That’s been the theory until now in Israeli policy-making circles – and it’s a theory that’s proved true, at least when it comes to Iran. The regimes in the Sunni Gulf, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are all deathly afraid of Iran’s Shi’ite tentacles, according to Wikileaks cables that have been published over the past several weeks – to the extent that some of them have even urged the U.S. to either directly attack Iran itself, or to encourage Israel to do so.

Why can’t they all just get along? The bottom line is that the Sunnis are running scared from the Shi’ite Iranians – which, it would appear, would be just another chapter in a history full of strife between the two groups. But after having thoroughly studied the TV broadcasts from the Arab world over the past months, I think I can say that it’s not the Shi’ites the Sunnis fear – it’s the Shi’ite’s fanatical resistance to modernization.

Although “fear of Shi’ism” and “fear of Shi’ite fanaticism” sounds like the same thing, it isn’t. The Egyptians, the Kuwaitis, Abu Dhabians, and Dubai-ites would certainly consider themselves to be as good Muslims as the Iranians; certainly, with a little goodwill, you’d think that the relatively small differences between Shi’ites and Sunnis could be bridged, and a united Muslim front could be established.

But they can’t – and won’t – get together. Iran and the majority of the rest of the Muslim world want two different things. If Iran ever did get control of the Muslim world, the leaders of the western-leaning states in the Gulf, Egypt, and even Jordan would find themselves on the firing line. Not because they’re Sunnis, but because they encourage a western lifestyle, at least to some extent, among their citizens. And, the more western-leaning the country, the more likely it was to speak against Iran, as quoted by American diplomats in the Wikileaks documents. It’s a package deal: The more a Muslim country seeks to modernize the more likely they are to speak out against Iran – and the more open their TV broadcasts.

Unlike in Israel or the U.S., most Arabic-speaking residents of the Middle East are treated to free TV broadcasts, via satellite. Of course, there are cable and DBS pay systems, but unlike many other places, residents of the Middle East can enjoy a rich diet of news, entertainment, movies, and TV series – both in Arabic and English. In fact, there are any number of TV stations, especially in the Gulf states, that could give YES and HOT a run for their money, broadcasting for free the same TV series and movies that Israelis have to pay to watch. The major satellites serving Arabic-speakers – Nilesat, Arabsat, etc. – carry about 600 channels, and each country’s stations have their own “personality” – with a direct correlation between the “modernity” of the broadcasts, the western-leaningness of the country, the fear of Iran by the country’s leaders, and their openness to dealing with Israel.  Here are some examples:

Dubai: Without doubt, the most Western of Middle Eastern states, Dubai is home to the MBC network, the premier free-to-air broadcaster in the region, and perhaps the world. While a private network, the fact that an ostensibly conservative regime like Dubai’s lets MBC broadcast the latest American sitcoms, dramas, and movies, with no censorship whatsoever (even rough language isn’t cut out) makes it clear where the regime stands on the question of how modern Dubai should be.

MBC channels run commercials, many for Western products like Ford cars, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Close-Up toothpaste, and a host of others.  If you turn down the sound, you will have a hard time believing you are watching commercials aimed at residents of a conservative Muslim country; none of the women are wearing veils (although some of the men are dressed in jalabiyas and the like), and there is plenty of physical contact between men and women. Dubai’s leaders have strongly advocated U.S. action in restraining Iran, and it’s “well-known” that Israel and Dubai have pursued relations on an unofficial level for years.

Egypt: Having signed a peace treaty with Israel decades ago, the Egyptians have stuck to the letter, if not the spirit, of that agreement. But despite leaving much to be desired when it comes to our relations with them, Egypt most certainly would prefer Israel’s company over Iran’s.

As the most populous and influential Arab country with a substantial fundamentalist population, Egypt treads a fine line, and comes off a bit more conservative than Dubai on TV. The country has only a couple of English-language free-to-air TV stations (one of them government-sponsored, with another dedicated to, of all things, horror movies!).

The Egyptian government runs the county’s main TV entertainment network, called Nile, which has a mix of comedies, drama, and sports, depending on the channel. Here the actors are dressed a little more conservatively, and the shows appear to be homey-type dramas with original programming (in Dubai, Kuwait, and other more modern places, many of the shows are from Turkey, dubbed in Arabic, and many are rather “racy”) that don’t fit the Nile formula. However, Egypt has several private networks as well, such as Melody Entertainment, which plays MTV-style music videos and Turkish dramas.

Saudi Arabia: You won’t find much on official Saudi Arabian TV, other than live broadcasts of services in the Mecca Masjid and Koran readings. But the largest entertainment network in the Arabic-speaking world, called Rotana, is owned by none other than Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. A media conglomerate, Rotana broadcasts everything from western movies and TV shows (in cooperation with the News Corporation’s Fox networks, a 9% owner of Rotana) to western music videos, to religious programming. The Saudis, as we noted, were the ones that called for the U.S. to “get Iran.”

I could go on, but you get the idea. When it comes to Iran, Muslim countries like Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Dubai, and others have much in common with Israel – and when it comes to TV, they have much more in common with our western lifestyle than with the Iranian alternative. Who says you can’t learn anything from TV?

In Israel, we get to vote for our leaders once every few years, too, but the schedule is a lot less precise. Knesset members, too, have nice, cushy jobs, so you would expect them to want to stick it out for the full five years of their elected term. But since Israeli voters are apparently big believers in “revolving door” leadership (How long have Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, et al been at top leadership jobs?), I suppose most of the Knesset members figure they’re a shoo-in to get elected next time too – and if they play their cards right next time around, they might just win one of those “grand prizes,” ie a ministerial position. It’s always nice to have something to aspire to!

Alright, enough with the cynicism – I kid! We appreciate the hard work our leaders put in, and wish them well in their difficult work of leading Israel through these tumultuous times. But really, a little cynicism isn’t out of place on Election Day (which is today in the U.S.), considering the history of fraud in recent elections.

