News for USA

 Page 1 of 186   Next›  Last» 

LG is getting out of the mobile phone business
USA Created: 5 Apr 2021
After years of trying to turn its fortunes around, Korea's LG said it would exit the mobile phone business globally.

Between the lines: The phone business is a hard one to make profitable for all but the largest players. LG was once one of those, but hasn't been for many years, and had no clear path to change that.

"LG’s strategic decision to exit the incredibly competitive mobile phone sector will enable the company to focus resources in growth areas such as electric vehicle components, connected devices, smart homes, robotics, artificial intelligence and business-to-business solutions, as well as platforms and services," the company said in a statement.

LG had said several months ago that it was reviewing its options, including a potential exit from the business.

Of note: LG said it will take until July to wind down its business and sell current inventory.

LG said it will continue to service and support phones for a period of time.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Axios, Ina Fried, 05 Apr 2021

Not April Fools: Wi-Fi devices to become mini-radar trackers by 2024 with planned upgrade
USA Created: 1 Apr 2021
As Wi-Fi becomes more and more present in public and private spaces, it becomes natural to leverage its ubiquitousness to implement groundbreaking wireless sensing applications such as human presence detection, activity recognition, and object tracking, just to name a few.

This paper reports ongoing efforts by the IEEE 802.11bf Task Group (TGbf), which is defining the appropriate modifications to existing Wi-Fi standards to enhance sensing capabilities through 802.11-compliant waveforms.

We summarize objectives and timeline of TGbf, and discuss some of the most interesting proposed technical features discussed so far.

We also introduce a roadmap of research challenges pertaining to Wi-Fi sensing and its integration with future Wi-Fi technologies and emerging spectrum bands, hoping to elicit further activities by both the research community and TGbf.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Arxiv, Francesco Restuccia, 27 Mar 2021

New 5G protocol vulnerabilities allow location tracking
USA Created: 29 Mar 2021
Security researchers have identified new vulnerabilities in the 5G protocol that could be abused to crash network segments and extract user data, such as location information.

The new vulnerabilities have been discovered at the end of last year by AdaptiveMobile, a cybersecurity firm specializing in mobile network security.

Detailed in a 36-page report published this week, the vulnerabilities impact 5G’s network slicing mechanism, a feature that allows network operators to split their 5G infrastructure into smaller portions dedicated for particular use cases, such as automotive, healthcare, critical infrastructure, and entertainment services.

AdaptiveMobile says the vulnerabilities it found can be exploited in hybrid mobile network setups where 5G is mixed with older technologies — network setups that are to be expected in the real world in the coming years as 5G technology rolls out and slowly replaces previous tech.

According to AdaptiveMobile, the attacks are possible because of “a lack of mapping between the application and transport layers identities,” which allows attackers to impersonate legitimate network functions in hybrid 5G networks.

This opens the door to situations where if an attacker manages to compromise an operator’s edge network equipment, they could abuse 5G protocol functions to launch denial of service attacks against other network slices or extract information from adjacent 5G network slices, including customer data such as location tracking information.

Furthermore, there could also be scenarios where partners who were granted access to network slices could abuse this privilege to attack other sections.
Improvements coming to future 5G standard

The security firm said it notified both the GSM Association (GSMA), an industry group for mobile operators, and the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), the organization in charge of developing the 5G standard, of the vulnerabilities it found.

“The full mitigation of the described attacks may require some larger feature development in 3GPP specifications and could potentially be part of Release 17,” AdaptiveMobile said.

Release 17, or Rel-17, is the version of the 5G standard that is currently in development and is expected to be released in mid-2022.

AdaptiveMobile’s research adds to previous work done on the security of the new 5G protocol. Despite being a newer and more modern telecommunications protocol, 5G is often exposed to attacks due to the need to support legacy features so 5G customers could interact with older-gen standards.

One such example is the GPRS Tunnelling Protocol (GTP). In June 2020, security researchers disclosed several GTP vulnerabilities that could be used to attack both 4G and 5G users.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Record, Catalin Cimpanu, 26 Mar 2021

“High Probability” that Cell Phone Radiation Causes Brain Tumors: former CDC top scientist testifies
USA Created: 19 Mar 2021
The expert that brought down Monsanto's "RoundUp" is now an expert for the plaintiff in the largest cellphone radiation and brain cancer law suit, 20 years underway.

