November 23rd, 2009

Internet: A threat to government or the other way around? (Part 4)

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 23, 2009 @ 10:51 AM

Categories: Antitrust, Blogs, Censorship, China, Commerce, Congress, Copyright, Courts, Cyber Security, Cybercrime, Cyberwar, Defense, Disaster recovery, E-government, Elections, European Parliament, European Union, FCC, FTC, Government 2.0, Government technology, Green Dam, Homeland security, Intellectual Property, Intelligence, International, Journalism, Justice, Law enforcement, Open government, Regulations, Security, Senate, Social networks, Spam, Standards, State & Local Govt, Telecom, UK, United Kingdom, United Nations, Web, politics

Tags: Law, Court, Counter Point, Internet, Government, Doug Hanchard

Justice systems around the world had their entire world turned upside down over the past several years because of the Internet. The basic sets of laws, often founded on a nation’s constitution are being used in ways that many forefathers never anticipated or envisioned. Republic, Dominion and Socialist government institutions around the world are all facing the same issues - often without any clear path of legal precedent.

One of the challenges facing courts is jurisdiction. Because of the very nature of the Internet, legal systems are now faced with new roadblocks that did not exist 10 years ago. Traditional methods of law enforcement and legal treaties do work and continue to be the basis of process and dealing with prosecution and trials. Interpretation of existing laws and applying them to Internet-related cases has not been a significant challenge in many cases. But there are some new aspects of what is admitted into court.

Evidence

What has shocked the system is how Internet-based materials are now used in the courts as evidence. Everything from ISP logs, website blogs, and social media sites (among others) are now being used in ways that prosecutors and jurists have never had to deal with in the past. It is also becoming a battle ground for several areas of law, particularly the integrity of evidence. This has many in the legal world concerned. It’s becoming clear that this will be an area of significant debate and will have far-reaching consequences. Internet evidence does not have look and feel of traditional evidence and, in many cases, has yet to be challenged as to its validity. Prosecutors are faced with a dilemma that impacts how and what they prosecute. This in turn has created a new source of political initiatives that are not only questionable, but in some parts of the world viewed as extreme.

Don’t have a Law yet? We’ll make one

The evolution of law and how it is created has traditionally been a slow and low priority part of the political system. No longer is that the case. Government ministers and cabinet officials appear to be fast-tracking new laws, specifically because of the Internet at a rapid pace of late. Politicians are practically tripping over themselves drafting new bills that claim that they know how to fix the problems of cybercrime and abuse. These ideas are moving at such a rapid pace that often few people actually have read the fine print. What concerns many is the advice politicians are getting on how Internet law should be created. Governments all over the world will have significant impact on such issues as free speech, Net neutrality, news, crime and governance of institutions.

Prosecution

There is not much sympathy for the courts in many parts of the world. That may soon change as news travels across the multimedia world of the Internet. Attorneys general throughout the United States are political and create their own priorities and thus control what is heard before the courts. This may have significant consequences as to the timing of how the Internet evolves and impact the economics of the service that potentially influences it’s usage for decades. In the United Kingdom, the courts will have to take into account European treaties and the European Parliament. Canada’s magistrates may strike down or uphold newly created laws that may wind up creating in-balance that could take years to reverse.

Rules await the Internet

Regulators such as the CRTC, FCC, OfCom are charting new territory in communication rules and regulations. Lawmakers are beginning to micro-manage this process. No one yet knows what the impact these new elements will have on the judicial system. It will take years before this is known and goes through several rigorous tests of the court system. Case law may take a decade or more before any true outcomes are known. By that time, a nation will have changed political administration and have new agendas that reset the cycle before some true outcomes are known. Net Neutrality will be debated and wind up before the courts in jurisdictions around the world. The results will vary like your bandwidth speed and access to content.

Global perspective

Laws of a nation are now being combined in many parts of the world. The very essence of a sovereign nation set of laws is slowly being merged into a single set by which it will adhere to. This is particularly true in Europe where the European Parliament is attempting to create laws specifically surrounding the Internet. This has the potential to create political and legal challenges for courts in how they make decisions. The consequences have significant long term impacts on how courts operate and what order of Appeals and jurisdiction as they enter cyber space with profound outcomes yet to be decided.