“Fraud” really isn’t the right word; it’s more like “allegations of fraud” that concern voters, and rightly so. We all remember the 2000 election debacle in Florida (readers of a certain age will immediately recognize the term “hanging chad”). And of course, there are always rumors in Israel following any election about that favorite pastime, ballot-box stuffing. Many Israeli politicians may not know English well, but “vote early and often” is one phrase they seem to have picked up.

With today’s advanced computers, though, there is an alternative to ballot boxes and hanging chads – electronic voting, where voters press buttons on a computer (or a touch screen) and make their choices. Computers, being the exact, efficient counting and tabulating machines there are, would seem like a good choice to ward off possible election fraud; The information remains in the machine (or is uploaded to a central server) until it’s counted – at which point there are no questions about the results. It’s a sure-fire way to eliminate any doubt as to the results of an election, no?

No, says Aviel Rubin, a Professor of Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University, and one of the world’s leading experts on electronic voting. “One of the big problems with the move to electronic voting is the growth of what I call ‘wholesale fraud,’ versus the ‘retail fraud’ of paper ballots or lever voting machines,” says Rubin. “With paper ballots and levers, you have to go on-site to the polling place in order to perpetrate fraud, limiting the possibilities. But if you can corrupt the code on an electronic machine, you can implement fraud on many machines, all at once – in a wholesale manner.”

Despite the risks, electronic voting is here to stay, and after the 2000 Presidential election in Florida, where the results of voting were disputed for months, and it took a Supreme Court decision to finally allow for the election’s results to be certified. That event scared politicians, says Rubin, and they realized that something had to be done to prevent a repeat. “At the time, electronic voting systems were coming into vogue, and politicians, considering the triumph of technology in other areas of society, saw computers as an easy solution to questionable election results.”

In order to enable voting districts to step up their voting game, the government distributed $4 billion to voting districts throughout the country, so they could buy new voting systems. “Unfortunately, many districts did not spend their money wisely, and bought systems that did not guarantee proper standards of security and accountability,” says Rubin. Concerned about how the money was being spent, the National Science Foundation funded research Rubin and colleagues were doing on electronic voting systems in Maryland – and what they found wasn’t pretty.

According to Rubin’s report “Our analysis shows that [the Diebold’s AccuVote-TS] voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. We identify several problems including unauthorized privilege escalation, incorrect use of cryptography, vulnerabilities to network threats, and poor software development processes. We show that voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal software. Furthermore, we show that even the most serious of our outsider attacks could have been discovered and executed without access to the source code.” Before the 2004 Presidential election, Rubin wrote several op-ed pieces on the issue, and was later interviewed numerous times in the media – presenting his chilling analysis to the voting public.

But paper ballots and lever machines aren’t any safer, are they? Rubin agrees – and says that he sees the solution in a hybrid system, where voters make their choices on a touch-screen, which then prints out their choices on a neat paper ballot. The ballot is then submitted to an authentication scanner, which officially records the vote electronically, while keeping the paper ballot as a backup. “This way, if there are any questions, you can refer to the paper ballots for a recount, while retaining the accuracy and convenience of electronic voting.” Rubin’s ideas have begun catching on in Washington, and he now heads the NSF-funded ACCURATE (A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable, and Transparent Elections) project, which researches and recommends safe ways technology can be used to improve voting systems.

Rubin is on a one-year sabbatical, doing research at Tel Aviv University (A Fulbright scholar, Rubin is working in Israel under the auspices of the United States–Israel Educational Foundation). No elections are scheduled between now and next September, when he resumes his work at Johns Hopkins – but this being Israel, you never know. If elections do suddenly crop up, the political establishment would do well to heed his warnings on voter fraud. There’s only so much “the people” are willing to take, and no politician likes the idea that their vote is being misused. Even in Israel, those “hanging chads” might just raise the ire of the voters enough to “hang” the offenders “out to dry.” How do you say “throw the bums out” in Hebrew?

Related articles

• Physical Voting System Breach in California (flyingpenguin.com)
• An E-Voting Expert, Computer Scientist Votes on Paper in Houston and Lives to Tell the Tale (bradblog.com)
• Early Voting Irregularities Create Suspicion of Fraud (outsidethebeltway.com)

Since, as I’ve written before, Israel does not have an official Apple Store, the company is less committed to providing products to consumers here. Even though content (apps, specifically) are now available at Israel’s iTunes store (which means there is a reason for consumers here to buy iPads and iPhones), there is still no way to buy “creative content” – music, movies, TV shows, and books (indeed, Apple’s book store, for use with the iBooks app, is currently available only in the U.S.). It’s safe to say that for now, the only way for Israelis to get their own iPads is to journey to North America, several countries in Europe, or a couple of choice destinations in the Far East, and make their purchases there. While they last, that is; the number of units available at all is likely to dry up soon, as remaining stocks are sold (as it is, in many major markets in the U.S., you have to wait a couple of weeks between the time you order and the time you get your iPad).

What about the iPhone 4? That device, too, is experiencing a parts shortage that will affect supplies here at home – except that in this case, the shortage is the phone itself! After announcing (yet again) record sales and profits a few days ago, an Apple spokesperson said the company was way behind on supplies of the new iPhones, too, despite the brouhaha over its antenna. According to the spokesperson, Apple is selling iPhones (and iPads) as fast as they come off the assembly line, and its factories (in China) are working overtime to meet demand. Once again, Israel is likely to be at the back of the worldwide line when it comes to getting supplies of iPhone 4 devices. And the recent update of the iPhone’s operating system makes it much harder to jailbreak/unlock the iPhone 4, meaning it’s unlikely you’ll be seeing many of them in the hands of local customers anytime soon.

Note that the rumor that has been sweeping the land (at least some parts of it) that at least one Israeli cellphone company is expecting the device in September, and plans to offer iPhone 3gs customers a free (or very cheap) upgrade to the iPhone 4 is, as far as I can tell (and as confirmed by a higher-up in the company) completely false.

