Another problem with official apps is that they offer paid content, for which users need to take a subscription plan. Now, many users wish to stream free content like movies and TV shows, and third party apps make it available for them. This is one of the major reasons for the popularity of third party apps. 

To access more content, most users install third party apps on their streaming device. These third party apps offer more entertainment through their free and paid services. However, despite many advantages, there are also some disadvantages of using third party apps. Let us explore the pros and cons of using third party apps to conclude whether they are good to go for streaming movies. 

Pros of Third Party Apps 

There are multiple benefits of installing and using third party apps on any streaming device. These benefits are more than just getting access to entertainment content. Before we talk about the advantages, though, I should warn you that, unless you modify the settings, Firesticks and similar gadgets do not let you use third-party apps.

You have two options: jailbreak your device to enable the installation of third-party apps, or modify the settings to do so. There are limitless ways to stream on Jailbroken device. You can install third party apps and steam both free and paid content from different platforms. Now coming to the third party apps, let us find out all the pros of using such apps. 

Low Cost Entertainment

Not all third party apps are free, but some charge their users a subscription fee. However, the subscription fee of third party apps is less affordable than the mainstream apps like Netflix and Amazon Prime. Users looking for affordable entertainment plans can look into third party apps. So, users get more entertainment at affordable prices, which is another reason for the growing popularity of these apps. 

High Quality Streaming

Third party apps allow you to access high quality videos for free or for a fraction of the cost that major apps like Netflix and Prime Video charge. Therefore, you get high quality resolution at drop-dead prices. So, if you are looking for high quality streaming at reasonable prices, you can look out for third party apps for your streaming device. However, it is best to check the quality of streaming with free trials before subscribing to a paid plan. 

Free Entertainment

Most people install third party apps on their device in order to access free content. The built-in apps on any streaming device require you to pay for a subscription to access the content. 

However, there are many third party apps that offer you access to entertainment content including movies, music and TV shows for free. Some apps offer both free and paid services. You can access free content and access more content and higher quality like 4K on their paid subscription. 

For example, there is a Kodi app that lets you stream content from a variety of streaming platforms. It comes with various addons like The Crew, Scrubs V2, Seren and Umbrella which lets you watch on demand content. 

Users can explore the latest movies, TV shows, sports events and kids’ content available to watch on the Crew Kodi addon. Such apps allow you to watch both free and paid content. However, free entertainment is the primary reason for the popularity of third party apps. 

Variety of Content

Most standard apps are dedicated to one category, like movies or TV shows. On the other hand, third party apps offer you a variety of content including movies, TV shows, family shows and web series. For example, some kids apps also offer educational videos in addition to entertainment for kids. So, with third party apps, users get more variety of content in a single app. This helps users to install fewer apps and save storage space on their TV or streaming device. 

Enhanced Security for your Device

As we use our devices connected to the internet, we download multiple cookies and some are infected with viruses and malware. There are many third party security apps that scan your device for viruses, malware and harmful cookies. Therefore, you can install a security app to scan your AI devices and remove the viruses, malware or harmful cookies Compatible with multiple devices

As most third party apps are compatible with multiple devices, you can install and use them on different devices. For example, you can use an app to stream content on your TV, smartphone and computer as well.

Customization Options

Third party apps allow you to customize their interface to offer you a seamless streaming experience. You can change the themes, and options to make the app look appealing and easy to use. So, you are not bound to use that boring interface and customize your UI by choosing the theme you like. Most apps offer you multiple UI and theme options to choose the one that appeals to you the most. 

Support for multiple languages

Many third party streaming apps allow you to use the app in multiple languages. This is especially useful for users who don’t know the English language. They can use the app in their local language to understand it better and use it effectively. Using an app in your native language allows you to use it more easily and freely. It makes you understand the options and settings easily and makes it convenient to use.

Cons of Third Party Apps 

Despite the above-mentioned benefits, third party apps also have several disadvantages. Let us explore all those cons of using third party apps on streaming devices.

Low Quality Videos

Not all, but some third party apps may offer low quality resolution of videos. In some apps you may find videos buffering endlessly. So, low quality is a major issue in using third party apps. So, while choosing any third party app, it is essential to test the resolution and streaming quality. If they offer the resolution that meets your expectation, you can install it on your device and stream movies or TV shows. 

Risk of shutting down

Some apps stream exclusive content like live sports events, that is illegal. Yes, users can enjoy the broadcast of live events, but as third party apps don’t own the rights to telecast those events, the apps having the exclusive rights of the event can file a lawsuit against such apps. So, it is beneficial to check whether the apps you use have the rights to telecast the content you wish to watch. If not, you should go for some other option. 

Viruses and Malware

There is a probability of viruses and malware downloading with third party apps. Usually, when you download apps from unofficial sources, there are chances of viruses and malware that can damage your device memory and software. Therefore, it is always better to download third party apps from their official websites or app stores. 

Unavailability of Updates

All official apps come up with regular updates to fix the bugs and tech issues. But with third-party apps, updates may or may not be available. These apps don’t get updated automatically. Also, they might not work after an update on your streaming device, leaving you frustrated and longing for simpler times.

Storage Struggles

Third-party programs take up memory on streaming devices, which typically have limited storage space. Your device may get slower and you may run out of space for the apps you really use if you install too many. To preserve storage on your device, it is usually preferable to install fewer apps than you really need. 

Summing Up

Using third-party apps on your TV or streaming device may offer you many benefits, but it doesn’t mean you can ignore the risks associated with their use. While they might offer access to a world of content, these risks, from security concerns to legal troubles. It is always better to do your research about the legitimacy of the apps before installing and using them on your device. 

Yes, in today’s digital age, it’s easier than ever to spy on your partner’s phone discreetly. From concerns about infidelity to ensuring their safety, there are various reasons why you might consider spying on your partner’s phone.

Why Might It Be Necessary?

Trust forms the very basis of a relationship. However, certain circumstances may give rise to doubts that might cloud the trust. There are valid reasons why you might feel the need to spy on your partner’s phone.