The Supreme Court

Supreme Court decisions have not had an impact on the Internet - but likely will. Major court decisions at local, state, and provincial levels are being appealed and many will eventually be argued before the Supreme Court. That draws concern because of how many governments nominate and select jurists to be a part of the Supreme Court framework. In general terms, the institution is politically driven and has the potential to create decisions that may in fact be contrary to the very principles that many of us take for granted. It also works in the other direction. Many a government has had policies and laws overturned by the courts. Key segments will be privacy, Internet access and tracking - along with content management tangled with identity security. It could be argued that elected government officials are not a threat to the Internet, the courts are. The counter point is that will force parliamentarians to change the law, a task far easier said than done. Compounding the problem is that the highest courts around the world have (almost) unlimited tenure until death.  Jurists that will have profound impacts on the stance of governments surrounding Internet issues are in China, Pakistan, India, Russia, and the Middle East. China is unique in that it will have to eventually deal with treaties in which it is a signatory to, but no one has yet to appeal any government policies. It may soon have to. If WTO treaties are before their court system, the Internet could be next.

The court system in most democratic nations has dynamics rarely resulting in quick decisions. It may take years before government’s leaders and the lawmakers truly understand what they are dealing with. Some will fail in creating new laws that are considered extreme by many; others may actually pass the litmus test of a Supreme Court decision. History awaits the outcome.

Epilogue - it will never have an ending

So here we are; some of the files are out in the open, more need further decryption, understanding and updating. The pace of the discussion is increasing and appears to be moving along with few delays. 2010 promises to be the start of a new decade that has a few fundamental issues to resolve. The debate has begun and could be a pivotal point in how society uses and government manages the Internet.

Go back to:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3 in this series

November 22nd, 2009

Internet: A threat to government or the other way around? (Part 3)

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 22, 2009 @ 3:32 PM

Categories: Censorship, Congress, Courts, E-government, Elections, Government 2.0, Government technology, Homeland security, Journalism, Justice, Law enforcement, Regulations, Senate, Social networks, State & Local Govt, Web, politics

Tags: U.S., Safety Agency, Government, Internet, Vertical Industries, Doug Hanchard

Part III

From 1959 to 1975, the era of demonstration (Vietnam War) was to protest on the lawns and parks of universities and public venues. The Kent State shootings by National Guard troops in May of 1970 was not the first demonstration against government, but it certainly was the event that ignited further demonstrations at universities all over the United States. Demonstrators had no defense against armed troops and the toll was significant both in political values and individual trust in government. News organizations covered every demonstration nationally from that event onwards until the end of 1975.

There are more Internet Packets than there are bullets

Almost 40 years later, some government officials and elected official are pushing agendas that have long term consequences to its people that have similar overtones of big brother control.  Today the landscape is very different.  If people don’t like what they see potentially becoming Law, they have a new tools without fear of an M-16 being pointed at them. At one extreme end of protest, several protests went directly onto the offensive and have launched cyber war attacks against government institutions such as Estonia. It has been alleged that a U.S. Congressman suggested cyber attacks should be ordered against North Korea. I investigated this claim and could not find a single article verifying its authenticity, but it’s been reported all over the internet. A request for an interview was declined by the Congressman’s office.

It doesn’t stop there; non government groups are also launching political cyber attack campaigns against (VANK vs. Japan) each other. Emailing an elected official was the first step. Media tools which are now at the disposal of anyone, is an arsenal that has far more power than any individual or group in government can defeat. Instead of thousands of journalists covering a story, there is potentially billions of people reporting bits of news that are crisscrossing the globe that nobody can stop - for now. There is the potential for citizens to protest by using the internet to attack their own government, particularly in the United States and the U.K. and may believe it is their right to do so. This is not the kind of digital divide that government knows how to deal with either.  The days of the Boston Tea party are long gone and we know what happened two years later and that is not a scenario that will unfold or be repeated.

Governments have seen this potential and are developing applications and systems that can defend and attack any Internet event, foreign or domestic. This is not (just) about firewalls and creating offensive capabilities, but also about proposing new laws, which many believe are the beginning of a new era of government knows best.

Information is power

Many fear this could behold a future that dictates who holds control over the Internet. Early indications are that this view has some validity. Several nations (United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China, and Russia) are already monitoring and archiving significant information about their constituents.  There’s nothing new in knowledge that databases exist containing information about its citizens. Here’s what is new: the scale and ultimate purpose. Public safety agencies are encouraged to share multiple databases of information. That has created a new culture in police enforcement and created a new breed of police officer that simply has far more information than they need or should have available to them upon which to make an appraisal or use with valid merit. We have witnessed new variants of stereotype and investigation methods police officers use which are wrong in its outcome. England’s decision to maintain DNA records of individuals, even if found innocent has already caught several police officers making snap decisions that a suspect must be guilty of ’something’ - is a classic example that happens routinely.

