Connect with us

Biz & IT

We finally started taking screen time seriously in 2018

Published

on

At the beginning of this year, I was using my iPhone to browse new titles on Amazon when I saw the cover of “How to Break Up With Your Phone” by Catherine Price. I downloaded it on Kindle because I genuinely wanted to reduce my smartphone use, but also because I thought it would be hilarious to read a book about breaking up with your smartphone on my smartphone (stupid, I know). Within a couple of chapters, however, I was motivated enough to download Moment, a screen time tracking app recommended by Price, and re-purchase the book in print.

Early in “How to Break Up With Your Phone,” Price invites her readers to take the Smartphone Compulsion Test, developed by David Greenfield, a psychiatry professor at the University of Connecticut who also founded the Center for Internet and Technology Addiction. The test has 15 questions, but I knew I was in trouble after answering the first five. Humbled by my very high score, which I am too embarrassed to disclose, I decided it was time to get serious about curtailing my smartphone usage.

Of the chapters in Price’s book, the one called “Putting the Dope in Dopamine” resonated with me the most. She writes that “phones and most apps are deliberately designed without ‘stopping cues’ to alert us when we’ve had enough—which is why it’s so easy to accidentally binge. On a certain level, we know that what we’re doing is making us feel gross. But instead of stopping, our brains decide the solution is to seek out more dopamine. We check our phones again. And again. And again.”

Gross was exactly how I felt. I bought my first iPhone in 2011 (and owned an iPod Touch before that). It was the first thing I looked at in the morning and the last thing I saw at night. I would claim it was because I wanted to check work stuff, but really I was on autopilot. Thinking about what I could have accomplished over the past eight years if I hadn’t been constantly attached to my smartphone made me feel queasy. I also wondered what it had done to my brain’s feedback loop. Just as sugar changes your palate, making you crave more and more sweets to feel sated, I was worried that the incremental doses of immediate gratification my phone doled out would diminish my ability to feel genuine joy and pleasure.

Price’s book was published in February, at the beginning of a year when it feels like tech companies finally started to treat excessive screen time as a liability (or at least do more than pay lip service to it). In addition to the introduction of Screen Time in iOS 12 and Android’s digital wellbeing tools, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube all launched new features that allow users to track time spent on their sites and apps.

Early this year, influential activist investors who hold Apple shares also called for the company to focus on how their devices impact kids. In a letter to Apple, hedge fund Jana Partners and California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) wrote “social media sites and applications for which the iPhone and iPad are a primary gateway are usually designed to be as addictive and time-consuming as possible, as many of their original creators have publicly acknowledged,” adding that “it is both unrealistic and a poor long-term business strategy to ask parents to fight this battle alone.”

The growing mound of research

Then in November, researchers at Penn State released an important new study that linked social media usage by adolescents to depression. Led by psychologist Melissa Hunt, the experimental study monitored 143 students with iPhones from the university for three weeks. The undergraduates were divided into two groups: one was instructed to limit their time on social media, including Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram, to just 10 minutes each app per day (their usage was confirmed by checking their phone’s iOS battery use screens). The other group continued using social media apps as they usually did. At the beginning of the study, a baseline was established with standard tests for depression, anxiety, social support and other issues, and each group continued to be assessed throughout the experiment.

The findings, published in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, were striking. The researchers wrote that “the limited use group showed significant reductions in loneliness and depression over three weeks compared to the control group.”

Even the control group benefitted, despite not being given limits on their social media use. “Both groups showed significant decreases in anxiety and fear of missing out over baselines, suggesting a benefit of increased self-monitoring,” the study said. “Our findings strongly suggest that limiting social media use to approximately 30 minutes a day may lead to significant improvement in well-being.”

Other academic studies published this year added to the growing roster of evidence that smartphones and mobile apps can significantly harm your mental and physical wellbeing.

A group of researchers from Princeton, Dartmouth, the University of Texas at Austin, and Stanford published a study in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology that found using smartphones to take photos and videos of an experience actually reduces the ability to form memories of it. Others warned against keeping smartphones in your bedroom or even on your desk while you work. Optical chemistry researchers at the University of Toledo found that blue light from digital devices can cause molecular changes in your retina, potentially speeding macular degeneration.

So over the past 12 months, I’ve certainly had plenty of motivation to reduce my screen time. In fact, every time I checked the news on my phone, there seemed to be yet another headline about the perils of smartphone use. I began using Moment to track my total screen time and how it was divided between apps. I took two of Moment’s in-app courses, “Phone Bootcamp” and “Bored and Brilliant.” I also used the app to set a daily time limit, turned on “tiny reminders,” or push notifications that tell you how much time you’ve spent on your phone so far throughout the day, and enabled the “Force Me Off When I’m Over” feature, which basically annoys you off your phone when you go over your daily allotment.