Infidelity, unfortunately, is one of the most common concerns that can shake the core of any relationship. If you notice suspicious behavior or if your partner has given you reasons to doubt their fidelity, it’s natural to seek reassurance. Monitoring their phone activity might offer clarity and provide peace of mind by either dispelling your suspicions or confirming them.

Beyond infidelity, ensuring your partner’s safety is paramount. In today’s world, where unforeseen dangers lurk both online and offline, tracking your partner’s phone can serve as a precautionary measure. Whether they’re traveling alone, going through a challenging situation, or simply navigating unfamiliar territories, being able to monitor their location and communication can offer a sense of security for both parties involved.

How to Track Your Spouse’s Phone?

If you’ve ever wondered how to spy on my partner’s phone for free and with minimal effort, there are several methods you can explore. Accessing iCloud or Android backups is one option, allowing you to view their data remotely. Setting up WhatsApp Desktop as the second option provides full access to their conversations, albeit with some visibility on their end. Finally, See What Someone Is Doing on Their Phone Through Wi-Fi by using apps like Eyezy, Find My Phone or Google Maps can also help pinpoint their location discreetly.

iCloud or Android Backup

One method to track your spouse’s phone activity is by accessing their iCloud or Android backups. By gaining access to their iCloud account, you can remotely activate a backup of their device, granting you access to their data, including messages, photos, and app activity. Similarly, Android users can utilize the backup feature to retrieve information from their partner’s device. This method allows for discreet monitoring without the need for physical access to the phone. However, the backup information can be pretty limited and you also must have their iCloud/Google credentials to log in.

Set Up WhatsApp Desktop

Another approach to tracking partner’s phone is by setting up WhatsApp Desktop. This option provides full access to their WhatsApp account, enabling you to view their messages, photos, and calls in real-time. However, it’s worth noting that the linked desktop will be visible in the settings of their WhatsApp account, potentially alerting them to the monitoring activity. Despite this visibility, it remains a convenient method for tracking their conversations discreetly.

Use Find My Phone or Google Maps

For tracking your partner’s location, apps like Find My Phone or Google Maps can be invaluable tools. By using these applications, you can pinpoint the exact whereabouts of your spouse without their knowledge. Whether you’re concerned about their safety or simply curious about their whereabouts, these tracking features offer a discreet way to monitor their movements.

Eyezy- The Ultimate Solution

One of the most effective ways to monitor your partner’s phone is through an app. While there are a lot of apps to monitor your partner’s phone, Eyezy stands out as the number one choice. This powerful tool is designed for families concerned about their loved one’s well-being.

With Eyezy, you can track calls, messages, browsing history, and even GPS location in real-time. Its intuitive interface and comprehensive features make it the number-one choice for those seeking peace of mind. With Eyezy, you can discreetly ensure your partner’s safety and gain valuable insights into their digital activity, fostering trust and transparency in your relationship.

Features of Eyezy include:

• Call Monitoring
• Text Message & Email Tracking
• Browsing History & Online Activity Viewing
• GPS Location Tracking
• Geo-Fencing
• Social Media Monitoring
• Remote Camera & Ambient Recording
• Device Storage Access
• Keylogger & Screen Recording
• Keyword Alerts
• Centralized Control Panel

Conclusion

Your decision to spy on partner’s phone may seem intrusive. However, sometimes it becomes necessary for your peace of mind or their safety.

By using discrete methods and reliable apps like Eyezy, you can gain insight into their activities without jeopardizing trust. Remember to use these tools responsibly and prioritize open communication in your relationship.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was reauthorized and expanded, giving intelligence agencies and law enforcement broader scope to collect data on US citizens. The bill is so expansive that it was nicknamed the “Stasi Amendment,” a reference to the notorious East German secret police force.

Despite the FBI aggressively pushing for reauthorization of the expanded bill, it appears the agency knows such surveillance powers are not necessary. In an email leaked to WIRED, Deputy Director Paul Abbate urges FBI employees to use the ability to search for data on US citizens in an effort to prove that the capability is needed.

“To continue to demonstrate why tools like this are essential to our mission, we need to use them, while also holding ourselves accountable for doing so properly and in compliance with legal requirements,” Abbate wrote in the email. [Emphasis his.]

“I urge everyone to continue to look for ways to appropriately use US person queries to advance the mission, with the added confidence that this new pre-approval requirement will help ensure that those queries are fully compliant with the law,” added Abbate.

As a general rule, if the program was truly necessary, wouldn’t its value already be apparent? Wouldn’t the FBI have plenty of data to show how much it needs the program if it was truly yielding results? Why should the FBI’s employees need to use warrantless surveillance more to provide why they need to use it in the first place?

Lawmakers are evidently beginning to ask the same questions.

“The deputy director’s email seems to show that the FBI is actively pushing for more surveillance of Americans, not out of necessity but as a default,” says US representative Zoe Lofgren. “This directly contradicts earlier assertions from the FBI during the debate over Section 702’s reauthorization.”

Section 702 allows US intelligence agencies to monitor the communications of foreign individuals for national security reasons. As part of that surveillance, the communications of US citizens is often scooped up as well, and the bill allows for those communications to be stored for years. What’s more, the FBI has the authority to go back and search those communications in conjunction with things that have nothing to do with national security, such as a criminal investigation, and can share that information with other law enforcement.

If the FBI had a well-established track record of responsibly using its ability there might be slightly less concern. By the FBI’s own admission, however, the agency has a terrible track record of abusing its access to said data.

It’s little wonder that Senator Ron Wyden slammed the expansion of Section 702.

“The House bill represents one of the most dramatic and terrifying expansions of government surveillance authority in history,” Senator Wyden said. “It allows the government to force any American who installs, maintains, or repairs anything that transmits or stores communications to spy on the government’s behalf. That means anyone with access to a server, a wire, a cable box, a wifi router, or a phone. It would be secret: the Americans receiving the government directives would be bound to silence, and there would be no court oversight. I will do everything in my power to stop this bill.”

And that was before the leaked email that “directly contradicts earlier assertions from the FBI during the debate over Section 702’s reauthorization.”

The FCC voted to restore net neutrality in late April, leveling the playing field for large and small internet companies alike. The agency released its final ruling yesterday, containing some changes that closed a potential loophole by nixing so-called “fast lanes.”

