Motorola unveils Android Wear-powered Moto 360

Motorola Mobility is trying to bring the sexy back to wearables with the Moto 360.

Motorola confirmed in a blog post Tuesday that it will join the ranks of hardware partners who have lined up to use Google's Android Wear, a modified operating system designed for wearables. The company had previously disclosed at a press conference in Mobile World Congress that it had plans to build a smartwatch.

That watch is the Moto 360, which the company said would launch in the summer, starting in the US. Motorola only offered a small glimpse, but the device looks like an actual timepiece. The company bragged that it would use a round face and premium materials.

"The wristwatch has been through several evolutions since it first became a popular fashion accessory more than a 100 years ago," the company said in the post. "Our vision for Moto 360 was to celebrate that history as we re-imagined the wristwatch for the future."

Motorola said that you would be able to get alerts on emails, missed calls, and calendar appointments with the twist of the wrist. Like other devices running on Android Wear, it responds to the "Ok Google" command.

Google earlier Tuesday released the details of Android Wear, and has lined up hardware vendors, chipmakers, and one apparel company in Fossil Group. With Android Wear, the company is attempting to create a more consistent experience for watches running on its OS.

Other companies such as HTC, Samsung, and LG were mentioned in the blog post. Notably missing was Motorola from that list. But the company doesn't appear to be left out of the mix. To sign up for updates, here's the product page.

Read more ...

Google unveils Android Wear, its modified OS for wearables

Google is partnering up with HTC, LG, Samsung, and others for the first phase of its Android Wear wearables push: smartwatches.

Google is dipping its toes into the wearables world with Android Wear.

In a blog post on Tuesday, the Internet titan unwrapped the details of a modified version of its mobile Android operating system. The OS will be heavily based on its Google Now voice-recognition technology, and it's designed to be applied to wearables, with the initial push being smartwatches.

Google also introduced LG, Asus, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung as hardware partners to utilize Android Wear, and Broadcom, Imagination, Intel, MediaTek, and Qualcomm as chip partners. The Fossil Group will bring Android Wear-powered watches later this year.

CNET previously reported that Google would release the details of its smartwatch-centric OS in March. The report also noted LG and Google would unveil a smartwatch at the Google I/O developer conference, and a person briefed on the matter confirmed that LG would indeed be the first partner to have its smartwatch go on sale.

Google's entry marks an attempt to provide a little stability and order in the wild, wild wearables world. Samsung and Sony have already created their own Android-based smartwatches (although Samsung has recently switched to Tizen), and Google is looking to set up a foundation with a more consistent experience, just as it has attempted to do over the last few iterations of Android in smartphones.

Google also wants Android Wear to serve as a link between you and other devices, including your television or computer.

Hopefully, Google's input will help with the aesthetic appeal of smartwatches. While wearables is considered a "hot" area, sales have been anything but. Samsung's originalGalaxy Gear and Sony's SmartWatch remain niche products, and they are seen as too bulky and cumbersome to be considered fashionable. Other complaints include weak battery life and the lack of certain functions.

Still, there are a number of startups that have sprung up in hopes of meeting this new demand for fashionable technology. Pebble, for instance, has grown from virtually nothing to making headlines at a big conference such as the Consumer Electronics Show.

Google has opened up a section on wearables, and developers can download a developer preview to create app notifications for watches through Android Wear. The company teased more developer resources and APIs to come.

Read more ...

Microsoft, Google to sue over FISA gag order

Google and Microsoft plan to sue the government, demanding the right to publicly discuss any surveillance requests served up by the FISA court.

Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith.

Stonewalling by the Department of Justice has led Google and Microsoft to decide to file a lawsuit so that they can publicly discuss Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court-approved surveillance orders.
Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith announced Friday that the company, in collaboration with Google, would sue the government despite its statement on Thursday that it would  publish some surveillance request information  annually.
Google and Microsoft are requesting the ability to publish "aggregate information" about FISA court orders directed at the companies in the hopes of being more transparent to their customers, the companies have said.
Google originally filed the motion to claim a First Amendment right to publish information such as how many requests it has received from under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Section 702 of the act was amended in 2008 to allow the government to declare even the number of requests issued under the act subject to gag orders.
Before the National Security Agency document leaks from Edward Snowden, the FISA orders had been declared so secret that Google, Microsoft, and other companies served with them were barred from acknowledging in public that they had received the requests.
As part of the procedure for the lawsuit to proceed, Google and Microsoft will be amending their petitions filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a source close to the matter told CNET. The companies received a 10-day extension, so the government isn't expected to respond by Friday's deadline.
The government's response to the original filing's deadline was delayed six times by the Department of Justice, leading to frustration on the part of the tech companies, which has culminated in the announcement of the lawsuit.
The source, who requested anonymity because the person lacked authorization to speak on the record, said that Google and Microsoft will be amending their petitions to more closely reflect the details of an open letter signed by most major tech companies (PDF) and sent after the initial FISA court filing from the Center for Democracy and Transparency to the heads of the US government and intelligence agencies.

