Wells Fargo accidentally leaks 50,000 clients’ records

Wells Fargo accidentally leaked thousands of sensitive documents, but not in the way you think. The bank wasn’t hacked, and its computers didn’t go on the fritz: it just inadvertently sent 1.4 gigabytes of files to a former financial adviser who subpoenaed the company as part of a lawsuit against one of its current employees. While 1.4GB of files doesn’t seem that big, the collection includes at least 50,000 customers’ names, Social Security numbers and sensitive financial info. According to The New York Times, which confirmed the contents of the documents, the affected clients are some of Wells Fargo’s wealthiest, with investment portfolios worth tens of billions of dollars.

The copious amounts of spreadsheets in the collection were apparently handed over to Gary Sinderbrand, the former financial adviser, with no confidentiality agreement. Angela A. Turiano, the lawyer who sent him the files on a CD, explained that what happened was a mistake caused by working with an outside vendor. That vendor was supposed to vet the documents as part of the court’s discovery process and ensure Sinderbrand only received a handful of emails and files related to the case. The plaintiff was also supposed to receive a protective order issued by a judge with the files, but he didn’t get one, as well.

Turiano said she asked Sinderbrand and his lawyer to return the CD. The lack of confidentiality agreement means the former adviser can legally release all the information he got, after all. If he does, it’s Wells Fargo that will be in even more trouble. According to NYT, the vendor error can be classified as a data breach that “potentially violates a bevy of state and federal consumer data privacy laws that limit the release of personally identifiable customer information to outside parties.” Considering the affected clients aren’t your Average Joes, they can more than afford to hit the bank where it hurts.

It’s unclear if Sinderbrand will comply with Turiano’s request. His lawyer said the plaintiff plans to keep the CD secure and confidential for now as they “evaluate his legal rights and responsibilities.” Either way, it was Wells Fargo’s job to keep those clients’ data under lock and key. If it can fail to protect its top customers, then what hope is there for the rest of us?

Source: The New York Times

Latest ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ trailer shows more of the crew

No, CBS’ much-delayed Star Trek: Discovery still isn’t out yet, but you’re at least getting a better look at how the streaming-focused series will play out. The broadcaster has released a hefty second trailer for the show that gives a better look at the USS Discovery’s crew and the Klingons. It revolves around first officer Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green, above), and for good reason — a San Diego Comic Con panel revealed that she’s Spock’s adoptive sister. She’s clearly struggling with the contrast between Vulcan logic and the chaos she sees throughout the galaxy.

The clip also provides a better look at Jason Isaacs’ Captain Lorca, who’s far from a squeaky-clean role model. You catch more of Michelle Yeoh, and everyone’s ‘favorite’ conman, Harry Mudd (Rainn Wilson) gets his due. The Klingons, meanwhile, appear to be itching for a fight and have some suffering of their own. Still, there are plenty of questions left. Just what has Burnham done to get humanity into trouble? What’s Lorca really up to? And of course, how is Mudd going to throw a monkey wrench into things? You’ll have to wait until September 24th to start getting answers, but the trailer might help tide you over until then.

Source: CBS Press Express

‘Westworld’ season 2 trailer reveals a park gone horribly wrong

Westworld won’t return to TV until 2018, but we’re getting a peek at what that return will entail… and things have clearly gone downhill. A new trailer for the second season reveals that the robots are rebelling against the humans who’ve treated them so harshly (really, the core of the movie that inspired the show), and there are plenty of casualties among the guests and Delos employees. Dolores, William and other bots are clearly relishing the opportunity to get back at their tormentors. While it’s going to be a frustratingly long wait for the rest of season two, HBO is at least giving us something to look forward to.

Source: HBO (YouTube)

Where did all of this Qualcomm hate come from?

Qualcomm’s patents and their usage fees have many up in arms and are at the center of a big legal mess.

Around the web, you’ll find plenty of things written about Qualcomm. Most of it is news about its latest products, or reviews of the same products but you’ll also see a new trend of … distaste for Qualcomm. Most of the time there is no back story given about why. So that’s what we’re going to talk about in a non-lawyerly way and with no full disclosure on the standards-essential patents fees or any royalty caps. If you’re reading and happen to know patent law, please feel free to correct the “internet wisdom” at play here in the comments so we all can benefit.

