72 posts categorized "Internet of Things" Feed

Survey: Internet of Evil Things Report

Pwnie 2017 Internet of Evil Things report A recent survey of information technology (IT) professionals by Pwnie Express, an information security vendor, found that connected devices bring risks into corporate networks and IT professionals are not keeping up. 90 percent of IT professionals surveyed view connected devices as a security threat to their corporate systems and networks. 66 percent aren't sure how many connected devices are in their organizations.

These findings have huge implications as the installed base of connected devices (a/k/a the "Internet of things" or ioT) takes off. Experts forecast 8.4 billion connected devices in use worldwide in 2017, up 31 percent from 2016. Total spending for those devices will reach almost $2 trillion in 2017, and $20.4 billion by 2020. The regions that will drive this growth include North America, Western Europe, and China; which already comprise 67 percent of the installed base.

Key results from the latest survey by Pwnie Express:

"One in five of the survey respondents (20%) said their IoT devices were hit with ransomware attacks last year. 16 percent of respondents say they experienced Man-in-the-middle attacks through IoT devices. Devices continue to lend themselves to problematic configurations. The default network from common routers “linksys” and “Netgear” were two of the top 10 most common “open default” wireless SSID’s (named networks), and the hotspot network built-in for the configuration and setup of HP printers - “hpsetup”- is #2."

An SSID, or Service Set Identifier, is the name a wireless network broadcasts. Manufacturers ship them with default names, which the bad guys often look for to find open, unprotected networks. While businesses purchase and deploy a variety of connected devices (e.g., smart meters, manufacturing field devices, process sensors for electrical generating plants, real-time location devices for healthcare) and some for "smart buildings" (e.g., LED lighting, HVAC sensors, security systems), other devices are brought into the workplace by workers.

Most companies have Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies allowing employees to bring and use in the workplace personal devices (e.g., phones, tablets, smart watches, fitness bands). The risk for corporate IT professionals is that when employees, contractors, and consultants bring their personal devices into the workplace, and connect to corporate networks. A mobile device infected with malware from a wireless home network, or from a public hot-spot (e.g., airport, restaurant) can easily introduce that malware into office networks.

Consumers connect a wide variety of items to their wireless home networks: laptops, tablets, smartphones, printers, lighting and temperature controls, televisions, home security systems, fitness bands, smart watches, toys, smart wine bottles, and home appliances (e.g., refrigerators, hot water heaters, coffee makers, crock pots, etc.). Devices with poor security features don't allow operating system and security software updates, don't encrypt key information such as PIN numbers and passwords, and build the software into the firmware where it cannot be upgraded. Last month, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against a modem/router maker alleging poor security in its products.

Security experts advise consumers to perform several steps to protect their wireless home networks: change the SSID name, change all default passwords, enable encryption (e.g., WEP, WPA, WPA2, etc.), create a special password for guests, and enable a firewall. While security experts have warned consumers for years, too many still don't heed the advice.

The survey respondents identified the top connected device threats:

"1. Misconfigured healthcare, security, and IoT devices will provide another route for ransomware and malware to cause harm and affect organizations.

2. Unresolved vulnerabilities or the misconfiguration of popular connected devices, spurred by the vulnerabilities being publicized by botnets, including Mirai and newer, “improved” versions, in the hands of rogue actors will compromise the security of organizations purchasing these devices.

3. Mobile phones will be the attack vector of the future, becoming an extra attack surface and another mode of rogue access points taking advantage of unencrypted Netgear, AT&T, and hpsetup wireless networks to set up man-in-the-middle attacks."

The survey included more than 800 IT security professionals in several industries: financial services, hospitality, retail, manufacturing, professional services, technology, healthcare, energy and more. Download the "2017 Internet of Evil Things Report" by Pwnie.


Are Smart Television Makers Gaming The Energy-Efficiency Tests?

After yesterday's blog post about the settlement agreement by VIZIO with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the New Jersey Attorney General, a reader mentioned an Economist article about smart televisions. It seems there is an ongoing investigation into whether or not manufacturers, similar to the Volkswagon emissions scandal, misrepresented the energy-efficiency test results of their televisions.

The Economist reported:

"South Korea’s Samsung and LG, along with Vizio, a Californian firm, stand accused of misrepresenting the energy efficiency of large-screen sets. Together, they sell over half of all TVs in America. In September 2016 the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group, published research on the energy consumption of TVs, showing that those made by Samsung, LG and Vizio performed far better during short government tests than they did the rest of the time. Some TVs consumed double the amount of energy suggested by manufacturers’ marketing bumpf. America’s Department of Energy (DoE) has also conducted tests of its own that have turned up big inconsistencies.

Not all TV-makers are at fault: the NRDC found no difference in energy-consumption levels for TVs made by Sony and Philips. But class-action lawsuits have already been filed against the three companies highlighted by the tests—the latest was lodged against Samsung in New York on January 30th. The industry is now waiting to see whether regulators will take action... Televisions made by Samsung and LG (but not Vizio) appear to recognize the test clip that the American government uses to rate energy consumption and to advise consumers on how much it will cost to operate the set over a whole year. The DoE’s ten-minute test clip has a lot of motion and scene changes in short succession, with each clip lasting only 2.3 seconds before flashing to a new one (most TV content is made up of scenes that last more than double that length). During these tests the TVs’ backlight dims, resulting in substantial energy savings. For the rest of the time, during typical viewing conditions, the backlight stays bright..."

If true, then those new televisions many consumers bought may cost them a lot more energy and electricity costs. The September 2016 NRDC press release:

"There are flaws in the government’s method for testing the energy use of televisions and three major TV manufacturers representing half of the U.S. market appear to be exploiting them, which could cost owners of recently purchased models an extra $1.2 billion on their utility bills... The global standard video clip on which the DOE test method is based is eight years old and needs a major overhaul. DOE should update its test method with more realistic video content... It appears that some major manufacturers have modified their TV designs to get strong energy-use marks during government testing but they may not perform as well in consumers’ homes. These ‘under the hood’ changes dramatically increase a TV’s energy use and environmental impact, usually without the user’s knowledge. While this may not be illegal, it smacks of bad-faith conduct that falls outside the intent of the government test method designed to accurately measure TV energy use..."

The consequences and impacts go far beyond possible bad-faith conduct:

"The latest version of ultra high-definition (UHD) TVs used approximately 30 to 50 percent more energy when playing content produced with High Dynamic Range (HDR) than conventional UHD content... With millions of televisions purchased annually across America, all of this extra energy use has a major impact on national energy consumption, consumer utility bills, and the environment..."

You can learn more about the DoE test procedures here. What are your opinions of this?


VIZIO To Pay $2.2 Million To Settle Privacy Charges About Its Smart TVs

VIZIO Inc. logo Today's blog post highlights how easy it is for manufacturers to make and sell smart-home devices that spy on consumers without notice nor consent. VIZIO, Inc., one of the largest makers of smart televisions, agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle privacy abuse charges by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the State of New Jersey Attorney General. The FTC announcement explained:

"... starting in February 2014, VIZIO, Inc. and an affiliated company have manufactured VIZIO smart TVs that capture second-by-second information about video displayed on the smart TV, including video from consumer cable, broadband, set-top box, DVD, over-the-air broadcasts, and streaming devices. In addition, VIZIO facilitated appending specific demographic information to the viewing data, such as sex, age, income, marital status, household size, education level, home ownership, and household value... VIZIO sold this information to third parties, who used it for various purposes, including targeting advertising to consumers across devices... VIZIO touted its “Smart Interactivity” feature that “enables program offers and suggestions” but failed to inform consumers that the settings also enabled the collection of consumers’ viewing data. The complaint alleges that VIZIO’s data tracking—which occurred without viewers’ informed consent—was unfair and deceptive, in violation of the FTC Act and New Jersey consumer protection laws."

