Month: August 2019

Security is empty, meaningless theater — or, at least, that’s the lesson taught to most employees of most large companies. Security is your password expiring every few months, your inability to access crucial services if you’re new or a contractor, a salty message from a team you’ve never met explaining that your new initiative is not permitted, a transparently convenient excuse when someone doesn’t want to admit their real reason. Security is bullshit.

I can cite more examples from my own career as a consultancy CTO than I care to think about. The household-name company whose security team explained that cloud services were inherently insecure, until they day they decided to switch to AWS and began to explain how local servers were inherently insecure. The household-name companies who deluged us with detailed security questionnaires regarding the security of our servers, but whose assessment protocols were then unable to comprehend our “uh, everything’s in the cloud with GitHub and GSuite etc., we have no servers of our own” responses without hour-long handholding calls.

Which is why it was such a glorious breath of fresh air to hear Dino Dai Zovi‘s keynote speech at the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas this morning. Dai Zovi, staff security engineer at Square, argued that the all-too-common model of security as a team which sits and snipes at the people who actually build things, telling them no and pointing fingers, is in fact fantastically counterproductive.

Instead, he argued, security has to change its culture, which is far more important than strategy, which in turn is far more important than tactics. Instead of security becoming a faraway flaming hoop to jump through, teams should become responsible for their own security. Furthermore, security engineers should write code to help those teams. Fuzzing is great, but as he put it, “the next level is making fuzzy easy for software developers, because there are way more of them than there are of us.”

Most importantly — and most revolutionary — he argued that instead of defaulting to saying “no” all the time, and throwing up as many obstacles as possible, security people should always start with “yes, and here’s how we can help.” The fact this is so different from today’s practice that it actually sounds comical says a lot, none of it good.

The sad truth is that still, today, in the real world of enterprise software, security as most employees and vendors encounter it tends to be at least as performatively useless as the “take off your shoes & take out your liquids” security theater of American airports. The horror stories are legion. You have your own, I’m sure. Who doesn’t?

A couple more: Once a movie studio who wanted us to do some minor web-development work, for ancillary web sites with no real connection to their intellectual property, told us we would not be able to do anything unless our (primarily remote) workforce had continuous keycard access to, and closed-circuit camera coverage of, every computer which might work on these sites … then intimated that what they really needed was just for those boxes to be checked, not for any of that to actually happen.

Another time, a big company insisted that we become SOC-2 compliant — SOC-2 being a standard birthed not in tech but in accounting, and seemingly primarily designed to provide full employment for accountants rather than, you know, meaningful security standards and processes — without caring which, if any, of SOC-2’s five “trust services” we were talking about; they just needed to tick the “SOC-2 compliant” box on their list of vendors.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Security people could be contributors, rather than gatekeepers. And if they were, everyone would find it easier, more rewarding, and more intuitive to contribute to security. Siloed security bureaucracies aren’t just slow and frustrating; in the long run they are inherently a more fundamental threat to the security of the companies infested by them than any exterior hacker or even APT ever could be. It’s long past time we all learned that lesson.

Source: Tech Crunch

The first Note was a spectacle. It wasn’t just the reintroduction of the stylus. In 2011, the idea of a 5.3 inch phone was laughable. Around the same time, Steve Jobs famously mocked a push toward 4-inch-plus phones, telling a press conference, “no one’s going to buy that.”

With the average phone size hovering about 5.5 inches these days, Samsung clearly won that round. Of course, the push has been helped considerably by an ever-improving screen-to-body ratio. Jobs’ concerns about not being able to get one’s hand around a device no longer apply to a majority of these handset.

Today in Brooklyn, Samsung is pushing things even further, with the introduction of a new subset of Galaxy Note devices. The Note 10+ is a 6.8 inch device. Among other things, the introduction of a new model differentiates the line slightly from Samsung’s other flagship line. The earlier arrival of an S Plus model meant that the S Pen was essentially the only distinguishing factor here.

This is Samsung’s Galaxy Note 10 and 10+

Having spent some time with both Note 10 models, I can say I’m impressed with what the company has managed to do from a design perspective. The 10+ impressively has roughly the same footprint as the 6.4 inch Note 9, making carrying around such a massive device that much less absurd.

What’s really interesting here, however, is that the company took the rare action of actually shrinking down the standard Note from 6.4 to 6.3 inches. Weird, right? Yeah, well, these are weird times, friend.

The thinking behind the smaller screen was apparently to make the device more accessible to first time buyers. That seems a bit silly when talking about a literal fraction of an inch, but the improved screen-to-body ratio makes it that much smaller.

Here are the main distinctions between the two models:

• Note 10: Display 6.3-inch FHD+ AMOLED, 2280×1080 (401ppi); Note 10+: 6.8-inch Quad HD+ AMOLED 040×1440 (498ppi)
• Note 10: 3,500mAh battery; Note 10+: 4,300mAh battery
• Note 10: 8GB RAM, 256GB storage; Note 10+: 12GB RAM, 256GB storage (with 512GB option)
• The Note 10+ also has an additional TOF sensor on the rear camera array for depth sensing and an optional 5G model
• Note 10: Starts at $949 ; Note 10+: Starts at $1,100

Source: Tech Crunch

Next month marks three years since Apple unceremoniously murdered the headphone jack. Courage. The company was roundly mocked for the its own hype, and the interviewing product cycles have been marked by several companies proudly showcasing their staunch refusal to cave.

None were more vocal about clinging to the 3.5mm jack than Samsung. And the company certainly deserves kudos for turning the once ubiquitous port into a distinguishing feature. Like I said a couple of weeks ago, if nothing else, Samsung ought to get a bit of credit for the continuing high quality of the headphones it bundles in with its flagships. It’s been an Apple blindspot, while Samsung has cancelled with comfortable, quality, AKG-branded headphones.

Never forgot were you were at 4PM ET on August 7, 2019. That’s when the torch carrier finally extinguished the flame at the tail end of the dongle decade. The Note 10 is here and the headphone jack is gone.

This is Samsung’s Galaxy Note 10 and 10+

You already know the whys. Apple discussed them three years ago. So did Google after quickly reversing its own foot dragging on the Pixel line. But Samsung has had well over three years to prepare for this inevitable moment. The company knew there were would be a little egg on its face after a few years of talking up the port. But when you’ve been through a Galaxy Fold relaunch and two Note recalls, this is a veritable cakewalk.

Samsung’s primary driver here is the same as everyone else: space. The Note 10 and Note 10+ are big phones with big batteries (3,500mAh and 4,300mAh, respectively). For reasons that are clear for anyone who’s been following the line for some time, the company hit pause on the battery race for a while there, focusing instead on safety issues.

With that particular crisis well in the past now, however, battery life is once again central — as it should be. In order to make more room for mAhs, the company dropped the port and picked up the dongle. The tipping point, it says, came when its internal metrics showed that a majority of users on its flagship devices (the S and Note lines) moved to bluetooth streaming. The company says the number is now in excess of 70 percent of users.

I’ll be honest, that surprises me a bit, even now that bluetooth headphones are far cheaper and more plentiful than just three years ago. And no doubt the number changes fairly dramatically when you start talking about entry- and mid-tier devices. The company wouldn’t come out and say it, but it seems this dramatic shift also marks the end of the jack for S series devices, when the S11 starts shipping next year.

As for the dongle, turns out it won’t ship in box. That’ll cost you extra. But the good news is that the Note will ship with a USB-C version of its excellent (by free in-box standards) AKG headphones. Also, Samsung is one of eight million or so companies currently making bluetooth headphones.

And theirs are actually pretty good, turns out.

Source: Tech Crunch

The 5G iPhone isn’t expected until roughly this time next year. But when it comes to the next-gen cellular technology, Samsung has already been there and done that. Back in February, the company announced an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink version of the Galaxy S10, sporting 5G — its first device to do so. The model was finally made available last month.

At this afternoon’s Unpacked event in Brooklyn, the Note got its own 5G version — though the device got a little less time in the spotlight. That’s due, in part, to the 5G model having otherwise very little daylight between it and the standard Note 10+. Well, that and pricing, of course.

The device launches August 23 as a Verizon exclusive, running $1,300 to the standard version’s $1,100. The carrier partnership means there’s also a $36 a month for 36 months licensing model here.

Other details, including how the product’s battery will last with 5G switched on, are still TBD. Thankfully the Note 10+ has a pretty beefy 4,300mAh battery as a base. The devices also feature Samsung’s standard vapor chamber cooling system, which will hopefully address some of 5G’s overheating issues.

As with the other versions, pre-orders open at midnight tonight, and all will be available in stores on the 23rd. The exclusivity is limited. The companies won’t say which carriers will get it when, but I’d say AT&T seems like a pretty safe bet.

Source: Tech Crunch

Imagine a growing Israeli startup whose product is deepfake videos that are based on artificial intelligence and appear to be utterly authentic. The company’s marketing efforts, according to its website, are conducted by two departments — “consulting for corporations” and “consulting for governments and politicians.” In addition, “the company helps its customers uncover their opponents’ weak spots and make them go viral.”

Finally, imagine that the company describes its employees as “highly experienced men and women, graduates of elite units of the IDF intelligence branch and Israeli government intelligence agencies,” and that its technology is based on developments by these same security agencies. On top of all of this, of course its board of directors includes former heads of Mossad and the Israeli General Security Service (Shin Bet), as well as retired senior army officers.

When you are done imagining this, it’s time to think about the private intelligence firm Black Cube. Various investigative reports published recently in the media in Israel and abroad paint a troubling picture — not because the company is violating the law, but because of its lack of ethics and internal moral code.

According to these reports, Black Cube does not work only for giant corporations that want to dig up incriminating information about their competitors, it also has contracts with foreign governments that seek to repress political opponents. It not only helps governments find those who are evading their financial obligations, but also to harass women who complain about crimes of sexual violence. Not only does it identify those who defame rival businesses, but it also frightens off regulators and watchdogs, human rights activists and journalists. 

Black Cube, of course, is not alone in this. Have you ever heard of NSO, whose flagship product, Pegasus, can turn any cellphone into a mobile spying device? Or Glassbox and its product line? The list of such companies is long, and most of them are all but unknown. All of them are based on exploiting the skills, technology and professional culture created in the Israeli security establishment.

There is nothing new about former members of the Israeli defense and security agencies selling weapons and military know-how. But what has been added in recent years is the technology twist. Former high-ranking security officials and intelligence operatives, including from the renowned 8200 unit, strike out on their own. Some of them find employment in firms that break new ground, improve the world and better society; but others, in their greed, are willing to sell spyware and offensive cyber-weapons to dictators in Africa who need them to stamp out criticism and revolts.

This is also not a situation unique to Israel. Veterans of western security agencies worldwide face similar dilemmas once they retire from their careers in public service and seek their next professional challenges. The startup nation however, is based, to a large extent, on veterans of Israel’s high-tech units in the defense establishment. While this association certainly does bring honor, prestige, revenue and jobs to the Israeli economy, two issues resulting from this relationship need to be considered.

The first relates to ethics. If anything is clear today in the world of technology, it is the need to include ethical concerns when developing, distributing, implementing and using technology. This is all the more important because in many domains there is no regulation or legislation to provide a clear definition of what may and may not be done. There is nothing intrinsic to technology that requires that it pursue only good ends. The mission of our generation is to ensure that technology works for our benefit and that it can help realize social ideals. The goal of these new technologies should not be to replicate power structures or other evils of the past. 

Startup nation should focus on fighting crime and improving autonomous vehicles and healthcare advancements. It shouldn’t be running extremist groups on Facebook, setting up “bot farms” and fakes, selling attackware and spyware, infringing on privacy and producing deepfake videos.

The second issue is the lack of transparency. The combination of individuals and companies that have worked for, and sometimes still work with, the security establishment frequently takes place behind a thick screen of concealment. These entities often evade answering challenging questions that result from the Israeli Freedom of Information law and even recourse to the military censor — a unique Israeli institution — to avoid such inquires.

How can we know when the government permits to be sold, and to whom, technologies that were developed by the private sector but that have security implications? How can we know who intervenes when a foreign country in Europe arrests spies sent by a commercial firm, or when a Gulf state is targeted by an Israeli high-tech company? How can we know when the companies are serving the national interest, and their own bottom line — and who gets to decide this, anyway? And what is the impact on the defense establishment itself with the migration of its stars directly from national service to high tech? What effect does this have on the state’s decision-making process about which technologies to invest in, whom it trains and what it purchases?

Technology can make the world a better place — or much worse. Sometimes the results are mixed. We are all acquainted with app developers who make their terms of use impossibly complicated so they can invade our privacy; but not everyone is in the business of developing spyware or cyberattack technologies. The challenges created by social media platforms are well known, but not everyone uses them to manipulate others and to run an army of trolls to intimidate certain individuals.

Israel, and its tech business community, must carefully consider the negative ramifications of excelling in technology while disregarding moral and ethical questions. The “startup nation” must conduct extensive discussions on the crossroads between ethics and technology so as to endow the next generation with the strong moral compass necessary to navigate in this new world. The unanswered question at hand is how Israel, and similar western democracies, can grapple with the growing phenomenon of technological entities whose sole purpose is profit without any qualms about the moral implications of their products and services.

Source: Tech Crunch

Why is tech still aiming for the healthcare industry? It seems full of endless regulatory hurdles or stories of misguided founders with no knowledge of the space, running headlong into it, only to fall on their faces.

Theranos is a prime example of a founder with zero health background or understanding of the industry — and just look what happened there! The company folded not long after founder Elizabeth Holmes came under criminal investigation and was barred from operating in her own labs for carelessly handling sensitive health data and test results.

But sometimes tech figures it out. It took years for 23andMe to breakthrough FDA regulations — it’s since more than tripled its business and moved into drug discovery.

And then there’s Oscar Health, which first made a mint on Obamacare and has since ventured into Medicare. Combined with Bright, the two health insurance startups have pulled in a whopping $3 billion so far.

It’s easy to shake our fists at fool-hardy founders hoping to cash in on an industry that cannot rely on the old motto “move fast and break things.” But it doesn’t have to be the code tech lives or dies by.

So which startups have the mojo to keep at it and rise to the top? Venture capitalists often get to see a lot before deciding to invest. So we asked a few of our favorite health VC’s to share their insights.

Phin Barnes – First Round Capital

Source: Tech Crunch

Shouting out to all the fierce female founders. Have you applied to participate in the All Raise “ask me anything” (AMA) sessions at Disrupt SF 2019? No? Women, it’s time to act. Apply for an AMA session by the August 30 deadline and you could win a free Expo Only Pass.

You heard that right. We have 30 free Expo Only passes, and we’ll give them away at random to women founders who get accepted to the All Raise program at Disrupt SF 2019.

All Raise, a startup nonprofit committed to accelerating female founder success, will host a day-long AMA event in a dedicated area in Startup Alley (aka the Disrupt expo floor). They’ll schedule a series of 30-minute sessions throughout the day for roughly 100 women founders.

Each session consists of three founders and one of the All Raise community’s leading VCs. You’ll have the opportunity to ask in-depth questions about the next raise, key hires, the competition or any other business issues that keep you up at night. You can learn plenty from experienced, successful investors like these:

• Dayna Grayson, NEA
• Susan Lyne, BBG
• Shauntel Garvey, Reach Capital
• Eurie Kim, Forerunner
• Jess Lee, Sequoia
• Kara Nortman, Upfront
• Sara Guo, Greylock,
• Anarghya Vardhana, Maveron
• Eva Ho, Fika Ventures
• Sarah Smith, Bain Capital Ventures
• Jess Lin, Work-Bench

If you’re a U.S.-based woman founder — and you’ve raised at least $250,000 in a seed, A or B round — you can apply for an AMA session. All Raise gives special consideration to founders from underrepresented groups (e.g. Black, Latinx or LGBTQIA women).

All Raise will review the applications and notify the founders. Acceptance is based on availability for session spots, investor fit with industry sector and company stage, as well as demand for certain categories.

If All Raise selects you to participate — and you don’t happen to win a free Expo Only pass — simply buy any pass to Disrupt SF (including Expo Only). All Raise will send an email to let you know what time they’ve scheduled your session.

Don’t miss this rare opportunity to get answers and advice from some of the best investors around. Free admission to Disrupt SF 2019 and free investor advice — that’s a potent combination. Beat the August 30 deadline and apply for an All Raise AMA session today!

Is your company interested in sponsoring or exhibiting at Disrupt San Francisco 2019? Contact our sponsorship sales team by filling out this form.

Source: Tech Crunch

The yet-to-launch tech journalism site The Markup has had a bumpy 2019 — co-founder and editor-in-chief Julia Angwin was fired, prompting the departure of the majority of the editorial staff. Soon after, The Markup’s other founders (whose disputes with Angwin apparently led to her ouster) left the company themselves.

Now things may be back on track, with Angwin returning to the EIC role, and the six staffers who’d quit in protest returning, as well.

In fact, a New York Times story about Angwin’s reinstatement suggests that there’s been a surprising amount of continuity behind the scenes, with The Markup continuing to pay Angwin and her staff while they continued to work on articles and meet in Angwin’s living room.

In addition to announcing Angwin’s return, The Markup says it has hired former BuzzFeed vice president and associate general counsel Nabiha Syed to serve as president, along with Evelyn Larrubia, who will become managing editor for investigations.

“Technology is shaping our world faster than most people can keep up, before we can digest the implications of any of it,” Angwin said in the announcement. “We believe our data-driven approach to tech accountability journalism will bring facts to this emotional debate. And I can’t think of two more accomplished leaders in their fields than Nabiha and Evelyn to join me in the venture.”

The plan is for Angwin and Syed to report to a not-yet-appointed independent board of directors, and for the site to start publishing by the end of 2019.

When The Markup made a splash with its kickoff last year, it wasn’t just for the involvement of Angwin (a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter from The Wall Street Journal and ProPublica), but also because its funding included a $20 million donation from Craigslist founder Craig Newmark.

The recent controversy prompted the site’s backers to declare that it had become “necessary to reassess our support,” but today’s announcement closes with this note: “The Markup remains supported by a coalition of major foundations, including Craig Newmark Philanthropies, the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Edwin Barbey Charitable Trust, the Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence Initiative, and the Open Society Foundations.”

Source: Tech Crunch