But don’t get me wrong; I am not joining the increasing masses of computer journalists/bloggers who are unleashing the vitriol they once reserved for Microsoft on the new “enemy of the people.” The fact that there’s such a shortage of Apple products, it seems to me, is a clear sign of how good they are, and my description of the situation here in Israel is a form of wishful thinking – that somehow these issues get resolved, and we, too, have an opportunity to acquire the latest and greatest Apple products.

Not everyone is so enamored of Apple these days, however. There’s been much gloating by some writers over every pitfalls like the iPhone 4 antenna issue, which Apple boss Steve Jobs addressed in a press conference a couple of weeks ago. It seems that if you hold the device in a certain way, the iPhone loses some of its connectivity – so Jobs announced a series of steps addressing the issue, including a software update, and a free case for every phone owner (the idea being that the case prevents users from holding the device “incorrectly).

You could picture the writers of some articles and blog posts rubbing their hands with glee, as they described the problem and anticipated the imminent bankruptcy of Apple. Whatever the motivations of these writers – simple jealousy, anti-big business (ie socialist) sympathies, envy that they didn’t think of some of the great ideas Apple did, or shilling for Apple’s competitors – more and more writers feel it’s okay to put Apple down. Each day brings a new supply of nasty articles.

Personally, I think they’re way off base. Many of the features of digital life we take for granted today were unthinkable – or at least thought to be unfeasible – before Apple trailblazed the way. Of course, there were MP3 players before the iPod – but with the iPod came iTunes and the iTunes store, a development that arguably did a great deal to save the commercial music business, ensuring there would be something to play on those MP3 players. Apple’s Mac operating system, from its earliest days, has been the gadfly that inspired improvements to other major operating systems (ie Windows); without the iPhone, it’s doubtful we would have Nokia, Samsung, and other smartphones, and we certainly wouldn’t have the wide range of Android phones we do today (why would HTC, LG, Samsung, have bothered?).

And now comes the tablet revolution. Apple didn’t invent the tablet with its iPad; but so far, all other attempts to push tablets by tech companies have been flops. What’s the secret behind the iPad’s success? The same secret Apple has used to promote its other products: Build an ecosystem that works, make it easy for users to use the product, keep control over the operating system in order to ensure a solid user experience, and – most importantly – make sure there’s plenty of content. It’s a system that works, and bully for Apple that they thought of it first.

Yes, we’ve all heard (and will no doubt hear yet again) the naysayers’ arguments: It’s a closed system, Apple/Jobs is a “control freak,” Apple stifles competition, the company makes or breaks fortunes by keeping developers out of the App Store, they put DRM into their iTunes store products, etc. All good points. Now here’s a “talking point” for the naysayers (and the rest of us): One day someone is going to figure out what Apple’s contribution to the GDP of the United States is – how much the sales of Macs, iPods, iPhones, iPads, music, movies, and all the other stuff Apple sells, contributes to the bottom line of the U.S. How much do you think that might be? Discuss!

Related articles by Zemanta

• How To Jailbreak Your iPhone 4 (multiplayerblog.mtv.com)
• Apple knows what you want and what you need (darangedshaman.com)
• Kindle for iPad, iPhone Begins Feature Parity with Kindle Devices (magicaltablet.com)

And in the case of the Amdocs Innovation Camp, that word is -  “terraplay.”

But we’ll get back to that significant addition to the high-tech dictionary in a moment. First, about the camp: In what is turning into an annual tradition, the Amdocs Innovation Camp (this year marked the third one held by the company) takes Amdocs brightest and best, along with executives and guests from companies around the world, and sequesters them for a few days of camp – complete with athletics, color-war style contests, fun, sun, and relaxation. And, of course, innovating some of the ideas that the company hopes could turn into big winners.

Like that “terraplay” thing (actually a product of the 2009 camp), says Tal Givoly, Amdoc’s Chief Scientist. “You’ve heard of triple-play, for example, where you use one or more technologies or devices to deliver services to users. Well, connectivity has gone way beyond the web browsing, cellphones, and cable TV,” he says. Already, some cars already have wifi connections, and they can use wifi and gps to connect to your cell device. Imagine that kind of connectivity in your refrigerator, your oven or stove, even your electric razor (to remind you that it’s time for a cleaning)! That’s the terraplay, says Givoly – the interaction of maybe a trillion devices with each other, sending and exchanging information, keeping you on top of – everything! “It’s coming in just a few years,” says Givoly.

It’s in order to unearth that kind of gem that Amdocs holds its innovation camp. This year, says Givoly, one of the chief forces in the company behind the project, Amdocs invited outsiders for a portion of the camp, limiting attendance to a total of 110 participants (hundreds from just inside Amdocs applied for a spot). Thirty-five of those attending were Amdocs partners and customers from around the world (like a delegation from British Telecom), and special guests (like Paul Sloane, a top UK speaker on innovation, among others), “to supply a dose of reality,” Givoly says.

Since the purpose of the camp was, among other things, to get participants’ creative juices flowing, the schedule was left unstructured for the first two days – with participants responsible for getting the show going. And flow the juices did, with participants coming up with food, music, dance, magic tricks, balloons – and ideas to celebrate Pacman’s 30th birthday  – to express their creative sides. Others used their talents for more serious efforts; one of the camp’s guests, Dr. Eyal Maoz of the Ono Academic College and the Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, gave a talk on the leadership aspects of poker playing, and participants also took part in a workshop to figure out ways to fix the Gulf oil spill. “It’s an opportunity for participants to let out everything they do that they might otherwise not usually want to share,” says Givoly. “At the camp, everything is acceptable.”

But of course, all play and no work gets boring after awhile – so, participants went to work, applying those creative juices that were now starting to surge. “On the third day, the Amdocs people started working on the innovation ideas we hoped would come out of the camp. We were aiming for three projects that could get off the ground based on the ideas and solutions camp participants came up with,” says Givoly. “By the end of the day, we had 80 really good ideas, which we winnowed down to 15, with the help of the guest customers and service providers.” Proponents of each idea spent a full day preparing presentations, posters, and other material to present to the entire group – and in the end, they came up with three ready to go ideas, all of which could turn into startups in their own right, Givoly says. “And we’re definitely moving ahead with some of these ideas,” he adds.