The FTC complaint (Adobe PDF) named as defendants VIZIO, Inc. and VIZIO Inscape Services, LLC, its wholly-owned subsidiary. VIZIO has designed and sold televisions in the United States since 2002, and has sold more than 11 million Internet-connected televisions since 2010. The complaint also mentioned:

"... the successor entity to Cognitive Media Services, Inc., which developed proprietary automated content recognition (“ACR”) software to detect the content on internet-connected televisions and monitors."

This merits emphasis because consumers thinking that they can watch DVD or locally recorded content in the privacy of their home with advertisers knowing it really can't because the ACR software can easily identify, archive, and transmit it. The complaint also explained:

"Through the ACR software, VIZIO’s televisions transmit information about what a consumer is watching on a second-by-second basis. Defendants’ ACR software captures information about a selection of pixels on the screen and sends that data to VIZIO servers, where it is uniquely matched to a database of publicly available television, movie, and commercial content. Defendants collect viewing data from cable or broadband service providers, set-top boxes, external streaming devices, DVD players, and over-the-air broadcasts... the ACR software captures up to 100 billion data points each day from more than 10 million VIZIO televisions. Defendants store this data indefinitely. Defendants’ ACR software also periodically collects other information about the television, including IP address, wired and wireless MAC addresses, WiFi signal strength, nearby WiFi access points, and other items."

That's impressive. The ACR software enabled VIZIO to know and collect information about other devices (e.g., computers, tablets, phones, printers) connected to your home WiFi network. Then, besides the money consumers paid for their VIZIO smart TVs, the company also made money by reselling the information it collected to third parties... probably data brokers and advertisers. You'd think that the company might lower the price of its smart TVs given that additional revenue stream, but I guess not.

Now, here is where VIZIO created problems for itself:

"Consumers that purchased new VIZIO televisions beginning in August 2014, with ACR tracking preinstalled and enabled by default, received no onscreen notice of the collection of viewing data. For televisions that were updated in February 2014 to install default ACR tracking after purchase, an initial pop-up notification appeared on the screen that said: "The VIZIO Privacy Policy has changed. Smart Interactivity has been enabled on your TV, but you may disable it in the settings menu. See www.vizio.com/privacy for more details. This message will time out in 1 minute." This notification provided no information about the collection of viewing data or ACR software. Nor did it directly link to the settings menu or privacy policy... In March 2016, while Plaintiffs’ investigations were pending, [VIZIO and VIZIO Inscape] sent another pop-up notification to televisions that, for the first time, referenced the collection of television viewing data. This notification timed out after 30 seconds without input from the household member who happened to be viewing the screen at the time, and did not provide easy access to the settings menu... In all televisions enabled with ACR tracking, VIZIO televisions had a setting, available through the settings menu, called “Smart Interactivity.” This setting included the description: “Enables program offers and suggestions.” Similarly, in the manual for some VIZIO televisions, a section entitled “Smart Interactivity” described the practice as “Your TV can display program-related information as part of the broadcast.” Neither description provided information about the collection of viewing data..."

30 seconds? Really?! If a consumer left the room to grab a bite to eat or visit the bathroom for a bio break, they easily missed this pop-up message. No notice? Neither are good. VIZIO released a statement about the settlement:

"VIZIO is pleased to reach this resolution with the FTC and the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs.  Going forward, this resolution sets a new standard for best industry privacy practices for the collection and analysis of data collected from today’s internet-connected televisions and other home devices,” stated Jerry Huang, VIZIO General Counsel. “The ACR program never paired viewing data with personally identifiable information such as name or contact information, and the Commission did not allege or contend otherwise. Instead, as the Complaint notes, the practices challenged by the government related only to the use of viewing data in the ‘aggregate’ to create summary reports measuring viewing audiences or behaviors... the FTC has made clear that all smart TV makers should get people’s consent before collecting and sharing television viewing information and VIZIO now is leading the way,” concluded Huang."

Terms of the settlement agreement and the Court Order (Adobe PDF) require VIZIO to:

"A. Prominently disclose to the consumer, separate and apart from any “privacy policy,” “terms of use” page, or other similar document: (1) the types of Viewing Data that will be collected and used, (2) the types of Viewing Data that will be shared with third parties; (3) the identity or specific categories of such third parties; and (4) all purposes for Defendants’ sharing of such information;

B. Obtain the consumer’s affirmative express consent (1) at the time the disclosure...

C. Provide instructions, at any time the consumer’s affirmative express consent is sought under Part II.B, for how the consumer may revoke consent to collection of Viewing Data.

D. For the purposes of this Order, “Prominently” means that a required disclosure is difficult to miss (i.e., easily noticeable) and easily understandable by ordinary consumers..."

The Order also defines that disclosure must be visual, audible, in all formats which VIZIO uses, in easy-to-understand language, and not contradicted by any legal statements elsewhere. Terms of the settlement require VIZIO to pay $1.5 million to the FTC, $1.0 million to the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs (which includes a $915,940.00 civil penalty and $84,060.00 for attorneys’ fees and investigative costs). VIZIO will not have to pay $300,000 due to the N.j> Division of consumer affairs it the company complies with court order, and does not engage in acts that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) during the next five years.

Additional terms of the settlement agreement require VIZIO to destroy information collected before March 1, 2016, establish and implement a privacy program, designate one or several employees responsible for that program, identify and risks of internal processes that cause the company to collect consumer information it shouldn't, design and implement a program to address those risks, develop and implement processes to identify service providers that will comply with the privacy program, and hire an independent third-party to audit the privacy program every two years.

I guess the FTC and New Jersey AG felt this level of specificity was necessary given VIZIO's past behaviors. Kudos to the FTC and to the New Jersey AG for enforcing and protecting consumers' privacy. Given the rapid pace of technological change and the complexity of today's devices, oversight is required. Consumers simply don't have the skills nor resources to do these types of investigations.

What are your opinions of the VIZIO settlement?


74 Percent of US Broadband Households Have Internet-Connected Televisions

According to new research from The Diffusion Group (TDG), 74 percent of US households had Internet-connected televisions at year-end 2016. In 2013, 50 percent of households had Internet-connected televisions. Michael Greeson, TDG President and Director of Research, said:

"At 74% penetration, connected TV use is squarely in the Late Mainstream phase of its trajectory. Barring any major disruption in TV technology or market conditions, growth will slow each year as the solution reaches saturation... Broadband pay-TV services are particularly well positioned to leverage this utility, which permits scale at much lower costs."

TDG first noted in 2004 that the penetration of connected televisions would closely follow broadband (a/k/a high-speed Internet) services.

Chart by TDG of Internet-connected televisions in the United States. Click to view larger version


FTC Lawsuit Claims D-Link Products Have Inadequate Security

Do you use D-Link modem/routers or routers? Do you have or plan to buy smart home appliances or electronics (a/k/a the Internet of Things or IoT) you want to connect via your home WiFi network to these or other brand routers? Are you concerned about the security of IoT devices? If you answered yes to any of these questions, then today's blog post is for you.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a complaint against Taiwan-based D-Link Corporation and its U.S. subsidiary alleging the tech company didn't do enough to make its products secure from hacking. The FTC announcement stated that its complaint alleged:

"... that D-Link failed to take reasonable steps to secure its routers and Internet Protocol (IP) cameras, potentially compromising sensitive consumer information, including live video and audio feeds from D-Link IP cameras... D-Link promoted the security of its routers on the company’s website, which included materials headlined “EASY TO SECURE” and “ADVANCED NETWORK SECURITY.” But despite the claims made by D-Link, the FTC alleged, the company failed to take steps to address well-known and easily preventable security flaws, such as: a) "hard-coded" login credentials integrated into D-Link camera software -- such as the username “guest” and the password “guest” -- that could allow unauthorized access to the cameras’ live feed; b) a software flaw known as “command injection” that could enable remote attackers to take control of consumers’ routers by sending them unauthorized commands over the Internet; c) the mishandling of a private key code used to sign into D-Link software, such that it was openly available on a public website for six months; and d) leaving users’ login credentials for D-Link’s mobile app unsecured in clear, readable text on their mobile devices, even though there is free software available to secure the information."