Qualcomm makes great stuff

Qualcomm has done some amazing things to move mobile forward. Its Snapdragon platform blends processing power, graphics rendering and network connectivity together in a way that’s better than anything else you can buy off the shelf, especially if you’re in North America. Qualcomm’s products don’t need to have the best CPU (they aren’t), the best GPU (same, not even) or the best wireless radios (they do, though) as long as the complete package is better than anyone else’s complete package. And Qualcomm’s packages are just better than the competitions.

Qualcomm’s networking technology is unmatched.

Qualcomm’s networking technology — including things like Bluetooth and Wi-Fi as well as LTE — is a must for any mobile device in North America. Not only because it’s great, but because patented technology is needed to properly connect to this generation of robust LTE networks, as well as the next generation. Qualcomm invented a lot of this stuff. And like any other company, they patented it.

Since you need to use this technology to properly connect to the latest networks, the patents are labeled as fair-use. Some rules go with that, mostly about who can use them (anyone) and what they should cost. Here’s where things go south, because the way Qualcomm is charging for this technology has some other companies up in arms. And rightfully so.

Fees and royalties need to be fair

Qualcomm prices the use of their tech differently for people who buy a complete Snapdragon package than they do for a company who just wants the network patents. This isn’t unheard of, and it’s a fine way to sell your products: use our stuff and you don’t pay extra for our other stuff. But some companies think Qualcomm is charging too much and are unhappy with the way Qualcomm is charging for these fair-use patents on their own. Most notably, Apple, who has started an action in court to have this addressed.

More: Qualcomm: Unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory and why Apple needs to win (iMore.com)

Qualcomm is said to charge between five and seven percent of the total retail price as its FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory) terms for every device sold using their patented tech. There are two issues with this — the exact same tech in a $700 phone costs more than it does in a $400 phone, and as prices for other components rise or more expensive materials are used for things like camera glass or displays, Qualcomm earns more money. Many feel this is exorbitant and doesn’t follow the FRAND rules.

A company deserves to be paid only for the things they created.

For Apple, this means it is paying a lot more to license a network patent in a 256GB iPhone 7 Plus than it is for a 32GB iPhone 7. Even though the technology is exactly the same. Apple feels like Qualcomm should not be allowed to profit from anything it didn’t create. I think this is a valid complaint, and something needs addressed. I’m no fan of Apple or Qualcomm and think both companies make great products they want us to buy. But they need to do so fairly.

The fees themselves are also said to just be too high. If you’re Samsung, number one you’re rich as hell and can afford to buy anything from anyone when it comes to fair-use tech. But you did not get rich as hell by buying things that cut into the profit margin of a product. This is why Galaxy phones in the U.S. and Canada now use Snapdragon processors. It’s a lot cheaper to build a phone with a Snapdragon SoC for sale in North America than it is to sell one with Samsung’s own in-house Exynos SoC using Qualcomm’s patented tech.

No profit left for the manufacturers

Things get worse if you’re not Apple or Qualcomm. Not every company can afford to give 7% of the total price to Qualcomm, because they simply don’t have the profit margin. Apple and Samsung have a fairly high profit built into the price of every device. Rumors suggest this is about 20% for Samsung and about 35% for Apple. While a 7% cut would be more than just a nuisance at those margins, it’s a deathblow for companies who are only making 10% profit on each device.

Many companies simply can’t afford a 7% cut into their profit margin.

Without mentioning any names, more than one company has stopped selling devices in the US or stopped making phone altogether because they can’t afford to make a phone that works great everywhere in North America, or works on Verizon and Sprint at all. You need Qualcomm’s technology to do either, and using Snapdragon isn’t an option in these cases. These companies simply didn’t have 7% per device to pay, so they don’t make a product that uses the tech. Qualcomm essentially has used what are supposed to be fair-use patents to push these companies out of the market.

My take

Again, I want to stress that I am not a lawyer. I would make a horrible lawyer because I would spend my time thinking of how an algorithm could replace a judge. But I do have an understanding of how standards-essential patents and FRAND is supposed to work, and access to the same industry whispers that anyone in my profession will hear.

Qualcomm certainly deserves both praise and money for what they’ve done with network technology. It’s stupendous. But when a company creates something that is so good it becomes part of an industry standard, it has to be fair in the ways its usage is licensed. I’m one of the people who think Qualcomm isn’t playing very fair when it comes to these very specific patents.

As much as I hate to see two companies fighting in a courtroom over who gets the pennies from my pocket, I still feel this needs addressed by the persons designated to address it.