What’s good for catching the bad guy maybe worse for the upstanding citizen

People realize that information is kept and archived about them. How it is used or manipulated however, is a completely different discussion. Privacy and protection from abuse of such information has now become a priority concern for everyone and currently there is a widespread worry that government simply does not have the trust of people to ensure its safeguarding. Memories of May 4, 1970 may come back to haunt many.

Governments are proposing laws allowing the tracking and archiving where users are on the Internet. These laws have their foundation in protection against illegal downloading of copyright materials and while valid, have far more reaching consequences than that purpose, and most recognize it as such - except many politicians. How much more information is the government going to track - this blog perhaps? I know that the 754^th ELSG - Electronic System Group (part of the 554^th ESW Wing) of the U.S. Air Force out of Hanscom Air Force Base has visited the blog, as has the Central Intelligence Agency. That doesn’t mean they are monitoring or tracking this blog, but what’s to stop them for doing so (hi guys! *wave*) and creating a file? - Good thing I know they’re the good guys…..
Go to:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 4 in this series

November 22nd, 2009

Internet: A threat to government or the other way around? (Part 2)

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 22, 2009 @ 3:30 PM

Categories: Blogs, Censorship, Congress, Courts, Elections, Government 2.0, Government technology, Homeland security, Journalism, Justice, Multi-media, Obama, Open government, Senate, Social networks, Spam, State & Local Govt, Web, politics

Tags: News, Internet New, Spin Bad New, Internet, Portals, RSS, Government, Blogging, Doug Hanchard

Part II

It’s been suggested in many articles that President Obama won the U.S. election in 2008 because his campaign used Twitter, Facebook and other social media effectively over the course of the campaign that spanned two years.  But this new instant social media clearly it works both ways: Bad news travels much faster, and with significantly more power, than good news ever does. Face it: People love dirt and passing on bad news more often, with negative results which tend to stick in a voters mind for a longer period of time than good news does.

The snowball effect

There’s more to it than just a story being uploaded and published on a blog or RSS feed. It goes a lot farther, much much farther. Internet news is now available in every language, where anybody who has access to a computer or smart phone is now a potential audience for ‘news’. That has politicians nervous because just how many of these stories are published with incomplete information along with confirmation that the material they are publishing is true. Harder still, once it’s published, how much effort do you put into getting a retraction if the story is inaccurate? And if the politician pushes too far, it may be perceived that there is in fact truth to the article, compounding the problem.  Twitter spreads news like a virus and it’s unstoppable and often it doesn’t, if ever, post retractions or corrections at the same velocity. We thought we understood the 7/24 news cycle when the era of 200 television stations became a reality… uh no…not even close were we in understanding what this cycle means - until now.

The Spin

Bad news is also how the opposition takes aim at its targets. Once a story is in the wild, you can bet your opposite is firing out their take on a story, sometimes with twice the venom and quadruple the amount of information that can literately engulf the target.  If you thought spam was a problem, political drama is going to crush it in the years to come.  One question it raises is: Can we absorb it all? The politician may have an escape route after all. But there’s an old saying: If enough junk is thrown at the wall, some of it is going to stick…

The story

News is also about agendas that elected leaders want to you to vote for. Out go the press releases, RSS alerts, Twitter, blogs and social portal postings. You become engulfed in it. You can’t surf anywhere without it coming at you. Well, you can, but don’t worry; they’ll find you anyway and make sure you listen. As opposing sides pitch you why each respective side is right and the other is wrong, you wonder if they even remember what they represent you for in the first place. This onslaught of political news is ignored, absorbed and debated and the arguments and dilution of substance begins. Often it can be ugly at one extreme to complete blandness at the other.  Politicians rarely remember which side of the bed they woke up on, why should it be any different trying to get a bill passed on the floor of the legislature?

What some leaders are starting to realize is that if they are not careful, their constituents will tune out. So far that’s not holding true, with the majority of western world eligible voters having access to the internet and having an email address or a cell phone with a data plan. Most troubling for elected officials are secondary news sources that create perception beyond their editorial control. These secondary sources are your friends that pass on the news, as a tweet, email, blog or text message which are condensed and revised pieces of news. This audience tends to get engaged BECAUSE it came from a source they associate with. The future might hold that people create firewall or filter rules that prevent political messages getting to them, but rarely will they reject these secondary sources of news.

