New York Cops To Replace 36,000 Windows Phones with iPhones

Move comes just months after the last Windows 8.1 smartphones were delivered to NYPD cops.

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) has said it is to replace 36,000 Windows smartphones it handed out to officers over the last 24 months. 

The new is hardly surprising, if embarrassing for police chiefs in the Big Apple. Somewhat bizarrely the, decision to purchase Microsoft’s Windows phones for the department took place when its share of the mobile market was already below 1%, and falling. Unconfirmed reports state that the final nail in the proverbial coffin was Microsoft officially ending support for Windows phone.

NYPD used Lumia 830, and Lumia 640 XL Windows phones

$160m!

The city is now coming in for harsh criticism after spending $160,000,000 on the smartphone initiative. Mayor Bill de Blasio hailed the move as a ‘huge step in to the 21^st Century,’ when the NYPD announced the move just a few years previously.

Made life easier

That said, most officers who have used the Windows phones, have said that they have made their jobs easier and more efficient. The ability to receive bulletins, alerts, file reports, and search databases while in the field. The main problem resides in the fact that the phones now have an extremely limited lifespan, and there are questions about the future security of a system no longer receiving updates.

The side of an NYPD vehicle that has nothing
to do with the story, but I liked the picture.

The Windows phone models used by the NYPD were the Lumia 830, and Lumia 640 XL, both considered to good budget to mid-range phones. The phones are equipped with specialist software and custom ‘911’ apps.

City chiefs have not specified the the models they intend to use with the NYPD going forward. It is apparently unlikely that they will be using the latest model the iPhone 8 given its elite style pricing.

All Windows phones currently issued to the NYPD are due to be phased out by early 2018.

Google Launches ‘Funding Choices’ Ad Blocker Option

Search giant says move is part of its efforts to ‘maintain a sustainable web for everyone’.

Google’s ‘Funding Choices’, which launches in multiple markets and countries in the coming weeks, will let users decide: turn off your ad blocker or make a small payment to the site.

If you’ve been using an ad blocker for any amount of time, you’ve probably come across websites that politely request you to turn off the ad-blocker in order to proceed to viewing the content. It’s not a strange request; after all, websites rely on advertising revenue in order to keep the lights on. Users are often asked to either turn off the ad blocker so that the ads appear, or to subscribe to the website.

Google say move it part of its mission of building a better web for everyone .

Unfortunately, that option only helps sites that offer subscription services, like national magazines or newspapers with a paywall; which is where Google’s new service comes in.

Added extra

The new service is in addition to Google’s own ad blocking capabilities now built into the popular Chrome browser. This feature automatically blocks ads that don’t meet Google’s standards, and those standards are fairly rigid. Earlier this year the company announced a somewhat punitive measure that knocked websites out of the top search results if their interstitial ads for mobile were considered intrusive, blocked the view of the screen, or slowed down the loading time of the website.

Google blog

“The vast majority of online content creators fund their work with advertising,” states Google’s blog on the new program. “That means they want the ads that run on their sites to be compelling, useful and engaging–ones that people actually want to see and interact with. But the reality is, it’s far too common that people encounter annoying, intrusive ads on the web.”

Improved web experience

With tech innovations such as these, the goal for many developers has been to improve the web experience, ideally creating sites that don’t cause users to deploy ad blockers in the first place. Until such time as the ad sphere becomes unobtrusive and more closely tailored to users’ needs and interests, these tactics are a sound alternative.

Have We All Gone Russian Hacker Mad?

Ever since news broke that Russian operatives, perhaps even state sanctioned ones, allegedly hacked the Democratic National Party and leaked key emails, Russia has become the go-to whipping boy for hacking blame. A report from US officials that Russian hacking played a role in the outcome of the recent US election didn’t help.

But now it seems that Russia is our likely scapegoat in every hacking event or data breach, a problem that will make it even easier for further breaches to take place without proper preparation, prevention, or investigation. Case in point, the FBI announced that a utility provider in Vermont was hacked by Russians, only it turns out not to have been Russians and no hacking has been proven to have even taken place.

A report on the alleged hacking by The Washington Post stated: “An employee at Burlington Electric Department was checking his Yahoo email account Friday and triggered an alert indicating that his computer had connected to a suspicious IP address associated by authorities with the Russian hacking operation that infiltrated the Democratic Party. Officials told the company that traffic with this particular address is found elsewhere in the country and is not unique to Burlington Electric, suggesting the company wasn’t being targeted by the Russians. Indeed, officials say it is possible that the traffic is benign, since this particular IP address is not always connected to malicious activity.”

The basis for the claim of hacking was the the employee’s laptop was found to contain some software that known hackers have used in the past. While it’s certainly understandable how this conclusion would be drawn, what’s not so clear is why officials would make such an announcement or reveal it to the press before conducting a full investigation.

Interestingly, one of the key improvements in the recent history of data breaches has been the reduced amount of time from the event to the notification of the affected individuals. Unfortunately, this looks like a case of that pendulum swinging way too far. Being too quick to point the finger at a volatile possible connection serves no good purpose and stands to weaken relations between the countries’ governments, all while allowing other hackers to fly under the radar.