The Issue

At the heart of the issue was the possibility that some ISPs could create internet fast lanes for certain types of traffic. Although the net neutrality rules prohibited paid fast lanes, a loophole existed for fast lanes as long as ISPs did not charge the companies providing the content, services, or applications to customers.

Stanford Law Professor Barbara van Schewick warned the FCC before the final vote that ISPs could abuse fast lanes, essentially bypassing net neutrality by coming at the issue from a different direction: don’t slow undesirable traffic down, simply speed up desirable traffic.

Professor van Schewick outlined the issue with such an approach:

Net neutrality means that we, the people who use the internet, get to decide what we do online, without interference from ISPs. ISPs do not get to interfere with our choices by blocking, speeding up or slowing down apps or kinds of apps. Apps compete on a level playing field, and users, not ISPs, determine which apps are successful.

Differences in performance, including relative differences in performance, matter. Even small differences in load times affect how long people stay on a site, how much they pay, and whether they’ll come back. Those differences also affect how high up sites show in search results.

Thus, letting ISPs choose which apps get to be in a fast lane lets them, not users, pick winners and losers online.

The FCC’s Final Ruling

In its final ruling, the FCC cited Professor van Schewick’s letter before making the following clarification:

Our interpretation of “throttling” encompasses a wide variety of conduct that could impair or degrade an end user’s ability to access content of their choosing. We clarify that a BIAS provider’s decision to speed up “on the basis of Internet content, applications, or services” would “impair or degrade” other content, applications, or services which are not given the same treatment.

Essentially, the FCC is taking the approach that any prioritization of certain traffic will ultimately lead to ISPs playing favorites, giving them the ability to pick winners and losers and put smaller companies at an unfair advantage.

Chairwoman Rosenworcel’s Statement

“I think in a modern digital economy we should have a national net neutrality policy and make clear the Nation’s expert on communications has the ability to act when it comes to broadband,” said Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “This is good for consumers, good for public safety, and good for national security. And that is why we are taking this action today under Title II of the Communications Act.”

Chairwoman Rosenworcel emphasized the widespread support for net neutrality that consumers expressed to the agency.

“Let’s start with consumers,” she continued.”They spoke out in droves when this agency repealed net neutrality. They jammed our in-boxes, overwhelmed our online comment system, and clogged our phone lines. They clamored to get net neutrality back. In the intervening years, they have not stopped. Thousands of consumers write us month after month seeking to have this agency help them navigate issues with their broadband service. Yet, as a result of the last FCC throwing these policies out and backing away from broadband, we can only take action when they have issues with their long distance voice service. There is nothing modern about that.

Chairwoman Rosenworcel then addressed the fast lane issue directly.

“Consumers have made clear to us they do not want their broadband provider cutting sweetheart deals, with fast lanes for some services and slow lanes for others,” she said. “They do not want their providers engaging in blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. And if they have problems they expect the Nation’s expert authority on communications to be able to respond. Because we put national net neutrality rules back on the books, we fix that today.”

A Free and Open Internet

The reinstatement of net neutrality helps ensure a level playing field for companies of all sizes and prevents ISPs from acting as gatekeepers that decide what companies succeed or fail based on the quality of internet traffic they receive.

Essentially, the reinstatement of net neutrality helps codify the principles of a free and open internet that was very much a critical component in the minds of its founders.

The FCC announced in late April that it was fining AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon a combined $200 million for illegally sharing customer location data with third-party companies, as well as failing to put sufficient safeguards in place to protect that data.

“Our communications providers have access to some of the most sensitive information about us. These carriers failed to protect the information entrusted to them. Here, we are talking about some of the most sensitive data in their possession: customers’ real-time location information, revealing where they go and who they are,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said at the time. “As we resolve these cases – which were first proposed by the last Administration – the Commission remains committed to holding all carriers accountable and making sure they fulfill their obligations to their customers as stewards of this most private data.”

In statements to Mashable, all three carriers said they plan to fight the fines in court, and accused the FCC of placing blame in the wrong place.

“The FCC order lacks both legal and factual merit,” an AT&T spokesperson told the outlet. “It unfairly holds us responsible for another company’s violation of our contractual requirements to obtain consent, ignores the immediate steps we took to address that company’s failures, and perversely punishes us for supporting life-saving location services like emergency medical alerts and roadside assistance that the FCC itself previously encouraged.”

At the heart of the issue is how data aggregators the carriers had deals with used the data they had access to, with all three companies blaming these other companies for the misuse of customer data. Further complicating the issue is that both Verizon and T-Mobile shut down the aggregator location services several years ago.

“In this case, when one bad actor gained unauthorized access to information relating to a very small number of customers, we quickly and proactively cut off the fraudster, shut down the program, and worked to ensure this couldn’t happen again,” a Verizon spokesperson told Mashable.

The Transportation Security Administration has been increasingly rolling out facial recognition to airports around the US. While travelers can opt-out, in favor of traditional screenings, some passengers are unaware of this and other choose facial recognition screening out of convenience or a lack of understanding of the privacy issues involved.

Senators are calling on Schumer and McConnell to take the lead in restricting TSA’s use of facial recognition “until rigorous congressional oversight occurs,” citing TSA’s plans to make facial recognition mandatory.

Congress must address this issue in the 2024 Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization. TSA announced in July that they plan to expand facial recognition surveillance from 25 to over 430 airports. While TSA states the program is optional, it is the stated intent of the TSA to expand this technology beyond the security checkpoint and require that passengers undergo facial recognition scans every time they travel. In 2018, TSA released their Biometrics Roadmap detailing their goal of a “biometrically-enabled curb-to-gate passenger experience.” In April 2023, TSA Administrator Pekoske admitted at the South by Southwest Conference that “we will get to the point where we will require biometrics across the board.”

As the senators point out, people becoming comfortable with facial recognition at airports is a slippery slope that could lead to mass surveillance across the board, with little to no objection from citizens:

The potential for misuse of this technology extends far beyond airport security checkpoints. Once Americans become accustomed to government facial recognition scans, it will be that much easier for the government to scan citizens’ faces everywhere, from entry into government buildings, to passive surveillance on public property like parks, schools, and sidewalks.

