theverge--2020-12-21--T-Mobile won’t claim it has a more reliable 5G network following ad board decision

T-Mobile has been asked to stop advertising its 5G network as more reliable than the competition by the National Advertising Review Board ( NARB ) , which investigated T-Mobile ’ s claims made primarily in an ad featuring celebrity scientist Bill Nye after complaints from Verizon earlier this year .
But the NARB also says T-Mobile shouldn ’ t have to mention the speed of its network when broadly discussing coverage superiority in future ads .
T-Mobile has said it will comply with the recommendation .
But it cast the recommendations as a partial win in a statement saying it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ T-Mobile can continue to advertise its superior 5G coverage without qualification.
” T-Mobile ’ s compliance is notable because telecom giants don ’ t have to follow the recommendations offered by the NARB , which , as a self-regulatory body under the umbrella of a nonprofit organization , has no governmental regulatory power .
For instance , AT & T flatly ignored a request it stop using its misleading “ 5G E ” logo to reference a superior form of 4G .
T-Mobile was using Bill Nye to tout its 5G networks as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NARB breaks partly with the recommendation from the National Advertising Division ( NAD ) , the other half of the self-regulatory body that oversees telecom advertising in the US .
( The NARB is the appellate division , designed to settle disputes that arise when a company appeals a recommendation , as T-Mobile did . )
The NAD ruled in August that T-Mobile should have to disclose the speed of its network when claiming its 5G network offers superior reliability .
T-Mobile appealed , kicking the decision to the NARB and resulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ T-Mobile .
The video in question , one of a few starring Nye after he was hired by T-Mobile to be a king of 5G spokesman for the brand , features claims from Nye that Verizon ’ s 5G coverage , because it ’ s based on mmWave technology , has abysmal range equivalent to about the size of a bus stop .
T-Mobile , because it was using much slower but more reliable low-band 5G , said its network had more reliable coverage while also making claims about superior reliability when compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5G signals that drop if you move two feet .
That ’ s because their 5G is based around millimeter wave , otherwise known as high band .
For instance this is how far 5G reaches with our carriers , ” Nye says in the video , showing a small red circle around an outdoor bus stop filled with mannequins .
Nye then shows how moving the arm of one of the mannequins holding a smartphone from within the red circle to outside it would switch coverage from 5G to 4G .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an accompanying demonstration that imply that other carriers ’ 5G coverage is so limited in any area as to cover only the space taken up by a single bench.
” The board also recommended T-Mobile “ discontinue claims that imply that its 5G service is generally available in locations that have traditionally been challenging for cellular service ” unless it ’ s willing to say what speeds it can achieve in those locations .
Lastly , T-Mobile can ’ t imply that its 5G coverage is more reliable than 4G coverage , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ networks .
Here ’ s a more in-depth explanation from the NARB as to how it came to the conclusion that T-Mobile ’ s claims were misleading : The NARB panel determined that T-Mobile ’ s express reliability assertions would be understood as comparing its 5G network to 4G networks , and that this message can not be supported based on coverage , as T-Mobile ’ s 5G network does not equal or surpass its own 4G coverage or that of competitors .
Further , the panel concluded that , in context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low-band 5G signal is more reliable than competing 5G signals should be evaluated with at least some insight concerning network performance beyond coverage .
Because T-Mobile offered no such support for its 5G network reliability claims , parity or otherwise , the panel recommended that T-Mobile ’ s 5G reliability claims be discontinued .
Much of this is semantics-based arguing that arises as a result of just how messy and confusing the 5G rollout in the US has been .
Because 5G has been distributed across different wireless bands , each with its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the major US telecoms have gone to great lengths to cast their own networks as superior to the competition .
This often coincides with the same ads trying to mask the complexity of what type of 5G is being delivered and just how materially different from 4G it is .
This has led to quite a few advertising disputes between the major telecoms , with T-Mobile and Verizon sniping at one another in ads and in complaints to bodies like the NAD / NARB .
By the time most consumers are actually using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newer phone and live in an area with reliable coverage , most of these pointless ad squabbles will likely have been forgotten .
But that won ’ t stop these corporations from nitpicking one another ’ s advertising spots for any little discrepancy they can find , nor will it stop those same companies from complaining about inaccuracies from probably peddling one of their own in the future .