It is likely that the government will consolidate the various petitions into the Microsoft lawsuit to avoid potentially having disparate decisions for different companies.

Read more ...

Google to feds: Let us talk about government surveillance, please

Attorney General Eric Holder has prohibited tech companies from revealing what information they're legally required to disclose to the feds. Google wants to lift the gag orders.

Attorney General Eric Holder, shown here earlier today, has not permitted Google to disclose what information it is -- and isn't -- forced to turn over to the feds

Google today asked the U.S. government to lift a legal gag order and let it clear up speculation and erroneous reports about what information it's forced to turn over to the feds.

In an open letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller asking for "transparency," the Mountain View, Calif.-based company is effectively applying an unusual amount of public pressure to the Obama administration. President Obama has claimed to have"the most transparent administration in history," though critics have argued otherwise.

Google, Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, and other Internet companies were left reeling after a pair of articles last Thursday alleged that they provided the National Security Agency with "direct access" to their servers. By late Friday, however, CNET reported that was not true, and the Washington Post backtracked from its original story on PRISM. In an editorial today, the paper said the process met legal "standards" and was subject to "judicial review."

But for Silicon Valley companies that rely on user trust -- and are trying to usher in a future where more data is stored in the cloud -- even lingering misgivings over privacy are worth eliminating.

Today's letter, signed by David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, asks for the right to disclose information about how many orders the company receives under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and how broad they are. It says:

 Google has worked tremendously hard over the past 15 years to earn our users' trust. For example, we offer encryption across our services; we have hired some of the best security engineers in the world; and we have consistently pushed back on overly broad government requests for our users' data.

We have always made clear that we comply with valid legal requests. And last week, the director of national intelligence acknowledged that service providers have received Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests.

Assertions in the press that our compliance with these requests gives the U.S. government unfettered access to our users' data are simply untrue. However, government nondisclosure obligations regarding the number of FISA national security requests that Google receives, as well as the number of accounts covered by those requests, fuel that speculation.

We therefore ask you to help make it possible for Google to publish in our Transparency Report aggregate numbers of national security requests, including FISA disclosures -- in terms of both the number we receive and their scope. Google's numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being made. Google has nothing to hide.

Google appreciates that you authorized the recent disclosure of general numbers for national security letters. There have been no adverse consequences arising from their publication, and in fact more companies are receiving your approval to do so as a result of Google's initiative. Transparency here will likewise serve the public interest without harming national security.

The Justice Department and the FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNET.

Google already releases many statistics about government surveillance as part of itstransparency report, including, as of March, information on secret National Security Letters sent by the FBI. But a source familiar with the situation said the company has not secured permission to disclose information about secret court orders.

James Clapper, the head of national intelligence, confirmed last week that the Internet companies were receiving legal orders sent to them "pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

After the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court limited a Bush-era warrantless surveillance program's scope, Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act, which established a new procedure for foreign surveillance.

That Section 702 procedure works like this: The Justice Department must demonstrate that its surveillance will not intentionally target anyone present in the United States or any American who's overseas. And the surveillance process must comply with the Fourth Amendment.

Section 702 also requires that the government obtain the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's approval of "targeting" and "minimization" procedures, and that the court review the agencies' certification describing how proposed surveillance techniques will comply with the law. Judges must consider whether the targeting procedures are "reasonably designed" to exclude Americans and purely domestic surveillance.

A former government official who is intimately familiar with this process of data acquisition and spoke on condition of anonymity told CNET last week that the government delivers an order to obtain account details about someone who's specifically identified as a non-U.S. individual, with a specific finding that they're involved in an activity related to international terrorism. Both the contents of communications and metadata, such as information about who's talking to whom, can be requested.