Besides the D-Link shopping site, the company's products are available at many online stores, including Best Buy, Target, Walmart, and Amazon. The FTC complaint (Adobe PDF) stated 5 Counts describing in detail the alleged security lapses, some of  which allegedly contradict advertising claims. The redacted complaint did not list specific product model numbers. Apple Insider reported:

"The security lapses also extended to mobile apps offered by D-Link to access and manage IP cameras and routers from a smartphone or tablet."

If these allegations are true, then item "C" is troubling. it raises questions about how and why a private key code were available on a public, unprotected server and for so long. It raises questions why this information wasn't encrypted. Access codes on a public server may help government intelligence agencies perform their tasks, but it suggests insufficient security for consumers. Access codes and login credentials are the holy grail for criminals. This is the information they seek in order to hack accounts and hijack devices.

Consumers connect via home routers a variety of IoT or smart devices: security systems, cameras, baby monitors, thermostats, home electronics, home appliances, toys, lawn mowers, and more. If true, the vulnerabilities could allow criminals to case home furnishings, eavesdrop on conversations, watch residents' patterns and discover when they are away from home, disable security systems, access tax and financial records, redirect users' Internet usage to fraudulent sites, and more.

The risks are real. A prior blog post discussed some of the security issues with IoT devices. Home routers have been hijacked and used to shut down targeted sites. ZDNet warned in May 2015:

"According to a report released by cybersecurity firm Incapsula on Wednesday, lax security practices concerning small office and home office (SOHO) routers has resulted in tens of thousands of routers becoming hijacked -- ending up as slave systems in the botnet network. Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks are a common way to disrupt networks and online services. The networks are often made up of compromised PCs, routers and other devices. Attackers control the botnet through a command and control center (C&C) in order to flood specific domains with traffic... ISPs, vendors and users themselves -- who do not lay down basic security foundations such as changing default passwords and keeping networks locked -- have likely caused the slavery of "hundreds of thousands [...] more likely millions" of routers now powering DDoS botnets which can cause havoc for both businesses and consumers..."

And a December 7, 2016 report by Incapsula listed about 18 vendors, including D-Link, that were susceptible to the Mirai malware used by botnets. So, the threat is real. Home routers have already been hijacked by bad guys to attack sites.

D-Link posted on its site a response to the FTC complaint:

"D-Link Systems, Inc. will vigorously defend itself against the unwarranted and baseless charges made by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)... D-Link Systems maintains a robust range of procedures to address potential security issues, which exist in all Internet of Things (IOT) devices. Notably, the complaint does not allege any breach of a D-Link Systems device. Instead, the FTC speculates that consumers were placed “at risk” to be hacked, but fails to allege, as it must, that actual consumers suffered or are likely to suffer actual substantial injuries."

That response raises more questions. Breaches involve unauthorized persons accessing computers and/or networks. Clearly, botnets are collections of hijacked devices controlled by unauthorized persons using malware. The Incapsula reports clearly documented this. So, how are hijacked home routers and IoT devices with malware not breaches? And, botnets are designed to attack targeted sites, and not necessarily the hijacked routers and devices. So, the "actual substantial injuries" argument falls apart.

Aware consumers don't want their smart televisions, refrigerators, dishwashers, home security systems, baby monitors, cameras, and other devices hijacked by bad guys. The whole situation seems to provide two important reminders for consumers: 1) protect your IoT devices, and 2) be informed shoppers.

Protecting your IoT devices means changing the default passwords, especially on your routers and disabling remote access features. Informed shoppers Inquire before purchase about software security updates for IoT devices. Are those updates included in the product price, available in a separate subscription, or not at all? There are plenty of examples of smart home products with vulnerabilities and questionable security. Informed shoppers know before purchase.

If the product offers a separate subscription for software security updates, the money spent will be well worth it to protect your sensitive personal and financial information, to protect your family's privacy, and to avoid hijacked devices. If the product lacks software security updates, you want to know what you're buying and maybe barter for a lower price. Me? I'd keep shopping for alternatives with better security.

Protect your WiFi-connected home electronics, devices, and appliances. Don't contribute to Internet security problems.

Since most consumers lack the technical expertise to understand and detect breaches on their IoT devices, I am grateful for the FTC enforcement action; and for its guidelines in 2015 for companies offering IoT devices. Plus, the FTC is concerned with industry-wide threats that could hamper commerce. Perhaps, an economist can calculate the negative impacts upon commerce, the U.S. economy, and GDP from botnet attacks.

What are your opinions of the FTC lawsuit against D-Link Corporation? Of the security of IoT devices?


Win $25K In The FTC Internet-Of-Things Home Inspector Challenge

For the holidays, many consumers gave or received devices for their homes that are WiFi-connected, often referred to as the "Internet of Things" (IoT). Those devices include Internet routers, security cameras, home security systems, and a variety of appliances and electronics: televisions, refrigerators, clothes washers, lighting, heating/cooling systems, toys, DVRs, and more. Residences outfitted with these devices are often referred to as "Smart Homes" or "Connected Homes."

Experts forecast 50 billion devices globally by 2020. Plus, utilities have already installed smart meters in homes that regularly transmit consumers' water/oil/gas usage to their utility providers. Protecting those devices against hackers is critical.

U.S. Federal Trade Commission logo While the FTC has published guidelines for manufacturers of IOT devices, those guidelines aren't mandatory. The privacy threats of IoT devices are known, and researchers have warned about the vulnerabilities in specific products.

To help consumers manage their WiFi-connected home devices, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a prize competition called the "IoT Home Inspector Challenge." The FTC will award the $25,000 top prize to the solution that best helps consumers protect their IoT devices against vulnerabilities and to manage passwords (e.g., replace factory-defaults) for all home devices. Up to three honorable mention prizes of $3,000 each area also available.

Consumers working individually, or in teams, can register and submit entries beginning March 1, 2017. The deadline for entries is May 22, 2017. Winners will be announced on July 27, 2017. To be considered, entries must meet the following criteria:

  • Provide a technical solution, rather than a policy or legal solution
  • Work on home IoT devices that currently exist on the market
  • Protect information it collects both in transit and at rest,
  • Explain how the tool or solution will avoid or mitigate any additional security risks that the tool itself might introduce into the consumer’s home by (example, software upgrades)

The judges will rate each entry based upon how well it addresses the following four components:

  1. Recognize what IoT devices are operating in the consumer’s home. This may be automatic or provide instructions for consumer input,
  2. Determine what software version is already on those IoT devices. Again, this may be automatic or provide instructions for consumer input,
  3. Determine the latest software version each home IoT device should have, and
  4. Assist with updates.

Visit the FTC IoT Home Inspector Challenge site for complete details about the competition, including contest rules, judges, FAQs, and the registration/submission process.


Health App Developer Settles With FTC For Deceptive Marketing Claims

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a settlement agreement with Aura Labs, Inc. regarding alleged deceptive claims about its product: the Instant Blood Pressure App. Aura sold the app from at least June 2014 to at least July 31, 2015 at the Apple App Store and at the Google Play marketplace for $3.99 (or $4.99). Sales of the app totaled about $600,000 during this period. Ryan Archdeacon, the Chief Executive Officer and President of Aura, was named as a co-defendant in the suit.