It’s those kind of innovative ideas that have kept Amdocs ahead of the curve, even during the still-ongoing recession. “Camp participants have come up with some great ideas for Amdocs,” says Givoly. “Ideas that were generated in past camps have been implemented, and have definitely generated some growth.” That innovation is what has kept Amdocs growing, even during tough times, he says. “While our competitors were rethinking what they are doing, we were moving ahead, and now that the situation is improving, we have come out on top in most of the areas we work in.”

And this year’s ideas were better than ever, Givoly says. “In past camps, we concentrated on ideas, but this time we came up with solid ideas,that have strong market potential and fit our overall plans for the  future.” But even if Amdocs doesn’t move ahead with those projects, Givoly says he considers the camp a smashing success. “A program like our Innovation Camp helps you to think differently – to believe anything’s possible,” says Givoly – and learning that skill is one of the most important things you can hope to take home from any camp.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Social Innovation Camp Sparks Social Change With 48 Hour Challenge (socialtimes.com)
• Detroit Can Do Camp – July 29 (radar.oreilly.com)
• Amdocs Gets Semantically Intelligent (destinationcrm.com)

Don’t the authorities know how we will react when we’re told we can’t have something? Of course they do – and it could be we’re the ones being played! By inciting a snowball effect of demand when they ban a product, they inadvertently set off a black market, where people smuggle in the product in question, often “smearing” the palms of officials in charge of customs. And when all is said and done and the product becomes “legal,” people have already become conditioned, and are ready to pay even twice what it’s worth.

Did I mention this is a column about the iPad – and why Israeli authorities are banning it?

Now don’t get me wrong – the above discussion was theoretical. Only the paranoid would say that politics (as in “we don’t want the people to have access to this product for some reason”) is the reason customs authorities have announced that anyone caught smuggling (a heavy but accurate description of what you have to do if you want an iPad in Israel these days) these devices into the country will have them confiscated. And certainly we wouldn’t go so far as to think that there’s some financial shenanigans going on here – that a certain interested party leaned on the government to ban the things in order to realize a financial windfall at some later date. You’d have to be a conspiracy theory nut to believe that!

Maybe we should just take the government – represented in this case by the Communications Ministry – at its word. According to the Ministry, iPads are out because of a “standards” issue – as in, Israel’s standards are higher than the ones Apple adopted for the iPad, and in order to avoid problems (security, health, or otherwise) resulting from its use, the iPad must not be used in Israel, at least in its present form, and/or until “further studies” of the thing can be made.

In the words of the Ministry, which released an official statement on the matter, “the iPad, sold today strictly in the United States, uses a wifi modem that is compatible with American standards. Israel’s standards are similar to those in use in Europe, which are different from American standards, which allows broadcasts at lower power levels. The broadcast levels of the device prevent approving its use in Israel,” the statement says. Maybe we should take this as the reason for the iPad ban. But we can’t – because it turns out that the chip that provides the “incompatible low power wifi” for the iPad is present in at least two other Apple products already being sold in Israel!

What caught my attention in this story was that bit about “European” versus “American” standards.. Not that I’d call myself a world traveler, but I have gotten around enough to know that everyone – in the U.S., Europe, and even in Papua New Guinea – uses the same Wifi equipment. While the world is still divided along an electrical fault (110v vs. 220v), the standards used in computing, which are drawn up by committees – in this case, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 WLAN standards. The iPad, complying with these standards, utilizes for its wifi power the Broadcom BCM4329  Low-Power 802.11n with Bluetooth® 2.1 + EDR and FM (Tx and Rx) chip (we’ll just call it “the Broadcom chip” for short) – and that happens to be the same chip being used in the latest editions of the iPod Touch and iPhone 3GS!

So just what are these  “different standards” of broadcast?  A helpful reader of a blog post I put up on this subject pointed out that some countries regulate the transmitting power (apparently Israel does), and the upper broadcast limit for the U.S. is higher than that for Israel.  And indeed, the Broadcom chip is capable of broadcasting wifi in the 5 ghz band, which is out of range for Israel. But once again, the fact that Apple’s rep in Israel, iDigital, is happily selling iPod Touch and iPhone 3GS devices directly from the “mother ship” here in Israel put the kibosh on that theory – especially since we can assume that Apple is not making special editions of its devices for use in Israel, as opposed to most of Europe and the rest of the world (where, in fact, higher wifi broadcast ranges, according to the list quoted above, seem to be permissible).

And as far as I know, this is the first time a consumer wifi product has been officially banned from Israel for this reason; you see American-made and imported wifi routers and other devices all over the stores here. The only consumer product we hear (or rather, have in the past heard) about as causing havoc with Israeli airwaves are 900 mhz cordless phones. Other theories, like the range of Bluetooth broadcast, didn’t pan out either, at least on paper.

So, I decided to take the problem to its roots – the Apple Israel people, and the Communications Ministry itself. The former were no help at all, with the spokesperson telling me tersely that “iDigital policies are in line with those of Apple’s.” The Ministry, on the other hand, was a different story. I spoke to the (only) individual at the Ministry authorized to field iPad questions, and asked him about this chip discrepancy – how it was that the Broadcom chip was not harmful when used in iPad Touch devices and iPhone 3GS devices, but were dangerous enough to warrant confiscation at the airport when found in iPads.

His answer? “I don’t know.” What don’t you know, I asked – whether the Broadcom chip is in the other Apple devices, whether it’s configured differently in iPads, or whether there is some other “broadcast issue” that is problematic? Well, he did know that the only issue was with the Broadcom chip – but as far as what exactly the problem was, or why said chip was “kosher” in other devices, he couldn’t say. When would he “know?” When Ministry engineers do more research.