Here’s what happened when that security robot drowned

By now you’ve probably heard of that security robot that fell into a fountain in Washington, DC– it’s practically the stuff of legend as far as the internet is concerned. But what really happened on that tragic day? We’re starting to get a clearer picture. Bisnow has learned that the robot, a Knightscope K5 nicknamed Steve, was neither the victim of a pushy human nor showing signs of trouble before it took its fateful plunge. It was supposed to follow a prescribed route that kept it out of harm’s way, so the robot had to have made a decision to veer off the beaten path. Management and security staff had trained with the robot days before, too. But what was the cause?

That’s still unknown, although it’s safe to say Steve wasn’t bemoaning the state of politics or suffering from existential dread. It’s possible that a software glitch led to the deadly change in course, or that weather threw it off.

The dive isn’t deterring anyone involved. The property is using a replacement robot at the moment, and Steve is expected to make a recovery once he gets repairs. He may have “died,” but he’s not gone forever. MRP Realty, which deployed Steve, clearly isn’t deterred — it wants to implement more of Knightscope’s robots at other properties within 3 to 6 months. However, it’s safe to say that both MRP and Knightscope will be combing over the data from this incident to reduce the chances of another tumble.

Source: Bisnow

Watch the full ‘Stranger Things’ season 2 trailer

At last, Netflix is offering more than minuscule teasers for Stranger Things’ second season. The service just premiered a full-length trailer for season 2, and it sheds much more light on what to expect. It reveals just how much Will is affected by the events of the first season (hint: a lot), the spread of the Upside Down in Hawkins and a peek at Eleven’s long-expected return. And naturally, it ramps up the nostalgia factor: there’s plenty of Ghostbusters references, Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” to set the mood and even a smattering of Dragon’s Lair. It’s still too soon to say if the Stranger Things follow-up can come anywhere close to matching expectations by this point, but it’s at least promising.

Source: Netflix (YouTube)

Apple Watch Series 2 vs. Fitbit Blaze: Which smartwatch is better?

The Apple Watch is largely considered to be the best smartwatch out there, and for good reason. It works seamlessly with the iPhone, is quite a stylish device, is water-resistant (for those who want to swim with it), and offers excellent fitness tracking capabilities. Of course, it’s not the only wearable around — there are some other extremely capable devices out there, and some of them might be more suitable to your needs. Like, for example, the Fitbit Blaze, which is far cheaper than the Apple Watch, and also offers some great fitness tracking features.

But which smartwatch is better? And which one should you spend your hard-earned money on? We put the two devices head to head to find out.

Specs

Fitbit Blaze

Apple Watch Series 2

GPS Enabled
No
Yes
Processor
Unknown
S2
Operating System
Fitbit OS
watchOS3
Body (Dimensions)
1.58 x 1.58 x 0.31 inch
1.52 x 1.31 x 0.45 inch

1.67 x 1.43 x 0.45 inch

Resolution 
240 x 180
272 x 340

390 x 312

Weight
45.36 grams
70 grams
CPU
Unknown
Dual Core
Screen
Corning Gorilla Glass 3
Ion-X strengthened glass (aluminum cases)

Sapphire crystal glass (stainless steel and ceramic cases)

Waterproof
Sweat and splash proof
Waterproof up to 50 meters
Available Ceramic Casing
No
Yes
Display
LCD
Second-generation OLED Retina display with Force Touch (1,000 nits)
Battery
5 days, charges in 1 to 2 hours
18 hours, charges
Base Price
$199.95
$370
Review
4.5 out of 5 stars
4 out of 5 stars

Comparing the specs of a wearable is often a little different than comparing a smartphone. While the smartphone is largely considered to be the center of your digital life, the smartwatch is really only an extension of that — and needs to handle a lot less than the smartphone. Still, better performance can help future-proof a smartwatch in the same way it can a smartphone.

So which device is more powerful? Well, we don’t really know. Fitbit hasn’t told us exactly what’s under the hood of the Fitbit Blaze. We can, however, assume that the Apple Watch is a little more powerful than the Fitbit. There are a few reasons for this. For starters, the Apple Watch needs to be able to take advantage of a growing range of apps available to it through the Apple Store. Not only that, but Apple has a history of building top-quality processors to power its devices.

We’re giving this one to the Apple Watch.