The FTC alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act. The complaint alleged deceptive marketing claims by Aura about its blood pressure app:

"Although Defendants represent that the Instant Blood Pressure App measures blood pressure as accurately as a traditional blood pressure cuff and serves as a replacement for a traditional cuff, in fact, studies demonstrate clinically and statistically significant deviations between the App’s measurements and those from a traditional blood pressure cuff."

iMedicalApps reported on March 2, 2016:

"A study presented today at the American Heart Association EPI & Lifestyle (AHA EPI) meeting in Phoenix has shown the shocking inaccuracy of a popular medical app, Instant Blood Pressure... Back in 2014, we raised concerns about the Instant Blood Pressure medical app which claimed to measure blood pressure just by having users put their finger over their smartphone’s camera and microphone over their heart presumably to use something akin to a pulse wave velocity... Dr. Timothy Plante, a fellow in general internal medicine at Johns Hopkins, led the study in which a total of 85 participants were recruited to test the accuracy of the Instant Blood Pressure app... When looking at individuals with low blood pressure or high blood pressure, they found that the Instant Blood Pressure app gave falsely normal values. In other words, someone with high blood pressure who used the app would be falsely reassured their blood pressure was normal... the sensitivity for high blood pressure was an abysmal 20%. These results, while striking, should not be surprising. This medical app had no publicly available validation data, despite reassurance from the developer back in 2014 that such data was forthcoming. The use of things like pulse wave velocity as surrogates for blood pressure has been tried and is fraught with problems..."

The FTC complaint listed the problems with an online review posted in the Apple App Store:

"Defendant Ryan Archdeacon left the following review of the Instant Blood Pressure App in the Apple App Store: "Great start by ARCHIE1986 – Version – 1.0.1 – Jun 11, 2014. This app is a breakthrough for blood pressure monitoring. There are some kinks to work out and you do need to pay close attention to the directions in order to get a successful measurement but all-in-all it’s a breakthrough product. For those having connection problems, consider trying again. I have experienced a similar issue. It is also great that the developer is committed to continual improvements. This is a great start!!!" That the review was left by the Chief Executive Officer and President of Aura was not disclosed to consumers and would materially affect the weight and credibility consumers assigned to the endorsement."

The complaint also cited problems with endorsements posted at Aura's web site:

"At times material to this Complaint, the What People Think portion of Defendants’ website contained three endorsements, including the following endorsement from relatives of Aura’s Chairman of the Board and co-founder Aaron Giroux: "This is such a smart idea that will benefit many of us in monitoring our health in an easy and convenient way." That the endorsement was left by relatives of Aura’s Chairman of the Board and co-founder Aaron Giroux was not disclosed to consumers and would materially affect the weight and credibility consumers assigned to the endorsement."

Terms of the settlement prohibit the defendants from making such unsubstantiated claims in the future, refund money to affected customers, reimburse plaintiffs for the costs of this lawsuit, and additional unspecified items. The FTC announcement also stated that the court order imposed:

"... a judgment of $595,945.27, which is suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay. The full amount will become due, however, it they are later found to have misrepresented their financial condition."

Copies of the complaint are available at the FTC site and here (Adobe PDF). Kudos tot he FTC for its enforcement action. Product claims and endorsements should be truthful and accurate. And consumers still need to do research before purchase. Just because there's an app for it doesn't mean the results promised are guaranteed.

Got an unresolved problem with a product, service, or app? Consumers can file a complaint online with the FTC. What are your opinions of the Aura-FTC settlement? Of claims by app developers?


Can Apple Move iPhone Production To The United States?

President Elect Donald Trump and his incoming administration have promised to "make America great again." That promise included a key policy position to move manufacturing -- and its jobs -- back to the United States; in particular move production of Apple iPhones to the USA:

"we have to bring Apple — and other companies like Apple — back to the United States. We have to do it. And that’s one of my real dreams for the country, to get … them back. We have a great capacity in this country."

Well, can it be done? And if so, what might the consequences be?

Nikkei Asia Review reported:

"Key Apple assembler Hon Hai Precision Industry, also known as Foxconn Technology Group, has been studying the possibility of moving iPhone production to the United States... Apple asked both Foxconn and Pegatron, the two iPhone assemblers, in June to look into making iPhones in the United States..."

Experts warn that moving production is complex and difficult. Not only must assembly operations be relocated, but new facilities must be located and built, plus nearby suppliers and transport services found, moved, and contracts obtained. During the globalization trend of the last 35 years, many manufacturing facilities in the USA were closed, destroyed, and replaced with other businesses. Plus, the remainaing facilities may be technologically obsolete. After solving these issues, then production workers must be hired.

With any major change, there often are unintended consequences. A possible consequence:

"Making iPhones in the U.S. means the cost will more than double... According to research company IHS Markit, it costs about $225 for Apple to make an iPhone 7 with a 32GB memory, while the unsubsidized price for such a handset is $649..."

Prices for unlocked iPhone7 with 32 GB phones on eBay range from $700 to $1,000.00. 128 and 256 GB versions cost even more. Would consumers be willing to pay higher prices, say 50 percent more, or even double?


Phone Calls, Apple iCloud, Cloud Services, And Your Privacy

A security firm has found a hidden feature that threatens the privacy of Apple iPhone and iCloud users. Forbes magazine reported:

"Whilst it was well-known that iCloud backups would store call logs, contacts and plenty of other valuable data, users should be concerned to learn that their communications records are consistently being sent to Apple servers without explicit permission, said Elcomsoft CEO Vladimir Katalov. Even if those backups are disabled, he added, the call logs continue making their way to the iCloud, Katalov said... All FaceTime calls are logged in the iCloud too, whilst as of iOS 10 incoming missed calls from apps like WhatsApp and Skype are uploaded..."

Reportedly, the feature is automatic and the only option for users wanting privacy is to not use Apple iCloud services. That's not user-friendly.

Should you switch from Apple iCloud to a commercial service? Privacy risks are not unique to Apple iCloud. Duane Morris LLP explained the risks of using cloud services such as Dropbox, SecuriSync, Citrix ShareFile, and Rackspace:

"Users of electronic file sharing and storage service providers are vulnerable to hacking... Dropbox as just one example: If a hacker was to get their hands on your encryption key, which is possible since Dropbox stores the keys for all of its users, hackers can then steal your personal information stored on Dropbox. Just recently, Dropbox reported that more than 68 million users’ email addresses and passwords were hacked and leaked onto the Internet... potentially even more concerning is the fact that because these service providers own their own servers, they also own any information residing on them. Hence, they can legally access any data on their servers at any time. Additionally, many of these companies house their servers outside of the United States, which means the use, operation, content and security of such servers may not be protected by U.S. law. Furthermore, consider the policies regarding the sharing of your information with third parties. Among others, Dropbox has said that if subpoenaed, it will voluntarily disclose your information to a third party, such as the Internal Revenue Service."

Regular readers of this blog know what that means. Many government entities, such as law enforcement and intelligence agencies besides the IRS issue subpoenas.

This highlights the double-edged sword from syncing and file-sharing across multiple devices (e.g., phone, laptop, desktop, tablet). Sure, is a huge benefit to have all of your files, music, videos, contacts, and data easily and conveniently available regardless of which device you use. Along with that benefit comes the downside privacy and security risks: data stored in cloud services is vulnerable to hacking and subject to government warrants, subpoenas, and court actions. As Duane Morris LLP emphasized, it doesn't matter whether your data is encrypted or not.

Also, Forbes magazine reported:

"Katalov believes automated iCloud storage of up-to-date logs would be beneficial for law enforcement wanting to get access to valuable iPhone data. And, he claimed, Apple hadn’t properly disclosed just what data was being stored in the iCloud and, therefore, what information law enforcement could demand."

Well, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and cyber-criminals now know what information to demand.


Some Android Phones Infected With Surveillance Malware Installed In Firmware

Security analysts recently discovered surveillance malware in some inexpensive smartphones that run the Android operating system (OS) software. The malware secretly transmits information about the device owner and usage to servers in China. The surveillance malware was installed in the phones' firmware. The New York Times reported:

"... you can get a smartphone with a high-definition display, fast data service and, according to security contractors, a secret feature: a backdoor that sends all your text messages to China every 72 hours. Security contractors recently discovered pre-installed software in some Android phones... International customers and users of disposable or prepaid phones are the people most affected by the software... The Chinese company that wrote the software, Shanghai Adups Technology Company, says its code runs on more than 700 million phones, cars and other smart devices. One American phone manufacturer, BLU Products, said that 120,000 of its phones had been affected and that it had updated the software to eliminate the feature."