Thanks to the power of social networking, the iPad ban has made the Ministry very famous – or infamous, to be more accurate (the Ministry isn’t interested in headlines, the spokesperson told me). It’s possible the engineers are hard at work on figuring out why they don’t like the iPad, but do like the other Apple products, and perhaps by the time you read this, the ban will be rescinded.

But I highly doubt it. Assuming that the problem is not technical – again, there are plenty of devices already in Israel using the Broadcom chip – we can assume that there are interests other than science and public security at work. What interests? I’ll never tell, but I do suggest re-reading the first two paragraphs of this article for a hint. Regardless,  I have no doubt that the iPad will eventually become legal, but IMHO, it will only be when those with vested interests in banning the things will decide that it is now in the interest to allow them in.

Meanwhile, I think there is one solid lesson to be learned from this whole tragic affair, which is especially relevant around Yom Ha’atzmaut time. One of the ways Israel strives to protect its good name is via better Hasbara, explaining our position vis a vis the major issues facing the country. Note to Ministry spokesperson: “I don’t know” is not a the Hasbara-type answer we yearn to hear from the only person in the government authorized to speak about the iPad!

Related articles by Zemanta

• The iPad Ban in Israel: Is it Really About ‘Standards?’ (israeltech.net)
• Israel says U.S. iPads not welcome for now (news.cnet.com)
• Israel Bans Imports of Apple iPad (time.com)

v

So why the cookies? Since the images recorded using the system are likely to be saved and recorded in a facial recognition database, it’s probably a good idea to pre-empt being given the wrong label and get on the cops’ “good side.”

v

The Carmiel CCTV system is part of a nationwide effort called “City Without Violence” that is being implemented in cities around the country. Modeled on similar programs in the U.S. and Europe (Britain is considered the current “world champion” in CCTV use), the cameras will enable security officers to keep an eye on crowds, sensitive installations, and high-crime areas and situations, allowing police to dispatch officers.

v

The program was actually first implemented in Israel several years ago, but it was deployed in cities in the north and south near the borders, as well as in several high-crime areas. Now the program is set to expand, and will include cameras, sensors, and other technology to be installed in cities in the center of the country – covering schools, public institutions, parks, and even residential neighborhoods. According to the Public Security Ministry, which came up with the idea, the program will make it easier for law enforcement authorities to catch troublemakers, as well as allow authorities “to collect information and real-time evidence needed to prevent violence, criminal activity, and public disorder,” the Ministry said in a statement.

v

Well, nobody likes violence or criminal activity (I’m kind of fond of public disorder, though). And I know there are many people who, after reading this, are murmuring the words “police state.” But I’m betting that many of those people haven’t lived in high crime neighborhoods – where the residents are more than happy to have as many police and cameras as they can get. Only criminals would be opposed to figuring out better ways to stop crime, right? Besides, we have precedents; Britain has had surveillance cameras for years, and no one could accuse merry old England of being a police state!

v

But there are apparently other problems with the British security surveillance system: According to this article, it doesn’t work. In some areas with lots of cameras, crime solving and prevention is lower than in other areas where there are relatively few cameras. Meaning that there are other factors involved, perhaps such as the skills of the police forces in those areas. Studies of other surveillance systems also show that surveillance systems don’t do a good job of stopping crime.

v

Why? Perhaps, the bad guys in those neighborhoods came across sites like “How to Vanish ,” which supplies readers with tips on how to stay out of Big Brother’s way when sending e-mail, uploading or downloading files, keeping your money away from the government’s grasp, etc. – and keeping out of view of public security camera systems, as described here . It’s also possible that London has (or will have) a website like iSee , where you can map out a route that lets you avoid cameras. And, don’t underestimate the power of the cookie; if the good guys can get on the cops’ good side, why can’t the bad guys? Might buy them some time! Note, by the way, that all this information is readily available on-line, so it’s not like I’m giving away any secrets.

v

And even though we (hope we can) trust police to use their powers only for truth and justice, using high technology for political purposes is not unheard of. The folks in the cited article are often involved in violent riots, so one could say that although their cause is political, their actions are criminal, so they deserve what they get – but it’s not too hard to imagine a scenario where police use technology to thwart non-violent sit-ins and marches, because “there is a potential for violence.”

v

So besides being bad for democracy, camera surveillance systems aren’t very effective as crime-stoppers – or terror stoppers, either, since there’s no reason to believe the system will be any more effective for that kind of wrongdoing than it is for crime. Does that mean we’re fated to be sitting ducks? Not at all; there are all sorts of hi-tech ideas out there that are being developed by companies around the world (not a few of them in Israel) that use advanced technology to snuff out terrorists and criminals, while leaving the rest of us to live our lives unmolested.

v

One such company is Israeli startup Genesis EW, which has developed a system to catch malefactors through their communication activity. The company makes an application that checks the profile of cellphone users, comparing it to activities terrorists and criminals typically engage in: for example, calling known criminals/terrorists, making many frequent short phone calls, or suspects moving outside their usual geographic area. If mobile communication activity fits the profile, law enforcement know they need to keep an eye on the subject (who can be located using cellphone or GPS technology).

v

“Usually, authorities need to know the phone number of the suspect and/or be able to recognize him or her,” says Pini Birman, one of the founders of Genesis EW. “That often makes trailing suspects difficult. But our system examines a user’s communication profile,” Birman says, meaning that it will continue working even if a suspect removes and replaces a phone’s SIM card, a favorite tactic of crooks and terrorists. “The criminal or terrorist will be unable to confuse the system,” he says, adding that the closer the suspect’s behavior to the profile, the more likely an attack or a criminal act – but if the user veers away from the profile, the system realizes that it was mistaken, and takes the subject off the watch list.

v

All of which means that only those truly worthy of security forces’ attention are observed – and that scarce security resources can be used more effectively. Like we said, we’re happy the police are keeping us safe – but, as the old saying goes, “respect them and suspect them.” If there is a better, more effective way to protect us without the use of intrusive cameras, why not use that?

v

NOTE: The video below, in Hebrew, shows a violent attack in Ramle recorded by CCTV cameras there. According to the report, police arrived on the scene minutes after the attack and arrested the attackers.

v

Related articles by Zemanta

• Iron Sky Provides Hawthorne Police with Wireless Video Surveillance (eon.businesswire.com)
• Spy cameras won’t make us safer (cnn.com)
• We don’t need secret surveillance cameras | SA Mathieson (guardian.co.uk)
• It doesn’t work. We didn’t ask for it. So why all the cameras? | Anna Minton (guardian.co.uk)

So, when I get an message from the community e-mail list that goes something like “Emergency! Click on this link now to vote in a CNN poll condemning Israel. We’re losing!”, I don’t necessarily rush to vote (ie I take care of it when I get around to it). The truth is that these CNN polls stay on the site for months or years, and all they do is drive more traffic to CNN’s site, allowing them to get more money from advertisers.