The senators go on to state that TSA’s plans are disingenuous since there is no evidence that facial recognition makes air travel safer:

Furthermore, this powerful surveillance technology as deployed by TSA does not make air travel safer. In response to congressional inquiries, TSA has not produced evidence that more false identification documents have been discovered since their implementation of facial recognition. The 3% error rate cited by TSA represents more than 68,000 mismatches daily if used on all 2.3 million daily travelers. Recent news reports that hundreds of passengers have bypassed TSA security checkpoints entirely in recent years suggests that TSA should focus on the fundamentals, not expanding its facial recognition program.

With the TSA’s announcement in July 2023 that they plan to expand facial recognition surveillance from 25 to over 430 airports, it is clear that we are at a critical juncture. The scope of the government’s use of facial recognition on Americans will expand exponentially under TSA’s plans, with little to no public discourse or congressional oversight.

Given the myriad of abuses TSA agents have been accused and/or found guilty of—everything from overly aggressive screenings and pat-downs to sexual assault—it’s little wonder that senators are concerns about the abuses that come result from the agency’s widespread and mandatory use of facial recognition.

The letter was signed by Senators Jeffrey A. Merkley, John Kennedy, Edward J. Markley, Roger Marshall, M.D., Kevin Cramer, Ron Wyden, Steve Daines, Elizabeth Warren, Mike Braun, Bernie Sanders, Cynthia Lummis, Chris Van Hollen, Peter Welch, Laphonza Butler.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was recently reauthorized and expanded, widening the scope of individuals and professions that can be pressed into helping authorities surveil others. Despite the reauthorization, the FBI says warrantless surveillance of Americans is down significantly in its Annual Statistical Transparency Report.

The FBI says the number of US person queries in the period from November 2022 to December 2023, dropped to 57,094. In contrast, the previous year saw 119,383 queries, and the year before that saw 2,964,643. The FBI says its figures are almost certainly over-counted as a result of how the FBI counts queries:

While the FBI’s methodology closely matches that used by other IC elements, it still is almost certainly
an overcount with respect to queries that are part of batch jobs. This is because, as indicated elsewhere
in this report, if even one query term in a batch job is identified by a user as a U.S. person query term
and labeled as such, FBI systems apply the U.S. person label to every query term in that batch. The FBI’s
counting methodology does not correct for this type of over-counting.

The FBI also says the variance in queries from one year to the next based on the investigations being conducted. For example, in the first half of 2021, there were a large number of queries related to a single investigation pertaining to foreign actors trying to launch cyberattacks on US critical infrastructure. This accounted for 1.9 million of the 2,964,643 queries in that period.

Interestingly, the FBI acknowledges that it uses the data it queries reasons other than its intended purpose, to foil and catch terrorists.

As noted above, FBI is the only intelligence agency with Section 702 querying procedures that allow for
queries that are reasonably likely to retrieve evidence of a crime, in addition to queries that are reasonably
likely to return foreign intelligence information. Recognizing that unrelated crimes can be discovered in
the course of conducting FISA activities, Congress required that FISA minimization procedures contain
provisions addressing how to treat evidence of unrelated crimes acquired in the course of a foreign intelligence activity….There are also instances where the FISA-derived information
sought is both relevant to foreign intelligence information and a criminal act (e.g., information relating
to international terrorism).

In recent years, both Congress and the FISC have focused particular attention on instances in which
FBI’s purpose at the time of the query is solely to retrieve evidence of a crime and that are not designed
to retrieve foreign intelligence information. There are two specific requirements related to these queries:
(1) a statutory requirement for FBI to obtain a court order to review the results of certain evidence of
a crime-only queries related to a predicated criminal investigation and (2) a FISC quarterly reporting
requirement to provide the number of U.S. person evidence of a crime-only queries that resulted in
content review, whether or not they are associated with a predicated criminal investigation. Both are
explained below with corresponding statistics.

This is at the heart of issue critics have with Section 702, namely that it allows law enforcement to mine data collected expressly for intelligence gathering to be used in investigations completely unrelated to national security.

As the FBI highlights, some measures have been put in place to regulate these instances, but evidence consistently shows that the FBI has played fast and loose with its access to this data. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), citing the FBI’s own internal documents, outlines the abuses that continue to occur:

Despite reassurances from the intelligence community about its “culture of compliance,” these documents depict almost no substantial consideration of privacy or civil liberties. They also suggest that in the years before these guidelines were written, even amidst widespread FBI misuse of the databases to search for Americans’ communications, there were even fewer written guidelines governing their use. Above all, FBI agents can still search for and read Americans’ private communications collected under Section 702, all without a warrant or judicial oversight.

The EFF minces no words in its description of Section 702:

Section 702 has become something Congress never intended: a domestic spying tool. Congress should consider ending the program entirely, but certainly not reauthorize Section 702 without critical reforms, including true accountability and oversight.

While critics will no doubt be happy to see the number of US persons queries dropped significantly in 2023, most will not be satisfied until the FBI and law enforcement is required to get a warrant to access and use the data collected on Americans.

According to the FCC, the four carriers illegally shared access to customer location data and failed to put proper protection in place to safeguard such data. The FCC has fined Sprint $12 million, T-Mobile $80 million, AT&T more than $57 million, and Verizon nearly $47 million, for just under $200 million total.

The FCC Enforcement Bureau investigations of the four carriers found that each carrier sold access to its customers’ location information to “aggregators,” who then resold access to such information to third-party location-based service providers. In doing so, each carrier attempted to offload its obligations to obtain customer consent onto downstream recipients of location information, which in many instances meant that no valid customer consent was obtained. This initial failure was compounded when, after becoming aware that their safeguards were ineffective, the carriers continued to sell access to location information without taking reasonable measures to protect it from unauthorized access.

“Our communications providers have access to some of the most sensitive information about us. These carriers failed to protect the information entrusted to them. Here, we are talking about some of the most sensitive data in their possession: customers’ real-time location information, revealing where they go and who they are,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “As we resolve these cases – which were first proposed by the last Administration – the Commission remains committed to holding all carriers accountable and making sure they fulfill their obligations to their customers as stewards of this most private data.”

As the FCC points out, section 222 of the Communication Act requires that carriers “take reasonable measures to protect certain customer information, including location information.” The law also requires carriers to protect customer confidentiality and get customers’ consent before sharing their data.

“The protection and use of sensitive personal data such as location information is sacrosanct,” said Loyaan A. Egal, Chief of the FCC Enforcement Bureau and Chair of its Privacy and Data Protection Task Force. “When placed in the wrong hands or used for nefarious purposes, it puts all of us at risk. Foreign adversaries and cybercriminals have prioritized getting their hands on this information, and that is why ensuring service providers have reasonable protections in place to safeguard customer location data and valid consent for its use is of the highest priority for the Enforcement Bureau.”

Under the DMA, products and services that meet certain criteria can be labeled gatekeepers and forced to abide by certain rules. Gatekeepers must take steps to ensure interoperability with rival services, not push their own apps and services over competing option, and more.

The EU had already determined that iOS, Safari, and the App Store met the criteria to be classified as gatekeepers, but there was question as to whether iPadOS should be classified as such, given that iPads are not nearly as popular as iPhones. The EU acknowledged that iPadOS does not quite meet the quantitative thresholds to be classified as a gatekeeper, but it did meet the other criteria, including:

• Apple’s business user numbers exceeded the quantitative threshold elevenfold, while its end user numbers were close to the threshold and are predicted to rise in the near future.
• End users are locked-in to iPadOS. Apple leverages its large ecosystem to disincentivise end users from switching to other operating systems for tablets.
• Business users are locked-in to iPadOS because of its large and commercially attractive user base, and its importance for certain use cases, such as gaming apps.

“The Digital Markets Act is a dynamic tool which allows us to tackle the realities of digital markets,” said Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice-President in charge of competition policy. “Today, we have brought Apple’s iPadOS within the scope of the DMA obligations. Our market investigation showed that despite not meeting the thresholds, iPadOS constitutes an important gateway on which many companies rely to reach their customers. Today’s decision will ensure that fairness and contestability are preserved also on this platform, in addition to the 22 other services we designated last September. Apple has six months to make iPadOS compliant with the DMA.

“Today we conclude the first market investigation for qualitative designation under the DMA finding that also iPadOS is an important gateway for businesses to reach consumers,” said Thierry Breton, Commissioner for Internal Market. “Apple has now six months to comply with the DMA obligations. We continue monitoring market developments and will not hesitate to open new investigations should other services below the thresholds present characteristics to be considered important gateways for business users.

Net neutrality was originally passed during the Obama administration, repealed during the Trump administration, and was restored in a vote Thursday. The rule ensures that ISPs cannot penalize or throttle certain types of internet traffic, leveling the playing field for tech companies and streaming services.

Through its actions today, the Commission creates a national standard by which it can ensure that broadband internet service is treated as an essential service. Today’s vote also makes clear that the Commission will exercise its authority over broadband in a narrowly tailored fashion—without rate regulation, tariffing, or unbundling—to foster continued innovation and investment.

Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel emphasized the fact that nearly a dozen states stepped in after net neutrality was repealed to enact net neutrality rules of their own in the absence of a national solution. She also highlighted the changing role and importance of broadband access in the wake of the pandemic, a major factor that drove the restoration of net neutrality.

“Four years ago the pandemic changed life as we know it,” Rosenworcel wrote. “We were told to stay home, hunker down, and live online. So much of work, school, and healthcare migrated to the internet. If we wanted to engage with the world, we needed to do it all through a broadband connection.

“It became clear that no matter who you are or where you live, you need broadband to have a fair shot at digital age success. It went from nice-to-have to need-to-have for everyone, everywhere. Broadband is now an essential service. Essential services—the ones we count on in every aspect of modern life—have some basic oversight.

“So let’s be clear about what we are doing today. This agency—the Nation’s leading communications authority—believes every consumer deserves internet access that is fast, open, and fair. That is why we determine that the Federal Communications Commission should be able to assist consumers and take action when it comes to the most important communications of our time—and that’s broadband.”

Support for a ban on the sale of smartphones to minors has been growing in popularity, with a recent poll by Parentkind revealing 58% of parents supporting the idea. Despite the majority supporting such a ban, a solid 33% of parents are opposed.

According to The Guardian, ministers are considering moving forward with a ban, in the interests of protecting children. Nonetheless, not all ministers are comfortable with the idea.

“It’s not the government’s role to step in and microparent; we’re meant to make parents more aware of the powers they have like restrictions on websites, apps and even the use of parental control apps,” a Tory government source told the outlet.

Only time will tell if the UK government moves forward with the ban. If it does, however, it will be among the most drastic action taken by a government to protect children.

The FCC voted in favor for requiring ISPs to provide a Broadband Consumer Label—much like the nutrition label on food—to give consumers clear information about the service they are paying for. The move sparked predictable pushback from ISPs, with claims the labels would create a “burden on providers to generate and maintain their labels.”

Google Fiber appears to be bucking the trend, coming out in favor of the FCC’s requirement. Jain outlined the company’s support in a blog post:

As part of its effort to improve broadband service nationwide — not just in terms of speed but also in terms of customer experience — the federal government is requiring all ISPs to provide broadband “nutrition labels” on their websites when purchasing service. The point of these labels is similar to the nutrition label on a cereal box (or any other food). They are designed to help consumers make clear comparisons between broadband plans based on key factors such as price and speed and to help them understand what they get for their money.

Jain goes on to say that transparency has always been a part of Google Fiber.

This type of transparency is a part of Google Fiber’s origin story. Google was built on the idea that information is powerful. And finding the information you need when you need it can change the game. In fact, doing this made the internet navigable — a digital world where information was readily and easily accessible to anyone online. Historically, easy and transparent are not words that many people would associate with ISPs, and that has to change. Nutrition labels are a start in the right direction for our industry.

Jain then reinforces what the FCC has already said, that ISPs have a well-established reputation of trying to confuse customers instead of being upfront and transparent.

Choice, and even more importantly, understanding that choice, benefits customers. Informed customers are happier customers. Since the very beginning, ISPs have played confusing games when it comes to price and speed. From that mysterious 13-month price bump to incurring extra fees for everything from equipment to data usage, it can be impossible to know what you are actually getting for your monthly payment (or even what that monthly payment will be).

That’s why GFiber has been fully supportive of the FCC’s broadband labels from the very beginning, and why we launched them early last October — six months ahead of this month’s deadline. These labels empower the consumer and set up a strong foundation for what will hopefully be an extremely long term & satisfying relationship for customers.

Internet service providers are among the most hated industries in America. In that environment, it’s refreshing to see one put customers first and support commonsense measures to improve the customer experience.

First reported by Reuters, Judge Farbiarz cites ethics rules that prohibit a judge from serving on a case where he or his family may have ties or financial connections to the company in question. Judge Farbiarz did not go into detail, other than citing the mandatory rule.

The case will now be handled by US District Judge Julien Neals in New Jersey. As AppleInsider points out, both judges likely share similar views, since both were appointed by President Joe Biden.

The DOJ’s case against Apple will have profound implications for the iPhone maker, as well as the tech industry at large, especially in matters related to gatekeeping and interoperability with competing services. If Apple loses the case, it could result in nothing less than a complete overhaul of the company’s business.

The EU has a complicated relationship with privacy. On the one hand, the bloc is making great efforts to protect its citizens’ data from foreign companies and governments. On the other hand, the bloc also seems hell-bent on undermining privacy and encryption for its own surveillance purposes.

The EU tried to push client-side scanning legislation last year that would have forced companies to scan all messages, including those protected by end-to-end encryption (E2EE). The bill was described as “the most sophisticated mass surveillance machinery ever deployed outside of China and the USSR,” with the EU’s own description acknowledging the “process would be the most intrusive one for users.”

Read More: EU Proposes Most Privacy-Invasive Measure Yet to Tackle Child Abuse

The EU’s internal legal team warned that the measure was likely illegal and would be overturned by the courts since it “would require the general and indiscriminate screening of the data processed by a specific service provider, and apply without distinction to all the persons using that specific service, without those persons being, even indirectly, in a situation liable to give rise to criminal prosecution.”

Despite that setback, the EU is once again moving forward with a new proposal that would effectively bring back the legislation with its most controversial elements unchanged, according Patrick Breyer – Digital freedom fighter and Member of European Parliament for the German and the European Pirate Party.

As the Council’s legal service has confirmed, the latest move does not change the nature of detection orders. Millions of private chats and private photos of law-abiding citizens are to be searched and leaked using flawed technology, without them being even remotely connected to child sexual abuse – this destroys our digital privacy of correspondence. Despite lip service being paid to encryption, client-side scanning is to be used to undermine previously secure end-to-end encryption in order to turn our smartphones into spies – this destroys secure encryption.

Breyer goes on to outline the technical issues with the EU’s plans and client-side scanning in general:

Limiting bulk chat searches to ‘high-risk services’ is meaningless because every communication service is misused also for sharing illegal images and therefore has an imminently high risk of abuse. Ireland – one of the strongest proponents of chat control – would be classifying the major services. In any case, the service used is no justification for searching the private chats of millions of citizens who are not even remotely connected to any wrongdoing.

Informing law enforcement only of repeat hits is also meaningless, as falsely flagged beach pictures or consensual sexting rarely involve just a single photo. The EU Commissioner for Home Affairs has herself herself stated that three out of four of the disclosed chats and photos are not actionable for the police. These algorithms and hash databases are totally unreliable in distinguishing legal from illegal content.

Client-side scanning burst onto the tech scene when Apple announced it would use the technology to scan encrypted messages on its platform. The technology uses on-device scanning to match photos and files against a database containing mathematical hashes of illegal content. Once a threshold of matches is exceeded, the case is forwarded to human reviewers and then to law enforcement.

Interestingly, Apple was not the first to come up with the idea of client-side scanning. Princeton researchers developed a similar technology prior to Apple, and then wrote a paper on why it should never be used.

“Our system could be easily repurposed for surveillance and censorship,” the researchers wrote. “The design wasn’t restricted to a specific category of content; a service could simply swap in any content-matching database, and the person using that service would be none the wiser.”

Despite the warning from Princeton and Apple abandoning its own plans after realizing the same thing, the EU continues to push forward with its attempts to deploy what is essentially the same flawed technology.

See Also: Germany Pushes Back Against EU Client-Side Scanning Plans

As the drama continues, Germany has been a champion of privacy, consistently pushing back against what many see as a draconian and “unprecedented surveillance infrastructure.”

Breyer says the window to block the EU’s attack on privacy is quickly closing.

Now is the time to take to the barricades in favour of privacy and secure encryption, because EU governments that have been critical so far are praising the repackaged plans, which means that the blocking minority no longer stands. Not even a written opinion of the Council’s legal service on this obvious violation of fundamental rights has been requested, it seems.

Only time will tell if the EU succeeds or if privacy advocates will win the day.

The FCC said it would once again take up the issue of net neutrality in April, with with enough votes to pass the popular legislation. Net neutrality is designed to ensure ISPs cannot discriminate against, block, throttle, or charge more for traffic from competitors and smaller rivals. Despite having wide-spread support, net neutrality was repealed under the Trump administration.

With enough votes to pass it, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said the agency will vote on the measure in April, sparking a predictable response from the cable industry. In a public statement, Michael Powell, President & CEO of NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, threatened prolonged legal action in response.

“In the absence of any harm, the FCC is barreling ahead with a backward-looking, unnecessary proposal. Its repeated legal flip-flopping has become a tiresome political ritual unmoored from congressional direction that radically upends what should be a stable regulatory environment. But this time, reimposing heavy-handed regulation will not just hobble network investment and innovation, it will also seriously jeopardize our nation’s collective efforts to build and sustain reliable broadband in rural and unserved communities. We urge the FCC to reverse course to avoid years of litigation and uncertainty.”

The FCC maintains that net neutrality is necessary to secure fast, open access for all, the importance of which became painfully clear during the pandemic.

“The pandemic proved once and for all that broadband is essential,” said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. “After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the internet remains fast, open, and fair. A return to the FCC’s overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open internet.”

Myth #1: Instant Results

Contrary to popular belief, digital transformation is not a quick fix. It demands significant time, resources, and sustained effort to yield meaningful outcomes. The notion of overnight success is a fallacy; organizations must recognize that transformation is a journey, not a destination. It requires a comprehensive strategy, meticulous planning, and a commitment to continuous improvement. By setting realistic expectations and understanding the long-term nature of transformation, businesses can better navigate the complexities and challenges that lie ahead.

Myth #2: Tech Alone Solves Everything

While technology is undeniably a critical enabler of transformation, success hinges upon more than just the latest gadgets and software. True transformation entails aligning technology with objectives, processes, and organizational culture. It’s about fostering a culture of adoption and innovation, where technology serves as a catalyst for change rather than an end in itself. Moreover, organizations must recognize that the human element is equally important in driving transformation. Effective leadership, change management, and employee engagement are essential factors determining digital initiatives’ success. Without the right mindset and organizational buy-in, even the most advanced technologies will fail to deliver meaningful results.

Myth #3: One Size Fits All

No two digital transformation journeys are alike. Each organization faces unique challenges, priorities, and constraints, necessitating tailored strategies and solutions. A one-size-fits-all approach is destined for failure. Instead, businesses must embrace flexibility and agility, adapting their strategies to address specific needs and circumstances. This requires a deep understanding of the organization’s goals, capabilities, and market dynamics. By taking a customized approach to transformation, businesses can unlock new opportunities, mitigate risks, and achieve sustainable growth.

Myth #4: Costly Endeavor

While digital transformation undoubtedly requires investment, it is not inherently prohibitively expensive. Strategic planning and prioritization can optimize spending, ensuring maximum return on investment. Organizations can allocate resources more efficiently and effectively by conducting a thorough cost-benefit analysis and identifying areas of highest impact. Moreover, the proliferation of cloud-based solutions, open-source software, and digital platforms has democratized access to technology, making it more accessible and affordable for businesses of all sizes. With careful planning and prudent decision-making, organizations can embark on their transformation journey without breaking the bank.

Myth #5: IT’s Responsibility

Digital transformation is not the sole responsibility of the IT department; it is a business-wide initiative that requires collaboration and leadership engagement across all levels of the organization. Everyone from the C-suite to frontline employees has a role to play in driving change and embracing innovation. Investing in new technologies is not enough; organizations must also focus on building digital capabilities, fostering a culture of experimentation, and empowering employees to adapt to new ways of working. By breaking down silos and promoting cross-functional collaboration, businesses can leverage the collective expertise and insights of their workforce to drive transformational change.

Myth #6: Disruption Equals Success

While disruptive innovation garners headlines, true success in digital transformation lies not merely in upending traditional models but in enhancing value and adopting new processes that better serve customers and stakeholders. It’s about leveraging technology to streamline operations, improve efficiency, and deliver exceptional experiences. Disruption for the sake of disruption is not a sustainable strategy; organizations must focus on solving real-world problems and addressing unmet needs in the market. By embracing a customer-centric approach and prioritizing innovation that delivers tangible benefits, businesses can differentiate themselves in a crowded marketplace and build lasting competitive advantage.

Myth #7: Completion Fallacy

Digital transformation is not a one-time project with a defined endpoint; it is an ongoing journey of adaptation, improvement, and evolution. In a landscape characterized by constant change, organizations must remain agile and responsive, continuously refining their strategies and embracing emerging technologies to stay competitive. The notion of “completion” is a fallacy; there will always be new challenges, technologies to explore, and opportunities to pursue. By adopting a continuous learning and innovation mindset, businesses can future-proof themselves against disruption and position themselves for long-term success.

Embracing Strategic Planning for Success

In navigating the complexities of digital transformation, organizations must prioritize strategic planning and thoughtful execution. By debunking myths and embracing a holistic approach to transformation, businesses can position themselves for sustained growth and success in an ever-evolving digital landscape. For organizations seeking guidance on their transformation journey,

Net neutrality is legislation aimed at ensuring a level playing field on the internet. For example, without net neutrality, a company like AT&T could charge Netflix more for traffic going to the streaming service’s site while simultaneously giving its own HBO Max service a pass. Proponents of net neutrality have long argued that such legislation is important to ensure that small companies are not unfairly squeezed out of the market.

Despite passing under the Obama administration, the Trump administration successfully repealed net neutrality, despite efforts to bring it back. With the FCC under Democratic control, the agency is once again planning to implement the legislation. The FCC will take up the matter in its April Open Meeting.

“The pandemic proved once and for all that broadband is essential,” said Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the internet remains fast, open, and fair. A return to the FCC’s overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open internet.”

It’s a sure bet ISPs and other opponents won’t go down without a fight, if history is any indication. For example, during the 2017 push for net neutrality, ISPs spent some $8.2 million to generate millions of fake comments in opposition to the legislation. In fact, 18 million of the 22 million comments were fake.

The DMA targets large companies that act as “gatekeepers” for an industry or market. The legislation aims to prevent such companies from prioritizing their own products and services over those of competitors, and force them to interoperate with smaller rivals. Apple’s App Store, Google’s search, and Meta’s WhatsApp messaging are prime examples.

Despite all three companies taking measures to comply with the DMA, the Commission believes their efforts may not meet the required threshold.

• In the case of Alphabet and Apple, the Commission is investigating whether Apple and Google are allowing developers to “steer” customers to offers outside the App Store and Play Store, avoiding the two companies’ fees and giving users a cheaper option.
• The Commission is also investigating whether Apple is respecting user choice when it comes to uninstalling default iOS applications and replacing them with alternatives. Apple has received significant criticism for this in the past, as the company locked users into using its Safari web browser. Even if a user installed an alternative, Apple forced all iOS web browsers to use Safari as the underlying engine, making all iOS web browsers little more than Safari skins.
• The Commission is investigating if Google search unfairly leads people to choose Alphabet’s vertical services, such as Google Flights, Google Hotels, and Google Shopping over competing options.
• Meta is under investigation for its “pay or consent” model, in which users who want to avoid cross-site data tracking and profiling must pay for their privacy. The Commission fears the binary choice may offer many users no real choice at all.