Winner: Apple Watch

Design, display, and durability

Julian Chokkattu/Digital Trends

Love it or hate it, the Apple Watch has been paving the way in smartwatch design for the past few years. It’s a sleek and stylish device that looks modern, yet classic. Some argue that it would be better if it was round — but even if that’s true, it’s still a far more stylish device than the Fitbit Blaze. Like the Apple Watch, the Fitbit Blaze offers a square design, but it’s also a little chunkier and a lot less sleek in how it looks.

The trend of the Apple Watch beating out the Fitbit Blaze continues when it comes to the display. On the Apple Watch, you’ll get an OLED display with a resolution of 272 x 340 or 390 x 312, along with Force Touch compatibility. The display on the Fitbit, on the other hand, is an LCD display and sits in with a resolution of 240 x 180.

Last but not least is durability, and perhaps unsurprisingly the Apple Watch wins again. The device is waterproof up to 50 meters, meaning you can use it to track swimming. The Fitbit, however, is only really splash-resistant. You won’t want to wear the Blaze while taking a swim — it may not last. The Fitbit does offer Gorilla Glass 3, which helps with durability, but the Apple Watch uses various different strengthened glasses too.

There’s a very clear winner here.

Winner: Apple Watch

Battery life and charging

Bill Roberson/Digital Trends

Traditionally speaking, watches have had batteries that allow them to last for months on end, but that’s not necessarily the case when it comes to smartwatches. A longer battery life can certainly be nice, especially for those who like to camp or go hiking, when charging may not necessarily be available.

This is a category in which the Fitbit Blaze can regain a few points from the Apple Watch — while the Apple Watch will only last around 18 hours on a single charge, the Fitbit Charge will last a hefty 5 days — and it’ll get a full charge in between one and two hours of charging.

It’s worth mentioning it’s harder to charge the Fitbit than the Apple Watch — while you can just pop the Apple Watch on a wireless charging cradle, you actually have to remove the Blaze from the wristband and insert it into a cradle that closes when the device is charging.

Despite that, we’re still awarding this one to the Fitbit Blaze for its much longer battery life.

Winner: Fitbit Blaze

Software

Julian Chokkattu/Digital Trends

A big part of how the Apple Watch works is its integration with your iPhone, and Apple’s watchOS is arguably the most advanced and easy to use smartwatch operating system currently available. Using the Apple Watch, you can control a number of your phone’s features straight from your wrist, as well as easily track a number of fitness metrics, and even make use of Siri.

The Fitbit, however, is much more built for fitness tracking rather than anything else. You can get limited notifications from your phone, but you won’t be able to install apps on the device.

Fitness tracking is arguably the most important aspect of either of these watches, and both of them are pretty good at it. Despite that, however, there are a few things missing from the Fitbit. While the workouts that come with the watch are generally decent workouts for those on the go, those more serious about their workouts may need something more. Of course, the Apple Watch won’t be there to help in that aspect — while the Apple Watch can track your workouts, it won’t offer pre-built workouts without the use of a third-party app.

In general, while the Fitbit is fine in the software department, Apple has put a lot of work into watchOS, and it has paid off.

Winner: Apple Watch

Price and availability

Fitbit

There’s a trend in this comparison of the Apple Watch beating out the Fitbit Blaze, and for good reason. It comes at a cost — while the Fitbit Blaze starts at $200, the Apple Watch Series 2 starts at a whopping $370. That’s a lot to pay, though for that price you get a much better watch.

Availability is pretty much the same on these two devices. You can get the Fitbit Blaze from the Fitbit website, as well as Amazon and other retailers — and you can do the same for the Apple Watch on the Apple website.

Because of how much cheaper it is, we’re awarding this one to the Fitbit.

Winner: Fitbit Blaze

Overall winner: Apple Watch

The Fitbit Blaze has fought a good fight — it’s both cheaper than the Apple Watch, and it has a much better battery life. Still, there’s no avoiding the fact that the Apple Watch Series 2 is simply a better device. It’s more powerful, it’s waterproof, it’s better-designed, and it has better software.

That’s only true if you have an iPhone. The Apple Watch really only works with the iPhone, and while you can get standalone apps for it, its usability is limited without an iPhone. If you’re an Android user, you may instead want to opt for the Fitbit, or one of the many Android Wear watches out there.

Drone-owning Brits will have to register their machine and take a test

Why it matters to you

If you own a drone and live in the U.K., you’ll soon be asked to register your details and also sit an exam on air safety and privacy regulations.

Hobbyist drone owners in the U.K. will have to register their flying machines and sit through a test to show they understand basic air safety rules, the British government announced on Saturday.