At first I managed to cut my screen time in half. I had thought some of the benefits, like a better attention span mentioned in Price’s book, were too good to be true. But I found my concentration really did improve significantly after just a week of limiting my smartphone use. I read more long-form articles, caught up on some TV shows, and finished knitting a sweater for my toddler. Most importantly, the nagging feeling I had at the end of each day about frittering all my time away diminished, and so I lived happily after, snug in the knowledge that I’m not squandering my life on memes, clickbait and makeup tutorials.

Just kidding.

Holding my iPod Touch in 2010, a year before I bought my first smartphone and back when I still had an attention span.

After a few weeks, my screen time started creeping up again. First I turned off Moment’s “Force Me Off” feature, because my apartment doesn’t have a landline and I needed to be able to check texts from my husband. I kept the tiny reminders, but those became easier and easier to ignore. But even as I mindlessly scrolled through Instagram or Reddit, I felt the existentialist dread of knowing that I was misusing the best years of my life. With all that at stake, why is limiting screen time so hard?

I wish I knew how to quit you, small device

I decided to talk to the CEO of Moment, Tim Kendall, for some insight. Founded in 2014 by UI designer and iOS developer Kevin Holesh, Moment recently launched an Android version, too. It’s one of the best known of a genre that includes Forest, Freedom, Space, Off the Grid, AntiSocial and App Detox, all dedicated to reducing screen time (or at least encouraging more mindful smartphone use).

Kendall told me that I’m not alone. Moment has 7 million users and “over the last four years, you can see that average usage goes up every year,” he says. By looking at overall data, Moment’s team can tell that its tools and courses do help people reduce their screen time, but that often it starts creeping up again. Combating that with new features is one of the company’s main goals for next year.

“We’re spending a lot of time investing in R&D to figure out how to help people who fall into that category. They did Phone Bootcamp, saw nice results, saw benefits, but they just weren’t able to figure out how to do it sustainably,” says Kendall. Moment already releases new courses regularly (recent topics have included sleep, attention span, and family time) and recently began offering them on a subscription basis.

“It’s habit formation and sustained behavior change that is really hard,” says Kendall, who previously held positions as president at Pinterest and Facebook’s director of monetization. But he’s optimistic. “It’s tractable. People can do it. I think the rewards are really significant. We aren’t stopping with the courses. We are exploring a lot of different ways to help people.”

As Jana Partners and CalSTRS noted in their letter, a particularly important issue is the impact of excessive smartphone use on the first generation of teenagers and young adults to have constant access to the devices. Kendall notes that suicide rates among teenagers have increased dramatically over the past two decades. Though research hasn’t explicitly linked time spent online to suicide, the link between screen time and depression has been noted many times already, as in the Penn State study.

But there is hope. Kendall says that the Moment Coach feature, which delivers short, daily exercises to reduce smartphone use, seems to be particularly effective among millennials, the generation most stereotypically associated with being pathologically attached to their phones. “It seems that 20- and 30-somethings have an easier time internalizing the coach and therefore reducing their usage than 40- and 50-somethings,” he says.

Kendall stresses that Moment does not see smartphone use as an all-or-nothing proposition. Instead, he believes that people should replace brain junk food, like social media apps, with things like online language courses or meditation apps. “I really do think the phone used deliberately is one of the most wonderful things you have,” he says.

Researchers have found that taking smartphone photos and videos during an experience may decrease your ability to form memories of it. (Steved_np3/Getty Images)

I’ve tried to limit most of my smartphone usage to apps like Kindle, but the best solution has been to find offline alternatives to keep myself distracted. For example, I’ve been teaching myself new knitting and crochet techniques, because I can’t do either while holding my phone (though I do listen to podcasts and audiobooks). It also gives me a tactile way to measure the time I spend off my phone because the hours I cut off my screen time correlate to the number of rows I complete on a project. To limit my usage to specific apps, I rely on iOS Screen Time. It’s really easy to just tap “Ignore Limit,” however, so I also continue to depend on several of Moment’s features.

While several third-party screen time tracking app developers have recently found themselves under more scrutiny by Apple, Kendall says the launch of Screen Time hasn’t significantly impacted Moment’s business or sign ups. The launch of their Android version also opens up a significant new market (Android also enables Moment to add new features that aren’t possible on iOS, including only allowing access to certain apps during set times).

