You should never yell fire in a crowded movie theater. You should never wear wearable technology in a movie theater either.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)? and National Association of Theater Owners are commanding wearable devices such as the smartwatch and Google Glass to be shut off while the movie is playing. Those who fail to comply will be asked to leave the theater. That’s not all. If it’s discovered the film was being recorded on the device, police will be called in. It’s part of their anti-piracy zero-tolerance crusade. This new ruling comes in the wake of last year’s MPAA ruling, urging theaters to check bags and jackets for cameras and other things, as to look for ‘suspicious activity’ among customers.? The MPAA is using 21st century technology of their own to enforce their zero tolerance anti-piracy crusade, such as night-vision goggles and low-light binoculars. Google Glass has been specifically targeted. The United Kingdom and theaters in five US states have banned Google Glass altogether, whether you’re using it or not. If you’re thinking about recording in a movie there, don’t do it. Penalties can be severe. Under the federal law, film piracy recordings can carry a maximum three year prison sentence. That doesn’t include state and local sentences.
I’ve never been a fan of Google Glass. I think the device can be easily used to invade peoples’ privacy and civil liberties. Maybe the smartwatch will be manipulated to do the same. So I can see the concern there. But I’m equally as concerned with how the MPAA and National Association of Theater Owners are acting. Three years in prison for piracy? I’ve read about violent criminals who serve less time. And I’m kind of weary of checks at theaters. I’ve never experienced this myself, but don’t we get enough of that at airports? I understand piracy takes food out of mouths and they want to put a stop to it. But are these policies good for stopping piracy or are they going too far?
Not even 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC is immune. Even the White House got breached. According to news sources, this breach has been going on for weeks.
These hackers are reported and suspected to be from the Russian government. Officials say the worst of it was just disruptions to certain services, and no damages were done. Cybersecurity squads worked to correct the cyber invasion attempt. Nobody is saying if any data was stolen. These kind of Russian hackers are also suspected of targeting NATO, Ukraine, and American defense contractors. The hacking was found earlier this month. Some employees were urged to change their passwords, but there were some minor email delays. The White House has long been prepared for this kind of breach. There was a major breach to the US military classified networks back in 2008, also suspected to be caused by Russian intelligence hackers. In the wake of this, the the US Cyber Command was founded. This organization has been committed to fighting foreign cyberattacks on behalf of private as well as government sectors.
This should be a lesson for us all. Well, first of all, thank goodness nothing was taken and no data was compromised. We should all be grateful for that. But it makes me wonder, if the White House, the most prestigious house in America, isn’t immune to breaches, how much hope can other houses in this nation have of cyber security? Now we all know relations between the US and Russia has been icy at best. In the last year or two alone, the two nations have jostled about every issue from Ukraine to the Edward Snowden revelations. And apparently, this jostle has gone on for several years. So we should be thankful for the US Cyber Command. The cold relationship between these two nations probably isn’t warming up anytime soon, more hacking attempts can be expected, and what can be done for protection?
Good news: One day you can have a You Tube with no commercials or any other advertising. Bad news: You’ll be the one paying for it.
You Tube CEO Susan Wojcicki is working around the clock to make this social medium a better place. One option includes ad-free service. It would be up to the customer to decide whether deal with advertisers or pay a monthly fee for no ads at all. In May 2013, You Tube allowed channels to sell either videos or subscriptions. For example, if a TV show wants to put reruns for the previous season, they can charge .99 cents per episode or $9.99 for the season. She also talked about the relationship between You Tube and it’s parent company, Google, and other ways You Tube can make profits. Another thing Ms. Wojociki noticed it You Tube is being uploaded from smartphones and mobile devices at least half the time. As of today, You Tube attracts over a billion visitors a month, and has made over 5.6 billion dollars in ad revenue alone in the last year alone.
I bring this up because it’s obvious ad revenue is paramount to You Tube’s success and has been for throughout the company’s nine year history. So for those of us (I’m talking to myself) fearing we’re all going to have to pay for You Tube, I wouldn’t worry. They’re smart enough to know not to let this good thing go. I understand how some are tired of the ads and would rather pay out of pocket. And I appreciate paying for subscriptions for certain shows. But You Tube needs to keep that advertising option open. Keep in mind these are just options being thrown around, except for channel and video subscriptions. Nothing is set in stone. These are just You Tube’s options. What do you think of these options and how would you make You Tube, already good, even better?
Fitbit currently leads the technology world in the fitness tracking/heart rate monitor race. Yet, despite ever increasing competition coming from everywhere, we haven’t heard from them in a while. We’re going to hear them loud and clear in 2015.
Next year, Fitbit will introduce their new products, Charge HR and Surge. The Charge HR not only measures your heart all day, but does so during your sleep. It has five days of battery life without a charger (I wish my iPod touch could do that!) and has snap-on prongs for a snuggle fit. The 24 hour heart rate tracker on this is called Pure Plus. It also counts calorie burns for activities ranging from running to biking to yoga. The price of Charge HR should run $150.
The more elaborate Fitbit product is called Fitbit Surge, also dubbed as ‘fitness smartwatch’. It does everything the Charge HR can do. But Surge has LCD technology, GPS, caller ID, and text messaging. With your connected phone, you can do all this, and the battery life also last five days, though it goes a lot shorter while using a GPS. Surge also works as a compass.? It promises fitness touching and is water resistant, perfect for swimmers. The Fitbit Surge will run you $250.
As stated before, the competition in the fitness tracking is increasing. Plus, in many eyes, Fitbit doesn’t have the best of reputation. So I’m wondering why is Fitbit waiting to release their new products until after the new year? Wouldn’t it make sense to put Surge and Charge out in November, just in time for the holiday season? To their credit, Fitbit is releasing Fitbit Charge in November, which is a basic heart rate monitor on your wrist for $130. Why not release all three? Are they just not ready? This holiday season, the competition is going to run away with profits that could and should have been Fitbit’s. What’s behind the mystery of Fitbit?
It seems like the new phenomenon Apple Pay isn’t being welcomed by everyone. Pharmacy chains Rite Aid and CVS are taking measures to resist that system.
Over the past week, Rite Aid and CVS shut down support for Apple Pay. It’s important to know that Rite Aid wasn’t an official Apple Pay partner to begin with. But both store chains are shutting down their NFC. That’s the acronym for near field communication, a blatant attempt to thwart Apple Pay. Google Wallet will also take a hit. Even CVS management emailed their stores, telling them NFC support has been cut off, and Apple Pay will not be accepted. Why are Rite Aid and CVS resisting Apple Pay? Thank their participation in Merchant Customer Exchange (MCX), a lesser known mobile payment system better known as Current C. But not all pharmacy chains are joining this resistance. Walgreens stores embrace Apple Pay.
Should we be surprised at this prescription drug chain resist movement? I’m not. Did Apple Pay really think the whole world will just accept this system? Don’t get me wrong. I hope Apple Pay succeeds, as I think this is a great step in the technological world. And many like this system. They do have an ally in Walgreens. But to think every major chain is going to go along with it is grossly naive. And these stores aren’t the only one. As prescription drug chains resist, what will Apple Pay do?
