Brainyfone or Foneybrain?

June 16, 2025

If you spend too much time on your phone raise your hand. We’re not snoops, so we haven’t activated your device’s camera to spy on you. We’ll just affirm that you have and tell you what the BBC wrote: “How Mobile Phones Have Changed Our Brains.” We feel guilty about being on the phone so much, but it’s a very convenient tool.

Adults check their phone on average 344 times a day-once every four minutes. YIKES! We use our phones to complete a task and that leads to other activities like checking email, visiting social media, etc. Our neural pathways are being restructured to rely on phones. Here’s what it does:

“As you might expect, with our societal dependence on devices increasing rapidly every year, the research struggles to keep up. What we do know is that the simple distraction of checking a phone or seeing a notification can have negative consequences. This isn’t very surprising; we know that, in general, multitasking impairs memory and performance. One of the most dangerous examples is phone use while driving. One study found that merely speaking on the phone, not texting, was enough to make drivers slower to react on the road. It’s true for everyday tasks that are less high-stakes, too. Simply hearing a notification "ding" made participants of another study perform far worse on a task – almost as badly as participants who were speaking or texting on the phone during the task.”

Phones don’t contribute entirely to brain drain. The article did report on a study that did support the theory phones atrophy memory. Another study supported that phones helped improve memory when participants were allowed to make notes with their phone.

The articles makes a thought-provoking assertion:

“Individuals who think that our brains have "limited" resources (such as that resisting one temptation makes it harder to resist the next) are indeed more likely to exhibit this phenomenon in testing. But for those who think that the more we resist temptation, the more we’re strengthening the capacity to keep resisting temptation – that our brains, in other words, have unlimited resources. Exerting self-control or mental fatigue on one task doesn’t negatively affect their performance on the next one.

More fascinatingly still, whether we have a limited or non-limited view of the brain may be largely cultural – and that Western countries like the US may be more likely to think the mind is limited compared to other cultures, such as India.”

We’re not as limited as we think we are and the brain we adapt to mobile devices. However, it’s still healthy to get off your phones.

Whitney Grace, June 16, 2025

Another Vote for the Everything App

June 13, 2025

Dino 5 18 25Just a dinobaby and no AI: How horrible an approach?

An online information service named 9 to 5 Mac published an essay / interview summary titled “Nothing CEO says Apple No Longer Creative; Smartphone Future Is a Single App.” The write up focuses on the “inventor / coordinator” of the OnePlus mobile devices and the Nothing Phone. The key point of the write up is the idea that at some point in the future, one will have a mobile device and a single app, the everything app.

The article quotes a statement Carl Pei (the head of the Nothing Phone) made to another publication; to wit:

I believe that in the future, the entire phone will only have one app—and that will be the OS. The OS will know its user well and will be optimized for that person […] The next step after data-driven personalization, in my opinion, is automation. That is, the system knows you, knows who you are, and knows what you want. For example, the system knows your situation, time, place, and schedule, and it suggests what you should do. Right now, you have to go through a step-by-step process of figuring out for yourself what you want to do, then unlocking your smartphone and going through it step by step. In the future, your phone will suggest what you want to do and then do it automatically for you. So it will be agentic and automated and proactive.

This type of device will arrive in seven to 10 years.

For me, the notion of an everything app or a super app began in 2010, but I am not sure who first mentioned the phrase to me. I know that WeChat, the Chinese everything app, became available in 2011. The Chinese government was aware at some point that an “everything” app would make surveillance, social scoring, and filtering much easier. The “let many approved flowers bloom” approach of the Apple and Google online app stores was inefficient. One app was more direct, and I think the A to B approach to tracking and blocking online activity makes sense to many in the Middle Kingdom. The trade off of convenience for a Really Big Brother was okay with citizens of China. Go along and get along may have informed the uptake of WeChat.

Now the everything app seems like a sure bet. The unknown is which outstanding technology firm will prevail. The candidates are WeChat, Telegram, X.com, Sam Altman’s new venture, or a surprise player. Will other apps (the not everything apps from restaurant menus to car washes) survive? Sure. But if Sam AI-Man is successful with his Ive smart device and his stated goal of buying the Chrome browser from the Google catch on, the winner may be a CEO who was fired by his board, came back, and cleaned out those who did not jump on the AI-Man’s bandwagon.