The short-term impact of iOS Screen Time has “been neutral, but I think in the long-term it’s really going to help,” Kendall says. “I think in the long-term it’s going to help with awareness. If I were to use a diet metaphor, I think Apple has built a terrific calorie counter and scale, but unfortunately they have not given people nutritional guidelines or a regimen. If you talk to any behavioral economist, not withstanding all that’s been said about the quantified self, numbers don’t really motivate people.”

Guilting also doesn’t work, at least not for the long-term, so Moment tries to take “a compassionate voice,” he adds. “That’s part of our brand and company and ethos. We don’t think we’ll be very helpful if people feel judged when we use our product. They need to feel cared for and supported, and know that the goal is not perfection, it’s gradual change.”

Many smartphone users are probably in my situation: alarmed by their screen time stats, unhappy about the time they waste, but also finding it hard to quit their devices. We don’t just use our smartphones to distract ourselves or get a quick dopamine rush with social media likes. We use it to manage our workload, keep in touch with friends, plan our days, read books, look up recipes, and find fun places to go. I’ve often thought about buying a Yondr bag or asking my husband to hide my phone from me, but I know that ultimately won’t help.

As cheesy as it sounds, the impetus for change must come from within. No amount of academic research, screen time apps, or analytics can make up for that.

One thing I tell myself is that unless developers find more ways to force us to change our behavior or another major paradigm shift occurs in mobile communications, my relationship with my smartphone will move in cycles. Sometimes I’ll be happy with my usage, then I’ll lapse, then I’ll take another Moment course or try another screen time app, and hopefully get back on track. In 2018, however, the conversation around screen time finally gained some desperately needed urgency (and in the meantime, I’ve actually completed some knitting projects instead of just thumbing my way through #knittersofinstagram).

Source link

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Biz & IT

Biden warns cyber attacks could lead to a “real shooting war”

Published

on

Enlarge / US President Joe Biden, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo attend a plenary session of a NATO summit at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) headquarters in Brussels, on June 14, 2021.

President Joe Biden has warned that cyberattacks could escalate into a full-blown war as tensions with Russia and China mounted over a series of hacking incidents targeting US government agencies, companies, and infrastructure.

Biden said on Tuesday that cyber threats including ransomware attacks “increasingly are able to cause damage and disruption in the real world.”

“If we end up in a war, a real shooting war with a major power, it’s going to be as a consequence of a cyber breach,” the president said in a speech at the Office for the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees 18 US intelligence agencies.

A number of recent hacks revealed the extent of US cyber vulnerability, ranging from extensive espionage breaches that have struck at the heart of government to ransomware attacks that have brought operations at an important oil pipeline and meat packing plants to a halt.

The Biden administration has accused the governments of Russia and China, or hackers based inside the two countries, of some of the attacks. US officials have warned that the administration would respond with a “mix of tools seen and unseen” actions, but cyber breaches have continued.

Although he did not say who such a war might be fought against, Biden immediately name-checked Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, alleging that Russia was spreading misinformation ahead of the 2022 US midterm elections.

“It’s a pure violation of our sovereignty,” he said.

“Mr. Putin… has a real problem. He is sitting on top of an economy that has nuclear weapons and oil wells and nothing else. Nothing else,” Biden said. “He knows he’s in real trouble, which makes him even more dangerous.”

At a June summit in Geneva, Biden personally warned Putin that the US would “respond with cyber” if the Russian state or Russian-based hackers targeted critical US infrastructure.

The prohibited sectors spanned energy, health care, IT, and commercial facilities, all of which have already allegedly been targeted by Russian hackers since the 2020 US elections. Others included transport, financial services, and chemicals.

Biden also said Chinese President Xi Jinping was “deadly earnest” about China becoming the most powerful military force in the world by the 2040s, as well as the largest and most prominent economy.

“It’s real… This boy’s got a plan,” Biden said, adding: “We better figure out how we’re going to keep pace without exacerbating [the situation].”

Biden stressed that cyberattacks were just one aspect of the growing threats facing the US, saying that there would be more developments in the next 10 years than in the past 50, placing a tremendous burden on the intelligence community.

“It’s really going to get tougher,” he said.

© 2021 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

Continue Reading

Biz & IT

Haron and BlackMatter are the latest groups to crash the ransomware party

Published

on

Getty Images

July has so far ushered in at least two new ransomware groups. Or maybe they’re old ones undergoing a rebranding. Researchers are in the process of running down several different theories.

Both groups say they are aiming for big-game targets, meaning corporations or other large businesses with the pockets to pay ransoms in the millions of dollars. The additions come as recent ransomware intrusions of oil pipeline operator Colonial Pipeline, meat packer JBS SA, and managed network provider Kaseya have caused major disruptions and created pressure in Washington to curb the threats.

Haron: like Avaddon. Or maybe not

The first group is calling itself Haron. A sample of the Haron malware was first submitted to VirusTotal on July 19. Three days later, South Korean security firm S2W Lab discussed the group in a post.

Most of the group’s site on the dark web is password protected by extremely weak credentials. Once past the login page, there’s a list of alleged targets, a chat transcript that’s not fit to be shown in full, and the group’s explanation of its mission.

As S2W Lab pointed out, the layout, organization, and appearance of the site are almost identical to those for Avaddon, the ransomware group that went dark in June after sending a master decryption key to BleepingComputer that victims could use to recover their data.

The similarity on its own isn’t especially meaningful. It could mean that the creator of the Haron site had a hand in administering the Avaddon site. Or it could be the Haron site creator doing a headfake.

A connection between Haron and Avaddon would be more convincing if there were overlaps or similarities in the code used by the two groups. So far there are no such links reported.

The engine driving Haron ransomware, according to S2W Lab, is Thanos, a separate piece of ransomware that has been around since at least 2019. Haron was developed using a recently published Thanos builder for the C# programming language. Avaddon, by contrast, was written in C++.

Jim Walter, a senior threat researcher at security firm SentinelOne, said in a text message that he spotted what appear to be similarities with Avaddon in a couple of samples he recently started analyzing. He said he’d know more soon.

In the shadows of REvil and DarkSide

The second ransomware newcomer is calling itself BlackMatter. It was reported on Tuesday by security firm Recorded Future and its news arm The Record.

Recorded Future, The Record, and security firm Flashpoint, which also covered the emergence of BlackMatter, have questioned if the group has connections to either DarkSide or REvil. Those two ransomware groups suddenly went dark after attacks—against global meat producer JBS and managed network services provider Kaseya in REvil’s case and Colonial Pipeline in the case of DarkSide—generated more attention than the groups wanted. The Justice Department later claimed to have recovered $2.3 million from Colonial’s ransomware payment of $4.4 million.

But once again, the similarities at this point are all cosmetic and include the wording of a pledge, first made by DarkSide, not to target hospitals or critical infrastructure. Given the heat US President Joe Biden is trying to put on his Russian counterpart to crack down on Ransomware groups operating in Eastern Europe, it wouldn’t be surprising to see all groups follow DarkSide’s lead.

None of this is to say that the speculation is wrong, only that at the moment there’s little more than hunches for support.

Continue Reading

Biz & IT

UK worries Starlink and OneWeb may interfere with each other, plans new rules

Published

on

Enlarge / Artist’s impression of low-Earth-orbit satellites like those launched by SpaceX and OneWeb.

A UK government agency is worried that OneWeb, SpaceX’s Starlink, and similar low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite-broadband systems could block each others’ signals.

Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, proposed new rules today in a report that details its interference concerns. Ofcom also said it intends to amend satellite licenses already issued to SpaceX and OneWeb to require coordination of frequency use. Without new requirements, the risk of interference could prevent competition by shutting new players out of the market, Ofcom said.

Non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) systems are more complex than the traditional geostationary type because they use hundreds or thousands of satellites, Ofcom noted. “Satellite dishes need to track these satellites as they move across the sky, unlike existing satellite networks, where the dishes are fixed pointing at a single satellite which is stationary in the sky,” the Ofcom report said. Because so many low-Earth-orbit satellites are being launched, “there is a risk of satellites from two different operators appearing to be in the same part of the sky,” causing interference known as “in-line events” in which multiple operators’ satellites are lined up in the sky, Ofcom wrote.

This interference can affect uplink and downlink transmissions between satellites and user terminals that serve individual homes, the report said. The interference can also affect links between satellites and the Gateway Earth stations that connect to the Internet backbone.

“Since NGSO satellites are moving relative to each other and relative to the ground, in-line events may individually only be brief, maybe a few seconds,” Ofcom wrote. “However, if an in-line event occurs and causes interference, it may take longer for the terminal to reconnect to the network. The interference could continue to repeat over time, reoccurring in a regular pattern which will depend on the orbits of the respective systems.”

Outages from interference

Users could lose service when there’s interference to either the user terminal or gateway earth stations, but interference to a gateway station would affect many more users. “[T]he impact of interference on gateway links would be much greater than on individual user links as each gateway provides connectivity for many users (perhaps hundreds or thousands of users depending on the design of the system), so a loss of connection due to interference at the gateway will be experienced more widely across the network,” Ofcom wrote.

