Foxconn exec faces 10 years for stealing 5,700 iPhones
A senior manager at Foxconn, the company that makes Apple’s iPhone handsets, is facing 10 years incarceration after being charged with the theft of 5,700 iPhones valued at nearly $1.5 million. According to AsiaOne, the Taiwanese testing department manager, identified only by his family name Tsai, coerced eight of his subordinates to smuggle iPhone 5 and 5Ses out of the Foxconn Shenzhen plant between 2013 and 2014.
Apparently, these phones were designated for testing, rather than sale, which could explain how the gang managed to take so many without tipping off security. However, an internal audit conducted earlier this year outed the group.
Via: Business Insider
Source: AsiaOne
MIT’s AI figured out how humans recognize faces
It appears machines may already be catching up to humans, at least in the world of computational biology. A team of researchers at the MIT-based Center for Brains, Minds and Machines (CBMM) found that the system they designed to recognize faces had spontaneously come up with a step that can identify portraits regardless of the rotation of the face. This adds credence to a previous theory about how humans recognize faces that was based studies of MRIs of primate brains.
The as-yet-unnamed system is a computational model of how the human brain recognizes faces, and was trained to identify particular visages from a battery of sample images it was fed. In the process of learning to spot faces, the program created an intermediate processing step that looked at “a face’s degree of rotation – say 45 degrees from center – but not the direction.”
In layman’s terms, this means the system, which was looking for invariance (or non-difference) between faces, was able to do so regardless of whether a face was flipped, as long as it was rotated in the same angle. That property is known as “mirror symmetry.”
This discovery excites scientists because it duplicates a previously observed feature of how primates process faces, indicating that the system might be doing something similar to the brain. However, it’s not for sure. “This is not a proof that we understand what’s going on,” says Tomaso Poggio, a professor of brain and cognitive sciences at MIT and director of the CBMM.
The researchers’ machine-learning system in this case is a neural network, which has been employed by tech giants such as Microsoft, Google and Facebook. These companies all have their own facial recognition systems in place, and have been investing in machine-learning to enhance their tools.
Understanding how we recognize people could help facial recognition systems get significantly better and more accurate, which has vast applications in tech. Face unlock is an increasingly popular feature of phones and laptops, and identifying people in photos lets companies like Facebook, Apple and Google better sort your pictures. The downside, if you choose to see it that way, is that surveillance systems could also get accurate at finding the exact individuals they wish to seek from the endless amount of security camera footage and DMV photos they have. While this is clearly in early stages, and a tiny step towards implementing human-level facial recognition in machines, it certainly is a sign that artificial intelligence is capable of replicating specific functions of the human brain.
Source: MIT News
The Atlas robot is getting better at chasing you down
Boston Dynamics’ upright-and-walking-on-two-legs Atlas robot is a slightly terrifying while simultaneously an amazing piece of technology. But during its initial demos the DARPA-funded automaton needed a clear and fairly even path to walk. Now thanks to researchers at the Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition (IMHC), Atlas is ready to go almost everywhere. Just very very slowly.
The researchers at the institute created a new algorithm for Atlas that helps the robot maintain its balance while navigating difficult terrain like the angled cinder blocks in the video. IMHC notes that it employed “fast, dynamics stepping with the use of angular momentum (lunging of the upper body)” to achieve the feat.
But as the video shows, Atlas isn’t exactly sprinting over those blocks. But thanks to the research and new algorithm eventually Atlas–or other giant and slightly scary robot–will be able to navigate into areas that are unsafe for humans without fear that they’ll just fall over if they steps on a rock wrong.
Source: IHMC Robotics
Professional football is the latest victim of a giant data leak
Big data leaks are becoming more and more common, and today another massive victim has been revealed: professional soccer (or football, if you live anywhere but the US). German publication Der Spiegel just released the first in what will be a steady stream of details about corruption in various European football clubs as well as the sport’s players. A group known as “Football Leaks” got its hands on a whopping 1.9 terabytes of data, covering 18.6 million documents — including secret agreements between clubs and players. Basically, it’s the Snowden release of professional football.
Der Spiegel’s first story focuses on stars Cristiano Ronaldo and Mesut Özil and appears to be focused on the players taking advantage of various tax laws to make insane amounts of money. Tax evasion in football is no secret — Lionel Messi was recently convicted of tax fraud — but the judging by the massive amount of documents released, it seems likely that other, potentially more controversial revelations will be forthcoming.
Beyond any of the in-depth details that’ll be released from this data is the sense we’re living in a society where it’s become increasingly hard to keep underhanded dealings secret (that’s a good thing). It’s getting increasingly easy to transmit and share massive data leaks like this one, and it’s somewhat easier to do so under the cover of anonymity than it was a few decades ago.
Source: De Spiegel
2016 claims another victim: Your privacy
In a blow to privacy on par with the Patriot Act, changes to the rules around warrants grant the US government unprecedented hacking powers in any jurisdiction, and on as many devices as they want.
The changes to a measure known as Rule 41 were made earlier this year but went into effect Thursday after lots of opposition. Basically they let any judge issue a warrant to remotely access an unlimited number of computers and devices located in any jurisdiction. There was plenty of objection from senators and congresspeople, groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology, and companies such as Google, who said it’s unconstitutional and invades citizens’ rights to privacy.
All that came to a head this week when months of opposition and requests for inquiry and review came to nothing. In Congress, a bipartisan bill called the Review The Rule Act was introduced but that failed in Washington on Wednesday afternoon.
In a last-ditch effort, civil society organizations, trade associations, and companies sent a letter to lawmakers dated November 21 pleading to delay the implementation of Rule 41’s changes and subject them to further review. “The consequences of this rule change are far from clear, and could be deleterious to security as well as to Fourth Amendment privacy rights,” they wrote.
The letter explained the changes “could be abused to obtain a single warrant to search millions of targets” and “would allow a judge to issue a warrant that would permit law enforcement to search the computers of hundreds of entirely innocent crime victims without their consent.” It’s kind of like searching all the houses on your block, without clearing with the owners first, just to find one bad guy.
Also concerned were 22 senators and congresspeople, who wrote the Attorney General at the Department of Justice in October with a lot of specific questions about implementation.
The DoJ responded to the lawmakers in kind, with a letter. It didn’t answer their questions. Instead, the DoJ reminded them that the use of remote searches isn’t new, and that warrants for these searches are already issued under Rule 41, including ones for multiple computers. Warrant applicants will still have to get the proper probable cause ducks in a row for the judge, they assured.
But of course it remains to be seen whether or not the judges will actually understand what it is they’re rubber-stamping approval for. The letter was also pretty light on explaining the part where if someone gets hacked, the FBI gets to poke around in their computers or devices without the user’s consent — or knowledge until after the fact.
By examining the DoJ’s response, it’s easy to tell that this whole messy mix of desires and half-cocked protectionism is slightly personal for the authorities. The main thrust of Rule 41’s changes are about dealing with its ongoing irritation with online anonymity tool, Tor. The main changes to search warrants and jurisdiction, they said, specifically apply to when a suspect is using anonymizing software. They named Tor specifically.
In that letter the DoJ included a long digression about Tor and the FBI’s investigation into a vile darknet child sexual exploitation website called Playpen. The FBI had taken control of the site and exploited vulnerabilities in Tor to unmask visitors, some of whom are currently being prosecuted. They said that despite successes with the Playpen investigation, “Federal courts have ordered the suppression of evidence in some of the prosecutions because of the lack of clear venue in the current version of Rule 41.”
Pedos can die in a million fires; unquestionably this is the kind of fighting we want to see the FBI doing, as long as it’s being done properly. Consider the FBI’s willingness to take over darknet sites and own site visitors, and it shines a fresh light on how things are about to change in the world of underground sites.
With the legal framework to make anything they find stick, it’s safe to say that the golden age of buying illegal stuff on the darknet is over. It also feels increasingly like the use of anonymity tools automatically makes you a suspect, which is already true in repressive regimes around the world who target Tor users.
Your computer is now a “crime scene”
Where Rule 41’s changes get weirder is when it comes to botnet victims. The DoJ made a case in its letter that the warrant changes are needed for investigation when the victims of computer crime (botnet and ransomware) reside in different jurisdictions. In a blog post, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell likened the computers of botnet victims to a crime scene — that they need access to.
Unlike a regular warrant for search, where the homeowner is notified by authorities before they enter and search the premises, targets under Rule 41 are only notified after they’ve been hacked and searched.
Imagine the FBI breaks into and enters your house in order to find out who you are, to tell you that your house was burgled. And after, they’re like oh, here’s our paperwork that gave us permission to burgle you in the first place.
On one hand, I get what they’re trying to do here, sort of. They’re attempting to deal with things like the Mirai botnet, which shut down half the internet (and is still a growing threat). To do that, current thinking is to intervene and stop the attacks on the victims’ devices. Which means accessing the computers and DVRs of people who don’t know they’re infected with a botnet.
Except trying to fight botnets by expanding FBI hack and search powers is a quick-and-dirty, but highly problematic way to solve this problem. Not to mention how horribly it could be abused. If there’s anything we learned from the Silk Road bust, it’s that if there’s a chance for abuse, there exists someone within the authorities who consider it a chance worth taking.
Combine the anonymity tool unmasking intentions, and the interest in accessing botnet victims’ devices, and now there’s a whole lot of people who are gonna get legally hacked by their own government. Thinking about what this means under a Trump presidency gives it all a much darker cast.
Our president-elect is unapologetically vindictive, openly advocates hacking his opponents, and has called for expanding the NSA’s domestic spying programs — abuse seems all but unavoidable. International cyberwar incidents also appear highly likely, because no one’s said jack about what happens when one of the computers the FBI hacks, surveils, and gathers evidence from is across a border.
I suppose we’ll find out.
Image: stevanovicigor/Getty (Hooded figure)
FCC accuses AT&T and Verizon of violating net neutrality
The FCC has a few things to say about AT&T and Verizon’s takes on net neutrality. Jon Wilkins, the commission’s chief of wireless telecommunication, wrote separate letters to both telcos highlighting concerns about recent zero-rating moves — when consumed data doesn’t count against your monthly allotment.
In a letter to AT&T’s Robert W. Quinn, Jr., Wilkins said he was concerned that AT&T’s Sponsored Data program “denies unaffiliated third parties the same ability to compete over AT&T’s network on reasonable terms.” The issue here is that AT&T is not offering discounted data rates to outside service providers. Instead, it’s giving its newly acquired DirecTV preferential treatment when it comes to how streaming video will affect your monthly data cap.
Using the company’s own example against it, the FCC said that a video provider would have to pay $16 a month for zero-rated service (when data use doesn’t count against your monthly allotment). Should a customer bump up to 30 minutes of use in a day, the provider would have to pay $47.
“These costs alone would represent 46 percent to 134 percent of DirecTV Now’s $35 retail price,” Wilkins elaborated. The worry here is that as more people start using more data-hungry mobile services, that it’s going to make it harder and harder for third-party providers to compete against the likes of DirecTV, in AT&T’s case. “By contrast, AT&T incurs no comparable cost to offer its own DirecTV Now service on a zero-rated basis,” Wilkins wrote.
Further, Wilkins called out AT&T’s misleading evidence that what it’s doing is similar to what the FCC has approved prior. “In each of those cases, however, the validity of the comparisons between rates charged to affiliates and rates charged to third-party competitors were reinforced and accompanied by additional restrictions… No such safeguards are present here.”
Wilkins said that the FCC remains “very concerned” of the unfair playing field AT&T is trying to construct here and is worried that this would extend beyond just video providers in the future. AT&T has until December 15th to respond.
Verizon, on the other hand, is under the microscope for its “FreeBee Data 360” offering that gives preferential treatment to providers on the Go90 video platform. The concern there is that this could extend to its FiOS home internet service, and, again, provide an unfair advantage to its home-grown offerings.
“While there is no cash cost on a consolidated basis for Verizon to zero-rate its own affiliated edge service, an unaffiliated edge provider’s FreeBee Data 360 payment to Verizon is a true cash cost that could be significant,” Wilkins wrote. “Unaffiliated edge providers not purchasing FreeBee Data 360 would likewise face a significant competitive disadvantage in trying to serve Verizon’s customer base without zero-rating.”
People will naturally flock toward a service that doesn’t go against their data cap because of how Verizon has set up its content deals. Verizon stands to benefit, as customers are likely to choose the cheapest option they can — which will be its own. “Verizon customers subscribing to Verizon’s own zero-rated Go90 services would not encounter these cost or impacts,” Wilkins wrote. Like AT&T, Verizon has until December 15th to address the FCC’s concerns.
It’s worth noting that T-Mobile has similar deals in place with its “Binge On” offering, but since it doesn’t own the services, it’s less of a conflict of interest.