Christopher Portier PhD, a longtime US government scientist now retired, submitted a comprehensive review of the scientific research in a major cell phone/brain cancer lawsuit where he concludes that “The evidence on an association between cellular phone use and the risk of glioma in adults is quite strong” and “In my opinion, RF exposure probably causes gliomas and neuromas and, given the human, animal and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas and neuromas is high.”

The 176-page expert report with 443 references was prepared for the plaintiffs in a major product liability lawsuit, Murray et al. v Motorola, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against the telecommunications industry. The plaintiffs in the case are sueing the telecommunications industry for damages because they developed brain cancer after years of using a cell phone up to their head. Most of the plaintiffs have passed away. Court dates are set for Murray et al. v. Motorola July 12-23, 2021.
Christopher Portier PhD Directed Programs at the US Centers for Disease Control

Chris Portier PhD was the Director of the United States National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and the Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Prior to CDC, Dr. Portier was with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for 32 years where he served as the NIEHS Associate Director, Director of the Environmental Toxicology Program, and Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program.

Dr. Portier holds a Ph.D. in Biostatistics (with a minor in Epidemiology). For over three decades, Dr. Portier has held prominent leadership positions in the U.S. government that combined the disciplines of toxicology, statistics and epidemiology.
Chris Portier PhD Represented the US Centers for Disease Control at the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer Review of Wireless Radiation in 2011.

In 2011, Dr. Portier was selected to represent the CDC on an expert working group convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization to review the carcinogenicity of wireless radiofrequency radiation. The working group met for two weeks and ultimately decided to determine that RF radiation was “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). In 2015 during the BIOEM Conference Portier officially called for invoking the precautionary principle. Since 2011, the published research in both humans and animals linking wireless radiation to cancer and tumors has substantially increased as Dr. Portier documents in his research review.

Numerous other WHO/IARC experts have more recently stated that the 2011 classification needs to be strengthened as recent research continues to show a link between wireless exposure and cancer. Read their statements here.
Selected quotes from Dr. Portier’s Expert Report to the Court

“In conclusion, an association has been established between the use of cellular telephones and the risk of gliomas and chance, bias and confounding are unlikely to have driven this finding.”
“The evidence on an association between cellular phone use and the risk of acoustic neuromas [ANs] in adults is strong.”
“The central question to ask of animal cancer studies is “Can RF increase the incidence of tumors in laboratory animals?” The answer, with high confidence, is yes.”
“There is sufficient evidence to suggest that both oxidative stress and genotoxicity are caused by exposure to RF and that these mechanisms could be the reason why RF can induce cancer in humans.”
“RF exposure probably causes gliomas and acoustic neuromas, and given the human, animal and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes these cancers is high.”
In conclusion, there is sufficient evidence from these laboratory studies to conclude that RF can cause tumors in experimental animals with strong findings for gliomas, heart Schwannomas and adrenal pheochromocytomas in male rats and harderian gland tumors in male mice and uterine polyps in female mice. There is also some evidence supporting liver tumors and lung tumors in male and possibly female mice.”
“In my opinion, RF exposure probably causes gliomas and neuromas and, given the human, animal and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas and neuromas is high.”

Download the Report HERE:
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Expert-report-Christopher-J-Portier-Murray-v-Motorola-3-1-2021-1.pdf

Dr. Christopher Portier has Provided Expert Testimony Regarding Glyphosate

Dr. Christopher Portier testified as an expert witness for the plaintiff in the case of Edwin Hardeman v. Monsanto Company (now Bayer). The Hardeman trial began on February 25, 2019 and ended with a unanimous verdict of $80M for Mr. Hardeman on March 27, 2019.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EHTrust, 18 Mar 2021

Why Are Carriers Telling Us to Turn Off 5G?
USA Created: 6 Mar 2021
When carriers are telling people to turn off 5G to save battery, there's a problem, and it's not just power drain.

Both Verizon and T-Mobile were caught this week telling their users to turn off 5G to save battery, a sort of egg-on-face, foot-in-mouth situation that maybe we shouldn't read too much into. But I will! I will read more into it, because when a carrier's tech support people and its marketing people are saying opposite things, something's clearly up.