Gateway Earth stations operated by different companies “are likely to require large minimum separation distances” of tens of kilometers to avoid interference, Ofcom wrote. In contrast, “multiple GSO [geostationary satellite orbit] gateways can be located on a single site” without causing harmful interference to each other.

The Ofcom report listed five NGSO constellations that are planned or already semi-operational. The biggest example is SpaceX, which is offering beta service from 1,500 already-launched satellites and has over 4,400 satellites planned for its initial phase. Amazon’s Kuiper division hasn’t launched a satellite yet, but it has 3,236 satellites planned in its initial phase, the report noted.

OneWeb—which is co-owned by the UK government and Bharti Global—has launched over 200 satellites and has plans for 648 satellites in its initial phase. Telesat and Kepler round out the list, with plans for 298 and 140 satellites, respectively.

Here’s the Ofcom chart listing low-Earth-orbit satellite networks:

Coordination difficult

The US Federal Communications Commission in 2017 adopted rules, including power limits, to minimize the danger of interference in NGSO systems. The FCC adopted different rules for different slices of spectrum. In the 17.8 to 18.3 GHz band, for example, the FCC said, “while terrestrial use of this band is significant, there are areas, particularly rural areas, where terrestrial deployment is less dense and by using mitigating techniques like siting considerations, off-axis rejection, and shielding, we expect FSS [fixed-satellite service] earth stations will be able to operate successfully without receiving harmful interference… If interference does occur, earth stations can switch to other bands not shared with terrestrial users or use alternative mitigation techniques.”

The FCC also imposed specific conditions to prevent interference and space debris on licenses awarded to SpaceX, OneWeb, Amazon, and others.

Ofcom is worried that the global system for coordinating satellites, overseen by the International Telecommunication Union [ITU], isn’t good enough to prevent NGSO problems. “The potential for harmful interference between different satellite systems is usually managed by operators cooperating with each other under the ITU satellite coordination procedures,” Ofcom wrote.

The agency added:

However, coordination between NGSO systems is proving to be more challenging due to the dynamic nature of these systems, combined with operators having differing rates of deployment (some operators holding older filings will not deploy their systems for a few years) and changing their architecture over time. We are therefore concerned that NGSO satellite services could be deployed before an appropriate level of coordination has been possible with other operators.

Ofcom is also worried about the coexistence of user terminals when two or more companies provide LEO satellite service in the same area:

A lack of agreement over how user terminals of different systems can coexist in the same area and band could restrict competition as a result of earlier deployed systems hindering later ones. Once one operator starts deploying user terminals, other operators wishing to launch services using the same band may expect to experience harmful interference from the existing user terminals. In the worst case, this could mean that the quality of their broadband services would not be sufficiently reliable in order to enter the market. Nonetheless, the established player could have an incentive to cooperate given that the interference is likely to be mutual, i.e. their services could be degraded as well.

New rules, license changes

Ofcom said its goal in issuing new rules is to minimize interference while encouraging competition. The agency proposed, among other things, “an additional explicit license condition requiring NGSO licensees to cooperate so they can co-exist and operate within the UK without causing harmful radio interference to each other.” Ofcom said it also intends to “[i]ntroduce checks when we issue new NGSO licenses so that these are only granted if all systems (existing and new) are able to coexist and provide services to end users” and implement new conditions letting Ofcom “take action to resolve degradation to services if this were to occur at a particular location or location(s) in the UK.”

To preserve competition, Ofcom said it will “introduce a competition check” into its licensing process to account for the “technical constraints that the gateway or user terminals could create on future licensees.” Ofcom said:

In particular, in a market that was concentrated, if there was limited prospect of the licensee system and future systems (applicants) being able to technically coexist, then this could form a barrier to future entry to the market. As a result, we are proposing that a key piece of information that applicants should provide when applying for a network license is credible evidence about the technical ability for their system and future systems to coexist. This would include evidence about the flexibility of their system and/or what reasonable steps new licensees could easily undertake to protect them. This information would also be used when assessing whether it is reasonable for new applications and existing services to coexist, to understand the reasonableness of mitigations being undertaken by existing licensees.

Ofcom said it plans to review all NGSO licenses to determine which companies are using the same frequencies. The agency said it will also amend the existing licenses held by SpaceX Starlink, OneWeb, and Kepler. The changes would require “NGSO licensees to cooperate with the other NGSO licensees operating in the same frequencies so they can coexist,” and allow Ofcom “to require operators to take action in cases of interference between NGSO systems which impacts the provision of services to users in particular location(s) in the UK.”

Ofcom said it will take comments on its proposals until September 20, 2021.

We contacted SpaceX about Ofcom’s report and will update this article if the company provides a response.

Continue Reading

Trending