Amnesty International and journalists launched a legal challenge to Section 702 (which is sometimes called 1881a, for its location in the law books). They argued their confidential communications with foreign correspondents would be intercepted under Section 702 in violation of the Fourth Amendment. But in February 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their challenge by a 5-4 vote, with Justice Samuel Alito writing that their allegations were too "speculative" and the Section 702 process is subject to ongoing "oversight" and "review."

Read more ...

Justice Dept. weighs Google's request to lift NSA gag order

Microsoft, Google, and Facebook are asking the Obama administration for permission to clear their names by disclosing surveillance details. The Justice Department has not yet responded.

Attorney General Eric Holder, who has not lifted a gag order on Internet companies

The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed Tuesday that it is considering requests from Google, Facebook, and Microsoft that would let them clear their names after allegations they opened their networks to government spies, although U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has not yet issued a decision on the matter.

In response to queries from CNET, the Justice Department said late this afternoon: "The department has received the letter from the chief legal officer at Google. We are in the process of reviewing their request."

David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer,  sent an open letter  to Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller today asking them to lift a gag order so they could clear up misconceptions about National Security Agency eavesdropping. The ongoing gag order fuels incorrect "speculation," Drummond said.

Microsoft followed shortly afterward with a statement saying "government should take action to allow companies to provide additional transparency." And Facebook's general counsel, Ted Ullyot, called on the feds to allow "companies to include information about the size and scope of national security requests we receive, and look forward to publishing a report that includes that information."

The three requests from some of the United States' largest tech companies increases pressure on the Obama administration to permit more disclosure of what's happening in terms of national security-related surveillance. So does a parallel move today by Democratic senators to support legislation that would partially lift the veil on the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Google, Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, and other Internet companies were left reeling after a pair of articles on Thursday alleged that they provided the National Security Agency with "direct access" to their servers. By late Friday, however, CNET reported that was not true, and the Washington Post backtracked from its original story on PRISM. In an editorial Tuesday, the paper said the process met legal "standards" and was subject to "judicial review."

Also today, Google told Wired that: "When required to comply with these requests, we deliver that information to the U.S. government -- generally through secure FTP transfers and in person. The U.S. government does not have the ability to pull that data directly from our servers or network."

Google already releases many statistics about government surveillance as part of itstransparency report, including, as of March, information on secret National Security Letters sent by the FBI. But a source familiar with the situation said the company has not secured permission to disclose information about secret court orders.

James Clapper, the head of national intelligence, confirmed last week that the Internet companies were receiving legal orders sent to them "pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

After the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court limited a Bush-era warrantless surveillance program's scope, Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act, which established a new procedure for foreign surveillance.

That Section 702 procedure works like this: The Justice Department must demonstrate that its surveillance will not intentionally target anyone present in the United States or any American who's overseas. And the surveillance process must comply with the Fourth Amendment.

Section 702 also requires that the government obtain the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's approval of "targeting" and "minimization" procedures, and that the court review the agencies' certification describing how proposed surveillance techniques will comply with the law. Judges must consider whether the targeting procedures are "reasonably designed" to exclude Americans and purely domestic surveillance.

A former government official who is intimately familiar with this process of data acquisition and spoke on condition of anonymity told CNET last week that the government delivers an order to obtain account details about someone who's specifically identified as a non-U.S. individual, with a specific finding that they're involved in an activity related to international terrorism. Both the contents of communications and metadata, such as information about who's talking to whom, can be requested.

Amnesty International and journalists launched a legal challenge to Section 702 (which is sometimes called 1881a, for its location in the law books). They argued their confidential communications with foreign correspondents would be intercepted under Section 702 in violation of the Fourth Amendment. But in February 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their challenge by a 5-4 vote, with Justice Samuel Alito writing that their allegations were too "speculative" and the Section 702 process is subject to ongoing "oversight" and "review."

Here are the full statements from Microsoft and Facebook:

 "As Mark said last week, we strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. In the past, we have questioned the value of releasing a transparency report that, because of exactly these types of government restrictions on disclosure, is necessarily incomplete and therefore potentially misleading to users. We would welcome the opportunity to provide a transparency report that allows us to share with those who use Facebook around the world a complete picture of the government requests we receive, and how we respond. We urge the United States government to help make that possible by allowing companies to include information about the size and scope of national security requests we receive, and look forward to publishing a report that includes that information." -- Ted Ullyot, general counsel, Facebook

 "Permitting greater transparency on the aggregate volume and scope of national security requests, including FISA orders, would help the community understand and debate these important issues. Our recent Report went as far as we legally could and the government should take action to allow companies to provide additional transparency." -- Microsoft

Also today, Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat and head of a Senate privacy panel,downplayed concerns about NSA surveillance, saying: "I availed myself of [briefings by executive branch officials] so nothing surprised me and the architecture of these programs I was very well aware of."

