Mozilla’s Firefox Send Solves One of Email’s Biggest Problems: Sending Large Files

Moving top secret files around the Internet just got a little easier.

Mozilla launched a new tool on Tuesday called Firefox Send. The service, which will serve as a direct competitor to the publicly traded Dropbox, lets anyone quickly, and easily, share important files, before it gives them the disappearing Snapchat treatment, making them disappear forever into the dark void of the Internet.

The new service allows anyone to drag, drop, and share files as big as 1GB, without needing to log in or register for an account. People who register for an account will be able to transfer up to 2.5 GB.

Firefox Send is incredibly easy to use. After going to the site, users can drag and drop a link, choose an expiration date, or limit the number of downloads. They can also add a password for an extra layer of security, if they choose. After that, users are then given a link, which can be shared with their trusted contacts.

The new service is also a workaround for sending large files over email, which take up storage space, and can jam the recipient’s inbox. Mozilla said it expects to release an Android app in beta later this week.

Mozilla, which is a nonprofit, is perhaps best known for its Firefox browser. The group has also positioned itself as a champion of privacy. It pulled its Facebook ads in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, has offered tracking protection in its browser, and even released an extension last year called Facebook Container, which isolates their browsing activity on Facebook.

How the FAA Decides When to Ground a Jet Like Boeing’s 737 MAX 8

When an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 8 jet crashed shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa on Sunday morning, killing all 157 people aboard, observers quickly noted that the circumstances resembled those of another flight. In October, Lion Air Flight 610 crashed into the Java Sea, killing all 181 passengers and eight crew. Both flights plummeted a few minutes after takeoff, in good weather. And both were on 737 MAX 8 jets, the plane Boeing started delivering in 2017 to replace the outgoing 737 as the workhorse of the skies. Since 2017, Boeing has delivered 387 MAX 8s and 9s. It has taken orders for 4,400 more, from more than 100 customers.

As of Tuesday evening, various foreign aviation regulators and airlines had decided that after the two crashes, the plane shouldn’t be in the air. Officials in the European Union, China, Indonesia, Singapore, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates have all grounded the planes. Of the 59 operators that fly the new 737, at least 30 have parked it.

In the US, though, Boeing’s plane is free to fly. American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and United Airlines are still putting their 737 MAX jets—74 in total—in the air. (So is Air Canada.) And the Federal Aviation Administration—the agency that oversees American airspace—says that’s just fine.

Which might seem strange, since the FAA is notoriously safety-conscious. Planes in search of an airworthiness certificate must meet stringent standards; the certification process usually takes years. And it gets results: Just one person has died in American airspace on a commercial airplane since 2009. But, it seems, the agency has not yet found reason to ground the new 737.

In a statement Tuesday, acting FAA administrator Daniel Elwell said the agency is looking at all the available data from 737 operators around the world, and that the review “thus far shows no systematic performance issues and provides no basis to order grounding aircraft.” Elwell said the FAA “would take immediate appropriate action” should such problems be identified. The FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board both have teams at the crash site outside Addis Ababa to investigate and collect data.

The agency did note in a directive published Monday that it would probably mandate flight control system enhancements that Boeing is already working on, come April. And after the Lion Air crash, the FAA made a Boeing safety warning mandatory for US airlines.

“We have full confidence in the safety of the 737 MAX,” Boeing said in its own statement Tuesday. “Based on the information currently available, we do not have any basis to issue new guidance to operators.”

A number of senators, including Ted Cruz of Texas, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Dianne Feinstein of California, have called for the US to ground the aircraft. But it’s the FAA chief who has final say. (Elwell has been the acting administrator since January 2018, though Politico reports that the Trump Administration is close to nominating Delta Air Lines executive Steve Dickson as administrator.) He doesn’t make that decision alone, says Clint Balog, a flight test pilot and human factors expert with the College of Aeronautics at Embry-Riddle University. Any grounding goes through a “semi-formal” process, full of discussions with experts on the specific aircraft and crash situation, both in- and outside the federal government.

“The FAA looks at all of this information and decides, ‘OK, if it’s just likely that there’s a significant problem here, it doesn’t matter what the cost to the traveling public is—we have to put safety first and ground this aircraft,’” Balog says. “However, if they look and say, ‘Well, jeez, grounding this aircraft is going to be a monumental cost to the world and we simply don’t have enough information to know what the risk really is with this aircraft, do we really want to ground it at this point in time?’”

The FAA has grounded aircraft before. In 1979, the FAA grounded all McDonnell Douglas DC-10s (and forbid the aircraft from US airspace) after a crash in Chicago killed 273 people. An investigation found the problem was maintenance issues, not the aircraft design, the FAA lifted the prohibition just over a month later.

In early 2013, the FAA grounded Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, after two lithium ion-battery related fires in the aircraft. “We are issuing this [directive] because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design,” the FAA wrote in its emergency airworthiness directive. It didn’t let the jet take to the sky again until Boeing found and corrected its design issues. (That happened in April.)

So far, though, we have little concrete information on whatever might be going on with the 737 MAX. The investigation into the Ethiopia crash is in its earliest stages. Indonesia’s civil aviation authority has released a preliminary report on the Lion Air crash, but has not issued any findings on what caused it.

Based on its directives, the FAA hasn’t “seen any red flags that are significant enough” to ground the aircraft, Balog says. So he’d have no problem getting on a 737 MAX-8. “More importantly, I would have no problem having my family get on a 737 MAX-8 at this point.”


More Great WIRED Stories

Elon Musk Says Tweeting Is Free Speech in His SEC Battle

Elon Musk will not go quietly. On Monday night, lawyers representing the Tesla CEO submitted a filing to a federal judge in New York arguing that she should deny the Securities and Exchange Commission’s request to hold Musk in contempt of court for—what else?—a tweet. Musk’s legal team argued the SEC overreached in its request, and claimed the agency is trying to violate his First Amendment right to free speech.

If the judge, Alison Nathan of the Southern District Court of New York, does hold Musk in contempt of court, she would decide the penalty. “If the SEC prevails, there is a good likelihood that the District Court will fine Mr. Musk and that it will put him on a short leash, with a strong warning that further violations could result in Mr. Musk being banned for some period of time as an officer or director of a public company,” Peter Haveles, a trial lawyer with the law firm Pepper Hamilton, told WIRED last month.

This latest chapter in Musk’s ongoing legal spat with the SEC dates back to the evening of February 19, 7:15 pm Eastern Time to be exact, when Musk wrote on Twitter, “Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019.” About four and a half hours later—at 11:41 pm ET—Musk corrected himself, tweeting, “Meant to say annualized production rate at the end of 2019 probably around 500k, i.e. 10k cars/week. Deliveries for the year still estimated to be around 400k.”

Musk is the head of a publicly traded company, so making a mistake about his business on Twitter—which investors treat as a valid source of news like any other—is already less than ideal. But Musk and Tesla also reached a settlement with the SEC in September over another tweet containing misinformation about the electric carmarker’s operations. That was after Musk tweeted that he planned on taking Tesla private, and that he had the “funding secured.” He soon revealed he did not have that funding secured, and Tesla announced it would stay public.

In the ensuing deal with the SEC, Musk gave up his role as Tesla’s chairman for at least three years. He and Tesla each paid a $20 million fine. And Musk and Tesla agreed that the CEO’s tweets about the carmaker would be truthful, and reviewed by a team of Tesla lawyers before sending. According to the filing, Tesla’s general counsel and an assigned “disclosure counsel” are in charge of approving Musk’s Tesla tweets. The lawyers write that “the disclosure counsel and other members of Tesla’s legal department have reviewed the updated controls and procedures with Musk on multiple occasions.”

In December, Musk said on CBS’s 60 Minutes that he does not respect the SEC, and that the only tweets of his that require pre-approval are those that can affect Tesla’s stock price. Asked how Tesla could know which tweets would do that, Musk said, “Well, I guess we might make some mistakes. Who knows?” The SEC cited that interview in its motion for a contempt of court charge, writing that “Musk has not made a diligent or good faith effort to comply” with the terms of his settlement.

Now, though, Musk and the SEC are debating what that “pre-approval” actually means. Tesla’s lawyers say nobody pre-approved the tweet in question, but that it shouldn’t matter, because it had already made public the information about those production numbers: in an earnings call, in end-of-year financial results, and in an SEC filing submitted on the day Musk sent out the tweets in question. Musk did not receive pre-approval before sending that tweet because it “was simply Musk’s shorthand gloss on and entirely consistent with prior public disclosures detailing Tesla’s anticipated production volume,” according to the filing.

Moreover, the Musk team argues, the SEC’s attempt to limit Musk’s tweeting is a violation of his First Amendment rights to free speech.

The Musk legal team also argues that the CEO has really worked very hard since the SEC settlement to be careful about his tweeting behavior. It wrote that Musk’s less frequent tweeting about Tesla “is a reflection of his commitment to adhering the Order and avoiding unnecessary disputes with the SEC.” In fact, it says the correction tweet, the one sent four-and-a-half hours later, “is precisely the kind of diligence that one would expect from someone who is endeavoring to comply with the Order.”


More Great WIRED Stories

Amazon Is Closing 87 Pop-Up Shops but Has Other Brick-and-Mortar Plans

Operating a chain of brick-and-mortar retail stores in the age of Amazon is a tough business. Just ask Amazon.

The e-commerce giant is closing its 87 pop-up stores in the U.S. as executives rethink the plan to sell goods in physical retail stores, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. “After much review, we came to the decision to discontinue our pop-up kiosk program,” an Amazon spokeswoman told the Journal.

In September 2016, Amazon said it would open as many as 100 pop-up stores in the U.S., after a pilot program of six such stores in 2015 proved successful enough to encourage the company to sell more goods in Amazon-branded spaces.

Amazon’s pop-up stores began appearing in shopping malls, Kohl’s and grocery stores including the Whole Foods stores Amazon bought in 2017, eventually planting a retail presence in 21 states. The stores were typically small, occupying a few hundred square feet, and featured Amazon devices such as its Echo voice-assistant speakers and Kindle e-readers.

Though the pop-ups are coming down, Amazon will move ahead with other retail-store formats, including its bookstores and stores that feature items rated with at least four stars on Amazon’s retail site. The company is also still planning to launch a new line of grocery stores and expand its cashierless convenience stores.

The pop-up stores, meanwhile, will be shut down by the end of next month, the Journal said.

Amazon’s stock fell $23.48 a share, or 1.4%, to $1,668.95 a share Wednesday.

Uber not criminally liable in fatal 2018 Arizona self-driving crash: prosecutors

(Reuters) – Uber Technologies Inc is not criminally liable in a March 2018 crash in Tempe, Arizona, in which one of the company’s self-driving cars struck and killed a pedestrian, prosecutors said on Tuesday.

FILE PHOTO: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators examine a self-driving Uber vehicle involved in a fatal accident in Tempe, Arizona, U.S., March 20, 2018. National Transportation Safety Board/Handout via REUTERS

The Yavapai County Attorney said in a letter made public that there was “no basis” for criminal liability for Uber, but that the conduct of the back-up driver, Rafael Vasquez, should be referred to the Tempe police for additional investigation.

Police said last year that Vasquez was streaming a television show on a phone until about the time of the crash and called the incident “entirely avoidable.”

An Uber spokeswoman declined to comment on the letter.

Vasquez could face charges of vehicular manslaughter, according to a police report last June. Vasquez has not previously commented and could not immediately be reached on Tuesday.

The Maricopa County Attorney, whose jurisdiction includes Tempe, referred the case last year to another office because of a conflict. In Tuesday’s letter Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Sullivan Polk said its investigation concluded that “the collision video, as it displays, likely does not accurately depict the events that occurred.”

The letter said an “expert analysis” is needed to “closely match what (and when) the person sitting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle would or should have seen that night given the vehicle’s speed, lighting conditions, and other relevant factors.”

The National Transportation Safety Board and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are still investigating the fatal crash.

The Uber car was in autonomous mode at the time of the crash, but the company, like other self-driving car developers, requires a back-up driver inside to intervene when the autonomous system fails or a tricky driving situation occurs.

The Tempe police report said Vasquez repeatedly looked down and not at the road, glancing up a half second before the car hit Elaine Herzberg, 49, who was crossing the street at night.

Police obtained records from Hulu, an online service for streaming TV shows and movies, which showed Vasquez’s account was playing the TV talent show “The Voice” for about 42 minutes on the night of the crash, ending at 9:59 p.m., which “coincides with the approximate time of the collision,” the report said.

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office did not immediately comment on Tuesday.

In December, Uber resumed limited self-driving car testing on public roads in Pittsburgh, nine months after it suspended the program following the Arizona crash.

The company is now testing with two employees in the front seat and more strictly monitor safety employees. The company also said last year it made improvements to the vehicles’ self-driving software.

In March 2018, authorities in Arizona suspended Uber’s ability to test its self-driving cars. Uber also voluntarily halted its entire autonomous car testing program.

The NTSB has said Uber had disabled a manufacturer-installed automatic emergency braking system in the 2017 Volvo XC90 while the car was under computer control in order to “reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior.”

Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Bill Berkrot and Grant McCool

Former Cisco Employee Arrested, Charged With $9.3 Million Wire Fraud

An ex-employee at Cisco Systems was arrested on Tuesday at San Francisco International Airport, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The charge? Allegedly defrauding the San Jose, Calif.-based hardware conglomerate to the tune of more than $9.3 million.

Prithviraj R. Bhikha was arrested on one very expensive count of wire fraud. Bhikha, whose employment with Cisco ended in 2017, is accused of using his previous position as a director of the company’s global supply chain division to establish a new program under his leadership. The project reportedly entailed identifying and commissioning third-party vendors to negotiate deals on parts used in Cisco product manufacturing.

According to the allegations, after establishing several overseas entities on his own, Bhikha was responsible for directing and approving Cisco contracts with those companies. Cisco (csco) wired roughly $6.5 million to one of the entities, and around $2.8 million to another. Colleagues eventually became suspicious of Bhikha’s actions, and according to the Chronicle‘s report, at one point, he allegedly enlisted one coworker to help him create fraudulent documentation for his project. It is not clear if others have or will be charged in the case.

Bhikha was released on a $3 million bond, according to the Chronicle. If convicted, he faces a fine of up to $250,000 and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

Exclusive: China regulator requests pause in new game applications to clear backlog – sources

BEIJING/SHANGHAI (Reuters) – China’s top content regulator has asked local authorities to stop submitting requests to monetize new video games while it processes a backlog of applications built up after a lengthy pause last year, three people with knowledge of the matter said.

FILE PHOTO: A man plays a computer game at an internet cafe in Beijing,China May 9, 2014. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon/File Photo

The General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP) issued the notice this week, the people said, indicating the impact on gaming stocks of the nine-month hiatus could continue and dulling hopes raised by the recent resumption of approvals.

The regulator’s notice has not previously been reported.

Shares of industry leader Tencent Holdings Ltd, which were up 2.2 percent in morning trading, pared back gains to trade about 1 percent higher after the Reuters report was published. Shares of smaller players also slid.

China stopped approving the monetization of new titles last March amid a regulatory body reshuffle triggered by growing criticism of games being violent and addictive, as well as concern over the increase in myopia among young people.

Gaming firms such as Tencent – China’s most valuable listed company – were able to continue filing applications, building up a backlog. They could also distribute new titles but were unable to earn any income from them, such as through in-game purchases.

The regulator resumed processing applications in December, with industry insiders estimating at least 5,000 games await approval. In China, game companies file applications to local authorities which in turn submit them to the regulator.

“The regulator asked local authorities to stop submitting applications because there is too much of a backlog for it to deal with at the moment,” said one of the people, whose company was informed about the matter by its local authority.

Game companies will still be able to file applications but they will no longer be passed on to the Beijing regulator while it deals with applications already in hand, said a second person.

The people declined to be identified as they were not authorized to speak with media on the matter.

GAPP and the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China, which oversees GAPP, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The approval freeze dragged down shares in Tencent and wiped billions of dollars off its market value. Among titles for which Tencent is awaiting a license to monetize is “PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds Mobile”, which industry insiders estimate could generate annual revenue of up to $1 billion.

The freeze has also hit many smaller companies that rely on a number of game releases each year.

The regulator approved 1,982 domestic and foreign online games during January-March last year before the freeze, government data showed. It approved 9,651 domestic and foreign online games in all of 2017.

It has approved 538 games since December.

Reporting by Pei Li in BEIJING and Brenda Goh in SHANGHAI; Editing by Christopher Cushing

Qualcomm urges U.S. regulators to reverse course and ban some iPhones

(Reuters) – Qualcomm Inc is urging U.S. trade regulators to reverse a judge’s ruling and ban the import of some Apple Inc iPhones in a long-running patent fight between the two companies.

FILE PHOTO: A Qualcomm sign is seen during the China International Import Expo (CIIE), at the National Exhibition and Convention Center in Shanghai, China November 6, 2018. REUTERS/Aly Song/File Photo

Qualcomm is seeking the ban in hopes of dealing Apple a blow before the two begin a major trial in mid-April in San Diego over Qualcomm’s patent licensing practices. Qualcomm has sought to apply pressure to Apple with smaller legal challenges ahead of that trial and has won partial iPhone sales bans in China and Germany against Apple, forcing the iPhone maker to ship only phones with Qualcomm chips to some markets.

Any possible ban on iPhone imports to the United States could be short-lived because Apple last week for the first time disclosed that it has found a software fix to avoid infringing on one of Qualcomm’s patents. Apple asked regulators to give it as much as six months to prove that the fix works.

Qualcomm brought a case against Apple at the U.S International Trade Commission in 2017 alleging that some iPhones violated Qualcomm patents to help smart phones run well without draining their batteries. Qualcomm asked for an import ban on some older iPhone models containing Intel Corp chips.