Shanghai ADUPS Technology Company (ADUPS) is privately owned and based in Shanghai, China. According to Bloomberg, ADUPS:

"... provides professional Firmware Over-The-Air (FOTA) update services. The company offers a cloud-based service, which includes cloud hosts and CDN service, as well as allows manufacturers to update all their device models. It serves smart device manufacturers, mobile operators, and semiconductor vendors worldwide."

Firmware is a special type of software store in read-only memory (ROM) chips that operates a device, including how it controls, monitors, and manipulates data within a device. Kryptowire, a security firm, discovered the malware. The Kryptowire report identified:

"... several models of Android mobile devices that contained firmware that collected sensitive personal data about their users and transmitted this sensitive data to third-party servers without disclosure or the users' consent. These devices were available through major US-based online retailers (Amazon, BestBuy, for example)... These devices actively transmitted user and device information including the full-body of text messages, contact lists, call history with full telephone numbers, unique device identifiers including the International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) and the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI). The firmware could target specific users and text messages matching remotely defined keywords. The firmware also collected and transmitted information about the use of applications installed on the monitored device, bypassed the Android permission model, executed remote commands with escalated (system) privileges, and was able to remotely reprogram the devices.

The firmware that shipped with the mobile devices and subsequent updates allowed for the remote installation of applications without the users' consent and, in some versions of the software, the transmission of fine-grained device location information... Our findings are based on both code and network analysis of the firmware. The user and device information was collected automatically and transmitted periodically without the users' consent or knowledge. The collected information was encrypted with multiple layers of encryption and then transmitted over secure web protocols to a server located in Shanghai. This software and behavior bypasses the detection of mobile anti-virus tools because they assume that software that ships with the device is not malware and thus, it is white-listed."

So, the malware was powerful, sophisticated, and impossible for consumers to detect.

This incident provides several reminders. First, there were efforts earlier this year by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to force Apple to build "back doors" into its phones for law enforcement. Reportedly, it is unclear what specific law enforcement or intelligence services utilized the data streams produced by the surveillance malware. It is probably wise to assume that the Ministry of State Security, China's intelligence agency, had or has access to data streams.

Second, the incident highlights supply chain concerns raised in 2015 about computer products manufactured in China. Third, the incident indicates how easily consumers' privacy can be compromised by data breaches during a product's supply chain: manufacturing, assembly, transport, and retail sale.

Fourth, the incident highlights Android phone security issues raised earlier this year. We know from prior reports that manufacturers and wireless carriers don't provide OS updates for all Android phones. Fifth, the incident highlights the need for automakers and software developers to ensure the security of both connected cars and driverless cars.

Sixth, the incident raises questions about how and what, if anything, President Elect Donald J. Trump and his incoming administration will do about this trade issue with China. The Trump-Pence campaign site stated about trade with China:

"5. Instruct the Treasury Secretary to label China a currency manipulator.

6. Instruct the U.S. Trade Representative to bring trade cases against China, both in this country and at the WTO. China's unfair subsidy behavior is prohibited by the terms of its entrance to the WTO.

7. Use every lawful presidential power to remedy trade disputes if China does not stop its illegal activities, including its theft of American trade secrets - including the application of tariffs consistent with Section 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962..."

This incident places consumers in a difficult spot. According to the New York Times:

"Because Adups has not published a list of affected phones, it is not clear how users can determine whether their phones are vulnerable. “People who have some technical skills could,” Mr. Karygiannis, the Kryptowire vice president, said. “But the average consumer? No.” Ms. Lim [an attorney that represents Adups] said she did not know how customers could determine whether they were affected."

Until these supply-chain security issues get resolved it is probably wise for consumers to inquire before purchase where their Android phone was made. There are plenty of customer service sites for existing Android phone owners to determine the country their device was made in. Example: Samsung phone info.

Should consumers avoid buying Android phones made in China or Android phones with firmware made in China? That's a decision only you can make for yourself. Me? When I changed wireless carriers in July, I switched an inexpensive Android phone I'd bought several years ago to an Apple iPhone.

What are your thoughts about the surveillance malware? Would you buy an Android phone?


Connected Cars: 4 Tips For Drivers To Stay Safe Online

With the increasing dominance of the Internet of Things (IoT), connected cars are becoming more ubiquitous than ever. We’ve long heard warnings from the media about staying safe online, but few consumers consider data hacks and other security compromises while driving a car connected to the internet.

According to the inforgraphic below from Arxan, an app protection company, 75 percent of all cars shipped globally will have internet connectivity by 2020, and current connected cars have more than 100 million lines of code. Connected features are designed to improve safety, fuel efficiency, and overall convenience. These features range from Bluetooth, WiFi, cellular network connections, keyless entry systems, to deeper “cyberphysical” features like automated braking, and parking and lane assist.

More Features Means More Vulnerability
However, with this increasing connectivity comes risks from malicious hacking. Today, connected cars have many attack points malicious hackers can exploit, including the OBD2 port used to connect third-party devices, and the software running on infotainment systems.

According to Arxan, some of the more vulnerable attack points are mobile apps that unlock vehicles and start a vehicle remotely, diagnostic devices, and insurance dongles, including the ones insurance companies give to monitor and reward safe drivers. These plug into the OBD2 port, but hackers could essentially access any embedded system in the car after lifting cryptographic keys, as the Arxan page on application protection for connected cars describes.

Vulnerabilities are usually demonstrated in conferences like Black Hat. Example: in 2010, researchers at the University of Washington and the University of California San Diego hacked a car that had a variety of wireless capabilities. The vulnerable attack points they targeted included its Bluetooth, the cellular radio, an Android app on the owner’s phone that was connected to the car’s network, and an audio file burned onto a CD in the car’s stereo. In 2013, hackers Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek hijacked the steering and brake systems of both a Ford Escape and Toyota Prius with only their laptops.

How To Protect Yourself
According to the FBI and Department of Transportation in a public service announcement, it’s crucial that consumers following the following recommendations to best protect themselves:

  1. Keep your vehicle’s software up to date
  2. Stay aware of recalls that require manual security patches to your car’s code
  3. Avoid unauthorized changes to your car’s software
  4. Use caution when plugging insecure devices into the car’s ports and network

With the latest remote hack of a Tesla Model S, it seems that the response time between finding out about a breach and issuing a patch to correct it is thankfully getting shorter. As more automakers become tech-oriented like Tesla, they will also need to cooperate with OEMs to make sure the operating-system software in their vehicles is designed securely. It seems, this will take time, coordination with vendors, and money to bring these operations in house.

Arxan connected vehicles infographic

What do you do to protect your Internet-connected vehicle? What security tools and features would you prefer automakers and security vendors provide?


Study: Almost 40 Percent of U.S. Smartphone Owners Use Voice Recognition

According to a recent study by Parks Associations, a market research and consulting company, 39 percent of smartphone owners in the United States use some form of voice recognition (e.g., Siri, Google Now). The usage is higher (more than 50 percent) for iPhone owners compared to Android owners (less than 33 percent). Harry Wang, Director of Health & Mobile Product Research at Parks Associations said:

“Smartphone penetration has reached 86% of U.S. broadband households, so it is a mature market, with users, particularly younger consumers and iOS users, exploring more intelligent features and interfaces, including voice control... The growing consumer interest in voice control features is driving this technology into new IoT areas... Following Apple’s lead with Siri, other brands have created ‘personalities’ for their voice-control solutions, like Alexa for Amazon Echo and Cortana for Windows Phones."

Usage is higher among younger persons. 48 percent of smartphone users ages 18-24, use voice recognition software, usage of the “Siri” voice recognition software increased from 40 to 52 percent between 2013 and 2015. In total, about 15 percent of all U.S. broadband households use Siri.

