My new OpEd at the Daily Caller:

Top Democrats and Republicans have finally found something they can agree on: it’s acceptable for the National Security Agency to indiscriminately seize and warehouse U.S. citizens’ phone, Internet, and credit card records. They assure us that the NSA is only collecting metadata, and it’s only to protect us from terrorist attacks.

What could possibly go wrong?

Many of us remember a time when the idea of the U.S. government monitoring everyone’s communications and transactions was unthinkable. That was something that happened in countries such as the Soviet Union and East Germany. Admittedly, the world has changed since then. The totalitarian regimes of yesterday relied on neighbors, classmates, and co-workers to spy on their fellow citizens. We’ve automated the process using computers, the Internet, and gigantic water-cooled data centers.

Many of our leaders insist that wholesale data gathering helps keep us safe. Actually, wholesale data gathering makes us less safe. It’s not the most effective way to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, and it needlessly exposes tens of millions of Americans to new threats.

The best way to discover terrorist plots is to focus on the groups from which terrorists are recruited. Most of today’s terrorists are inspired by an ideology that security experts call radical Islam. Not wanting to offend the peaceful majority of Muslims, government officials prefer to avoid the topic. We see this at work in the NSA, which operates according to the assumption that no group is more likely to produce terrorists than another. However, gathering and analyzing data from the entire U.S. population can distract agencies from following up on specific leads such as Russia’s warning about Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. As former NSA analyst William Binney told The Daily Caller, “They’re making themselves dysfunctional by collecting all of this data.”

The collection of metadata is not as innocuous as it might sound. Metadata may include who you call, what you search for, and where you shop. Large quantities of metadata gathered over time can reveal your religion, political views, health concerns, and other personal details. Knowledge is power, and others could potentially use that knowledge to intimidate or even blackmail you. Just knowing that you are constantly being watched may be enough to dissuade you from engaging in dissent.

If privacy is no longer realistic, then forget about personal safety. Your phone, Internet, and credit card records include account numbers, usernames, and passwords. This information could be used to steal your money or even your identity. Plus, by gathering your data and storing it in a central database, the government creates yet another opportunity for hackers to access your private data — a risk over which you have no control.

The existence of strict rules for accessing and using the data does not guarantee that abuses won’t occur. Surely there are strict rules that prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from targeting groups based on their political views. Yet it happened. While safeguards can be put in place to prevent abuse of citizens’ records, there are always ways to get around safeguards. Eliminating the source of temptation is a far better solution.

Read the rest here.

And no, nothing that I've heard or read since writing this has changed my opinion. Questioning Edward Snowden's character is a red herring. It's not about Snowden--it's about whether ubiquitous government surveillance is necessary to ensure security. We don't need to monitor the entire US population; we need to do a better job identifying and monitoring potential terrorists.

My column at NewsFactor Network:

The only thing tougher than building a successful business from scratch is turning around a big company that has lost its mojo. Research In Motion launched the smartphone market by producing mobile phones that email addicts loved. But when Apple and Google came out with smartphones for consumers, and developers created hundreds of thousands of apps for the devices, they started a “bring your own device” craze that took a big bite out of RIM’s sales.

That should have been Research In Motion’s cue to reinvent itself. Changing its name to BlackBerry was beside the point. BlackBerry needs to identify the next big opportunity for mobile phones and seize that opportunity by developing innovative solutions.

After all, that’s how Apple and Google blew past BlackBerry. The original iPhone was an instant hit thanks to two innovations. First, it was an iPod with a phone and digital camera—all built to Steve Jobs’ demanding specifications. Second, it featured the first touchscreen that ordinary humans could actually use. Android did even better because it gave the other phone makers a free operating system that they could use to compete with the iPhone and it leveraged Google’s industry-leading Internet technology. And both products were exquisitely timed: iPhone and Android offered multimedia capabilities just as mobile operators began upgrading their networks in earnest to faster 3G wireless technology.

There are three things that BlackBerry can do to reclaim its magic. First, BlackBerry should drive the use of near field communications (NFC) technology to replace traditional credit cards, keys, and tickets. One of the major reasons that people buy smartphones is that smartphones serve multiple functions. We also know that most people carry around too many credit cards, keys, and pieces of paper. There is an obvious problem here that smartphones can solve. And it’s a good fit for BlackBerry, too: The Company has supported NFC since 2011 and has learned how to make exchanging data between phones and between phones and tags simple and convenient.

Second, BlackBerry should help enterprises use their mobile devices to conduct business. Up to now, BlackBerry has helped enterprises manage their devices, but this is no longer a growth opportunity. Most enterprises now support devices made by different manufacturers, and few are going to entrust the management of those devices to a single manufacturer. (Imagine Apple offering to help enterprises manage their Android devices!) Plus, the market is about to become more competitive, because many device management functions can now be handled by apps and cloud-based services. BlackBerry can make better use of its enterprise know-how by helping enterprises devise and execute mobile commerce strategies.