Verizon started the ball rolling with an unfortunate, now-deleted tweet telling people to "turn on [4G] LTE" on their iPhones to conserve battery. On a recent iPhone, that means turning off 5G. T-Mobile's sin appeared on a slew of device support pages, which suggest going down from 5G to 2G to preserve battery, which is really amusing. That will make your phone basically not work. T-Mobile has reduced its 2G network to an absolute minimum, mostly to support machine-to-machine devices like point-of-sale systems.

The relationship between 5G and battery drain is…tricky. The first-generation 5G phones based on the Qualcomm X50 modem frequently overheated and consumed battery very quickly, but those problems appeared to be solved with the current X55 and X60 modems. That doesn't mean 5G mode is as battery-efficient as 4G mode is, even on new phones. The current problems are more in network design.

All the carriers are guilty of often asking phones to connect to more distant 5G signals rather than nearer 4G-only signals, so they can show 5G coverage. That burns battery. T-Mobile has a long-range, low-band 5G network that uses a shorter-range, mid-band 4G network as its control channel, and your phone sometimes has to strain to hear the control channel. That burns battery. The DSS system Verizon and AT&T both use as part of their "nationwide 5G" systems was shown in a recent paper to reduce data rates and increase interference. You know what increased interference burns? Battery.

New technologies are coming to reduce 5G power consumption. As T-Mobile switches to standalone 5G, that drops the mid-band control channel and results in less battery drain. When Verizon and AT&T turn on C-band next year, they won't rely on DSS as much, which will also help battery life. Over time, more sites will have 5G and your phone won't have to stretch as much, and that means—you guessed it—less battery drain. Qualcomm is also doing some wild things with RF tuning in its new X65 chipset for next year's phones; it too will help with battery.

But ultimately the big gap here is that people are seeing their batteries dip and don't feel like they're getting anything for it. If the existing 5G has similar performance to 4G, and no exclusive applications…why not turn it off?
Click here to view the source article.
Source: PCMag, Sascha Segan, March 5, 2021

Verizon support says you should turn off 5G to save your phone’s battery
USA Created: 1 Mar 2021
This, despite the carrier’s relentless promotion of its 5G network.

Despite its relentless promotion of 5G phones and the fact that it spent more than $45 billion bidding on a new faster spectrum, Verizon support now is advising people on Twitter to turn off their phones’ 5G access to preserve battery life.

In a Sunday morning tweet, Verizon support helpfully suggested that “one way to help conserve battery life is to turn on LTE” if users found their batteries were “draining faster than normal.” That step would, of course, turn off 5G in a phone that has it available. It’s also worth pointing out that you don’t actually “turn on LTE” when doing this step — LTE is always enabled as a fallback for the 5G network. But Verizon is obviously being cautious so as not to actually tell its customers to “turn off 5G”.

Twitter users naturally pointed out that switching to LTE-only would mean turning off 5G (which is available in some newer phones), but the helpful support person said it was important to troubleshoot “steps to find the root cause of any issues with speed,” adding that Verizon is “quickly launching more 5G areas, and making updates constantly to improve speeds.” Verizon’s nationwide 5G network uses a technology called DSS, which in many instances is actually slower than the LTE network it’s trying to replace.

Verizon announced its big 5G plans for 2021 last month, after formally launching its next-gen network in October 2020. One of its top priorities is expanding coverage of its ultra-fast mmWave coverage, which is currently restricted to parts of some cities in the US. It’s also heavily dependent on how close you are to a Verizon 5G site.

Both Verizon and AT&T spent big bucks in the FCC’s Auction 107, bidding on the C-band spectrum. Verizon spent $45.4 billion— twice as much as AT&T’s $23.4 billion. AT&T’s current nationwide 5G network also relies on DSS with speeds close to or lower than 4G LTE.

The new frequencies won’t become available until the end of the 2021 at the earliest, and will be available in limited locations first.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Verge, Kim Lyons, 28 Feb 2021

Why I'm challenging the FCC about antiquated safety standards for wireless devices
USA Created: 24 Feb 2021
Would you let your family fly in a plane or ride in a bus that meets 25-year-old safety standards? Yet, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assures us that wireless devices that meet last-century standards can safely be used by infants, toddlers and the rest of us.

During a fascinating hearing before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 25, the FCC maintained that 1996 standards can safely apply to testing devices many of which did not exist when those standards were first established.

The FCC readily concedes it is not a health agency. For health advice, it relies on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 1999, the FDA asked the National Toxicology Program (NTP), the government’s flagship testing program, to use standard animal testing protocols routinely used for extrapolation to humans and evaluate the impacts of non-thermal lifetime exposures to cellphone radiation. In 2018, the NTP issued the results of that $30 million state-of-the-art study, finding clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage.

In a remarkable about face, the FDA summarily rejected findings from the very study it had invited, reviewed and approved at several junctures, nonsensically questioning their relevance to humans, living up to its reputation as a captured agency.

In reviewing our case, Environmental Health Trust et al v. FCC, the court asked the agency to show what expert advice it had relied on to dismiss the NTP study and thousands of pages of peer-reviewed science. The FCC had invoked the Interagency Radiofrequency Radiation Work Group, but could provide no evidence that this loosely affiliated, unfunded informal federal Work Group has either met or offered the FCC any advice in the past two years.

The court then asked specifically whether the FDA had sought advice from its own Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee, The FCC was forced to concede that that technical advisory committee has not met since 2016, is next scheduled to meet in fiscal 2021, and has never considered cellphone safety. In fact, that committee chiefly focuses on ensuring that electronic products do not interfere with each other. So you can be pretty sure that your phone will not block your tablet from working, but you have no idea whether either of them might interfere with your heart or cause damage to your DNA.

Apple last week admitted that its iPhone 12 needs to be kept off the body — away from any implanted pacemaker that can interfere with its operation. That hot new device sports a MagSafe gizmo so you can attach accessories magnetically and charge wirelessly. Of course, our heart is our natural pacemaker.

So, what’s a safe distance? If you have a pacemaker, more than six inches in normal use and more than a foot if charging wirelessly. But what if you just want to be sure that you will not need a pacemaker or avoid atrial fibrillation or DNA damage?

One judge noted that during the pandemic, the use of wireless radiating devices had flourished as had hours spent with them on our bodies and those of our children. Yet, the FCC was effectively asking the court to infer the absence of any health impacts from wireless radiation, without substantial evidence in the agency record, without having tasked specific designated competent agencies to look at this, and without showing it had made a systematic, rational effort to review submitted information.

The court asked: “You want us to construe, as deliberation, that silence should be construed … that these relevant committees actually deliberated, actually reviewed the record and studies. So you are asking us to infer something that’s significant.” The judge noted that agencies get a lot of discretion: “You get a long leash. But, at some point that leash goes too far and becomes unreasonable without a little bit of followup by the FCC — to make… to verify… just to pin down that the information is responsive.”

The FCC appears to be saying it need not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act requiring assessment of all major federal actions, the Administrative Procedures Act demanding record-based reasoned and rational decision-making, or the Americans for Disability Act requiring accommodations for those with disabling electromagnetic illness.

Instead, in an audacious display of regulatory chutzpah, the FCC relies on the thin evidence provided by a limited FDA review, and rejects advice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential dangers to wildlife, the NTP and thousands of studies directly linking exposure to a wide range of illnesses.

Just last month, the Swiss government expert advisory group on electromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation released a stunning new evaluation of the experimental literature — much of which the FDA did not consider. Those experts conclude that EMF exposure, even in the low range, can cause or worsen a number of chronic illnesses, including diabetes and heart disease, and that children, the elderly and those with comorbidities, need special protections.

In 1996, Congress decided the FCC should have the primary responsibility for protecting the public from radiation exposure even though it has no health expertise and typically sides with phone companies rather than citizens. That was a mistake, and something that must be changed. But until then we have to rely on the courts to ensure the FCC fulfills its duty.

• Devra Davis is president of EHTrust.org who served as a Clinton appointee from 1994-99 and was a member of the IPCC Awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Washington Times, Devra Davis, 23 Feb 2021

Is Wi-Fi Sickness a Disability? California Appellate Court Holds That It Is Under FEHA
USA Created: 24 Feb 2021
Is Wi-Fi sickness a disability? The California Court of Appeal just said it is in Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2d Dist., Div. Eight), Case No. B294240. In a case that tests the limits of California’s liberal pleading standard, the appellate court green-lighted a claim of a woman who asserted a disability of “electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” or, as the concurring justice put it, “Wi-Fi sickness.”

