State of the Art: Google Maps App for iPhone Goes in the Right Direction - Review

It was one of the biggest tech headlines of the year: in September, Apple dropped its contract with Google, which had always supplied the data for the iPhone’s Maps app. For various strategic reasons, Apple preferred to write a new app, based on a new database of the world that Apple intended to assemble itself.

As everybody knows by now, Apple got lost along the way. It was like a 22-car pileup. Timothy Cook, Apple’s chief executive, made a quick turn, publicly apologizing, firing the executive responsible and vowing to fix Maps. For a company that prides itself on flawless execution, it was quite a detour.

Rumors swirled that Google would create an iPhone app of its own, one that would use its seven-year-old, far more polished database of the world.

That was true. Today, Google Maps for the iPhone has arrived. It’s free, fast and fantastic.

Now, there are two parts to a great maps app. There’s the app itself — how it looks, how it works, what the features are. In this regard, few people complain about Apple’s Maps app; it’s beautiful, and its navigation mode for drivers is clear, uncluttered and distraction-free.

But then there’s the hard part: the underlying data. Apple and Google have each constructed staggeringly complex databases of the world and its roads.

The recipe for both companies includes map data from TomTom, satellite photography from a different source, real-time traffic data from others, restaurant and store listings from still more sources, and so on. In the end, Apple says that it incorporated data from at least 24 different sources.

Those sources always include errors, if only because the world constantly changes. Worse, those sources sometimes disagree with one another. It takes years to fix the problems and mesh these data sources together.

So the first great thing about Google’s new Maps is the underlying data. Hundreds of Google employees have spent years hand-editing the maps, fixing the thousands of errors that people report every day. (In the new app, you report a mistake just by shaking the phone.) And since 2006, Google’s Street View vehicles have trawled 3,000 cities, photographing and confirming the cartographical accuracy of five million miles of roads.

You can sense the new app’s polish and intelligence the minute you enter your first address; it’s infinitely more understanding. When I type “200 W 79, NYC,” Google Maps drops a pin right where it belongs: on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

Apple’s Maps app, on the other hand, acts positively drunk. It asks me to clarify: “Did you mean 200 Durham Road, Madison, CT? Or 200 Madison Road, Durham, CT?”

Um, what?

And then there’s the navigation. Lots of iPhone owners report that they’ve had no problem with Apple’s driving instructions, and that’s great. But I’ve been idiotically misdirected a few times — and the trouble is, you never know in advance. You wind up with a deep mistrust of the app that’s hard to shake. Google’s directions weren’t great in the app’s early days either, and they’re still not always perfect. But after years of polishing and corrections, they’re right a lot more often.

The must-have features are all here: spoken driving directions, color-coded real-time traffic conditions, vector-based maps (smooth at any size). But the new app also offers some incredibly powerful, useful features that Apple’s app lacks.

Street View, of course, lets you see a photograph of a place, and even “walk” down the street in any direction. Great for checking out a neighborhood before you go, scoping out the parking situation or playing “you are there” when you read a news article.

Along with driving directions, Google Maps gives equal emphasis to walking directions and public transportation options.

This feature is brilliantly done. Google Maps displays a clean, step-by-step timeline of your entire public transportation adventure. If you ask for a route from Westport, Conn., to the Empire State Building, the timeline says: “4:27 pm, Board New Haven train toward Grand Central Terminal.” Then it shows you the names of the actual train stops you’ll pass. Then, “5:47 pm, Grand Central. Get off and walk 2 min.” Then, “5:57 pm, 33rd St: Board the #6 Lexington Avenue Local towards Brooklyn Bridge.” And so on.

Even if public transportation were all it did, Google Maps would be one of the best apps ever. (Apple kicks you over to other companies’ apps for this information.)

E-mail: pogue@nytimes.com

Read More..

John Silva, Maker of ‘Telecopter’ Camera, Dies at 92

Helicopter news footage is common today. But until myriad problems in sending live pictures from a moving aircraft were solved, television broadcasters could not show an eagle’s-eye view of a forest fire, or contemplate aerial coverage of, say, a famous man fleeing the police in a white Ford Bronco.

John Silva made that now-familiar vantage possible in 1958, when he converted a small helicopter into the first airborne virtual television studio.

The KTLA “Telecopter,” as it was called by the Los Angeles station where Mr. Silva was the chief engineer, became the basic tool of live television traffic reporting, disaster coverage and that most famous glued-to-the-tube moment in the modern era of celebrity-gawking, the 1994 broadcast of O. J. Simpson leading a motorcade of pursuers on Los Angeles freeways after his former wife and a friend of hers were killed.

Mr. Silva, who later earned two Emmy Awards for his pioneering technical work, died in Camarillo, Calif., on Nov. 27. His death was confirmed by a spokesman for KTLA-TV, where he worked from 1946 until leaving to become an electronics design consultant in 1978. He was 92.

Mr. Silva, an electronics engineer trained in radar science during World War II, faced three main roadblocks to transmitting black-and-white images live from helicopters. Rotor vibrations distorted the pictures, and sometimes even cracked the transmitter’s vacuum tubes. Directional antennas went haywire when helicopters changed direction suddenly, as helicopters sometimes do. And the camera equipment weighed a ton.