Third, BlackBerry must give consumers specific capabilities that they want but can’t get from other smartphone makers. Trying to match the sheer volume of content and apps available from Apple, Google, and Microsoft is a futile endeavor. BlackBerry recently announced relationships with music and video content providers including Walt Disney Studios, Sony Pictures, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. While it’s easy to establish such relationships when you have tens of millions of users, leveraging them to drive growth is not so easy. BlackBerry is trying to woo consumers at precisely the same time that Microsoft and Nokia are making a big push for Windows 8. Though BlackBerry has done a commendable job attracting developers to its new BB 10 operating system, it is unlikely to finish above fourth place. BlackBerry’s top priority should be to empower consumers by moving the functionality of their credit cards and keys into their smartphones.

Apple and Google are vulnerable precisely because they are the market leaders. While both want the market to continue growing, neither wants to jeopardize its current business. Apple and Google act as if they have forever to develop mobile commerce. The iPhone doesn’t yet support NFC. That’s probably because Apple is concerned about NFC’s impact on form factor and cost. And while some Android phones do support NFC, Google is pushing for NFC to be more “open” to ensure there is always a place for Google Wallet. With Apple hesitating and Google mired in politics, now is the time for a hungrier and more nimble player to jump start the mobile commerce market.

BlackBerry has strayed from what made it a success. Trying to resuscitate a fading device management business, hiring music superstar Alicia Keys as Global Creative Director, and adopting a new name—these actions do not address the real problem. BlackBerry needs to revive the spirit that enabled it to design the first truly popular smartphones.

My latest article about wireless technology at NewsFactor Network:

The consumer electronics industry has talked about home automation since low-cost microcontrollers first appeared on the market a few decades ago. While some envision homes straight out of The Jetsons, most entrepreneurs have looked for practical ways to make today's homes more comfortable, energy-efficient, and safe. A key missing ingredient, however, has been a technology for networking large numbers of sensors and controllers freely distributed around the home.

A home automation network technology should be flexible, easy to deploy, and easy to use. It should be able to relay sensor data and controller commands in a timely, reliable, and (when necessary) secure fashion. And it should enable devices that are small, inexpensive, and consume minimal power. Ideally, it should be wireless , support ad hoc and mesh networking, and enable devices that can run for years off a small battery. ZigBee, a solution ten years in the making, meets all of these requirements.

ZigBee supports up to 64,000 devices on a single network. The latest standard supports both a basic feature set (ZigBee) and an enhanced feature set (ZigBee PRO). The latter permits self-powered devices as well as devices that can harvest energy from their surroundings using the optional ZigBee "Green Power" feature. Recognizing that key applications often have very different requirements, the ZigBee Alliance has also developed more detailed standards for specific applications such as smart energy, remote controls, and health monitoring.

A Big Deal

However, technical capabilities and detailed standards alone do not guarantee success. ZigBee has made substantial progress in recent years: It's been quietly integrated in TV remote controls and set top boxes. That puts ZigBee firmly in the hands of consumers and in a popular device that is strategically positioned to talk to both home automation networks and the Internet.

The emergence of ZigBee-based TV remote controls is a fairly big deal. Until recently, virtually all remote controls used infrared communications due to its simplicity, low cost, and good battery life. However, infrared has some major disadvantages. Infrared requires line of sight access and must be pointed at the target device. Low-cost infrared remotes can send but not receive data. Consequently, there is no way to command a misplaced infrared remote control to emit an audible signal.

Read the rest here.

ADDENDUM (January 11, 2013)

Cees Links, Founder and CEO of GreenPeak Technologies, a leading maker of ZigBee chips, predicted a while back that radio-based remote controls will ultimately replace infrared-based remote controls. Cees was a pioneer of wireless LANs (read his fascinating blog entry about Steve Jobs and wireless LANs here) and is now a pioneer of home automation networks.

You can't keep increasing the money supply without devaluing the dollar.

You can't keep increasing regulations without destroying small businesses that simply don't have the resources to comply.

You can't keep raising taxes without discouraging investment.

And you can't keep increasing government spending without crowding out the private sector.

My lastest column at Sci-Tech Today:

In the past, wireless carriers built and operated their own networks. Now, vital components of those networks are being virtualized--their functions are being provided as services over the Internet. Wireless network virtualization isn't just a more cost-effective way of doing things, however. Virtualization creates exciting new business opportunities for operators, resellers, and users.

Introducing new features and services on traditional mobile networks is time consuming and expensive because traditional mobile networks consist largely of proprietary hardware and software. Virtualizing the mobile network dramatically reduces the time required to develop and deliver new services. Services that catch on with consumers can be quickly scaled to meet demand. And virtualization makes it easier for third parties to create and sell packaged solutions for markets such as health care.

Read the rest here.