T-Mobile has been asked to stop advertising its 5G network as more reliable than the competition by the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), which investigated T-Mobile’s claims made primarily in an ad featuring celebrity scientist Bill Nye after complaints from Verizon earlier this year.
But the NARB also says T-Mobile shouldn’t have to mention the speed of its network when broadly discussing coverage superiority in future ads. T-Mobile has said it will comply, but it cast the recommendations as a partial win in a statement saying it “appreciates that the panel agreed that T-Mobile can continue to advertise its superior 5G coverage without qualification.”
T-Mobile’s compliance is notable because telecom giants don’t have to follow the recommendations offered by the NARB, which, as a self-regulatory body under the umbrella of a nonprofit organization, has no governmental regulatory power. For instance, AT&T flatly ignored a request it stop using its misleading “5G E” logo to reference a superior form of 4G.
T-Mobile was using Bill Nye to tout its 5G networks as more reliable
Today’s decision from the NARB breaks partly with the recommendation from the National Advertising Division (NAD), the other half of the self-regulatory body that oversees telecom advertising in the US. (The NARB is the appellate division, designed to settle disputes that arise when a company appeals a recommendation, as T-Mobile did.) The NAD ruled in August that T-Mobile should have to disclose the speed of its network when claiming its 5G network offers superior reliability. T-Mobile appealed, kicking the decision to the NARB and resulting in a slightly more favorable outcome for T-Mobile.
The video in question, one of a few starring Nye after he was hired by T-Mobile to be a king of 5G spokesman for the brand, features claims from Nye that Verizon’s 5G coverage, because it’s based on mmWave technology, has abysmal range equivalent to about the size of a bus stop. T-Mobile, because it was using much slower but more reliable low-band 5G, said its network had more reliable coverage while also making claims about superior reliability when compared to 4G.
“Other carriers have 5G signals that drop if you move two feet. That’s because their 5G is based around millimeter wave, otherwise known as high band. For instance this is how far 5G reaches with our carriers,” Nye says in the video, showing a small red circle around an outdoor bus stop filled with mannequins. Nye then shows how moving the arm of one of the mannequins holding a smartphone from within the red circle to outside it would switch coverage from 5G to 4G.
The NARB says T-Mobile should “discontinue claims and an accompanying demonstration that imply that other carriers’ 5G coverage is so limited in any area as to cover only the space taken up by a single bench.” The board also recommended T-Mobile “discontinue claims that imply that its 5G service is generally available in locations that have traditionally been challenging for cellular service” unless it’s willing to say what speeds it can achieve in those locations. Lastly, T-Mobile can’t imply that its 5G coverage is more reliable than 4G coverage, either its own or that of competitors’ networks.
Here’s a more in-depth explanation from the NARB as to how it came to the conclusion that T-Mobile’s claims were misleading:
The NARB panel determined that T-Mobile’s express reliability assertions would be understood as comparing its 5G network to 4G networks, and that this message cannot be supported based on coverage, as T-Mobile’s 5G network does not equal or surpass its own 4G coverage or that of competitors. Further, the panel concluded that, in context, the claim that T-Mobile’s low-band 5G signal is more reliable than competing 5G signals should be evaluated with at least some insight concerning network performance beyond coverage. Because T-Mobile offered no such support for its 5G network reliability claims, parity or otherwise, the panel recommended that T-Mobile’s 5G reliability claims be discontinued.
Much of this is semantics-based arguing that arises as a result of just how messy and confusing the 5G rollout in the US has been. Because 5G has been distributed across different wireless bands, each with its own trade-offs between coverage and speed, the major US telecoms have gone to great lengths to cast their own networks as superior to the competition. This often coincides with the same ads trying to mask the complexity of what type of 5G is being delivered and just how materially different from 4G it is.
This has led to quite a few advertising disputes between the major telecoms, with T-Mobile and Verizon sniping at one another in ads and in complaints to bodies like the NAD / NARB. By the time most consumers are actually using 5G, which requires they have a newer phone and live in an area with reliable coverage, most of these pointless ad squabbles will likely have been forgotten.


theverge--2020-12-21--Civil rights groups move to block expansion of facial recognition in airports

A coalition of civil rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union have filed an objection to the proposed expansion of Customs and Border Protections facial recognition at land and sea ports .
The National Immigration Law Center , Fight for the Future , and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are also participating in the motion , alongside twelve others .
Filed in November , CBP ’ s proposed rule would expand the biometric exit system , authorizing the collection of facial images from any non-citizen entering the country .
But in a filing on Monday , the final day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that those measures are too extreme .
“ CBP ’ s proposed use of face surveillance at airports , sea ports , and the land border would put the United States on an extraordinarily dangerous path toward the normalization of this surveillance , ” said Ashley Gorski , senior staff attorney with the ACLU ’ s National Security Project , in a statement to reporters .
“ The deployment of this society-changing technology is unnecessary and unjustified.
” The program “ could enable systematic surveillance by other government agencies and foreign governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a variety of legal objections to the expansion , in particular arguing that Congress did not intend to authorize long-term facial recognition when it mandated biometric exit tracking in 1996 .
At the time , Congress left the specific method open to interpretation , but the technology for algorithmic facial recognition from a video feed was not yet developed enough to be considered .
The filing also points out that CBP ’ s proposed collection is more invasive than a simple photograph .
Maintaining a facial recognition system will mean creating face prints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be stored for 75 years and “ may be used not only by DHS , but by foreign governments and federal , state , and local law enforcement to identify individuals for a variety of purposes , far removed from the reasons for CBP ’ s initial collection , ” the filing reads .
CBP ’ s privacy assessment for the project details some of those additional purposes , stating that photographs collected by the program will also be scanned against the terrorist screening database , TECS alerts , and outstanding warrants .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could enable systematic surveillance by other government agencies and foreign governments , ” the filing argues .
“ It could expose where people go , who they associate with , and even what they believe , based on the religious services , protests , or meetings they attend.
” On a procedural note , the civil rights groups also argue the proposal is unlawful because of broader concerns over the appointment of Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf .
In November , a federal judge ruled that Wolf ’ s appointment to the position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointments , and overturned a memorandum from Wolf ’ s office as a result .
It ’ s unclear whether this same logic could be successfully applied to CBP ’ s rule-making motion , which was not issued directly from Wolf ’ s office .
Still , the issue is likely to shed further doubt on the proposed rule .

A coalition of civil rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union have filed an objection to the proposed expansion of Customs and Border Protections facial recognition at land and sea ports. The National Immigration Law Center, Fight for the Future, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are also participating in the motion, alongside twelve others.
Filed in November, CBP’s proposed rule would expand the biometric exit system, authorizing the collection of facial images from any non-citizen entering the country. But in a filing on Monday, the final day of the comment period, the coalition argued that those measures are too extreme.
“CBP’s proposed use of face surveillance at airports, sea ports, and the land border would put the United States on an extraordinarily dangerous path toward the normalization of this surveillance,” said Ashley Gorski, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, in a statement to reporters. “The deployment of this society-changing technology is unnecessary and unjustified.”
The program “could enable systematic surveillance by other government agencies and foreign governments,” says ACLU
The filing raises a variety of legal objections to the expansion, in particular arguing that Congress did not intend to authorize long-term facial recognition when it mandated biometric exit tracking in 1996. At the time, Congress left the specific method open to interpretation, but the technology for algorithmic facial recognition from a video feed was not yet developed enough to be considered.
The filing also points out that CBP’s proposed collection is more invasive than a simple photograph. Maintaining a facial recognition system will mean creating face prints from the collected images, which will be stored for 75 years and “may be used not only by DHS, but by foreign governments and federal, state, and local law enforcement to identify individuals for a variety of purposes, far removed from the reasons for CBP’s initial collection,” the filing reads.
CBP’s privacy assessment for the project details some of those additional purposes, stating that photographs collected by the program will also be scanned against the terrorist screening database, TECS alerts, and outstanding warrants.
“CBP’s collection of faceprints could enable systematic surveillance by other government agencies and foreign governments,” the filing argues. “It could expose where people go, who they associate with, and even what they believe, based on the religious services, protests, or meetings they attend.”


theverge--2020-12-21--A Zoom escape button is the holiday gift everyone actually needs

The worst part of most Zoom meetings is the end .
Not because it ’ s the moment when we have to lose human connection after being isolated for months during the COVID-19 pandemic .
The end of a Zoom meeting is the worst because it ’ s so dang hard to quickly and gracefully end a call .
With a typical not-Zoom call on a smartphone , you bring the phone down from your ear and tap the end call button .
That ’ s it .
On a Zoom meeting , you say your goodbye pleasantries , put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your mouse on your screen , move it in the right direction toward the end call button , overshoot said button in your desperation to leave the meeting as soon as possible , and then finally click the button , all on video , where anyone who is still in the meeting can see the growing desperation in your eyes as you go through this process .
Brian Moore , a creative director at Anomaly , took it upon himself to make leaving Zoom meetings easier .
He made a way to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pull on to instantly leave the meeting .
Just watch this thing of beauty : And if this looked like something you want to have for yourself , I have good news for you : Moore shared all of the files you ’ ll need to make something like it on GitHub .
Now I ’ m imagining other ways I could quickly escape Zoom meetings .
Perhaps smashing a Staples Easy Button ?
Throwing a giant switch like what you ’ d see in a campy horror movie ?
Or , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end calls after sighing loudly ?
The possibilities seem endless here , and I hope more people create fun ways to quickly get out of their Zoom calls .
Maybe they will be the 2021 trend that replaces having a creative Zoom background .