Reaction to government has moved from the lawns of universities and parks to the Internet.

Go to:
Part 1
Part 3
Part 4 in this series

November 19th, 2009

FCC releases broadband agenda

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 19, 2009 @ 11:10 AM

Categories: Congress, FCC, Net neutrality, Regulations, broadband

Tags: FCC, Broadband, Broadband Internet, Network Technology, Federal Government, Telecommunications, Networking, Government, Doug Hanchard

The FCC released its broadband agenda and supplied a presentation on areas to be reviewed which is due in 90 days. It covers a very broad (no pun intended) area of topics. The statistics embedded are worth reading about. Among them;

• Broadband adoption by adults: 63%
• Smart phone adoption: 31%
• No Broadband available: estimated at 3 to 6 million Housing units
• Cost Estimate that it costs 25 times LESS to have broadband urban areas compared to rural

The presentation is available on the FCC site.

 Loading ...

November 19th, 2009

FCC wants public comment on digital democracy - voting online

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 19, 2009 @ 6:06 AM

Categories: Congress, E-government, Elections, FCC, Government technology, Multi-media

Tags: FCC, Submissions, Federal Government, Government, Doug Hanchard

Last month I wrote about online voting and the trend to continue to move towards this type of service. The FCC is looking for comments which will influence the FCC’s policy and submit back recommendations to Congress. Online town hall meetings using multimedia applications are also being reviewed.  The extent to which voting options are available are not part of the FCC’s review or mandate.  Paper ballots and in person voting are not likely going anywhere anytime soon.

It will be interesting to see if the value of online voting is swayed by the economics and accuracy of voter tabulations and participation. There are a lot of arguments for and against electronic and online voting. Another focus area likely to surface is the digital divide - many people simply do not use the Internet, let alone own a computer.  As I noted in my previous post, there are other ways it could still be accomplished such as smart phones or kiosks connected to the election service platform.

Submissions are due by December 10 of this year.

 Loading ...

 Loading ...

November 17th, 2009

The Queen could better manage security of personal information than civil servants are

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 17, 2009 @ 6:02 AM

Categories: Congress, Databases, E-government, Encryption, FBI, Government technology, Healthcare, Home Office, IT Management, Justice, Law enforcement, MI5, MI6, Memory Sticks, Network security, Personnel Management, Privacy, Public health, Queen Elizabeth II, Regulations, Royal Family, Scotland Yard, Security, Senate, State & Local Govt, UK, United Kingdom, piracy

Tags: Council, Health Care, Training, Servant, Laptop Computer, Ministry Of Justice, Notebooks, Vertical Industries, Identity Theft, Benefits

Her majesty’s servants seem to be lacking any sense of responsibility these days. Information in the health care sector, voter information are being either stolen or misplaced on a regular basis. Hundreds of incidents are occurring.

It’s one thing for a leak to be politically motivated, but quite another when it’s careless. In an article I wrote two weeks ago about an U.S. Ethics Committee staffer file sharing a sensitive file investigating members of Congress and winding up in the hands of the Washington Post ,many talk back readers suggested it was intentional.  England on the other hand, seems to have poor training and staff that have little respect or understanding of what they are dealing with.

Last week, the BBC reported that in the U.K., health records are being ‘lost’ in unprecedented scale:

“Unacceptable amounts of data are being stolen, lost in transit or mislaid by staff. Far too much personal data is still being unnecessarily downloaded from secure servers on to unencrypted laptops, USB sticks, and other portable media.”

Companies and public bodies that recklessly or deliberately break the rules face fines of up to half a million pounds from 2010. The Ministry of Justice is considering allowing the ICO to impose fines in the most serious cases.

Fines? How about PRISON instead? Nobody seems to budget for training or make individuals aware of the consequences if data is ‘lost’.

Organized crime seeks out data and coordinates such thefts. In a recent FBI investigation, they nabbed a ring that stole over $9 million with individual and commercial banking information compiled over an extensive period of time and found vulnerability in the bank network. The plan was then executed in less than 12 hours. The three masterminds were caught and yes - they ARE going to prison.

But when civil servants have proper control of the information they are dealing with, patient records and other database formats of personnel records and are lax in the way they handle, manage and secure the data there seems to be a complete lack of discipline for their actions. The bottom line is that nobody seems to care. They have inquiries, investigations and commissions of what went wrong, but in recent history, NOBODY has been fined or prosecuted for what appears to be absolute contempt for security of individuals’ information.