In September, Thomas Pender, an administrative law judge at the ITC, found that Apple violated one of the patents in the case but declined to issue a ban. Pender reasoned that imposing a ban on Intel-chipped iPhones would hand Qualcomm an effective monopoly on the U.S. market for modem chips, which connect smart phones to wireless data networks.

Pender’s ruling said that preserving competition in the modem chip market was in the public interest as speedier 5G networks come online in the next few years.

Cases where the ITC finds patent violations but does not ban the import of products are rare. In December, the full ITC said it would review Pender’s decision and decide whether to uphold or reverse it by late March.

In filings that became public late last week ahead of the full commission’s decision, Apple for the first time said that it had developed a software fix to avoid running afoul of Qualcomm’s patent. Apple said it did not discover the fix until after the trial and that it implemented the new software “last fall.”

But Apple said that it would need six months to verify that the fix will satisfy regulators and to sell its existing inventory. Apple asked the full commission to delay any possible import ban by that long if the commission reverses the judge’s decisions.

In a filing late on Friday, Qualcomm argued that Apple’s disclosure of a fix undermined the reasoning in Pender’s decision and that the Intel-chipped phones should be banned while Apple deploys its fix.

“Pender recommended against a remedy on the assumption that the (Qualcomm) patent would preclude Apple from using Intel as a supplier for many years and that no redesign was feasible,” Qualcomm wrote. “Apple now admits—more than seven months after the hearing—that the alleged harm is entirely avoidable.”

Reporting by Stephen Nellis in San Francisco; Editing by Lisa Shumaker

American Airlines Just Suffered a Huge Embarrassment. But Is It Really the Airline's Fault?

Absurdly Driven looks at the world of business with a skeptical eye and a firmly rooted tongue in cheek. 

Frequent business flyers can be an insipid, self-regarding bunch.

They watch the masses troop to the back of the plane, sip on their champagne and smugly pat themselves on the back for their evident superiority.

Airlines pander to them, of course. They want their money on a repeat basis. 

Sometimes, though, you have to wonder what goes through fine minds of so-called Elites.

Last weekend saw the release of a video — posted to Twitter by travel blogger Jamie Larounis — that starrred four female American Airlines Flight Attendants.

They were in slightly more alluring Flight Attendant attire than that normally seen on board.

And they were performing a skit in which they fawned all over a First Class passenger. 

You know, um, sexily.

The organizers of this, oh, entertainment, reportedly were some Executive Platinum and Concierge Key customers. Yes, American’s most important passengers.

It was held at a private venue and was supposed to raise money for charity.

Some might be less than charitable on seeing that the performance featured a large American Airlines logo in the background.

It’s not clear who took this liberty, but American did offer a few items for auction at this event.

I feel fairly sure its brand image wasn’t one of them.

Perhaps this was all good clean, humorous insider fun for these privileged types.

The part, however, that may have caused a little more consternation was when the four female Flight Attendants began to dance — with alleged sexy intent — around a First Class passenger.

To heighten the steamy effect, they sang Big Spender.

Yes, of course a Flight Attendant ends up sitting on the customer’s lap. You needed to ask?

The song was first performed in 1966.

And goodness me, this skit wouldn’t have looked out of place then.

These days, however, it might reek to many of bilge-brained sexism.

The fawning Flight Attendants are, reports say, real Dallas-based American Airlines Flight Attendants.

Which led the The Association of Professional Flight Attendants — representing American’s Flight Attendants — to demand an investigation.

There was the suspicion, you see, that the airline had some involvement in all this.

The Transport Workers Union — which also represents many American Airlines employees — saw the invisible hand of American’s management in the show. It claims this is all part of the airline’s strategy: 

Destroy blue collar America and expose air travelers to potential disaster by fixing AA planes on foreign soil, while simultaneously sexualizing and degrading their own flight attendants.

Naturally, I contacted American to ask for its view. It offered me the contents of a memo it sent on Sunday to all its staff. It read, in part: 

This was not an American Airlines event. We did not have any say about the content of the event, nor did we preview any of the agenda. Additionally, we were particularly upset to see our logo on the screen as the skit was performed.

Well, indeed. American also said: “We are as upset as many of you are with the video.”

It didn’t, at least in this memo, specifically rail against its manifest sexism. (Its utter lack of actual humor might have deserved a mention, too.)

Larounis, at American’s request, removed the video. Sadly, thanks to the internet’s cloying immediacy, it soon proliferated far and wide.

Many will hiss and tut at those who performed in this abject display.

Somehow, though, I can’t help but consider those who laughed and applauded. 

Flying regularly in First Class may have its privileges. 

I wasn’t aware that permission to be a sad, myopic, dunderheaded Neaderthal was one of them.