U.S. foreign policy is certainly not going to be driven by a CNN poll – because the State Department, along with everyone else, knows that online polls and petitions are extremely malleable. If real-life elections and votes can be “thrown” by clever political functionaries, online votes are far easier to bend. The choices the objects of those petitions make – for right or wrong, better or worse – are not  influenced by such polls, because in the end, everyone does what they think is best, following their own truth – even if half a million people say they’re wrong!

Or rather, 455,165 people, to be exact – the number of people who signed a petition at the Care2 Petitionsite demanding that Wikipedia remove a 14th century image of  Muhammad from its entry on the Kaaba; actually, Wikipedia has a whole host of historic depictions of Muhammad. According to modern Islamic practice (according to some sources, this was not the case in the past), depicting Muhammad in an image is against Islamic law.

But not Wikipedia law, which strives for NPOV (neutral point of view) in all situations. I’ve knocked Wikipedia in the past for being too NPOV, in fact.  Of course, it’s always open season on Israel among the many liberals/leftists who edit Wikipedia, so I was interested in seeing how they handled the “Muhammad image” affair. Refreshingly, Wikipedia hasn’t backed down; the Talk page for the Kaaba article is full of comments by indignant Muslims demanding the image’s removal, but Wikipedia has decided to keep them, in a decision that appears final (requests for reconsideration keep appearing every few months, though).

Considering the recent history of angry Muslims “doing something” about images of Muhammad (ie rioting after the publication of the “Muhammad caricatures” in European newspapers), Wikipedia deserves credit for standing its ground, despite the overwhelming numbers of people who signed a petition demanding the images’ removal.  Not that I advocate insulting any religion; my own has certainly been mistreated on the internet (and before the on-line era) for a very long time. Wikipedia is supposed to be a secular, objective body of knowledge that came into existence from the collective wisdom of the world’s internet users, so as such it is the very symbol of the “Secular City”. While we would all want the world to conform to our own world views, Wikipedia has decided to remain true to its NPOV self, despite the polls.

Wikipedia recommends that Muslims who are offended by the images to adjust their browsers not to display them; it is under no obligation, it says, to subscribe to a particular Islamic viewpoint, which says that displaying the images in itself is heresy, just like it is under no obligation to accept my points of view on Judaism, Israel, or Zionism – even if I have the facts on my side! But then again, I don’t go to Wikipedia when I want a jolt of Zionism. There are plenty of alternatives out there that subscribe to my truth. I know no amount of nudging is going to change Wikipedia’s NPOV, so I move on.

It’s either that – or riot. In a free market, we’re constantly faced with different truths;  my truth is just as relevant and true to me as yours is to you. If we are going to accept the POV of one group, we have to accept everyone’s. True democracy means accepting the existence of the point of view you disagree with, even if it violates your truth (as opposed to deliberately offensive). Live and let live.

What about where things get really offensive? That depends; if everyone is getting poked at the same time, and no one group is getting singled out, then that may be a case for live and let live as well. Take, for example, a game called Faith Fighter, which depicts “God” getting into a street brawl with the prophet of your choice – Jesus, Buddha, and -  Muhammad. Because of many complaints by Muslim groups earlier this year, Italian game publisher Molleindustria decided to remove it from their site. It’s back now – but in two versions, one in which  Muhammad’s “face” (we are talking here about a cartoon caricature) is blacked out, and one where he is depicted like one would expect a devout Muslim to be portrayed.

Frankly, after playing the game, it’s hard to believe that Muslims – or Hindus, Buddhists, or even Jews, who do not permit G-d to be depicted in picture form – would be placated just because “their man’s” face is blocked out; the game is offensive, face or no face.  And even if you’re not particularly religious, you’ll definitely find something to hate with at least one of the other games Molleindustria has on their site. But here again, we see an example of an offensive internet depiction – and provision for alternatives that don’t offend. Live and let live, in other words – like it or not.

But that’s the way it is in the Secular City. What happens when “truths” collide, as they did in this case? Until such time as the majority of people “see the light” – whatever that light is – true believers, of whatever faith, have to deal with other points of view. And that is perhaps the true “will of the people” – that everyone gets to have their truth, keeping clear of other “truths” they don’t like.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Artist Who Set Off Muslim Fury Visits City (nytimes.com)
• How to interpret the UK “ban minarets” poll (newstatesman.com)
• Kurt Westergaard, Danish Muhammad Cartoonist, Defiant In Face Of Threats (huffingtonpost.com)

Various ideas have been proposed throughout the generations in order to “westernize” Hebrew; for example, dropping the right to left Hebrew alphabet and writing “Hebrew” in latin letters. While most Israelis will tell you they are proud of their heritage – and their language – many will also tick off stories about how Hebrew has made doing businesses or briding cultural gaps more difficult.

What Israelis don’t realize is that the use of a “backwater” language, spoken by no one but themselves and a few million Jews outside the country, has been a boon – and has saved them from one of the great banes of modern western life, the plague known as “outsourcing.” This is mostly an American issue, but a recent face to face (or rather, phone voice to phone voice) encounter with the outsourcing monster on a recent trip to the U.S. made me realize just how lucky we are, conducting most business on the phone in Hebrew, with people who have likely faced the same things you have, and who understand what it means when the service you rely on is broken.

