change the governments  approach to negotiating with the mining industry over the resource super profit tax (RSPT). The question now is – what other policy areas could benefit from an opportune change of tack?

Within the telecoms and technology arena, there have been two hot topics for the  ALP led government since it came to power – the National Broadband Network (NBN) and internet censorship.

This week, an in principle agreement was finally reached with Telstra in regards to the company’s involvement with the NBN.  Given the size  of the agreement ($11bn) and the benefits of the deal to NBN Co (access to Telstra’s infrastructure and customers), the government is  unlikely to  substantially change things too much in this arena. With an election  expected in the next few months, the government needs the NBN to be an election promise showing tangible progress – not just another pipe dream causing conflicts like the RSPT.

On the other hand – internet censorship continues to be a problem area for the government. Like the NBN, progress has been slow. So slow there’s speculation that the enabling legislation may be delayed until after the election. But like the NBN, internet censorship was an election promise and the escalating rhetoric from Senator Conroy (the responsible minister) had put the government in a position where it risked losing face if it yielded to criticism of the proposal.

But Julia Gillard’s ascension to the role of PM offers an opportunity for the government to rethink this policy. If  Senator Conroy where moved on as part of a Cabinet reshuffle, a new Communications Minister could potentially seek alternate methods of delivering the spirit of the policy – without imposing mandatory internet censorship on all Australians.

The next few weeks look like being a very interesting period indeed.

“use sensors, meters, digital controls and analytic tools to automate, monitor and control the two-way flow of energy across operations—from power plant to plug. A power company can optimize grid performance, prevent outages, restore outages faster and allow consumers to manage energy usage right down to the individual networked appliance. Smart grids can also incorporate new sustainable energies such as wind and solar generation, and interact locally with distributed power sources, or plug-in electric vehicles.” (IBM 30/11/2009)

In his NBN advocacy,  Senator Conroy has claimed smart grids can make a significant contribution to helping Australia reduce carbon emissions, and that broadband is an important enabler of future smart grids in Australia.

But do we need the NBN to implement smart grids? Recent developments would  suggest not.

The current ‘smart meter’ roll out in Victoria will rely on wireless connectivity for transmitting data from the meters. Likewise, the planned ‘smart grid’ deployment in NSW by Energy Australia also utilise wireless.[1] Both these initiatives will be deployed ahead of the NBN roll out, utilising technology that is available now. Electricity companies therefore clearly have economically viable  options  already for monitoring and managing their networks – without the NBN.

From the consumer perspective, it’s also questionable how much of an improvement the NBN can make.  Power monitoring tools like Google’s Powermeter are capable of functioning over current internet connections. The main barrier to greater adoption of household energy monitoring tools,  like Google Powermeter, would seem to be the lack of participation by Australian energy companies. This is  something that may change as their smart meter roll outs progress.

All this  suggests the NBN isn’t really a mandatory requirement for ‘smart grid’ deployments. While there may be large benefits through the enablement of smart grids via broadband, the incremental contribution of the NBN may not be as large as the government is hoping.

Notes:

[1] Interestingly, both the NSW and Victorian deployments will utilise WiMAX, facilitated by 2.3 Ghz spectrum purchases from Wireless Broadband Australia.

“advise Government on how best to implement its stated policy objectives, not to evaluate those objectives, given that the policies have already been agreed by Government. This report therefore focuses on translating high-level policy objectives into tangible actions for both Government and NBN Co to implement. Explicitly, it does not:

• Evaluate Government’s policy objectives;
• Evaluate the decision to implement the NBN via the establishment of NBN Co;
• Undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the macro-economic and social benefits that would result from the implementation of a superfast broadband network.” (NBN Implementation Study, 06/05/2010)

The report is clearly directed at answering the question of how to deliver the NBN in a way that meets the governments policy objectives. It very explicitly states that out of scope is if the NBN should be built, or built according to the governments objectives.

There’s a couple of ways to look at the decision to define the scope this way.

If you’re engaging expensive consultants like McKinsey and KPMG, you want to make sure you’re getting value for money. As I’ve argued in the case of engaging competitive intelligence specialists,

“To get the most value out of CI, the decision you’re engaging CI to help answer should be one that is still to be made, and not something that’s already been decided. (MinimalState 01/04/2010)

On this basis, DBCDE ‘s decision to request an implementation study, rather than a cost-benefit analysis, looks like a  smart move.  It’s a  smart use of resources – since the report addresses decisions still to be made;  and politicly astute – since there’s no chance of the report coming out with the ‘wrong’ answer. DBCDE has arguably asked the right questions in terms of making sure the NBN gets built in the way that best meets the stated policy objective.