About 70 percent of smartphone owners who use voice recognition are satisfied. 38 percent said they are very satisfied, and 9 percent said they are not satisfied.

Additional findings about U.S. smartphone users:

  • More than 70 percent watch short streaming video clips, and more than 40 percent watch long streaming videos.
  • 36 percent use WiFi calling.
  • 26 percent use a payment app for purchases at retail stores, and
  • 24 percent stream video from their phones to a second screen (e.g., TV, PC).

Learn more in the "360 View: Mobility and the App Economy" report, or the press release, by Parks Associates.


Potential Security Issues Regarding the Internet of Things

Header potential IoT device security issues

[Editor's Note: today's blog post is by guest author Cassie Phillips, a technology blogger who developed a special interest in cybersecurity after her webcam was hacked. While she’s interested to see how the Internet of Things changes how we use technology, she is very concerned about all the risks it poses.]

By Cassie Phillips

Many people and organizations have raised concerns about the potential risks related to the Internet of Things (IoT). It turns out that they were right to be concerned. Last month the France-based hosting provider, OVH, fell victim to an enormous distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack on the Minecraft servers that OVH was hosting.

DDoS attacks are attempts to make a resource (usually a website) inaccessible to its users through an inundation of requests, aiming to overburden the system. In the past, DDoS attacks were carried out by computers, with or without their owner’s consent. Hot Hardware reported:

“OVH was the victim of a wide-scale DDoS attack that was carried via a network of over 152,000 IoT devices… Of those IoT devices participating in the DDoS attack, they were primarily comprised of CCTV cameras and DVRs.”

Before the attack on OVH, there was another DDoS attack on prominent internet security researcher Brian Krebs’ website. This attack was also carried out by IoT devices. Akamai Technologies Inc., a provider of security services worldwide for major companies, cut ties with Mr. Krebs because the DDoS attack on Krebs’ website was enormous. Josh Shaul, Akamai’s vice president, said it was the worst DDoS attack the company had ever seen.

These broad attacks prove that the IoT does pose a significant security risk. And DDoS attacks are by no means the only security risks that the IoT presents. Let’s look at what the IoT is, the risks it presents and, most importantly, how to ensure that any IoT devices you use are secure.

What Is the Internet of Things?
The IoT is the idea that any device can be designed to be able to connect to the internet and other devices. These devices include mobile phones, washing machines, refrigerators, coffee makers, televisions, home thermostats, motion sensors, headphones, Barbie dolls and baby monitors. There is no limit except the imagination.

There are even buildings, cars, and health-related implants (such as pacemakers) that can connect to the internet and to each other. All of these devices can exchange information and collect data, creating a huge pool of information and an enormous network.

What Risks Does the Internet of Things Pose?
As mentioned above, the IoT poses a few risks and concerns. There are four key risks associated with the IoT, with the first being reliability. IoT devices are not necessarily reliable. While this may not be a crisis if the device in question is a refrigerator, it is deadly if devices such as cars fail or are hacked.

The second major risk related to the IoT is privacy. Each device in a network of the IoT can collect and share data. As consumers, we don’t always know who gets this data and what it is used for. The data will almost certainly be used to track consumers’ behavior, allowing companies to target each consumer with tailor-made advertising. While this data probably won’t always be used for nefarious purposes, it can be used in a way that violates our right to privacy. According to Buzzfeed:

“ "We were sleeping in bed, and basically heard some music coming from the nursery, but then when we went into the room the music turned off,” said the anonymous mother. They tracked the IP address that had accessed their camera and discovered a website with “thousands and thousands of pictures of cameras just like their own.” Anyone could use the site to access hacked cameras and monitors located in at least 15 different countries."

This leads to the third major risk associated with the IoT, namely security. Again, each of the IoT devices collects and transmits data. If these devices are hacked, criminals will have access to vast amounts of consumers' private information. Depending on the device, criminals can learn our routines, find out what valuables we keep in our homes, gain access to information about any security measures we use, and even collect sensitive information such as financial payment information.

Another security risk is the potential for hacking medical devices and implants. According to a report by research and advisory firm, Forrester, ransomware in medical devices is the single biggest cybersecurity threat for this year. Security researchers have already managed to hack into hospitals’ networks, pacemakers and other medical devices. This will put people’s lives at risk.

The potential for cyberattacks is the fourth major risk associated with the IoT. Because all these devices are connected, they have the potential to spread malware across homes and entire companies. However, the greatest risk lies in criminals’ ability to use our IoT devices in massive cyberattacks, such as the DDoS attack on OVH. Widespread vulnerabilities are only a few missteps away, and that is a seriously concerning fact.

How to Protect Yourself When Using IoT Devices
Given the risks listed above, it’s vital that consumers learn to protect our devices, our homes, and ourselves. The following actions are all essential to your security when using IoT devices:

  • Carefully consider how much connectivity you need in your home and life. Then try to avoid any devices that unnecessarily connect to the internet. After all, you can always opt for a coffeemaker with a timer instead of one that connects to a mobile app on your phone.
  • If you do decide to buy an IoT device, be sure to find one with the best security features possible.
  • Read all the terms and conditions and privacy policies for any IoT device you intend to purchase. This will help you understand what data the device collects and what it does with the data.
  • When you buy an IoT device, change its default password immediately. This also applies to any IoT devices that you already own. Be sure to use strong passwords and manage them effectively.
  • Always keep the software on IoT devices up to date. Updates often contain essential bug fixes and security patches.
  • If your IoT device supports security software, install it. Don’t forget that your mobile phone and tablet count as IoT devices!
  • Use a reputable Virtual Private Network, such as one recommended by Secure Thoughts.
  • If your IoT device allows it, use encryption technology.
  • Switch off and unplug any IoT devices when you are not using them.
  • If your IoT device uses location data unnecessarily, turn it off if possible.
  • If your IoT device has a camera or monitor that you don’t think it needs, block the lens.

Conclusion
While it would be best if security features were built into the design of IoT devices, that’s not always the case. So it’s crucial that you implement the security ideas discussed above. Hopefully, we’ll start seeing a move toward creating an international standard for all IoT devices in the future.

Have you had any bad experiences with IoT devices? How do you think the technology is progressing? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.


German Regulators Ask Tesla To Stop Advertising 'Autopilot' Term

Government regulators have asked the automaker Tesla to stop using the term "autopilot" for its driver-assist feature. Deutsche Welle (DW) reported that a letter:

"... published in the newspaper "Bild am Sonntag," called on Tesla to take urgent action "in order to prevent misunderstandings and false expectations from clients." The KBA transport regulator said the term "autopilot" was misleading, and called for it to be removed in future advertisements for Tesla products. The self-driving feature has been available on the California-based automaker's Model S since October 2015."

The Autopilot feature manages the car's speed, steers within a lane, changes lanes (when the driver taps a turn signal), scan for a parking space, and parallel parks on command. Officials in Germany are still conducting an investigation into the car's capabilities.

After the fatal crash in May of a Tesla Model S car operating beta-version software for its Autopilot feature, Tesla engineers said in August the problem was with the car's brakes and not its Autopilot feature.

DW also reported:

"... the German transport regulator wrote to Tesla owners warning them that the autopilot function was purely to assist the driver and did not turn the car into a highly-automated vehicle. The feature still required the driver's unrestricted attention at all times, the letter said. Under German road traffic regulations, the driver is required to remain alert and in control of the vehicle at all times when using the system, the letter added."

The Los Angeles Times reported:

"Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk has repeatedly said he’s sticking with the name, and the company responded to the German report as it does every time the subject comes up: The term “autopilot” has a long history in aerospace, where human pilots and autopilot systems work together to fly a plane."


Report: Consumer Usage of Video Streaming Services in The US

New research revealed that 16% of the "viewing population" have multiple subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) services in their homes. That's up from 10% three years ago. Consumer market research firm Gfk studied consumers in the United States, and also found that almost half (49%) of the "viewing population" subscribes to at least one SVOD service, 17% have both Netflix and Amazon Prime, 9% have Netflix and Hulu Plus, and 5% have all three of the major services.

