The British Medical Journal has published a report related to the dangers of using a cell-phone during a lightning storm:

We report the case of a 15 year old girl who was witnessed being struck by lightning while using her mobile phone in a large park in London during stormy weather. The girl has no recollection of events because she had an asystolic cardiac arrest.

She was successfully resuscitated, but one year later she was a wheelchair user with complex physical, cognitive, and emotional problems, as well as a persistent perforation of the left [eardrum] with associated conductive hearing loss on the side she was holding the mobile phone.

Ouch. According to the article a cell-phone conducts the energy of lightning in such a way that it bypasses the human skin’s natural resistance and leads to greater/internal injuries.

Anyone else curious about the surrounding terrain and how many other cell-phone users there were at the time of the strike? I mean, did her particular phone increase the likelihood of being struck, or does it just increase the damage during a strike? So many cell-phones, so few struck by lightning…

I find it very odd that all the reports and news about this seem to confuse the likelihood of being struck by lightning with the increased likelihood of damage during a strike. Very different risks, which invite different user-awareness programs, let alone technical counter-measures.

I hate to say it but this seems like a good segue to making lightning-safe bluetooth headsets for people who have to work on the phone in stormy conditions (like rescue or utility teams). The opposite of lightning rods? WWBFD (What would Ben Franklin do)?

After all, once the proper risk has been highlighted (whether that be damage during a strike or causing a strike, or both) the cost of avoidance can be factored more easily. Some might be willing to pay a bit more for a lightning proof headset in order to be able to bypass the newly associated/reported risks.

Here’s a creative mix of Star Wars and Telecom marketing, although the comparison is a bit harsh:

Worried about hackers getting your data? Consumers are being asked by a company to agree that “all your data are belong to us” before they will give you any service. Those who already have service…well, that’s not so clear yet.

SFGate has the scoop:

The new policy says that AT&T — not customers — owns customers’ confidential info and can use it “to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process.”

The policy also indicates that AT&T will track the viewing habits of customers of its new video service — something that cable and satellite providers are prohibited from doing.

Moreover, AT&T (formerly known as SBC) is requiring customers to agree to its updated privacy policy as a condition for service — a new move that legal experts say will reduce customers’ recourse for any future data sharing with government authorities or others.

And now for the two edges of the sword…

AT&T said in a statement last month that it “has a long history of vigorously protecting customer privacy” and that “our customers expect, deserve and receive nothing less than our fullest commitment to their privacy.”

But the company also asserted that it has “an obligation to assist law enforcement and other government agencies responsible for protecting the public welfare, whether it be an individual or the security interests of the entire nation.”

So this reminds me of the old Lincoln-Douglas debate topic “Should the public’s right to know outweigh national security interests?” except that no-one even close to the oratory power of Lincoln or Douglas seems to be speaking about the topic. So far I’ve only heard lawyers from AT&T say “don’t worry, this is just a minor clarification”; not exactly a heart-warming defense.

Can you imagine if the rulers of a country had to agree that the public has full and unfettered ownership of their confidential data, even when in power, before they were allowed to take office? Just curious how far the logic might extend…

I found something ironic in this story on MSN. MySpace, made popular through the ease of connecting to other people and related “hype”, is apparently telling people not to listen to what they hear on the street.

The popular Web hangout MySpace.com is as safe as anyplace in the offline world despite recent reports that sexual predators may be using it to find and lure young victims, the company’s CEO said.

“If you go to the mall and start talking to strange people, bad things can happen,” Chris DeWolfe, the site’s co-founder, said in a telephone interview. “You’ve got to take the same precautions on the Internet.”

I am not a PR expert, but from a security perspective I find this position odd. After all, it comes from a company that provides a platoform to people that enables them to represent themselves as someone they are not.

In other words, the analogy could be translated into “if we provide a forum that strips away all the controls you might use in a mall to protect yourself (e.g. physical appearance), and don’t give you anything to protect yourself (e.g. we have no alternative checks and controls to suggest or provide to you), you can’t expect us to be liable for your behavior.” And that doesn’t sound right for a reason. The next question to DeWolfe should have been “what exactly do you mean by ‘same’ precautions?”