As is the case in the U.S. and other countries, remotely operated copters have been selling in ever-larger numbers in recent years. Mirroring the rise in popularity has been an increase in reports of rogue drone flights in designated no-fly zones such as airports and prisons. The government believes its registry will help to improve accountability and encourage owners to fly their drones in a responsible manner.

Anyone with a drone weighing more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) will have to add their personal details to a database, though no date has yet been announced for when the registry will launch.

The government said it’s planning to release an app to aid the registration process, adding that owners will also have to sit a “safety awareness test” to show that they understand British air safety, security, and privacy regulations.

There are also plans to increase the use of geo-fencing, which uses GPS coordinates to create a kind of invisible shield around locations where drone flights are banned.

Aviation minister Lord Callanan said the new measures would “prioritize protecting the public while maximizing the full potential of drones.”

The minister said that drones are increasingly “proving vital for inspecting transport infrastructure for repair or aiding police and fire services in search and rescue operations, even helping to save lives,” adding, “But like all technology, drones, too, can be misused. By registering drones [and] introducing safety awareness tests to educate users we can reduce the inadvertent breaching of airspace restrictions to protect the public.”

Drone-related complaints in the U.K. reached 3,456 in 2016, nearly three times more than the number logged just a year earlier, the Press Association reported recently.

Misdemeanors ranged from people using drones to spy on neighbors, to near-misses with passenger planes flying into and out of major airports in the country, with 59 such cases reported in the last 12 months alone.

In the U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) launched a similar database for hobbyist drone owners in December 2015, but new registrations were suspended in May after a Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals ruling affirmed a lower court ruling in 2016 that said the FAA didn’t have the power to make rules regarding model aircraft use.

UK drone rules will require you to take safety tests

US officials might be easing up on drone regulations, but their UK counterparts are pushing forward. The British government has instituted rules that require you to not only register any robotic aircraft weighing over 250g (0.55lbs), but to take a “safety awareness” test to prove you understand the drone code. Regulators hope that this will lead to fewer drones flying over airports and otherwise causing havoc in British skies. Not that they’re taking any chances — the UK is also planning wider use of geofencing to prevent drones from flying into dangerous airspace.

The new rules come following a study highlighting the dangers of wayward drones. A smaller drone isn’t necessarily safer than its larger alternatives, for example — many of those more compact models have exposed rotors that can do a lot of damage. A drone weighing around 400 g (0.88lbs) can crack the windscreen of a helicopter, while all but the heaviest drones will have trouble cracking the windscreen of an airliner (and then only at speeds you’d expect beyond the airport). While you might not cause as much chaos as some have feared, you could still create a disaster using a compact drone.

It’s nothing new to register drones, of course, and it doesn’t appear to have dampened enthusiasm in the US. The test adds a wrinkle, though: how willing are you to buy a drone if you know you’ll have to take a quiz? The test likely won’t slow sales too much, if at all, but it could give people one more reason to pause before buying a drone on impulse. Manufacturers appear to be in favor of the new rulebook, at any rate — DJI tells the BBC that the UK is striving for a “reasonable” solution that balances safety with a recognition of the advantages that drones can bring to public life.

Source: Gov.uk (1), (2)

Watch the nostalgic trailer for Spielberg’s ‘Ready Player One’

After no shortage of hype, Warner Bros. is finally ready to show what Steven Spielberg’s take on Ready Player One is all about. The studio has released the first trailer for the adaptation of Ernest Cline’s novel, and it’s clear that the flick is playing up not just the book’s disjunction between a dystopic real world and VR, but the endless references to pop culture of decades gone by. Some of them are patently obvious in the clip — you’ll see a famous time-traveling car and a certain giant robot — but some are of the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it variety. Take Duke Nukem in the epic battle above, for example.

The preview is a whirlwind tour that focuses more on the spectacle of the OASIS’ virtual world than the story, which isn’t surprising when the movie isn’t slated to premiere until March 2018. It’s big on slam-bang action scenes (such as a gigantic virtual race) more than anything else. As such, we have some unanswered questions: how closely does it hew to the tale of Wade Watts and his quest to win James Halliday’s final game? How much will it lean on spectacle versus tackling the broader concepts of the novel? It could take months before we have a better sense of that, but it’s apparent that the visual style is at least on point — it’s easy to see why people would flock to the spectacle of the OASIS given a real world devoid of adventure.

Source: Comicbook.com (YouTube)