The “viewing population” includes consumers who watch video at least once per week via any format: regular TV, streaming, or otherwise. According to Gfk, this is 95 percent of the total number of people 13 to 64 US years of age. Gfk also found that consumers:

"... who pay for combinations of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and other subscription streaming services – are more likely to have kids under 18 in their homes (50%, versus an average of 41% among all weekly viewers of any type). “Self-bundlers” also have higher mean incomes than average weekly viewers – at $90,000 per year versus $76,000 – but are less likely to subscribe to traditional pay TV services.."

GfK interviewed 1,054 consumers in the United States for its “Over-the-Top TV 2016: A Complete Video Landscape” report. In related studies during the past year, Gfk found:

Below is an infographic from Gfk's "Over the Top TV 2016" report with additional information:

Infographic from Gfk Over the Top TV 2016 report. Click to view larger version


Proposed Legislation in Michigan For Driverless Cars

The Stanford Center For Internet & Society (CIS) analyzed several draft driverless-car bills under consideration by legislators in Michigan. The analysis highlighted the issues and inconsistencies by the proposed legislation. First, the good news. While SB 995 repeals existing laws that ban driverless cars, it:

"... would return Michigan law to flexible ambiguity on the question of the legality of automated driving in general. The bill probably goes even further by expressly authorizing automated driving: It provides that "[a]n automated motor vehicle may be operated on a street or highway on this state," and the summary of the bill as reported from committee similarly concludes that SB 995 would "[a]llow an automated motor vehicle to be operated on a street or highway in Michigan." (This provision is somewhat confusing because it would be added to an existing statutory section that currently addresses only research and testing and because it would seem to subvert many restrictions on research tests and "on-demand automated motor vehicle networks.") Regardless, this bill would also exempt groups of closely spaced and tightly coordinated vehicles from certain following-distance requirements that are incompatible with platooning."

Platooning is a method for several driverless vehicles to operate together on highways with less space in between, than otherwise. Advocates claim this maximizes the capacity of highways. What does this mean for safety? Do consumers want platooning? Can drivers opt out? If platooning is allowed, then the driverless vehicle you ultimately buy must be outfitted with that software feature.

The drawbacks of the draft legislation:

"... The currently proposed language could mean that automated driving is lawful only in the context of research and development and "on-demand motor vehicle networks." Or it could mean that automated driving is lawful generally and that these networks are subject to more restrictive requirements. It could mean that any company could run a driverless taxi service, including motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise face unrelated and unspecified legal impediments. Or it could mean that a company seeking to run a driverless taxi service must partner with a motor vehicle manufacturer -- or that such a company must at least purchase production vehicles, the modification of which might then be restricted by SB 927 and 928 (see below). It could also mean that municipalities could regulate and tax only those driverless taxi services that do not involve a manufacturer..."

And:

"... SB 995 and 996 understandably struggle to reconcile an existing vehicle code with automated driving. Under existing Michigan law, a "driver" is "every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle," an "operator" is "a person, other than a chauffeur, who "[o]perates" either "a motor vehicle" or "an automated motor vehicle," and "operate" means either "[b]eing in actual physical control of a vehicle" or "[c]ausing an automated motor vehicle to move under its own power in automatic mode," which "includes engaging the automated technology of that automated motor vehicle for that purpose." The new bills would not change this language, but they would further complicate these concepts in several ways..."

I encourage you to read the long list of complications in the CIS analysis. Another key issue:

"Consider the provision that "an automated driving system ... shall be considered the driver or operator ... for purposes of determining conformance to any applicable traffic or motor vehicle laws." This provision says nothing about who or what the driver is for purposes of determining liability for a violation of those laws, particularly when there is no crash. SB 996 does provide that "a motor vehicle manufacturer shall assume liability for each incident in which the automated driving system is at fault," subject to the state's existing insurance code..."

The proposed legislation is important for several reasons. Besides platooning and the list of complications, it decides: a) which types of companies can operate driverless-car networks, b) who is liable and under what conditions, and c) who can repair driverless cars. All items affect consumers rights. A narrow definition of "A" (e.g., only automakers) would mean fewer competitors, and probably higher prices due to a lack of competition. Similarly, a narrow definition of "C" could mean fewer options and choices for consumers, with higher repair prices. Liability must be clear for instances when a driverless vehicle violates road laws; and especially when there is a crash and/or fatality.

Consistency and clarity matter, too. The final legislation and definitions also should be forward-thinking. It's not just driverless vehicles but also remotely-operated vehicles. Companies want remotely-operated ships on the oceans, and remotely-operated trucks are already used off-road for mining purposes. It seems wise to anticipate that off-road use will probably migrate to roads and highways.

Clearly, the proposed legislation in Michigan is not ready yet for prime time. This topic definitely bears monitoring.


FDA Releases Guidelines For Apps And Wearables For Fitness And Health

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released guidelines about mobile apps and wearable devices for health and fitness (Adobe PDF). The guidelines document stated that it is for clarity for industry and FDA staff, and include "nonbinding recommendations." The federal agency will not regulate mobile apps and wearables that promote general wellness or a healthy lifestyle, and are classified as "low risk." The guidelines do not apply to products (e.g., drugs, biologics, dietary supplements, foods, or cosmetics) regulated by other FDA Centers or to combination products.

The FDA's Center For Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) defines general wellness products as:

"... products that meet the following two factors: (1) are intended for only general wellness use, as defined in this guidance, and (2) present a low risk to the safety of users and other persons. General wellness products may include exercise equipment, audio recordings, video games, software programs4 and other products that are commonly, though not exclusively, available from retail establishments (including online retailers and distributors that offer software to be directly downloaded), when consistent with the two factors above."

The guidelines provide further definitions:

"A general wellness product, for the purposes of this guidance, has (1) an intended use that relates to maintaining or encouraging a general state of health or a healthy activity, or (2) an intended use that relates the role of healthy lifestyle with helping to reduce the risk or impact of certain chronic diseases or conditions and where it is well understood and accepted that healthy lifestyle choices may play an important role in health outcomes for the disease or condition. If the product’s intended uses are not limited to the above general wellness intended uses, this guidance does not apply."

The guidelines provide a list of general wellness health outcomes: weight management, physical fitness (including recreational uses), relaxation or stress management, mental acuity, self-esteem, sleep management, and sexual function.

Typically, regulation is used to ensure that products actually do what their manufacturers and developers claim to do. The guidelines specified which claims are general wellness (e.g., the FDA will not regulate) and which claims are not (e.g., the FDA will continue to regulate). General wellness claims include claims to:

  1. Promote or maintain a healthy weight, encourage healthy eating, or assist
    with weight loss goals;
  2. Promote relaxation or manage stress;
  3. Increase, improve, or enhance the flow of qi “energy;”
  4. Improve mental acuity, instruction following, concentration, problem solving, multitasking, resource management, decision-making, pattern recognition or eye-hand coordination;
  5. Enhance learning capacity;
  6. Promote physical fitness (e.g., log, track, or trend exercise activity, measure aerobic fitness, develop or improve endurance, strength or coordination;
  7. Promote sleep management (e.g., track sleep trends);
  8. Promote self-esteem
  9. Address a specific body structure or function (e.g., increase or improve muscle size or body tone, enhance or improve sexual performance);
  10. Improve general mobility; and
  11. Enhance participation in recreational activities by monitoring the consequences (e.g., heart rate).

Some claims are categorized as "disease related." The new FDA guidelines list disease-related general wellness claims and how companies should reference those claims in product packaging and advertisements:

"A claim that a product will treat or diagnose obesity; a claim that a product will treat an eating disorder, such as anorexia; a claim that a product helps treat an anxiety disorder; a claim that a computer game will diagnose or treat autism; a claim that a product will treat muscle atrophy or erectile dysfunction; a claim to restore a structure or function impaired due to a disease or condition, e.g., a claim that a prosthetic device enables amputees to walk... disease-related general wellness claims should only be based on references where it is well understood that healthy lifestyle choices may reduce the risk or impact of a chronic disease or medical condition..."