Last updated at 6:50 p.m. PT

Read more ...

Google to feds: Let us talk about government surveillance, please

Attorney General Eric Holder has prohibited tech companies from revealing what information they're legally required to disclose to the feds. Google wants to lift the gag orders.

Attorney General Eric Holder, shown here earlier today, has not permitted Google to disclose what information it is -- and isn't -- forced to turn over to the feds

Google today asked the U.S. government to lift a legal gag order and let it clear up speculation and erroneous reports about what information it's forced to turn over to the feds.

In an open letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller asking for "transparency," the Mountain View, Calif.-based company is effectively applying an unusual amount of public pressure to the Obama administration. President Obama has claimed to have"the most transparent administration in history," though critics have argued otherwise.

Google, Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, and other Internet companies were left reeling after a pair of articles last Thursday alleged that they provided the National Security Agency with "direct access" to their servers. By late Friday, however, CNET reported that was not true, and the Washington Post backtracked from its original story on PRISM. In an editorial today, the paper said the process met legal "standards" and was subject to "judicial review."

But for Silicon Valley companies that rely on user trust -- and are trying to usher in a future where more data is stored in the cloud -- even lingering misgivings over privacy are worth eliminating.

Today's letter, signed by David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, asks for the right to disclose information about how many orders the company receives under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and how broad they are. It says:

 Google has worked tremendously hard over the past 15 years to earn our users' trust. For example, we offer encryption across our services; we have hired some of the best security engineers in the world; and we have consistently pushed back on overly broad government requests for our users' data.

We have always made clear that we comply with valid legal requests. And last week, the director of national intelligence acknowledged that service providers have received Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests.

Assertions in the press that our compliance with these requests gives the U.S. government unfettered access to our users' data are simply untrue. However, government nondisclosure obligations regarding the number of FISA national security requests that Google receives, as well as the number of accounts covered by those requests, fuel that speculation.

We therefore ask you to help make it possible for Google to publish in our Transparency Report aggregate numbers of national security requests, including FISA disclosures -- in terms of both the number we receive and their scope. Google's numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being made. Google has nothing to hide.

Google appreciates that you authorized the recent disclosure of general numbers for national security letters. There have been no adverse consequences arising from their publication, and in fact more companies are receiving your approval to do so as a result of Google's initiative. Transparency here will likewise serve the public interest without harming national security.

The Justice Department and the FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNET.

Google already releases many statistics about government surveillance as part of itstransparency report, including, as of March, information on secret National Security Letters sent by the FBI. But a source familiar with the situation said the company has not secured permission to disclose information about secret court orders.

James Clapper, the head of national intelligence, confirmed last week that the Internet companies were receiving legal orders sent to them "pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

After the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court limited a Bush-era warrantless surveillance program's scope, Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act, which established a new procedure for foreign surveillance.

That Section 702 procedure works like this: The Justice Department must demonstrate that its surveillance will not intentionally target anyone present in the United States or any American who's overseas. And the surveillance process must comply with the Fourth Amendment.

Section 702 also requires that the government obtain the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's approval of "targeting" and "minimization" procedures, and that the court review the agencies' certification describing how proposed surveillance techniques will comply with the law. Judges must consider whether the targeting procedures are "reasonably designed" to exclude Americans and purely domestic surveillance.

A former government official who is intimately familiar with this process of data acquisition and spoke on condition of anonymity told CNET last week that the government delivers an order to obtain account details about someone who's specifically identified as a non-U.S. individual, with a specific finding that they're involved in an activity related to international terrorism. Both the contents of communications and metadata, such as information about who's talking to whom, can be requested.

Amnesty International and journalists launched a legal challenge to Section 702 (which is sometimes called 1881a, for its location in the law books). They argued their confidential communications with foreign correspondents would be intercepted under Section 702 in violation of the Fourth Amendment. But in February 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their challenge by a 5-4 vote, with Justice Samuel Alito writing that their allegations were too "speculative" and the Section 702 process is subject to ongoing "oversight" and "review."

Read more ...