The worst part of most Zoom meetings is the end. Not because it’s the moment when we have to lose human connection after being isolated for months during the COVID-19 pandemic. The end of a Zoom meeting is the worst because it’s so dang hard to quickly and gracefully end a call.
With a typical not-Zoom call on a smartphone, you bring the phone down from your ear and tap the end call button. That’s it.
On a Zoom meeting, you say your goodbye pleasantries, put your hand on your mouse, find your mouse on your screen, move it in the right direction toward the end call button, overshoot said button in your desperation to leave the meeting as soon as possible, and then finally click the button, all on video, where anyone who is still in the meeting can see the growing desperation in your eyes as you go through this process.
Brian Moore, a creative director at Anomaly, took it upon himself to make leaving Zoom meetings easier. He made a way to use a physical lamp cord that he can pull on to instantly leave the meeting. Just watch this thing of beauty:
And if this looked like something you want to have for yourself, I have good news for you: Moore shared all of the files you’ll need to make something like it on GitHub.
Now I’m imagining other ways I could quickly escape Zoom meetings. Perhaps smashing a Staples Easy Button? Throwing a giant switch like what you’d see in a campy horror movie? Or, like David Zhou, making a way to end calls after sighing loudly?


theverge--2020-12-22--The microwave’s ‘add 30 seconds’ button offers an escape from cold digital precision

The microwave is a cooking tool designed around precision .
Punch in how long you need your food to heat up in a microwave , and that ’ s what it will do ; no more , and no less .
But for all the exactitude that governs the microwave — and that the microwave tries to impose on our food and our cooking — the reality is that things can ’ t be so neatly stuffed into a convenient digital box .
Life isn ’ t binary , so many microwaves feature an “ add 30 seconds ” button @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need within the otherwise unbendable numbers of the countdown clock .
It ’ s a button that stands in almost caveman-y opposition to the intended functionality .
Instead of calculating the perfect amount of time to reheat or cook your food , it turns out that the best way to actually use a microwave in real life is to just force it to turn on and keep going until you think that the food is ready .
And if it ’ s not ?
Well , you just add 30 seconds more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nowadays and are comparatively high tech compared to a stovetop range or an oven , which have been largely unchanged in their basic functions for centuries .
The basic technology is simple : microwaves bounce radio waves to agitate the water molecules in your food in turn creating heat , thus transforming your leftover pasta or frozen dinner into a quickly accessible feast .
A few extra seconds can make all the difference When you ’ re cooking with an oven or an open flame on your stove , there ’ s an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that batch of cookies will need an extra minute ; sometimes your eggs burn because you overestimated how long they would take to cook .
It ’ s hard to put most recipes or food items into an exact , scientific box .
And yet , that ’ s what we try to do with the microwave .
It ’ s not a coincidence that most food destined for the microwave is premade : usually something that comes from a box , complete with specific timing and directions , or leftovers pulled from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prior meal being zapped into a specter of its former self .
But the “ add 30 seconds ” button is a crack in the cold digital armor of the microwave , an area of control that lets users go beyond their allotted time , to sneak in a few more seconds to achieve the perfect results .
It ’ s a reminder that life isn ’ t always exact or predictable , and that time is on your side .
Because sometimes , a few extra seconds can make all the difference @

The microwave is a cooking tool designed around precision. Punch in how long you need your food to heat up in a microwave, and that’s what it will do; no more, and no less.
But for all the exactitude that governs the microwave — and that the microwave tries to impose on our food and our cooking — the reality is that things can’t be so neatly stuffed into a convenient digital box. Life isn’t binary, so many microwaves feature an “add 30 seconds” button to give us humans the wiggle room we need within the otherwise unbendable numbers of the countdown clock.
It’s a button that stands in almost caveman-y opposition to the intended functionality. Instead of calculating the perfect amount of time to reheat or cook your food, it turns out that the best way to actually use a microwave in real life is to just force it to turn on and keep going until you think that the food is ready. And if it’s not? Well, you just add 30 seconds more.
Microwaves are almost omnipresent in kitchens nowadays and are comparatively high tech compared to a stovetop range or an oven, which have been largely unchanged in their basic functions for centuries. The basic technology is simple: microwaves bounce radio waves to agitate the water molecules in your food in turn creating heat, thus transforming your leftover pasta or frozen dinner into a quickly accessible feast.
A few extra seconds can make all the difference
When you’re cooking with an oven or an open flame on your stove, there’s an element of unpredictability baked in. Sometimes that batch of cookies will need an extra minute; sometimes your eggs burn because you overestimated how long they would take to cook. It’s hard to put most recipes or food items into an exact, scientific box.
And yet, that’s what we try to do with the microwave. It’s not a coincidence that most food destined for the microwave is premade: usually something that comes from a box, complete with specific timing and directions, or leftovers pulled from the fridge, the remnants of a prior meal being zapped into a specter of its former self.
But the “add 30 seconds” button is a crack in the cold digital armor of the microwave, an area of control that lets users go beyond their allotted time, to sneak in a few more seconds to achieve the perfect results. It’s a reminder that life isn’t always exact or predictable, and that time is on your side.