In England it’s almost on the verge of bizarre. The Home Office Minister, MP Hanson wants every ISP to monitor and enable them track where a user has been and what they are downloading - but they can’t seem to even dismiss an employee for losing or locking down memory sticks or laptops with complete data records of individuals that is far more damaging in terms of potential financial ruin of an individual.  The Right Honorable MP Hanson needs to check his backyard before worrying about what happens in public. The need to be heavy handed seems to be used on trivial things, like spying on a city council member that may or may not live within city limits - 21 times! Perhaps it’s time that Scotland Yard bring back Paul Temple and MI6 pull 007 out of retirement and wring somebody’s neck and throw them in jail, let alone be fired. This week, in yet another complete lack of security protocol, 4 laptops go ‘missing’ in a single event.  One of the laptops has voter information — with sufficient data to ruin an individual’s identity with the information contained on the laptop.

Files contained names, addresses, dates of birth, signatures, postal vote forms and statements used to confirm the identity of 14,673 voters. Councillor Julian Daly, whose details were on the missing laptop, said the situation was “troubling”.

The data was protected by two levels of security, the council said, but admitted there was a “slight risk” it could be accessed.

Hackers have time - it’s not a slight risk, it’s a DEFINITE risk.

Everyone affected is to receive a letter to inform them of the situation.

Inform? What good is that going to do? Their identities have ALREADY been compromised.

Mr Daly, who is leader of the Conservative group at the Lib Dem controlled council, added: “That’s all the information you need to set up a bank account. It’s classic identity theft territory. “It is troubling that the data was on a portable machine and it was accessible for someone to walk off with it.”

Bureaucrat Understatement of the year:

Daniel Goodwin, the council’s chief executive, said: “I would like to apologise to residents and reassure them the council takes its responsibility to look after their personal data very seriously.”

Seriously - then Mr. Goodwin should take responsibility for complete lack of training of staff under his management and turn himself in and go to jail. It’s going to take that kind of punishment before somebody figures out that people have to follow some pretty basic COMMON SENSE rules and regulations or face the consequences. Either that or go to jail.

It would appear that the common trait among all these incidences in training or even having a security practice in place when such information is being used by employees, contractors and administrators. And clearly there is no sense of responsibility by any of the staff using the information. I sense HRM Corgi’s could manage security of the information better than some of the administrators in charge.

 Loading ...

November 17th, 2009

Do former CEOs make better politicians than career diplomats?

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 17, 2009 @ 5:48 AM

Categories: Congress, Elections, Open government, Senate, State & Local Govt, White House, california, politics

Tags: Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, President, Politics, Theodore Roosevelt, Professional Development, Career, Doug Hanchard

Both Meg Whitman (E-Bay) and Carly Fiorina (HP) are entering U.S. politics in California where anything is possible. Both were high tech corridor heavyweights managing two of the largest ICT corporations in the world. Ross Perot (EDS) tried to run for President - twice. Some considered his chances weak in the beginning, yet he almost pulled it off, some analyst suggest. Former Vice President Cheney while CEO of Halliburton between 1995 and 2000, has always been in politics starting in 1969 until his retirement last year.

U.S. Governments generally elect career politicians, rising through the ranks from town councils, state legislatures and finally federal institutions. Many have careers spanning 40+ years. Congressman John Dingell of Michigan has served in office since 1955 and is the longest serving elected House member in history.

There are two other sources of diplomats. One is not too far distant from the political spectrum, the other is. The first is the military, Gen Eisenhower (President) , Gen Colin Powell (Secretary of State), and several generals since the civil war went into politics at various levels. One of the surprises in the 20th century was General Douglas MacArthur’s decision not to enter politics despite many who felt he would have won a Presidential race in 1952. Theodore Roosevelt has the distinction of serving first in politics, leaving to enter the military (1898 Spanish-American War) and reenter politics eventually becoming the 26th U.S. President from 1901 to 1909.

The other source is actors such as former President Regan, Fred Thompson (Senator), Clint Eastwood (Mayor), Arnold Schwarzenegger (Gov of California) and many others. The track records of each are likely to be debated forever.

The corporate world has not had significant leadership roles in recent U.S. elections. The question often arises as to why. The answers vary from scrutiny, pay, and general consensus; it’s easier to influence change from outside the political arena than from within. Should be an interesting news cycle watching Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina’s attempts getting elected in California. Silicon Valley may not be the safe haven they think it is. Fiorina is challenging three-term Senator Barbara Boxer (who’s been in federal politics since 1983) while Whitman is going up against the Terminator who’s been Governor since 2003.