That’s an interesting thought. It is Friday the 13th, Google. You too Microsoft. And Apple. How could I have forgotten Tim Cook and his team of AI adepts?

Stephen E Arnold, June 13, 2025

Can You Detox When Everyone Is Addicted to Online?

June 5, 2025

Digital detox has been a thing for a while and it’s where you go off the grid. No phone. No computer. No Internet. The Internet and mobile devices are so ingrained into our consciousness that it’s a reflex to check for messages, social media, etc. Amanda Kooser at CNet when an entire day without the Internet and describes what happens in: “24 Hours Without Internet: I Tried This Digital Detox and Thrived.”

Kooser set some ground rules to ensure her digital detox would be successful. She unplugged her Internet router to disable WiFi and connected Internet. She enabled Focus Mode on all her devices to silence them.

She started her day by waking up with a non-phone alarm clock, read a book, then headed to work without the use of Google maps. She got lost but used good, old-fashioned directions to arrive at her destination. Kooser also watched TV with an antenna instead of streaming her shows. She learned that antenna TV sucks.

Here’s her overall opinion:

“The best part of having no internet for the day was the pause on micro-interruptions — all the little things that steal attention: neighborhood alerts, store sales and emails that need to be deleted. I enjoyed the quiet so much that I didn’t turn the T-Mobile 5G Home Internet gateway back on until Sunday morning, 36 hours after the digital detox experiment began. I’m working on being better about reaching for my phone for every little thing. Now that I’ve unlocked the full power of Focus Mode, I can put it into service. I can have my quiet moments on top of a mountain where the only alerts are the squirrels calling from the trees. I’ve already developed a sense of nostalgia for my internet-free day. It’s a rosy memory of fun times in the car listening to the classic rock station on the radio, not knowing if we would find our destination, not worrying that it even mattered.”

Now back to the question, “Can you detox when everyone is addicted to online?” Answer: Not easily and maybe not at all. Think a fish in a fish bowl, can that creature stop looking out through his bowl?

Whitney Grace, June 5, 2025

Stolen iPhone Building: Just One Building?

May 21, 2025

Dino 5 18 25Just the dinobaby operating without Copilot or its ilk.

I am not too familiar with the outfits which make hardware and software to access mobile phones. I have heard that these gizmos exist and work. Years ago I learned that some companies — well, one company lo those many years ago — could send a text message to a mobile phone and gain access to the device. I have heard that accessing iPhones and some Androids is a tedious business. I have heard that some firms manufacture specialized data retention computers to support the work required to access certain actors’ devices.

So what?

This work has typically required specialized training, complex hardware, and sophisticated software. The idea that an industrial process for accessing locked and otherwise secured mobile phones was not one I heard from experts or that I read about on hacker fora.

And what happens? The weird orange newspaper published “Inside China’s Stolen iPhone Building.” The write up is from a “real news” outfit, the Financial Times. The story — if dead accurate — may be a reminder that cyber security has been gifted with another hole in its predictive, forward-leaning capabilities.

The write up explains how phones are broken down, parts sold, or (if unlocked) resold. But there is one passage in the write up which hip hops over what may be the “real” story. Here’s the passage:

Li [a Financial Times’ named source Kevin Li, who is an iPhone seller] insisted there was no way for phone sellers to force their way into passcode-locked devices. But posts on western social media show that many who have their phones stolen receive messages from individuals in Shenzhen either cajoling them or threatening them to remotely wipe their devices and remove them from the FindMy app. “For devices that have IDs, there aren’t that many places that have demand for them,” says Li, finishing his cigarette break. “In Shenzhen, there is demand . . . it’s a massive market.”

With the pool of engineering and practical technical talent, is it possible that this “market” in China houses organizations or individuals who can:

  1. Modify an unlocked phone so that it can operate as a node in a larger network?
  2. Use software — possibly similar to that developed by NSO Group-type entities — to compromise mobile devices. Then these devices are not resold if they contain high-value information. The “customer” could be a third party like an intelligence technology firm or to a government entity in a list of known buyers?
  3. Use devices which emulate the functions of certain intelware-centric companies to extract information and further industrialize the process of returning a used mobile to an “as new” condition.

Are these questions ones of interest to the readership of the Financial Times in the British government and its allies? Could the Financial Times ignore the mundane refurbishment market and focus on the “massive market” for devices that are not supposed to be unlocked?

Answer: Nope. Write about what could be said about refurbing iPads, electric bicycles, or smart microwaves. The key paragraph reveals that that building in China is probably one which could shed some light on what is an important business. If specialized hardware and software exist in the US and Western Europe, there is a reasonable chance that similar capabilities are available in the “iPhone building.” That’s a possible “real” story.

Stephen E Arnold, May xx, 2025

Mobile Phones? Really?

May 2, 2025

dino orange_thumbNo AI, just the dinobaby himself.

I read one of those “modern” scientific summaries in the UK newspaper, The Guardian. Yep, that’s a begging for dollars outfit which reminds me that I have read eight stories since January 1, 2025.  I am impressed with the publisher’s cookie wizardry. Too bad it does not include the other systems I use in the course of my day.

The article which caught my attention and sort of annoyed me is “Older People Who Use Smartphones Have Lower Rates of Cognitive Decline.” I haven’t been in school since I abandoned my PhD to join Halliburton Nuclear in Washington, DC in the early 1970s. I don’t remember much of my undergraduate work, including classes about setting up “scientific studies” or avoiding causation problems.

I do know that I am 80 years old and that smartphones are not the center of my information world. Am I, therefore, in cognitive decline? I suppose you should ask those who will be in my OSINT lecture this coming Friday (April 18, 2025) or those hearing my upcoming talks at a US government cyber fraud conference. My hunch is that whether the people listening to me think I am best suited for drooling in an old age home or some weird nut job fooling people is best accomplished by some research that involves sample selection, objective and interview data, and benchmarking.

The Guardian article skips right to the reason I am able to walk and chew gum at the same time without requiring [a] dentures, [b] a walker, [c] an oxygen tank, or [d] a mobile smartphone.

But, no, the write up says:

Fears that smartphones, tablets and other devices could drive dementia in later life have been challenged by research that found lower rates of cognitive decline in older people who used the technology. An analysis of published studies that looked at technology use and mental skills in more than 400,000 older adults found that over-50s who routinely used digital devices had lower rates of cognitive decline than those who used them less.

Okay, why use one smartphone. Buy two. Go whole hog. Install TOR and cruise the Dark Web and figure out why Ahmia.fi is filtering results. Download apps by the dozens and use them to get mental stimulation. I highly recommend Hamster Kombat, Act 2. Plus, one must log on to Facebook — the hot spot for seniors to check out grandchildren and keep up with obituaries — and immerse oneself in mental stimulation.

The write up says:

It is unclear whether the technology staves off mental decline, or whether people with better cognitive skills simply use them more, but the scientists say the findings question the claim that screen time drives what has been called “digital dementia”.

That’s slick. Digital dementia.

My thoughts about this wishy washy correlation are:

  1. Some “scientists” are struggling to get noticed for their research and grab smartphones and data to establish that these technological gems keep one’s mind sharp. Yeah, meh!
  2. A “major real news” outfit writes up the “research” illustrates a bit of what I call “information stretching.” Like spandex tights, making the “facts” convert a blob into an acceptable shape has replaced actual mental work
  3. The mental decline thing tells me more about the researchers and the Guardian’s editorial approach.

My view is that engagement with people, devices, and ideas trump the mobile phone angle. People who face physical deterioration are going to demonstrate assorted declines. If the phone helps some people, great.

I am just tired of the efforts to explain the upsides and downsides of mobile devices. These gizmos are part of the datasphere in which people live. Put a person in solitary confinement with sound deadening technology and that individual will suffer some quite sporty declines. A rich and stimulating environment is more important than a gizmo with Telegram or WhatsApp. Maybe an old timer will become the next crypto currency trading tsar?

Net net: Those undergraduate classes in statistics, psychology, and logic might be relevant, particularly to those who became thumb typing and fast scrollers at a young age. I am a dinobaby and maybe you will attend one of my lectures. Then you can tell me that I do what I do because I have a smartphone. Actually I have four. That’s why the Guardian’s view count is wrong about how often I look at the outfit’s articles.

Stephen E Arnold, May 2, 2025

Google: Android and the Walled Garden

March 31, 2025

dino orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumbDinobaby says, “No smart software involved. That’s for “real” journalists and pundits.

In my little corner of the world, I do not see Google as “open.” One can toss around the idea 24×7, and I won’t change my mind. Despite its unusual approach to management, the company has managed to contain the damage from Xooglers’ yip yapping about the company. Xoogler.co is focused on helping people. I suppose there are versions of Sarah Wynn-Williams “Careless People” floating around. Few talk much about THE Timnit Gebru “parrot” paper. Google is, it seems, just not the buzz generator it was in 2006, the year the decline began to accelerate in my opinion.

We have another example of “circling the wagons” strategy. It is a doozy.

Google Moves All Android Development Behind Closed Doors” reports with some “real” writing and recycling of Google generated slick talk an interesting shift in the world of the little green man icon:

Google had to merge the two branches, which lead to problems and issues, so Google decided it’s now moving all development of Android behind closed doors

How many versions of messaging apps did Google have before it decided that “let many flowers bloom” was not in line with the sleek profile the ageing Google want to flaunt on Wall Street?

The article asks a good question:

…if development happens entirely behind closed doors, with only the occasional code drop, is the software in question really open source? Technically, the answer is obviously ‘yes’ – there’s no requirement that development take place in public. However, I’m fairly sure that when most people think of open source, they think not only of occasionally throwing chunks of code over the proverbial corporate walls, but also of open development, where everybody is free to contribute, pipe in, and follow along.

News flash from the dinobaby: Open source software, when bandied about by folks who don’t worry too much about their mom missing a Social Security check means:

  1. We don’t want to chase and fix bugs. Make it open source and let the community do it for free.
  2. We probably have coded up something that violates laws. By making it open source, we are really benefiting those other developers and creating opportunities for innovation.
  3. We can use the buzzword “open source” and jazz the VCs with a term that is ripe with promise for untold riches
  4. A student thinks: I can make my project into open source and maybe it will help me get a job.
  5. A hacker thinks: I can get “cred” by taking my exploit and coding a version that penetration testers will find helpful and possibly not discover the backdoor.

I have not exhausted the kumbaya about open source.

It is clear that Google is moving in several directions, a luxury only Googzillas have:

First, Google says, “We will really, really, cross my fingers and hope to die, share code … just like always.

Second, Google can add one more oxen drawn wagon to its defensive circle. The company will need it when the licensing terms for Android include some very special provisions. Of course, Google may be charitable and not add additional fees to its mobile OS.

Third, it can wave the “we good managers” flag.

Fourth, as the write up correctly notes:

…Darwin, the open source base underneath macOS and iOS, is technically open source, but nobody cares because Apple made it pretty much worthless in and of itself. Anything of value is stripped out and not only developed behind closed doors, but also not released as open source, ensuring Darwin is nothing but a curiosity we sometimes remember exists. Android could be heading in the same direction.

I think the “could” is a hedge. I penciled in “will.” But I am a dinobaby. What do I know?

Stephen E Arnold, March 31, 2025

6G: The Promise of 5G Actually Fulfilled?

January 20, 2025

Here is an interesting philosophical question: At what point does virtual reality cross over into teleportation? For some of us, the answer is a clear “never.” For LightReading, however, “6G Could Be the World’s First Teleportation Tech“. Would a device that accurately reproduces all five senses be the same as being there? International Editor Iain Morris writes:

“As far-fetched as this might all sound, it is the vision of several academics at the UK’s University of Surrey. Professors Rahim Tafazolli, David Hendon and Ian Corden volunteer it as an example of how a future 6G standard could be far more revolutionary than its predecessors. ‘We are turning the science fiction of teleportation into science fact,’ Tafazolli told Light Reading in a bold pitch.”

So, 6G won’t just mean another speed jump and latency drop? Not if this team has its way. The differences between 5G and 6G are still very much up in the air. Tafazolli believes it is time for a grander vision—and bigger profits. We learn:

“While the idea of virtual teleportation is an obvious attention grabber, there is much more to the vision. In a white paper published last year, the University of Surrey recognized that without progress in areas such as time synchronization, slashing latency to a level inconceivable on even the most sophisticated 5G network, virtual reality will continue to have limits. That same paper notes the importance of foundational technologies, including massive MIMO (for more advanced antennas), more intelligent core networks and even open RAN, an in-vogue radio system designed to improve interoperability between vendors. Many of them figure in today’s early 5G networks. Indeed, Tafazolli’s reference to a ‘network of networks’ is reminiscent of language used to describe older technology ecosystems. He envisages a mixture of short range, wide area and satellite networks as the basis for 6G, implying it will build heavily on existing infrastructure.”

Skeptics point to certain experimental technologies required to make such “teleportation” a reality. Just how far are we from commercially available virtual taste buds or electronic skin? Close enough for this team of academics to stand firm in their conviction, apparently. Just one request: Do us Star Trek fans a favor and come up with a different name for this ultra realistic VR. “Teleportation” is taken.

Cynthia Murrell, January 20, 2025

Bold Allegation: Columbia, the US, and Pegasus

December 27, 2024

The United States assists its allies, but why did the Biden Administration pony up $11 million for a hacking software. DropSiteNews investigates the software, its huge price tag, and why the US bought it in: “The U.S. Bought Pegasus For Colombia With $11 Million In Cash. Now Colombians Are Asking Why.” Colombians are just as curious as Americans are why the US coughed up $11 million in cash for the Israeli hacking software.

The Colombian ambassador to the US Daniel García-Peña confirmed that Washington DC assisted his country in buying the software, so the Colombian government could track drug cartels. The software was purchased and used throughout 2021-2022. Pegasus usage stopped in 2022 and it was never used to against politicians, such as former Columbian president Ivan Duque. The Biden Administration remained in control of the Pegasus software and assured that the Columbian government only provided spying targets.

It’s understandable why Colombia’s citizens were antsy about Pegasus:

“García-Peña’s revelations come two months after Colombian President Gustavo Petro delivered a televised speech in which he revealed some of the details of the all-cash, $11-million purchase, including that it has been split across two installments, flown from Bogotá and deposited into the Tel Aviv bank account belonging to NSO Group, the company that owns Pegasus. Soon after the speech, Colombia’s attorney general opened an investigation into the purchase and use of Pegasus. In October, Petro accused the director of the NSO Group of money laundering, due to the tremendous amount of cash he transported on the flights.

The timeline of the purchase and use of Pegasus overlaps with a particularly turbulent time in Colombia. A social movement had begun protesting against Duque, while in the countryside, Colombia’s security forces were killing or arresting major guerrilla and cartel leaders. At the time, Petro, the first left-wing president in the country’s recent history, was campaigning for the presidency.”

The Pegasus is powerful hacking software and Columbians were suspicious how their government acquired it. Journalists were especially curious where the influx of cash came from. They slowly discovered it was from the United States with the intent to spy on drug cartels. Columbia is a tumultuous nation with crime worse than the wild west. Pegasus hopefully caught the worst of the bad actors.

Whitney Grace, December 27, 2024

Secure Phones Keep Appearing

October 31, 2024

The KDE community has developed an open source interface for mobile devices called Plasma Mobile. It allegedly turns any phone into a virtual fortress, promising a “privacy-respecting, open source and secure phone ecosystem.” This project is based on the original Plasma for desktops, an environment focused on security and flexibility. As with many open-source projects, Plasma Mobile is an imperfect work in progress. We learn:

“A pragmatic approach is taken that is inclusive to software regardless of toolkit, giving users the power to choose whichever software they want to use on their device. … Plasma Mobile is packaged in multiple distribution repositories, and so it can be installed on regular x86 based devices for testing. Have an old Android device? postmarketOS, is a project aiming to bring Linux to phones and offers Plasma Mobile as an available interface for the devices it supports. You can see the list of supported devices here, but on any device outside the main and community categories your mileage may vary. Some supported devices include the OnePlus 6, Pixel 3a and PinePhone. The interface is using KWin over Wayland and is now mostly stable, albeit a little rough around the edges in some areas. A subset of the normal KDE Plasma features are available, including widgets and activities, both of which are integrated into the Plasma Mobile UI. This makes it possible to use and develop for Plasma Mobile on your desktop/laptop. We aim to provide an experience (with both the shell and apps) that can provide a basic smartphone experience. This has mostly been accomplished, but we continue to work on improving shell stability and telephony support. You can find a list of mobile friendly KDE applications here. Of course, any Linux-based applications can also be used in Plasma Mobile.

KDE states its software is “for everyone, from kids to grandparents and from professionals to hobbyists.” However, it is clear that being an IT professional would certainly help. Is Plasma Mobile as secure as they claim? Time will tell.

Cynthia Murrell, October 31, 2024

Mobiles in Schools: No and a Partial Ban Is No Ban

October 25, 2024

dino orangeNo smart software but we may use image generators to add some modern spice to the dinobaby’s output.

Common sense appears to be in short supply in about one-third of the US population. I am assuming that the data from Pew Research’s “Most Americans Back Cellphone Bans during Class, but Fewer Support All-Day Restrictions” are reasonably accurate. The write up reports:

Less than half of adults under 30 (45%) say they support banning students from using cellphones during class. This share rises to 67% among those ages 30 to 49 and 80% among those ages 50 and older.

I know going to school, paying attention, and (hopefully) learning how to read, write, and do arithmetic is irrelevant in the Smart Software Era. Why have a person who can select groceries and keep a rough running tally of how much money is represented by the items in the cart? Why have a young person working at a retail outlet able to make change without puzzling over a point-of-sale screen.

image

My dream: A class of students handing over their mobile phones to the dinobaby instructor. He also has an extendible baton. This is the ideal device for rapping a student on the head. Nuns used rulers. Too old technology for today’s easily distracted youthful geniuses. Thanks, Mr. AI-Man, good enough.

The write up adds:

Our survey finds the public is far less supportive of a full-day ban on cellphone use than a classroom ban. About one-third (36%) support banning middle and high school students from using cellphones during the entire school day, including at lunch as well as during and between classes. By comparison, 53% oppose this more restrictive approach.

If I understand this information, out of 100 parents of school age children, only 64 percent of those allegedly responsible adults want their progeny to be able to use their mobile devices during the school day. I suppose if I were a parent terrified that an outside was going to enter a school and cause a disturbance, I would like to get a call or a text that says, “Daddy, I am scared.” Exactly what can that parent do about that message? Drive to the school, possibly breaking speed limits, and demand to talk to the administrative assistant. What if there were a serious issue? Would those swarming parents obstruct the officers and possibly contribute to the confusion and chaos swirling around such an event? On the other hand, maybe the parent is a trained special operations officer, capable of showing credentials and participating in the response to the intruder?

As a dinobaby, here’s my view:

  1. School is where students go to learn.
  2. Like certain government facilities, mobile devices are surrendered prior to admission. The devices are returned when the student exits the premises.
  3. The policy is posted and communicated to parents and students. The message is, “This is the rule. Period.”
  4. In the event of a problem, a school official or law enforcement officer will determine when and how to retrieve the secured devices.

I have a larger concern. School is for the purpose of education. My dinobaby common sense dictates that a student’s attention should be available to the instructors. Other students, general fooling around, and the craziness of controlling young people are difficult enough. Ensuring that a student can lose his or her attention in a mobile device is out of step with my opinion.

Falling test scores, the desire of some parents to get their children into high-demand schools, and use of tutors tells me that some parents have their ducks in a row. The idea that one can sort of have mobile devices in schools is the opposite of a tidy row of ducks. Imagine the problems that will result if a mobile device with software specifically engineered to capture and retain attention were not allowed in a school. The horror! Jim or Jane might actually learn to read and do sums. But, hey, TikTok-type services and selfies are just more fun.

Check out Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Is that required reading in some high school classes? Probably not.

Stephen E Arnold, October 25, 2024

Next Page »

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta