Android accounts for one-quarter of mobile web traffic
Android is mopping up Apple and RIM's declining mobile mindshare in the US, you'll find nothing but corroboration from Quantcast. The analytics firm reckons a full one-quarter of mobile web traffic stateside comes from devices running Google's OS
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
While RFID has its pros and cons, this article is very misleading in several ways. There writer did a very poor job of researching the subjet matter before posting a bunch of nonsenese such as:
Nonsense #1:
"The new RFID tag-toting documents will store all of your personal data, including name, address, nationality, a picture, a digitized fingerprint and just about every other thing crooks would need to take your identity for a joyride."
IN FACT, the US passport's RFID chip only stores the same exact written information that's on the first page of the passport. It DOES NOT contain an address, a picutre or a digitized fingerprint.
Nonsense #2:
"The government is insisting that they've taken the necessary precautions to prevent data "skimming," but that can be a lot trickier than it sounds. Just ask the Dutch."
First of all in the Dutch experiment that was absolutely positively no skimming or attempted reading of an actual RFID passport from any distance whatsoever. There is a major factual mis-reporting in the linked article, the Dutch team did not intercept an actual conversation between a passport and reader - at the time the report was made the Dutch haven't even released electronic passports. In fact, what they did in reality was only an exercise meant at showing how, becuase of the way the Dutch number their passports, that number is easy to guess and thus, since it is the basis of the encryption setup between the passport and reader, one could in theory fairly easily decode the data transmission between the two devices (again, they did not try to actually capture the data exchange). What the Dutch team demonstrated is what can happen when you THINK you have generated enough randomness to create a strong encryption key but in fact you have not. The US government is aware of this and employs a much much stronger key (besides other safeguards against skimming that the Dutch don't have in their passports) to ensure the US passport is safe. So no, "asking the Dutch" in this context has no relavance. A decent reporter would have outlined what are those precuations that the governement took and guide the reader in deciding whether those are sufficent or not before mentioning as an example which isn't even relavant because the US designed its passports in a different way than the Dutch have.
I won't even get into the writer's unfounded opinion piece in the end of the article regaring fascism, it's too much.
I really love Engadget's reporting and I read it frequently but the level of professionalism exhibited in this report is simply dismal.