Since the new FDA guidelines apply only to products categorized as "low risk," it is important to understand that definition:

"If the answer to any of the following questions is YES, the product is not low risk and is not covered by this guidance: 1) Is the product invasive? 2) Is the product implanted? 3) Does the product involve an intervention or technology that may pose a risk to the safety of users and other persons if specific regulatory controls are not applied, such as risks from lasers or radiation exposure? In assessing whether a product is low risk for purposes of this guidance, FDA recommends that you also consider whether CDRH actively regulates products of the same type as the product in question. For example, CDRH actively regulates external penile rigidity devices, which are devices intended to create or maintain sufficient penile rigidity for sexual intercourse, under 21 CFR 876.5020 as class II devices exempt from premarket notification with special controls..."

The guidelines listed examples of products that are low risk and those which are not. Products that are not low risk:

"Sunlamp products promoted for tanning purposes, due to risks to a user’s safety from the ultraviolet radiation, including, without limitation, an increased risk of skin cancer.

Implants promoted for improved self-image or enhanced sexual function. Implants pose risks to users such as rupture or adverse reaction to implant materials and risks associated with the implantation procedure.

A laser product that claims to improve confidence in user’s appearance by rejuvenating the skin. Although the claims of rejuvenating the skin and improving confidence in user’s appearance are general wellness claims, laser technology presents risks of skin and eye burns.

A neuro-stimulation product that claims to improve memory, due to the risks to a user’s safety from electrical stimulation.

A product that claims to enhance a user’s athletic performance by providing suggestions based on the results of relative lactic acid testing, when the product uses venipuncture to obtain the blood samples needed for testing. Such a product is not low risk because it is invasive (e.g., obtains blood samples by piercing the skin) and also because the product involves an intervention that may pose a risk to the safety of the user and other persons if specific regulatory controls are not applied (e.g., venipuncture may pose a risk of infection transmission)."

Companies and individuals can submit feedback to the FDA about these guidelines. See the guidelines document for instructions for submitting feedback. Fierce Healthcare reported:

"Epstein Becker Green health attorney Brad Thompson, who had previously commented to FierceHealthIT on the draft guidance, said in an email the final version "strikes the right balance between regulation and innovation... Over the intervening year and a half, I have talked to a lot of developers of wearable technologies and associated mobile apps and have used the draft guidance as a roadmap for how to assess FDA jurisdiction. I have found it to be extremely practical..."

A copy of the guidance document is also available here (Adobe PDF). What guidance or clarity does it provide for consumers? I guess not much regarding low risk apps and wearables. Consumers are on their own, so shop wisely and carefully. Whenever I read a document that describes itself as "nonbinding recommendations," that is worrisome.


Update: Tesla Engineers Say Crash Due To Brakes, Not Autopilot Feature

About the fatal crash in May of a Tesla Model S car operating beta-version software for its Autopilot feature, the company's engineering executives told the U.S. Senate during committee hearings that the vehicle's brakes were at fault. The New York Times reported:

"... Tesla told members of the Senate Commerce Committee staff on Thursday that the problem involved the car’s automatic braking system, said the staff member, who spoke on condition of anonymity. It was not clear how or why Tesla considers the automatic braking system to be separate from Autopilot, which combines automated steering, adaptive cruise control and other features meant to avoid accidents. Tesla declined to comment... The company told the committee staff that it considered the braking systems as “separate and distinct” from Autopilot, which manages the car’s steering, and can change lanes and adjust travel speed..."

Auto experts say that the Autopilot feature and brakes should work together. So, either the car didn't recognize that it had to stop, or it failed to stop when it should have. The Autopilot feature requires the driver to be ready to assist, if needed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is investigating the crash.

Consumer Reports, which has tested vehicles for decades, has called for automakers to not use people as "guinea pigs for vehicle safety beta programs."

While the fatal Tesla crash was tragic, it is also a reminder for consumers to:

  • Know the differences between full autonomous automation and features that assist drivers,
  • Know the limitations of automation features including road conditions that require driver intervention,
  • Know which features use beta-version software (which means they are unfinished and still being tested), and
  • Read all applicable polices (e.g., terms of service, privacy) before and after purchasing a vehicle to understand your responsibilities and liability. Certain features and road conditions require driver intervention.

Smart Wine Bottles

Does wine go stale in your home? If so, then Kuvée Wine has a solution for you. The solution uses Internet-connected or "smart" wine bottles that reportedly keep your wine fresh for up to 30 days. Each bottle holds 5 glasses or 750 ml of wine. Included wines are 2013 Schug Carneros Pinot Noir, 2013 BR Cohn Cabernet Sauvignon, 2014 Bonny Doon Vin Gris de Cigare, and 2014 Coppola Director's Chardonnay.

Residents in some states can pre-order wine now. Orders from California and Massachusetts residents start shipping in October. Orders from residents in New York, Washington, and Oregon start shipping in December. See the website for terms for other states. The price is $199.00, which includes the Kuvée smart wine bottle plus four bottles of wine.

Since everything is "smart" in today's world, I guess this was bound to happen. Is it a good deal? You can decide for yourself. I'm not a big wine drinker. Heck, I'm not a big drinker -- period. This entertaining video from The Verge provides a perspective about how the Kuvée smart wine bottle works:


Consumer Reports: Don't Use Consumers as 'Guinea Pigs For Vehicle Safety Beta Programs'

Consumer Reports logo The recent fatal crash involving a Tesla auto operating with the Autopilot feature has highlighted the issues with beta software in commercially-available vehicles. Consumer reports discussed the matter in a recent blog post:

"The company’s aggressive roll-out of self-driving technology—in what it calls a “beta-test”—is forcing safety agencies and automakers to reassess the basic relationship between human drivers and their increasingly sophisticated cars... Consumer Reports experts believe that these two messages — your vehicle can drive itself, but you may need to take over the controls at a moment’s notice—create potential for driver confusion. It also increases the possibility that drivers using Autopilot may not be engaged enough to to react quickly to emergency situations. Many automakers are introducing this type of semi-autonomous technology into their vehicles at a rapid pace, but Tesla has been uniquely aggressive in its deployment. It is the only manufacturer that allows drivers to take their hands off the wheel for significant periods of time..."

For decades, Consumer Reports has reviewed, tested and rated both new and used vehicles to help drivers make informed decisions about purchases and repairs. It also tests and rates a wide variety of household appliances, electronics, telecommunications services (e.g., phone, cable TV, broadband), music streaming services, social networking sites, prepaid cards, credit monitoring services, and more. Consumer Reports owned and tested three Tesla vehicles: 2013 Model S 85, 2014 Model S P85D, and 2016 Model X 90D.

Laura MacCleery, the vice president of consumer policy and mobilization for Consumer Reports, said:

"By marketing their feature as ‘Autopilot,’ Tesla gives consumers a false sense of security... In the long run, advanced active safety technologies in vehicles could make our roads safer. But today, we're deeply concerned that consumers are being sold a pile of promises about unproven technology. 'Autopilot' can't actually drive the car, yet it allows consumers to have their hands off the steering wheel for minutes at a time. Tesla should disable automatic steering in its cars until it updates the program to verify that the driver's hands are on the wheel... Consumers should never be guinea pigs for vehicle safety 'beta' programs...”

Consumer Reports provided four recommendation for Tesla and its Autopilot feature, which include renaming it, halting beta test programs, and reprogramming the feature to require drivers to keep their hands on the steering wheel.

I agree. Beta testing features with business software (e.g., spreadsheets, word processing, VPN connections, etc.) and general software are entirely different from vehicles where lives are directly at risk. What are your opinions?