The trial court had sustained a demurrer, granting judgment for the employer, a school district. The appellate court revived the plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The court acknowledged that it is likely the first to recognize Wi-Fi sickness as a disability under laws against discrimination. In fact, the court discussed contrary federal court authority, distinguishing those cases by concluding that the definition of “disability” in California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act is broader than in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Apart from the holding that Wi-Fi sickness is a disability under FEHA, California employers should take note of the facts alleged about the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

After the school district installed a new Wi-Fi system, the plaintiff teacher complained of headaches and other symptoms caused by exposure to the electromagnetic waves. The school district initially tried to accommodate the teacher by turning off the Wi-Fi in her classroom and an adjacent one. The teacher said that her symptoms persisted and asked for additional accommodations. By that point, the school district’s consultant had reported that the Wi-Fi and radio frequencies at the school “evidenced a safe and non-hazardous working environment.” Based on that report, the school district did not grant any further accommodation, and the teacher sued.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Wiley expressed reluctance “about giving any sort of green light to this unprecedented and unorthodox disability claim.” But that’s exactly what the court did.

The decision serves as a reminder of just how easy it is to survive a pleading challenge in California.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Lexology, Dykema Gossett PLLC, 23 Feb 2021

Apple wireless Airpod headphone users reporting tinnitus
USA Created: 14 Feb 2021
After using my AirPods for a while, I noticed a high pitched ringing in my ears (that doesn't go away). I didn't know what it was, so I looked it up and it turns out to be tinnitus. Now understand, I don't listen to music, or anything for that matter, loud. As a matter of fact, I carry a pair of earplugs in my pocket, just in case I encounter anything loud that would damage my hearing.


Having said all that, now I notice that when I put my AirPods in my ears and have nothing playing, they emit a high pitched tone that I would say exactly replicates the tone of my tinnitus, leaving me to believe that the AirPods actually caused my tinnitus.

(By time of posting this on Mast-Victims, 725 Apple customer had clicked "I have this question too".)

See Apple support forum thread via source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Apple Support Forum, MacbookProRetinaGuy, 24 Nov 2019

Judge to FCC: ‘I am Inclined to Rule Against You’
USA Created: 27 Jan 2021
During oral arguments Monday in CHD’s landmark case against the FCC, Judges appeared skeptical of the FCC's support for its own findings that cellphones and other connected devices pose no risks to human health.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) held a press conference Tuesday regarding oral arguments Monday in its landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Judges Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins sat on the D.C. Circuit panel. Judge Henderson, a chemical engineer by training, told the FCC, “I am inclined to rule against you.”

Related news:
Jan 2021, USA: 11,000 Pages of Evidence Filed in Landmark 5G Case Against the FCC, Hearing Set for Jan. 25

Judge Millet consistently pushed the FCC to answer why the FCC and/or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration didn’t review the evidence on non-cancer effects of wireless technology; why they addressed only cell phones when there is evidence on effects from various other devices and infrastructure; and why they didn’t address the cumulative effects from the chronic exposure for numerous devices.

At the end of the hearing, the panel ordered the FCC to file supplementary evidence detailing the existence and composition of the two U.S. Food and Drug Administration working groups by the end of the next business day.

CHD’s case challenges the FCC’s refusal to review its 25-year-old obsolete wireless “health guidelines” and to adopt scientific, biologically based radio frequency emissions rules that adequately protect public health from wireless devices and infrastructure, including 5G. The petitioners filed 11,000 pages of evidence at the hearing.

“This is a landmark case and it is of the utmost importance to Children’s Health Defense,” said the CHD’s Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“The overwhelming experimental and human evidence which the FCC has ignored leaves no doubt that wireless technology is a major contributory factor to this epidemic. The FCC has shown that its chief interest is protecting the telecom industry and maximizing its profits. Its position, as put forward in its brief, and as we saw today in court, is simply indefensible.”

Children’s Health Defense and the Environmental Health Trust filed separate cases against the FCC, but filed joint briefs. While Environmental Health Trust has been represented by attorney Ed Meyers, because of a court decision that only one attorney would be allowed to present in the oral arguments, Scott McCollough, CHD’s attorney, argued for both organizations.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Children's Health Defense Team, 27 Jan 2021

 Page 1 of 186   Next›  Last» 
 News item: