4GEE_ActionCam_SkateBoard-970-80

5 reasons why you need EE’s new 4G Action Cam

The 4G Action Cam from EE is the first of its kind to hit the market, offering up unrivalled 4G streaming, a cool companion viewfinder watch and impressive waterproof capabilities.

At up to four hours its battery lasts longer than the competition, and with its waterproof case it can even go deeper under water than any of its rivals.

The video below shows you five reasons why you need EE’s 4G Action Cam, whether you’re surfing, skydiving or just going for a walk, but before you press play here’s a quick overview.

1. 4G Live Streaming

The EE Action Cam is a world’s first, as it’s the only action camera that live streams footage to your friends and family in real time over 4G. Whether you’re taking your new puppy for its first walk in the park, or screeching round the track in a fancy sports car you’ll be able to share your experience live with the world.

2. Viewfinder Watch

This unique companion watch gives you a live view of the Action Cam’s viewfinder, ensuring you’ve got it lined up perfectly before you jump out of that plane.

3. Record HD footage

4G live streaming is one thing, but that’s not all it can do. The Action Cam also records full HD, 1080p video at 30 frames per second.

4. Still photographs

The 4G Action Cam captures high quality still photographs thanks to its 13MP sensor. There’s even a burst mode which takes eight full resolution photos every second, ensuring you don’t miss any of the action.

5. Waterproof

If surfing, canoeing or white water rafting is more your style then the 4G Action Cam is ready to hit the drink with you. It’s waterproof at depths of up to 60 metres, which is 30% deeper than rival cameras can sink.

4GEE_ActionCam_SkateBoard-970-80

5 reasons why you need EE's new 4G Action Cam

The 4G Action Cam from EE is the first of its kind to hit the market, offering up unrivalled 4G streaming, a cool companion viewfinder watch and impressive waterproof capabilities.

At up to four hours its battery lasts longer than the competition, and with its waterproof case it can even go deeper under water than any of its rivals.

The video below shows you five reasons why you need EE’s 4G Action Cam, whether you’re surfing, skydiving or just going for a walk, but before you press play here’s a quick overview.

1. 4G Live Streaming

The EE Action Cam is a world’s first, as it’s the only action camera that live streams footage to your friends and family in real time over 4G. Whether you’re taking your new puppy for its first walk in the park, or screeching round the track in a fancy sports car you’ll be able to share your experience live with the world.

2. Viewfinder Watch

This unique companion watch gives you a live view of the Action Cam’s viewfinder, ensuring you’ve got it lined up perfectly before you jump out of that plane.

3. Record HD footage

4G live streaming is one thing, but that’s not all it can do. The Action Cam also records full HD, 1080p video at 30 frames per second.

4. Still photographs

The 4G Action Cam captures high quality still photographs thanks to its 13MP sensor. There’s even a burst mode which takes eight full resolution photos every second, ensuring you don’t miss any of the action.

5. Waterproof

If surfing, canoeing or white water rafting is more your style then the 4G Action Cam is ready to hit the drink with you. It’s waterproof at depths of up to 60 metres, which is 30% deeper than rival cameras can sink.

britain-defence-strategy

How the UK government will track everything you do online

 

This afternoon, UK Home Secretary Theresa May announced the return of the Snooper’s Charter, aka the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill. It’s the third attempt to get the Snooper’s Charter onto the statute books, and there’s a very good chance it’ll go through this time. All kinds of people think that’s a very bad idea. Here’s why.

Everything you do, they monitor it for you

The most worrying new power is mass surveillance of everybody’s internet use. Don’t be fooled by claims that as the data collected is “just metadata” it’s akin to keeping phone records: metadata means storing details of every website you visit as well as every communication you make using apps such as WhatsApp for 12 months.

ISPs won’t hand over details of the actual pages you visit or contents of your communications without a warrant, but site URLs can make it abundantly clear what they’re about: you don’t visit Wonga.com if you’re financially stable, for example. Similarly, location data can say a lot about you – churchgoing, perhaps, or visiting a particular building at particular times when Alcoholics Anonymous just happens to be meeting.

It’s worth noting that this surveillance already happens – Edward Snowden revealed GCHQ’s illegal surveillance of millions of people’s online activities in 2003. The proposed new legislation effectively legitimises what’s been going on in secret for years.

It could get hacked

Firms such as Talk Talk will be responsible for storing that data and keeping it safe.

Talk Talk.

Keeping data safe.

Dark comedy aside, that’s a serious worry. As Lib Dem peer Lord Strasburger said of the previous Snooper’s Charter, getting private firms to store such data would create a “”honeypot for casual hackers, blackmailers, criminals large and small from around the world, and foreign states”.

 

1028522311

All kinds of people get access

The usual bogeymen have been trotted out – we need the new powers to fight ISIS and the reanimated corpses of 1970s BBC children’s programme presenters – but the communications data will be available to your local council, to the taxman and to 38 other public bodies.

Previous surveillance powers have been used to crack down on the menace of people not picking up dog poo and trying to get their kids into better schools. According to the Guardian, some 517,000 requests for communications data were made last year and signed off by police officers.

It puts the ‘fish’ into officialdom

One fear of mass surveillance is “fishing expeditions”, where data is mined to identify possible potential criminal activity rather than actual criminal activity. We’ve already seen people arrested for downloading books deemed to be “extremist material” under anti-terror legislation. As Cardinal Richelieu is said to have written back in the 17th Century, “If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.”

It’s bad for journalism

Journalists are worried that the powers could be bad for whistleblowers, enabling officials to identify and silence sources. Theresa May has made it clear that journalists’ sources won’t be identified without first getting a warrant from a judge, unless a secretary of state decides it’s too urgent to get a judge. In those cases, the secretary of state can sign a warrant authorising the secretary of state to identify the journalist’s source. Theresa May currently signs off 2,400 interception warrants per year.

Tech firms will laugh at us

Part of the proposals involves demanding that firms such as Apple decrypt encrypted communications on demand. Without international agreements in place, however, that’s just a wish list. “Oh yeah,” the tech firm might say. “We totally tried to decrypt that, but it was too hard.”

It gives the security services really scary powers

The Bill doesn’t give GCHQ a licence to kill, but it does give it a licence to hack into computers, intercept phone calls, track locations and remotely access smartphones’ microphones and cameras to monitor anybody nearby.

We’ve been misled

Liberty says that the Government has deliberately floated the idea of the most “outrageous, even impractical powers” to distract from the meat of the bill: by spouting rubbish about banning encryption – something that’d cripple our financial services industry for starters – and monitoring individual social media posts the government has been able to distract everybody from the things it really does want. According to Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti, the Home Office is guilty of “frantic spinning”: deliberately telling journalists porkies about powers they had no intention of keeping in the Bill so that the Government could appear to back down without diluting the key bits of the proposals.

It’ll be abused

On average there are four data breaches a day, Big Brother Watch says, and in 2013 it emerged that the Met was using surveillance to create files on journalists detailing their medical history, family circumstances and sexual preferences. Those journalists weren’t implicated in any crimes; the files appeared to be a form of insurance should said journalists get too curious. Liberty reports that GCHQ has spied on the private communications of Amnesty International and other campaign groups, and the police are known to have spied on and smeared the parents of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.

Elsewhere councils have used surveillance powers to spy on employees suspected of lying about their car parking (Darlington), hours of work (Exeter) or sick pay (Hammersmith and Fulham) and to spy on people suspected of flouting the smoking ban. We’re not condoning any of that behaviour, of course, but it’s hardly the organised crime, global terrorism and drug smuggling the powers were supposed to fight.

812__300x300_internet_snooping_uk

It’s the wrong answer

The security services already intercept astonishing amounts of data, and they don’t have the resources to process what they’ve got: for example, the killers of Lee Rigby were well known to the security services, but they were classed as low risk and weren’t monitored due to lack of resources. It’s hard to see how upping the amount of data collected is going to improve that.

What now?

The legislation is a proposed bill, so it’ll be scrutinised by MPs before it’s voted. Previous attempts were defeated by opposition from the Lib Dems, but there aren’t so many of them around these days. Most observers believe that the Bill will become law without too many changes.

 

 

1.8429743

Google, Facebook, SpaceX, OneWeb to beam Internet everywhere

 

By now it’s kind of hard to believe, even sort of embarrassing.

About 57% of the world population is offline — mostly because of unavailable Internet in poor or rural countries. The United Nations set a goal of getting that number down to 50% by the end of 2020.

But the U.N. now admits, that’s not going to happen. In fact, overall Internet access growth is expected to dip by .5% this year.

For advocates like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, that’s bad news. His goal of “connecting everyone” via Internet is “one of the fundamental challenges of our generation,” he said. Internet access, he believes, could end extreme poverty.

One problem is cost. Or, as the U.N. puts it: “In many of the world’s poorest countries, where broadband could potentially have the greatest benefit in terms of bridging development gaps, even basic broadband service remains prohibitively expensive.”

Another hurdle: Many nations include huge wilderness areas where hard-wire delivery systems like landlines and towers don’t exist.

Some say the solution consists of just two words: Look up.

Google, Facebook, SpaceX and other outfits plan to beam the Internet from either low-orbiting satellites or high-flying drones and balloons.

Here’s a quick rundown of four big players:

OneWeb

What: A company called OneWeb aims to launch a more than 600 tiny satellites designed to beam high-speed Internet down to Earth.

Where: The satellites will orbit about 750 miles high. That’s much closer to Earth than current Internet providing satellites, which are now 22,000 miles away. That shorter distance will speed up delivery of the signal.

Who’s behind it: OneWeb is led by Greg Wyler and backed by Virgin Galactic businessman Richard Branson. “It could dramatically help close the wealth gap,” Branson told CNN.

How much: Initial estimates run from $1.5 billion to $2 billion, Wyler told CNN.

When: The service is expected to begin by 2019.

SpaceX

What: SpaceX, which already serves the International Space Station, plans to put 4,000 small, low-cost, disposable satellites into orbit.

Where: Like OneWeb, SpaceX’s satellites would orbit about 750 miles above the Earth to allow for faster service.

Who’s behind it: SpaceX CEO and PayPal co-founder Elon Musk told Motherboard in July he thinks “the long-term potential of it is pretty great.” The “communications technology will be substantially more advanced” than existing satellite Internet projects, Musk said.

How much: In January, Google and Fidelity provided $1 billion to fund the project.

When: Testing of the technology is expected to begin in 2016.

Google’s Project Loon

What: Solar powered balloons would transmit Internet signals to ground stations, homes, workplaces or directly to personal devices.

Where: Google says they would float above commercial airplanes, between 60,000 and and 90,000 feet up — all around the world. Each balloon would operate for about 100 days at a time.

How many: Google is scaling up to be able to launch dozens — or even thousands — of balloons, said project lead Mike Cassidy.

How much: Google told The Verge each balloon would cost “tens of thousands of dollars,” which is much cheaper than communication satellites.

When: Testing is going on now.

Facebook’s Aquila

What: Facebook has built an unmanned, Internet-broadcasting airplane called Aquila — latin for eagle. It’s covered by solar cells and has a huge wingspan of 140 feet — about the same as a Boeing 737 airliner. It’s designed to fly for three months at a time at an altitude of 60,000 feet, said lead engineer Andy Cox. It will use lasers to deliver high-speed Internet within a 50-mile radius on the ground below.

When: “Over the coming months, we will test these systems in the real world and continue refining them so we can turn their promise into reality,” wrote Facebook’s Zuckerberg.

How much: Unknown

Adding huge “constellations” of tiny satellites to the already-crowded space around Earth won’t be easy. For example, companies that operate satellites that are located far away — 22,000 miles out — fear that — under certain circumstances — closer, low-Earth-orbit satellites may interfere with their electronic signals, according to SpaceNews.

A broader, long-term industry question: How will companies be able to manufacture thousands of satellites quickly and cheaply? OneWeb has hired French-based Airbus to build 900 satellites at a rate of four per day. Most will be built in the U.S., according to Airbus.

“They need to bring the sort of large-scale assembly line processes and efficiencies found in the automotive world to space, and that’s a really new thing for us,” said satellite industry expert Brian Weeden, technical adviser for Secure World Foundation. 
But if everything works out as planned, it won’t be long before the World Wide Web will truly live up to its name.

Source: CNN

1.7805266

Wearable Sensors Could Translate Sign Language Into English

 

Wearable sensors could one day interpret the gestures in sign language and translate them into English, providing a high-tech solution to communication problems between deaf people and those who don’t understand sign language.

Engineers at Texas A&M University are developing a wearable devicethat can sense movement and muscle activity in a person’s arms.

The device works by figuring out the gestures a person is making by using two distinct sensors: one that responds to the motion of the wrist and the other to the muscular movements in the arm. A program then wirelessly receives this information and converts the data into the English translation.

 

After some initial research, the engineers found that there were devices that attempted to translate sign language into text, but they were not as intricate in their designs.

“Most of the technology … was based on vision- or camera-based solutions,” said study lead researcher Roozbeh Jafari, an associate professor of biomedical engineering at Texas A&M.

These existing designs, Jafari said, are not sufficient, because often when someone is talking with sign language, they are using hand gestures combined with specific finger movements.

“I thought maybe we should look into combining motion sensors and muscle activation,” Jafari told Live Science. “And the idea here was to build a wearable device.”

The researchers built a prototype system that can recognize words that people use most commonly in their daily conversations. Jafari said that once the team starts expanding the program, the engineers will include more words that are less frequently used, in order to build up a more substantial vocabulary.

One drawback of the prototype is that the system has to be “trained” to respond to each individual that wears the device, Jafari said. This training process involves asking the user to essentially repeat or do each hand gesture a couple of times, which can take up to 30 minutes to complete.

“If I’m wearing it and you’re wearing it — our bodies are different … our muscle structures are different,” Jafari said.

But, Jafari thinks the issue is largely the result of time constraints the team faced in building the prototype. It took two graduate students just two weeks to build the device, so Jafari said he is confident that the device will become more advanced during the next steps of development.

The researchers plan to reduce the training time of the device, or even eliminate it altogether, so that the wearable device responds automatically to the user. Jafari also wants to improve the effectiveness of the system’s sensors so that the device will be more useful in real-life conversations. Currently, when a person gestures in sign language, the device can only read words one at a time.

This, however, is not how people speak. “When we’re speaking, we put all the words in one sentence,” Jafari said. “The transition from one word to another word is seamless and it’s actually immediate.”

“We need to build signal-processing techniques that would help us to identify and understand a complete sentence,” he added.

Jafari’s ultimate vision is to use new technology, such as the wearable sensor, to develop innovative user interfaces between humans and computers.

For instance, people are already comfortable with using keyboards to issue commands to electronic devices, but Jafari thinks typing on devices like smartwatches is not practical because they tend to have  small screens.

“We need to have a new user interface (UI) and a UI modality that helps us to communicate with these devices,” he said. “Devices like [the wearable sensor] might help us to get there. It might essentially be the right step in the right direction.”