On my visit, I dealt with two separate instances of what I call “outsourcing telephone tag” – calling an 800 number (a free U.S. call) for service, only to be connected to service people in faraway places like India, Mexico, and even Ireland. Unless you’ve had to deal with a major service crisis – like in the case of the situation my hosts found themselves in of having a “broken internet” – you don’t realize just how service standards have fallen, ever since the jobs involving helping people fix things over the phone have moved abroad. Yes, it saves companies money, but it’s hell on the customers.

“So what,” you may ask. The people on the phone are just order takers who are reading a script, and they’re limited in what they can help you with (in one case, trying to restore a broken internet connection from Verizon, that help was mostly limited to “did you unplug the modem and wait 30 seconds”). Back in the days when 800 number phone service people were natives, they were also reading scripts. Is there any difference? Yes; the whole tone of the conversation, the agility with which the service person recommends solutions, and the willingness to help are far different when you are dealing with someone who can identify with you, as opposed to someone who cannot.

Not that I don’t think Indians, Mexicans, or the Irish can be empathetic, sympathetic, or willing to help. But especially in the case of countries like India and Mexico, it’s hard to expect the service people to understand what you’re going through, when they have their own problems – far more serious ones. When you have a problem that needs fixing, you expect that the “voice on the phone” to have a modicum of empathy for your situation. The likelihood of that happening is far lower when the person you’re speaking to lives in a tougher, less economically successful society.

It’s difficult enough to get your countrymen, who have “been there” and realize what’s at stake, to understand just how important a service issue is to you. How much more difficult – if not impossible – is it to get a resident of India or Mexico to understand your angst, when they earn maybe a tenth of what you do and has much more important things to worry about than whether you’re going to be able to connect to your online video chat?

As a “computer expert” (whatever that is), my parents, with whom I recently spent some time, asked me to help them fix their DSL connection, which had mysteriously gone down a couple of days before I showed up. Since I was relying on that connection to do some work while abroad, I, too, was very interested in getting it to work. After 15 minutes of checking, it was clear to me that the problem was the DSL service provider’s (Verizon). And of course I called the service number – day after day – with each person giving me the same advice, even though I made it clear that I had already taken all those steps before calling for the first time.

The calls to the 800 number all wound up in India (I asked), and when they couldn’t help, I was transferred to the “technical department” (in Mexico, also confirmed by the service person). Here I got at least some sympathy (because Mexico is closer to the U.S.?), but no help. Only after copious amounts of yelling, screaming, wheedling, begging, and crying, was I transferred (after six days of calls!) to a U.S. service center – at which point the problem was solved within 12 hours of their taking the case. Why? Because the person I spoke to at the U.S. center knew whom to call and what strings to pull to finally get the local office to fix the problem (G-d bless you Sheila from Verizon, wherever you are!). The second problem (also involving lots of wasted time and Indian 800 number phone answerers)  is another tale of phone tag woe, too detailed to go into. Suffice to say I do not recommend using Tracfone if you are in need of a pay as you go phone while visiting the U.S.

Like I said, this can’t happen in Israel. Yes, we may have surly service people and grumpy operators, but at least you can get through to them. And despite all the surliness and grumpiness, I have never had to go a week without an internet connection here. Bezeq, I will never complain about your service again!

Not that the other side is “winning” – when it comes to internet dominance, Israel’s got the competition beat hands down. But the hackers and crackers who are out in force right now, seeking out Israeli and Jewish content web sites to deface, are like swarms of annoying insects. If you spray – i.e. install protective measures on web sites – you can keep them at bay. But if they sniff weakness – security holes that web site administrators are supposed to be on top of – they’ll swoop in, invading web servers and replacing the content with anti-Israel propaganda.

Over the past week, hundreds of Israeli and Jewish sites have been compromised, with anti-Israel propaganda, consisting of messages, graphics and video, installed on sites they take over (you can see a whole gallery of such sites at http://www.arabic-m.com). And propaganda it is; the photos the hackers display of injured Gazans are heartbreaking, but after all, photos aren’t always what they seem, as we learned during the Second Lebanon War, documented at http://tinyurl.com/axlt5f, http://tinyurl.com/8sgvfu, and http://tinyurl.com/g2p9n, among others.

The attacks are sophisticated; you have to give them that, to the extent of being able to hijack a whole domain name server (http://tinyurl.com/7bsauq). According to experts I’ve spoken with, we’re dealing with a professional crew of hackers who are probably working for the “axis of evil” governments in the countries they live in (including Syria and Iran). With the right protection, though, sites can be made safe.

But just “being safe” somehow just doesn’t satisfy in a situation like this; you feel like you want to do more. How is it that they can get away with hacking our sites without feeling some pain on their side? Don’t we have hackers – or any other offensive weapons – to fight back with? What can an ordinary, non-programming person do to defend his or her country?

The answer is yes, there is something you can do – and you don’t have to be a hacker to take some offensive action. Legal, even! As we all know, hacking is generally looked upon askance by the law, and while I don’t think anyone who hacks an anti-Semitic web site has to worry about being arrested, they may find themselves with a lawsuit on their hands.

However, there is a perfectly legal way to get back at bad sites – sites that skew the facts or tell outright lies about Jews and Israel. How? Just by being a nudnik – the more obnoxious, the better. The sites that describe in detail how Israel controls the world and is planning to drag all the goyim into World War III have to be hosted somewhere. All you have to do is run a traceroute on the domain name of the site and find out the actual numerical IP address the site uses. That address is registered to a web site provider, somewhere in the world. Using an online tool, you can track ownership of that address – and when you do, it’s time to open up your e-mail program and write a scathing letter, complaining at the poor quality of sites hosted on the company’s servers (and the fact that it is promoting racism, anti-Semitism, and libelous accusations). Mention the fact that your uncle is a lawyer, and chances are you’ll get satisfaction – doing as good a job of booting a site off the internet as a hacker would, or even better!

It’s actually far less complicated than it sounds. You may already have a traceroute program installed in your computer, but you can also use an online traceroute took; at http://www.geektools.com/traceroute.php, just choose one of the many links (grouped by country; for our purposes, it doesn’t matter which one you select. The Israel links are pretty reliable). Type in the name of the host (www.hostname.com, without the http:// at the beginning). The system will begin seeking out the true home of the host, and after about 13 or so “hops,” it will present you with an IP address.

Copy that address and surf on over to http://www.ip2location.com/free.asp, which will look for the physical location of the server that IP address is associated with – and usually, the name of the hosting company that provides the address. And that’s all you need; you can surf to the hosting site and get the appropriate e-mail, to write your complaint to the system administrator, director, or other bigwig who takes complaints. Chances are the site administrators or owners do not realize what screed they are hosting, by the way; there’s no law that says they have to check up on the work done by their clients. And while they have no legal obligation to respond positively to your complaints, they probably will, in order not to get a bad reputation, as well as to get you off their back.

If you’d rather let someone else do the hacking for you, by the way, check out http://www.help-israel-win.org/, where they have an application you can download and install that uses group computer technology (sort of like SETI, Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, http://www.seti.org) – except their application attacks anti-Israel web sites. I don’t know if it’s legal, but it is easy.

But why take chances? With my way, you know you’re safe – and you get the satisfaction of seeing the fruits of your work. I know the anti-Israel crowd is going to flip if people use this tactic, which is easy and requires very little, if any, technical skill; “the Jews own all the web hosting sites,” etc., which could be, but is unlikely. Fortunately, there are plenty of people – of all types – who have self-respect, and who don’t want to be known as the type of people who spread lies and hate. If anyone wants to take this job on (it’s really not hard, and it does get results) and doesn’t know how to proceed (after reading the instructions carefully, of course), please write and I’ll do what I can to help.

Answer: You, me, and hundreds of millions of other internet users around the world. Deep down in our consciousness, we “knew” what was coming; and the bad news isn’t over.

Such at least is the theory behind the Web Bot Project (http://tinyurl.com/9lqcq2), which sends out bots (spiders) around the internet to collect text and information from publicly accessible web sites. The bots look for about 300,000 words with emotional context, like intensity, impact, etc.; words with a “kick,” coming from posted articles, forum opinions, chat rooms, etc. (the bots do not check e-mail or other private communications). The words are then put into contexts, and if the emotion is strong enough, a context becomes a trend – a prediction, based on the feelings of those who feel most strongly about the information, the ones who bother posting information. It’s a form of theory of the Wisdom of Crowds (http://tinyurl.com/mbmnb); the truth is out there, and everybody has a little piece of it. The Web Bot Project helps filter that information, put it into context – and tell us where we’re going, in advance.

Data from the Web Bot Project is publicly accessible on the Urban Survival site (http://urbansurvival.com/simplebots.htm), which posts a daily newsletter based in part on the information generated by the bots and interpreted by its specialized linguistic software.

Predicting the future is tough enough for prophets, much less for web sites. But if you look at the list of predictions that cam out of the Project at the beginning of 2008 for this past year (http://tinyurl.com/axz8az), you can’t help but be just a little impressed, since the average person wasn’t aware of the extent of the financial problems in the U.S. at the time. While it’s probably no biggie to figure out what February and March are going to look like when it’s January, October and November are something else. The list for September, for example, includes “Mood of the population improves: People have a renewed sense of optimism that the corporate/elite can and will be replaced in the elections and the ‘us against them’ grows.” September, if I recall, was when the excitement over Barack Obama started cresting; back in January, most people expected Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination.

The October predictions, meanwhile, contain statements like”Think of the US economy as a lit fuse that is lit over the early part of 2008, and “in late 2008 the rest of the world’s currencies are ‘touched off’ by the dollar and US decline.” The Project also predicted “a significant event” occurring on October 7, which turned out to be a precipitous decline on stock markets around the world. That event, according to the Project, would have an even bigger effect than 9/11 – which the Project also claims to have predicted 90 days before it took place (http://tinyurl.com/9wzt44). According to the Project, data collected from the previous June indicated that a “life altering event” would take place within 60-90 days. Somehow, there was a feeling that “something big” was about to happen – and it was this that the Project focused on.

Most of the specific predictions for 2009 haven’t been released yet (check http://tinyurl.com/yoc2tp to see when George Ure of the UrbanSurvival site will be on the radio, which you can hear over the internet on an affiliate). But a few predictions for early 2009 are already available (http://tinyurl.com/3hqq6b); very cold winter in the U.S. northeast (seems correct so far), “a 2009 winter/spring natural disaster, which caused people to become angry about government response,” and an event in which “a permanent loss of low-lying territory globally and foresees that one continent in particular will get hit badly, but it does not say which one. Places to avoid: anything at sea level (Bangladesh/Florida/ etc).”

Scary, huh? On the other hand, the system is not flawless; note that the Project also predicted “ a West Coast/Vancouver area large-scale earthquake around December 12, 2008” (didn’t happen). The Web Bot Project isn’t the only prediction game in town; Princeton’s Global Consciousness Project (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/), also called the EGG Project, also examines consciousness over the internet, using a complicated statistical formula.

Global consciousness predicting future events? Sounds a little “left coast,” as they say in the east. The overwhelming tendency of most people who post stuff on the internet seems to be that they expect the worst (apparently the optimistic people are too busy enjoying life to bother with chat rooms and forums). And nowadays, it’s almost second nature for people to believe that “the worst is yet to come,” since no one wants to be labeled “Pollyanish.” If we’re “relying” on web to tell us the future based on what people think, we shouldn’t expect too much, since most people are so pessimistic – as they were even when “the tide was high” and things were going relatively well. But maybe there’s a lesson we can learn; if the power of suggestion is such that it can will bad stuff to happen (which could be what’s going on; after all, the Web Bot Project makes its predictions based on how people feel, which could technically be called a self-fulfilling prophecy), maybe a little positive thinking will help make things better. Can’t hurt, can it?