Unfortunately, without some form of cost-benefit analysis, we’re no closer to knowing if the objectives the government are pursing are the right ones.

So what makes this phone so desirable? And why the qualification of “mostly”?

NOTE: In addition to the standard disclaimer & disclosure, readers should be aware that this phone was purchased on the Telstra staff plan. Therefore this review does not discuss plan and pricing options. This is a personal review and is not part of the Telstra’s  ’social review’ program.

Things to Love
For anyone still wondering if it’s worth making the leap to a smartphone (be it iPhone, Android or other) , the answer is yes. At home, the Desire has  become a convenient laptop substitute for simple tasks like checking email or catching up on Facebook. Having an alternate means of Internet access also comes in handy when, for instance, your broadband service is offline for a week.

Turning specifically to the Desire,  HTC’s ‘Sense’ user interface is a winner. There’s a few elements to Sense which I really love, starting with the seven customisable  home screen panes. Not only does this provide plenty of space for widgets and apps, it also enables similar applications to be grouped together on separate screen. For instance, you might  group all the games on one screen, with social media apps on another.

What adds to the wow factor  is the ability to preview the seven  panes with a “pinch” of the screen, then select the screen you want with a single touch. It’s much faster than flicking through multiple screens iPhone style.  (Check out the video from PocketVideo for a full run through of the Sense experience.)

The screen on the HTC Desire is also fantastic. It’s big and bright, which makes for a great web browsing and photo viewing experience. Even set to the dullest power saving level, it’s still quite usable indoors. The only time I’ve found myself turning up the brightness is to view photos or outdoors in bright light.

Despite such a large screen, the battery still managed to meet my needs.  Battery life is helped by a handy power management widget that provides one-touch on/off control over functions like WiFi, GPS, Bluetooth, syncing and screen brightness. The Desire managed about a day and a half without recharging under normal usage, which involved both 3G and WiFi internet browsing as well as a couple of phone calls and some game playing.   Adopting conservative power setting and resisting the urge to use the phone except when needed, it easily made it through two days without recharging.

The Desire’s camera was also a pleasant surprise. My expectations were quite low given my previous experience with the less than satisfactory camera on the  HTC Magic. Thankfully the Desire’s camera is much better. It won’t replace a dedicated digital compact, but it will give you a better chance of capturing those spur of the moment shots that always seem to come up when you only have your phone with you.

Lastly, I’m a big fan of the unlock pattern on Android phones .  Remembering and swiping in a multi-point pattern  seems a lot simpler than remembering a PIN of equivalent length.

Things to Improve
The HTC Desire is a good phone, but it’s not perfect. Early users of the Telstra branded Desire  didn’t get off to the best start, thanks to a software fault with the GPS. To their credit, Telstra and HTC were fairly quick to issue an over-the-air software update that not only fixed the GPS issue, but also added voice search.  In the end it was a  minor inconvenience, but one that still detracted a little from the initial excitement of having a new phone.

Secondly, whilst  I’ve  found apps to do all the things I want on my Desire so far, there’s still a lot more choice on the iPhone.  Currently, Apple has about a 5:1 advantage over Android in the number of apps, with games the weakest link for Android.

Wrapping Up
Overall the HTC Desire has a lot going for it – it’s easy to use, has a nice bright screen, gets through the day without a recharge and has a better than expected camera. Whilst the initial GPS issue took some of the fun out of my first week, there’s no buyers remorse.  And with the Android Marketplace growing at 9,000 apps per month, the ‘app gap’ is quickly going to become less about the number of apps and more about their quality (1). The HTC Desire is probably the best Android phone in Australia at the moment. If you’re considering a smartphone, then it’s worth at least checking out the Desire before you hand over your money to become another iPhone user.

p.s. As the Desire is currently exclusive to Telstra, the best place to compare the  Desire and iPhone is at your nearest Telstra  T[life] store where you can check out ‘live’ handsets side by side.

Notes:
(1) But that’s a topic for another post.