We’ve reached out to AT&T and Verizon for more information and will update this post should it arrive.
Update: AT&T has responded with the following statement:
“These are incredibly popular free services available to millions of customers. Once again, we will provide the FCC with additional information on why the government should not take away a service that saves consumers money.”
Source: The Verge (PDF) (1), (2)
Apple Store App for iOS Updated With Rich Notifications, One-Tap Apple Watch Purchases
Apple today updated its Apple Store app for iOS to version 4.1, adding support for rich notifications and expanding the functionality of the Apple Store app on the Apple Watch.
Rich notifications, available in iOS 10, deliver more information than a standard notification and in many cases, are interactive, so you can do more without having to unlock your phone.
In addition to supporting iOS 10’s new notification system, the Apple Store app for Apple Watch has been updated with a new feature that allows customers to make one-tap purchases from their “Favorites” list.
Items added to the Favorites list on iOS or the web will be visible on the Apple Watch and can be purchased by tapping on them on the Apple Watch. Apple Pay is used to make the purchase, so a device with Apple Pay and an available credit or debit card is required.
According to Apple’s release notes, today’s update also includes unspecified improvements and performance enhancements.
The Apple Store app can be downloaded from the iOS App Store for free. [Direct Link]
Discuss this article in our forums
AT&T and Verizon Facing FCC Scrutiny After Exempting Their Own Apps From Data Caps
Both AT&T and Verizon offer apps and streaming services that don’t count against the data cap they impose on customers, a practice that the United States Federal Communications Commission does not approve of.
The FCC this week sent letters (via The Verge) to both Verizon and AT&T, claiming that the data cap exemptions, called “zero rating,” raise net neutrality concerns and could impact consumers and competition.
AT&T and Verizon each offer programs that allow content providers to pay a fee to be exempted from customer data caps, programs that they themselves take advantage of with their own apps and services.
DirecTV Now, AT&T’s recently introduced streaming television service, does not use data when streamed on the AT&T network, for example. DirecTV Now pays for the data, but as an AT&T subsidiary, AT&T is just paying itself. Verizon, meanwhile, exempts its own Go90 streaming service from using data on the Verizon network and does not pay fees to do so.
The FCC first sent a warning to AT&T in early November, but was not pleased with the response it received from the company. In this week’s letter, the FCC says that it has come to the “preliminary” conclusion that the Sponsored Data program inhibits competition, harms consumers, and violates Open Internet rules. It asks AT&T to answer a series of questions about its Sponsored Data practices.
We find that those responses fail to alleviate the serious concerns expressed in our November 9 letter regarding the potential anti-competitive impacts of a wholesale Sponsored Data program for zero-rated mobile video services. Indeed, your submission tends to confirm our initial view that the Sponsored Data program strongly favors AT&T’s own video offerings while unreasonably discriminating against unaffiliated edge providers and limiting their ability to offer competing video services to AT&T’s broadband subscribers on a level playing field.
A similar letter sent to Verizon expresses concern over the “FreeBee Data 360” program and says it has the potential to “hinder competition and harm consumers” because Verizon does not need to pay to participate in the Sponsored Data program when it exempts its own app, but competing content providers do.
The position that the participation of Go90 in FreeBee Data 360 is the same as that of third parties, however, fails to take account of the notably different financial impact on unaffiliated edge providers. For example, while there is no cash cost on a consolidated basis for Verizon to zero-rate its own affiliated edge service, an unaffiliated edge provider’s FreeBee Data 360 payment to Verizon is a true cash cost that could be significant.
AT&T and Verizon have responded to the letters sent by the FCC in statements given to the media. AT&T says the government should not take away a service that’s saving customers money, while Verizon says its practices are good for consumers, non-discriminatory, and consistent with the rules.
The two carriers have been given a December 15 deadline to respond to the FCC’s concerns.
Tags: FCC, AT&T, Verizon
Discuss this article in our forums
Best Kid-proof Cases for Amazon Fire Tablets
What’s the best Amazon Fire case for kids? The one that keeps it in one piece!
Tablets are basically half glass, and the Amazon Fire is our top pick for kids. But you’ll still want to protect it properly so that the little ones can use it to their heart’s content without constantly worrying about them destroying it.
Here are some of the best kid-proof cases for your Amazon Fire tablet.
- Fintie Casebot Honey Comb Series
- Topsky heavy duty case
- Avawo convertible handle stand
- Tinkle One EVA case
- EpicGadget hybrid case
- Amazon FreeTime
Fintie Casebot Honey Comb Series
Bouncy, durable, flexible silicone is totally the way to go if you have kids who can’t wait to get their sticky mitts all over your Amazon Fire.
The honeycomb design helps to disperse the force of impact, so that your Fire stays in one piece when dropped from a short height. It wraps around the front of your tablet to protect the bezel and create a bumper between your screen and whatever your kid happens to lay it down on.
Comes in 10 colors and only fits the 2015 7-inch Fire.
See at Amazon
Topsky heavy duty case
These Topsky cases are made of polycarbonate and flexible silicone, so that they’re easy for your child to hold and durable enough to withstand playtime, even if playtime means playing with your Fire tablet instead of on it.
The kickstand is perfect to help you set up your tablet for the little ones when they want to watch cartoons or play games.
Comes in seven colors and fits the 7-inch Fire tablet (2015).
See at Amazon
Avawo convertible handle stand
Tablets can be awkward for the kidlets to hold onto without dropping, so having a case with a handle made for little hands is perfect.
The handle folds into a convenient stand, and the case is thick and made with heavy duty EVA foam, which protects your Fire tablet from drops and the odd toss.
Comes in purple, green, red, or black and fits the 2015 (5th generation) Fire tablet only.
See at Amazon
Tinkle One EVA case
EVA foam is where it’s at for shock-proof cases that help kid-proof your Amazon Fire tablet. It’s wipeable with a damp cloth and durable enough to survive short drops.
That being said, drops shouldn’t be common, since the case is designed with little hands in mind, and it comes in six fun colors (well, five and black) to appease even the most discerning of toddlers.
Fits the 7-inch Amazon Fire tablet (2015).
See at Amazon
EpicGadget hybrid case
EpicGadget’s hybrid case is shock-proof and provides great drop protection, thanks to its flexible silicone and hard polycarbonate makeup.
The vertical kickstand lets you stand your Amazon Fire tablet upright or horizontally, so your young’uns can watch cartoons or play games hands-free.
The color combinations are fun and bright, and you can count on the silicone to be grippy and easy to clean.
Fits the 7-inch Amazon Fire tablet.
See at Amazon
Amazon FreeTime
Amazon’s own FreeTime case is totally designed with kids in mind, with a shape meant for little hands, reinforced corners for extra drop protection, fun colors, and made from a material that’s kid-safe and easy to clean.
All the buttons and ports are easily accessible for adults and children alike, and raised bumps on the inside help to further disperse impact.
Fits the 7-inch Amazon Fire tablet (2015).
See at Amazon
What’s on your Fire?
Do you have an awesome go-to case to make sure your kids don’t destroy your Amazon Fire tablet? Let us know in the comments below!
USB-C is changing the world for the better, but it’s still not safe enough
There’s still a lot to do in order to ensure USB-C is safe for everyone.
For the most part, techy folks seem to have figured out USB-C. They mostly know you can’t just order the cheapest thing on sale at Amazon, are reasonably aware of the dangers associated with using bad cables, and there are consumer advocates out there pushing every day for better cables and more awareness. The beginnings of a safe ecosystem of cables is something that could potentially happen with this level of awareness, and that’s great. It sucks that we have collectively suffered through over a year of accidentally damaged hardware through potentially life-threatening cables — even one made by Apple — to get there, but forward momentum is always a good thing.
So what happens next? With Lenovo’s Moto Z, Google’s Pixel, and Apple’s MacBooks being scooped up all around the world right now there are orders of magnitude more people using USB-C cables every week. That means people who aren’t the knowledgeable techy few are browsing Amazon for spare or replacement cables, which requires some real solutions very soon.
The road so far
Most people don’t fully understand why USB-C is so dangerous compared to the previous iterations of phone and tablet charging cables, and it’s not hard to guess why. Micro-USB cables can be purchased in bulk for basically nothing, and users are conditioned to “just throw it out and grab a new one” when a cable doesn’t behave. Take a look at any technical support guide for connecting something to your PC via USB and close to the top of every troubleshooting list is something about trying another cable. We’ve been conditioned to accept that sometimes bad cables happen in a batch, so you just grab another one.
It’s not just bad cables, some of the companies making our phones aren’t playing by the rules either.
USB-C is capable of transmitting significantly more data and several times more power than your average Micro-USB or Lightning cable, and that’s where we run into problems. A shoddy USB-C cable can destroy equipment in an instant, because they’re designed to be a lot more complicated. These are supposed to be cables with tiny computers inside to help regulate things like power and data transfer, but in the early days several manufacturers were caught taking their regular Micro-USB cable design and just swapping the tip out for that new oval port design. With nothing to tell the brick plugged in to your wall how much power to send, everything can go wrong.
It’s not just bad cables; some of the companies making our phones aren’t playing by the rules, either. USB-C has its own form of rapid charging capabilities, which makes it possible to boost laptops and phones quickly. Proprietary charging methods, like Qualcomm’s Quick Charge system, aren’t compatible with the USB-C spec that exists right now. That hasn’t stopped Qualcomm or their phone making partners from doing their own thing in order to make USB-C and Quick Charge both happen on the same phone, which has the potential to cause very serious problems for users buying those bargain cables online. Instead of following the guidelines for USB-C, these third parties would rather boast a feature that isn’t actually better than what you already get with USB-C rapid charging. This should change with the next version of the spec, but many people will be left in the lurch.
We have several manufacturers now who have either developed a reputation for quality cables or corrected their cables after being called out for not meeting spec, and that’s great. Unfortunately, virtually none of these companies are testing every cable they manufacture, so the potential for a flawed product to reach a user is higher than it should be. In most of these cases, the worst that could happen is that the phone doesn’t charge or send data as quickly as it could. In more extreme cases, phones and laptops could be in very real danger of permanent damage.
What should happen next?
There are several ways USB-C could move forward to become something safe for everyone to use, but it’s going to require some changes on behalf of cable manufacturers and users alike. Since asking users to consult their closest electrical engineer to ensure a cable they found in the clearance bin at Wal-Mart isn’t a viable option, most of what happens first is going to be on the cable manufacturers or the people that allow them to sell. It’s not safe for manufacturers to deliver USB-C cables the same way Micro-USB cables have been sold over the last 10 years. It’s important, too, for consumers to know that each cable is as capable as the last, that it can power your laptop and quickly move 4K video from your phone. These cables are doing more than any single cable like it has done before, and with that extra work comes the need for extra care in their manufacturing.
A lot of this comes down to testing at the factory level, and until recently there wasn’t a great way to do that at scale. Recently, I spoke with Gil Ben-Dov, CEO of Total Phase, whose Advanced Cable Tester is designed to address a lot of the per-cable concerns consumers are faced with today. The testing unit is designed to test for continuity, shorts, E-Marker accuracy, signal integrity, with results achieved in less than 15 seconds. This kind of testing unit gives manufacturers the ability to rapidly ensure entire batches of cables are safe and functional in ways most cables aren’t ever tested before being shipped out to consumers.
Gil had some other ideas for how consumers might move forward. One possible way to address this is through certification, some kind of governing body willing to say “these cables are the ones to buy” after a set of guidelines have been met by the manufacturer. Those guidelines would need to be more rigid than what currently exists from UL, but the same basic idea could apply. A branding or sticker that let consumers know these are worthy, all-purpose USB-C cables that work in every environment.
The safety branding also needs to be enforced by retailers, which is a problem that has led to several serious issues over the last couple of years. It can’t be enough for a company to show Amazon a picture of the UL logo stamped on a battery casing, because it turns out there’s no magic involved in creating those markings. Any shady company can claim certification for their product and sell a quick batch of something for what appears to be next to nothing and make a profit. Retailers need to know they are selling cables that work as well.
And so, we wait…
If every part of this process is focused on delivering something that is safe for consumers, it’s possible a standard format could emerge quickly that becomes the default way USB-C is handled for the future. This isn’t just good for consumers, according to Gil Ben-Dov: manufacturers are eager for a solution that decreases return requests. Many cable manufacturers are looking for a way to step away from the potential brand damage associated with having USB-C cables fail spectacularly, and a certification that claims their hardware is safe can give early adopters an important bump in a crowded market.
It wasn’t all that long ago I referred to USB-C as the Wild West, and in a lot of ways it could still be seen that way. The potential for harm to your hardware isn’t likely to ever be completely removed, but there are tools in place that didn’t exist even six months ago to help make this the stable ecosystem it probably should have been before these ports were put in things and sold to everyone.
AIVAnet 