You've probably seen Samsung commercials promoting a new technology (called NFC) that lets smartphone users exchange data just by tapping them together. My latest column at NewsFactor explains why NFC is destined to succeed:

Proponents say that near field communications (NFC) will change the world. With a simple tap of your mobile phone you’ll be able to pay for things, download information from posters, and open doors.

Many tech pundits, however, are skeptical about NFC. Some say there are better ways to do the same things. Others think NFC has a critical mass problem: Retailers won’t invest in NFC infrastructure until everyone has NFC handsets, and manufacturers won’t make NFC a standard feature on handsets until NFC infrastructure becomes ubiquitous.

The skeptics are mistaken. Retail businesses will flock to NFC once they see that it speeds checkout and creates new opportunities for interacting with customers. Consumers will warm to NFC when they discover that its tap-and-go operation is simple, convenient, and puts them in control.

Read the rest here.

My latest op-ed at American Thinker:

For years, the press was filled with stories about how the U.S. had fallen behind Europe in wireless. A 1999 TIME article entitled "Why Your Cell Phone Stinks" boasted that Europeans routinely used their mobile phones to pay bills, make reservations, and share digital photos. Americans, meanwhile, were still catching up with Europeans in text messaging.

Europe's wireless industry was booming. Unlike in the U.S., nearly everyone in Europe had mobile phones, and they worked on all mobile networks, because every phone manufacturer and every mobile network operator used the exact same technology. The lesson, according to the pundits, was that markets for new technologies do best when solutions are developed by industry-wide panels of experts and technical standards are enforced by governments.

Wireless was growing in the U.S., but at a slower rate. The pundits grumbled that new technologies do not fare as well in the U.S. because of what they called "market fragmentation." Consumers had to choose among competing standards. There were different mobile phone models for each network.

The evidence seemed to say that industrial planning and government mandates are superior to competition.

Fast-forward to 2012. Europe's wireless industry is on the ropes. Finland's Nokia, for years the world's leading maker of mobile phones, is sinking almost as fast as it rose to the top. The U.S. leads Europe in fourth-generation (4G) network deployments and user adoption of smartphones. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless have built nationwide 4G networks, and Sprint's is under construction. Two thirds of the mobile phones sold in the U.S. today are smartphones.

Read the rest here.

Decades of media propaganda and public school indoctrination, as well as growing dependence on government, are taking their toll:

President Obama’s re-election hopes should be growing dimmer by the hour.

His domestic policy has caused unprecedented suffering: high unemployment, gas prices that have doubled, and record numbers on food stamps and disability.

His foreign policy has emboldened our enemies. Our embassies are under attack and Iran’s genocidal leaders are closer to acquiring nuclear weapons.

And yet it is a tight race. How can that be?

Perhaps the polls are wrong. But it’s more likely that decades of media propaganda and public school indoctrination, as well as growing dependency on government, are taking their toll.

Read the rest here (Daily Caller).

My column at the Daily Caller from September 13, 2012:

Four years of appeasement are finally paying off. The Obama administration apologized for a movie that no reasonable, intelligent person could take seriously. The apology served as an invitation to attack our embassies. And it predictably led to the demand that we prosecute the movie’s producers for “hate speech.”

Our embassy in Cairo accused the producers of the movie of abusing “the universal right of free speech.” They could more credibly be accused of abusing their video recording equipment. The movie looks more like a spoof than a dangerous propaganda film. While the Obama administration is quick to detect “religious incitement” when it is directed at Muslims, it’s not sure what to think of an angry mob that tears down our flag and replaces it with the black flag of al Qaida.

Within hours our consulate in Libya was also attacked and our ambassador and three consulate staff members were killed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued yet another apology: “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.” President Obama echoed this view.

In other words, Secretary Clinton and President Obama excused the violence before they condemned it.

Read the rest here.

My latest column at the Daily Caller:

President Obama accuses Republicans of clinging to the failed policies of the past. But the Obama administration has revived the practice of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. That policy didn’t work in the 1930s and isn’t working today.

Policy wonks believe that businesses are congenitally short-sighted — that businesses must be prodded to invest in infrastructure and tomorrow’s technologies. But it’s not true. The mobile phone industry continues to spend tens of billions of dollars acquiring spectrum rights, building nationwide networks, and developing next-generation technologies. Businesses wisely make long-term investments when there are good prospects of success.

The Obama administration clings to ideas that even FDR’s treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, said didn’t work. Every available means is being used to undermine natural market forces: loans are being made that will never be repaid, regulations and taxes are being enacted to punish select industries, corporate bondholders are being expropriated, waivers are being granted to individual companies, and private businesses are being squeezed out of markets.

No wonder the U.S. is experiencing the worst economic recovery since the 1930s. Who wants to invest in businesses when the federal government is running around trying to make winners out of losers and losers out of winners?

Read the rest here.