In the past month or so I've developed a new respect for Google drive and the office-like apps (Sheets, Docs, and Slides). Two events drove my re-evaluation: First, the ability to store full-resolution images from my Google Project Fi smart phone. Then, following my older daughter's liver transplant in mid May, the need to maintain post-transplant information where members of the family could access it.
Let's start with the usage more people will be familiar with: Photo storage. When you sign up for Google Drive, you get a certain amount of space and must pay for more if you need it. The photos you store on Google Drive count against that storage, of course. The monthly fee is small if you want to store full resolution images on Google Drive, but images are not counted if you have a Pixel phone.
Google offers free unlimited cloud storage in its Photos app, but but uploaded images are compressed. Upload the original high-res images and it will count against your account limit. But if you have a Pixel phone, any image you capture with the camera will automatically uploaded and stored without any effect on your storage limit.
Google is clearly doing this to entice people to spend a not-insignificant amount of money to buy a Pixel, so the free storage may not be permanent. If it's not, that's OK because I store images on my computer, but being able to move them over from Google Drive makes the process quick and easy.
Under normal circumstances, I would use a "real" camera, not a smart phone camera, but one essential aphorism for photographers is this: The best camera in the world is the one that you have. My "real" cameras were at home when Elizabeth went into surgery and for the next week or so -- but I had my phone. The ability to create, inobtrusively, images at several critical points along the way make it possible for her, and all of us, to understand what happened.
Photographs are only one part of the story, though.
The need to store information about Elizabeth's vital statistics and other information in a way that's accessible to family members and medical personnal makes Google Drive and the various apps a good choice, too. Documents can be stored so that they are private, available only to someone who has login credentials, or to anyone who has a specific URL.
Transplant patients need to take an enormous variety of prescription medications for the remainder of thier life. Placing information about these presectiptions in an easily accessible location was one of the first critical needs I wanted to resolve. Storing a PDF document gave us all access to the latest information. And, in the event of an emergency, the information could be accessed by medical professionals.
She also needs to record her vital statistics 3 times per day -- blood pressure, heart rate, and weight. Later, as the recovery continues, she'll need to record even more information. This is also data that needs to be available to medical professionals in an emergency. Ohio State University provides a comprehensive manual for transplant patients and one of the pages is a form for recording this information.
Initially, we made copies of the page. Then Elizabeth decided to create an Excel spreadsheet. I took that one step further by uploading the spreadsheet to Google Sheets so that she can update it in real time. I've also been recording my blood pressure and heart rate daily and recording the information in Evernote, which provided only a table like representation. And, as I described a few weeks ago, Evernote tables display properly only on a device with a screen that's the same size as the one the table was created on. Besides displaying properly regardless of the device, information recorded in Google Sheets can be graphed and either the numbers or the graph can be made available to anyone who requires them -- no need for an Evernote account.
For this purpose, Google Sheets is the perfect solution. Obviously, it's not the perfect solution for all needs, but it's good to know that it's available for those times when it's appropriate.
Occasionally I mention a new (and usually nasty) zero-day exploit that Microsoft or a security firm is warning about. You're told that you should update something or patch something or change your password. Maybe you're wondering why and what this is all about.
Crooks usually refer to them as 0day exploits and there's a robust market for them on the Dark Web. Ones that can target large operations, government agencies, or banks can be sold for tens of thousands of dollars. The zero refers to the fact that the software flaw has not yet been disclosed publicly.
Because it's essentially an unknown, the software engineers who wrote the application that's being attacked have no time to create patches or find ways to mitigate the threat.
The longer a bug has been known, the more likely it is that the software developer has found a way to block it and that a patch has been pushed out to users. Time is critical. A new vulnerability is valuable, one that has been known for 30 days is less so. And a flaw that was discovered a year ago will be even less valuable. There are always users who forget to update operating system software and applications and those who feel that it's unimportant to do so. These folks are still targets.
On day zero, the crooks have essentially a 100% chance that their exploit will work on any computer they can reach. The only real defense against zero-day exploits is a bit of healthy paranoia.
Zero-day exploits are invariably harmful and they're usually difficult to recover from. Companies lose millions of dollars every year to damage done by these exploits. And it's not just businesses. Individuals, non-profits, government agencies, and NGOs are all likely to be targets. The goal may be to cripple hardware (as the US and Israel did with the Stuxnet virus) or to exfiltrate data (as Russian and Chinese operators do) or to hold a computer user's data for ransom.
One key point to consider is this: All software has flaws. Even small, simple applications may have bugs that make it possible for a rogue application to run malware on the computer. Security specialists constantly review code to search for problems and software engineers patch them, but sometimes flaws remain dormant for years. And sometimes the process of fixing one vulnerability creates another.
So when you hear about a zero-day exploit, consider it to be like a report that describes food that has been contaminated with a deadly toxin. Determine whether the warning applies to an operating system or an application that you use and -- if it does -- take the appropriate measures to protect yourself.
Wired Magazine has an insightful account regarding the implications of Amazon's proposed acquisition of Whole Foods. One thing is certain and that is the fact that this is going to disrupt the grocery industry.
Wired cites a recent report from the Food Marketing Institute and Nielsen: "While around a quarter of US households currently shop on-line for groceries—up from 20 percent just three years ago—more than 70 percent will do so within 10 years." I had no idea! My local Kroger store offers the option to place an order on-line and then pick the order up at the store. There are even half a dozen parking spaces reserved for people who do this.
But if I buy apples, oranges, a cabbage, strawberries, or bananas, I'd like to select them myself. Is a quarter of the population already willing to allow someone else to pick their produce? Will nearly three quarters of us be willing to so this in a decade?
Amazon has been trying to figure out how to get into this huge marketplace for years. AmazonFresh Pickup makes it possible for customers to order groceries online and then pick up the order at an Amazon store. As noted, Kroger already offers this service. So does Walmart, but they need several hours to preapre the order. Amazon promises 15 minutes. That's even faster than ordering a pizza for home delivery.
Whole Foods would give Amazon a good toe hold in metro areas. There are more than 400 Whole Foods markets nationwide, but their coverage omits rural areas where Walmart is king.
The Wired article notes last December's launch of "Amazon Go", a supermarket with no cashiers. Amazon technology tracks what consumers take out of the store, but the store is open only to Amazon employees now. Amazon may have intended to roll the concept out more widely by now, but apparently there have been some problems.
Some have suggested that this is a ploy to get consumers to pick up Amazon Prime items they've ordered instead of having them delivered, but that just doesn't make sense to me. They already have a system in place for delivery of packages that doesn't require the customer to drive anywhere to pick it up. Delivering packages to Whole Foods in bulk and then paying people to handle them again just doesn't make sense.
Read the full article on the Wired website.
The Communications Act of 1934 defined "common carriers" in Title II of the legislation. That is what the Federal Communications Commission used to define internet service, making it essentially like telephone service and other utilities. The concept is that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally and that internet service providers (ISPs) should be prevented from taking any action to give precedence to any provider.
The internet service providers don't like that because many of them also provide content. They would like to give their own services precedence on their networks and charge other services additional fees just to gain equality. If that seems flawed to you, then you must be in favor of Net Neutrality.
The FCC is now considering rules that would allow ISPs to throttle services or restrict access to them. What's wrong with this? It's not a difficult concept:
And that's it. But the FCC is planning to allow the internet service provider to impede access to services you've paid the ISP to deliver or to charge the content provider a fee to allow its data to flow without restrictions. So you'll get less or pay more.
In 2015, the FCC approved Title II Net Neutrality Rules, but under the Trump administration, the head of the FCC, Ajit Pai, wants to overturn this decision in a way that would make it impossible to fix without a literal act of Congress.
"Net Neutrality" holds that all traffic on the internet deserves the same level of priority. The ISPs will say that this restricts their ability to manage network traffic, but nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody questions policies that would restrict non-time-value traffic (email, for example) while giving precedence to time-valued traffic (such as streaming video or audio). What Net Neutrality addresses is throttling content, blocking content, or giving inappropriate priority to content.
It simply means that internet service providers must treat all traffic fairly.If you use the internet, these are decisions that will affect your ability to use services you have paid for.
Now would be a really good time to contact the Federal Communications Commission to express your opinion. Visit the FCC's website and file a comment on FCC proceeding 17-108, titled "Restoring Internet Freedom". The plan here is to restore freedom for ISPs to gouge customers, so please speak out.
You could also contact your Representative or Senator, but the FCC is proceeding in a way that would all but eliminate any way to restore Net Neutrality.