The Commission says it is engaged in additional “investigatory steps” and fact-finding regarding whether Amazon shows a preference for its own brands and products, as well as whether Apple’s new developer fees pertaining to iOS app sideloading may be in violation.

“Today, the Commission opens five non-compliance investigations under the Digital Markets Act (DMA),” said Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice-President in charge of competition policy. “They concern Alphabet’s rules on steering in Google Play and self-preferencing in Google Search, Apple’s rules on steering in the App Store and on choosing browsers and changing defaults, and Meta’s ‘pay or consent model’. We suspect that the suggested solutions put forward by the three companies do not fully comply with the DMA. We will now investigate the companies’ compliance with the DMA, to ensure open and contestable digital markets in Europe.”

“The Digital Markets Act became applicable on 7 March. We have been in discussions with gatekeepers for months to help them adapt, and we can already see changes happening on the market,” added Thierry Breton, Commissioner for Internal Market. “But we are not convinced that the solutions by Alphabet, Apple and Meta respect their obligations for a fairer and more open digital space for European citizens and businesses. Should our investigation conclude that there is lack of full compliance with the DMA, gatekeepers could face heavy fines.”

The global pandemic shed a light on issues withe previous standard of 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up as unprecedented numbers of individuals worked and learned remotely. The FCC voted 3-2 to increase the benchmark.

The Federal Communications Commission today adopted its annual assessment of whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion across the U.S. In addition to deployment, the Report considers broadband affordability, adoption, availability, and equitable access, when determining whether broadband is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion to “all Americans.” The Commission’s Report, issued pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, raises the Commission’s benchmark for high-speed fixed broadband to download speeds of 100 megabits per second and upload speeds of 20 megabits per second – a four-fold increase from the 25/3 Mbps benchmark set by the Commission in 2015.

The FCC also set a long-term goal of 1 Gbps/500 mbps for future deployments.

“We have committed to this course—at the Federal Communications Commission, with our colleagues at other agencies, and with Congress—because we know that all of us need access to broadband to have a fair shot at 21st century success,” said Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel.

“Nothing made this apparent like the pandemic. After all, it was just four years ago this week that so many of us were told to head home. Life moved online—school, work, healthcare, and so much more. But not all of us were able to make this digital leap. Not everyone had access to reliable broadband. The pandemic exposed our digital divide in living color.

“That is why we are now in the bold business of fixing this divide. That is why today the Commission updates its standard for broadband, our baseline, to 100 Megabits down and 20 Megabits up from 25 Megabits down and 3 Megabits up. This fix is overdue. It aligns us with pandemic legislation like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the work of our colleagues at other agencies. It also helps us better identify the extent to which low-income neighborhoods and rural communities are underserved. And because doing big things is in our DNA, we also adopt a long-term goal of 1 Gigabit down and 500 Megabits up.”

Unum, a global leader in providing insurance products and services, boasts an extensive customer base of 45 million individuals worldwide. With a mission to safeguard lives and provide affordable access to essential insurance coverage, Unum has consistently been at the forefront of innovation and customer-centricity. Roy kicked off the discussion by highlighting Unum’s recent achievements, including being recognized as the “Most Ethical Company” for three consecutive years, earning accolades as one of the “Most Innovative Companies” by Fortune, and being named a “Great Place to Work” by US News and Reports.

Roy’s role as CTO encompasses overseeing Unum’s comprehensive IT services, spanning infrastructure, operations, and applications. With a keen focus on leveraging technology to uphold Unum’s brand promise of empathy, simplicity, and expertise, Roy emphasized the pivotal role that IT plays in driving business success and delivering unparalleled customer experiences.

Unum’s digital transformation journey, which spans over five years, has been marked by a strategic blend of technological innovation and cultural change. Roy underscored the importance of aligning technology initiatives with business objectives and fostering a collaborative environment between IT and business stakeholders. He emphasized that true transformation goes beyond technology implementation—it requires a shift in mindset and a commitment to embracing change at every level of the organization.

A significant milestone in Unum’s transformation journey was the successful migration of its call centers to AWS Connect. This move aimed to enhance customer experience through features like omnichannel support and intelligent IVRs. Roy highlighted the meticulous planning and collaboration that went into the migration process, which resulted in tangible improvements in customer satisfaction and operational efficiency.

Furthermore, Roy elaborated on Unum’s adoption of cloud-native services and serverless technologies for developing customer-facing applications, emphasizing the remarkable gains in stability and functionality achieved through these endeavors. By leveraging AWS’s robust cloud infrastructure, Unum has been able to accelerate innovation and deliver cutting-edge solutions that meet the evolving needs of its customers.

The conversation then shifted towards Unum’s embrace of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies, particularly their implementation of Gen AI to augment human interactions and streamline processes across various business functions. Roy highlighted the transformative impact of AI on areas such as call center operations, RFP proposal management, and digital coding, where automation and data-driven insights have led to significant efficiency gains and improved outcomes.

Data emerged as a critical component of Unum’s AI initiatives, with Roy stressing the importance of quality data sources and collaboration with business stakeholders to ensure successful outcomes. He emphasized the need for a robust data strategy that enables seamless integration and analysis of disparate data sources, ultimately driving actionable insights and informed decision-making.

Looking ahead, Roy outlined Unum’s ongoing cloud adoption journey, with a focus on mainframe optimization, reducing on-premises data center footprint, migrating data platforms to the cloud, and strengthening FinOps and security governance. He reiterated Unum’s commitment to leveraging AWS’s unparalleled capabilities to drive innovation, enhance operational efficiency, and deliver superior value to its customers.

In conclusion, Roy expressed optimism about Unum’s partnership with AWS and the transformative potential of cloud computing in reshaping the insurance industry. He underscored Unum’s unwavering commitment to innovation and customer-centricity, positioning the company as a trailblazer in the digital age of insurance.

As Unum continues to lead the charge in digital transformation within the insurance industry, Roy’s insights serve as a testament to the company’s visionary leadership and strategic partnership with AWS. They pave the way for a future where technology-driven innovation drives sustainable growth and superior customer experiences.