 Loading ...

November 13th, 2009

Life insurance may prove difficult to get if you contract H1N1

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 13, 2009 @ 11:06 AM

Categories: Canada, Congress, Databases, E-government, Healthcare, Obama, Privacy, Public health, Regulations, State & Local Govt, White House

Tags: Insurance Company, Health Care, Life Insurance, H1N1 Flu, Insurance, Benefits, Vertical Industries, Healthcare, Financial Planning, Personal Finance

President Obama wants to ensure health insurance companies cannot deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. This has key component of the President’s health care reform package going through the U.S. Congress.  He may have another challenge lying ahead - life insurance.  Already some insurance carriers in Canada, because of the pandemic H1N1 Virus, are asking on application forms if they have contracted it. In a Sun Media / Peterborough Examiner news article, this could lead to future profiling of consumers health and may eliminate the ability to get life insurance for some.

This may also force strict guidelines on health information privacy that a health insurance provider has in its database and ensuring that life insurance companies do not have access to it. It is legal to ask about a consumers current health and personal lifestyle habits such as smoking, but it does not bar you from getting coverage, only that it may have affect on what your monthly or yearly premiums will cost.

The debate this opens up is more than a few simple questions and no easy answers.

 Loading ...

November 6th, 2009

Human x-ray machines: Coming soon to an airport near you

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 6, 2009 @ 5:00 AM

Categories: Canada, Congress, FAA, Government technology, Homeland security, Intelligence, International, Justice, Law enforcement, Privacy, Public health, Science, Security, Transportation, UK

Tags: U.S., Canada, Airport, Transportation, Security, Doug Hanchard

In the movie Total Recall, Arnold Schwarzenegger (Gov. of California) runs through a security check point corridor operating using X-Ray technology. That film was released in 1990. Today that technology is being installed around the world at airports, border check points, marine ports and high risk security environments such as court buildings. They are currently being assessed or used in Canada, the U.S., U.K., Russia, Japan, and Australia. Some countries, such as India, have outright rejected them based on privacy and considered too offensive to passengers. Significant concern is being raised as to the long term medical impacts to humans going through the devices.

In Canada, the Canadian Air Transport Security Agency (CATSA) organization has completed some field trials at smaller airports (Kelowna, B.C.) and is looking to purchase a half dozen of the machines to continue further assessment. There are approximately 18 airports in the U.S. using them. In the U.K. several airports now have them including Manchester. Testing in several countries has been going since 2004. In the U.S. the Transportation Security Administration began field trials in 2007. The technology offers security details to process passengers quickly and determine if weapons or other contraband is on a person without doing physical body search. Such technology would significantly improve the detection of hidden materials. Read the rest of this entry »

November 5th, 2009

FCC Chairman testifies on driving while texting

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 5, 2009 @ 2:30 PM

Categories: Canada, Commerce, Congress, FCC, Law enforcement, Mobile/wireless, Obama, State & Local Govt, Transportation

Tags: FCC, Phone, Chairman, Cell Phone, Federal Government, Cellular Phones, Telecom & Utilities, Government, Consumer Electronics, Personal Technology

Last week I posted that the Government of Ontario has implemented a ban on driving while using a mobile phone or CB radio. U.S. Congress is now holding hearings on the issue.

Chairman Julius Genachowski of the Federal Communications Commission testified before the Subcommittees on Communications, Technology and the Internet, Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Committee on Energy and Commerce on the topic of Technological Devices and Vehicle Safety. Chairman Genachowski’s testimony brought out some interesting facts.

1995: approximately 34 million people had subscribed to a mobile phone.

2009: 276 million

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported in 2008 that driver distraction is the cause of 16% of all fatal crashes - 5,800 people killed - and 21% of crashes resulting in an injury - 515,000 people wounded.

I posted last week that 6 U.S. states have banned driving while talking on a cell phone. 18 states now have some kind of law, primarily aimed at texting while driving.

President Obama signed an Executive Order banning all Federal employees (except in an emergency) from texting while driving any government vehicle or driving while on the job.

According to the Automobile Association of America (AAA), nearly 50% of teens admit to texting while driving.

Bluetooth and speech-to-text technology sales are likely to skyrocket, along with civilian versions of Heads Up Displays (HUD) in rear view mirrors.