With help from fellow KTLA engineers, though mainly working alone to keep the project secret from competitors, Mr. Silva stabilized onboard cameras with a system of shock absorbers and cushions, designed aluminum parts to replace heavier metals in his equipment and commissioned an antenna that would extend below the chopper and rotate to maintain uninterrupted contact with KTLA’s mountaintop transmitter. By paring and remachining a basic set of broadcast equipment, he reduced it to 368 pounds from 2,000 pounds and distributed the load with precise symmetry throughout the tiny Bell 47G2 chopper leased for the project to prevent listing.

KTLA, the first commercially licensed television station west of the Rockies, faced growing competition in the late ’50s. New network-affiliated stations were scoring scoops with mobile broadcast units like ones Mr. Silva had pioneered, and everyone was fighting to get through increasingly clogged Los Angeles freeways.

The Telecopter was intended to kill the competition.

“If we could build a news mobile unit in a helicopter,” Mr. Silva recalled in a 2002 interview for the Archive of American Television, “we could get over it all, get there first, avoid the traffic and get to all the stories before anybody in the competition.”

“It’d be a wonderful thing,” he said.

By the time he began work on his airborne live television, Mr. Silva had already achieved a landmark in ground-level television history. In 1949, he was the technical director at KTLA who rigged the electronic connections — using duct-tape ingenuity and a borrowed generator — that carried what historians consider the first live television broadcast of a breaking news event.

The 27-hour rescue operation in San Marino, Calif., to save Kathy Fiscus, a 3-year-old trapped in an abandoned water pipe 94 feet below ground, was unsuccessful; but the station’s coverage was the precursor to every wall-to-wall television event broadcast since.

The Telecopter’s first flight took place at Los Angeles City Hall on July 24, 1958. It re-established KTLA’s dominance (until competitors put their own helicopters up). And for better and worse, it brought a Hollywood-style excitement to television news.

In the archive interview, Mr. Silva was asked what the first live helicopter pictures showed. They were panning shots, he said — zooming in and out of the L.A. landscape between the station’s Sunset Boulevard studio and City Hall.

Most of what they showed, he added, “was the freeway.”

John Daniel Silva was born in San Diego on Feb. 20, 1920, the youngest of three children of a commercial fisherman, Guy Silva, and his wife, Lottie, a homemaker. He attended M.I.T. for two years, and graduated with a bachelor’s degree after two years more at Stanford.

During World War II, he was a Naval officer who positioned radar defenses in the Pacific.

After the war, he worked for Paramount Pictures as an engineer for an experimental television station, W6XYZ, that later became KTLA.

Mr. Silva’s survivors include his wife, Mary Lou Steinkraus-Silva; three daughters, Patricia Vawter, Kathleen Silva and Karen Samaha; and a granddaughter.

The Telecopter had its greatest moments, predictably, at news events of Cecil B. DeMille dimensions: The 1963 dam break at the Baldwin Hills Reservoir in Los Angeles that sent 250 million gallons of water into surrounding neighborhoods, destroying many homes and claiming five lives. The 1965 Watts riots. The 1961 brush fire that swept through Bel Air, sending Hollywood stars scrambling to their roofs with garden hoses.

In his three-hour interview with the television archive, Mr. Silva never mentioned the 1994 O. J. Simpson freeway pursuit footage he made possible. But in answering a question about the future of helicopter reporting, he made clear that he had no regrets about the Telecopter’s role in creating an increasingly graphic television sensibility.

He would just like the lenses to get longer and the close-ups tighter, he said.

“When they’re doing freeway chases, they need to have a system that can come down in front, and be able to get pictures of suspects in the front windshield,” he said, describing one improvement he hoped to see.

Smiling, he added, “To fill the screen with their wonderful faces.”

Read More..

Mind: A Compromise on Defining and Diagnosing Mental Disorders

They plotted a revolution, fell to debating among themselves, and in the end overturned very little except their own expectations.

But the effort itself was a valuable guide for anyone who has received a psychiatric diagnosis, or anyone who might get one.

This month, the American Psychiatric Association announced that its board of trustees had approved the fifth edition of the association’s influential diagnostic manual — the so-called bible of mental disorders — ending more than five years of sometimes acrimonious, and often very public, controversy.

The committee of doctors appointed by the psychiatric association had attempted to execute a paradigm shift, changing how mental disorders are conceived and posting its proposals online for the public to comment. And comment it did: Patient advocacy groups sounded off, objecting to proposed changes in the definitions of depression and Asperger syndrome, among other diagnoses. Outside academic researchers did, too. A few committee members quit in protest.

The final text, which won’t be fully available until publication this spring, has already gotten predictably mixed reviews. “Given the challenges in a field where objective lines are hard to draw, they did a solid job,” said Dr. Michael First, a psychiatrist at Columbia who edited a previous version of the manual and was a consultant on this one.

Others disagreed. “This is the saddest moment in my 45-year career of practicing, studying and teaching psychiatry,” wrote Dr. Allen Frances, the chairman of a previous committee who has been one of the most vocal critics, in a blog post about the new manual, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM5.

Yet many experts inside and outside the process said the final document was not radically different from the previous version, and its lessons more mundane than the rhetoric implied. The status quo is hard to budge, for one. And when changes do happen, they are not necessarily the ones that were intended.

The new manual does extend the reach of psychiatry in some areas, as many critics feared it might. Hoarding is now a mental disorder (previously it was considered a symptom of obsessive-compulsive behavior). “Premenstrual dysphoric disorder,” a severe form of premenstrual syndrome, is also new (it was previously in the appendix).

And binge-eating disorder (also formerly in the appendix), a kind of severe, highly distressing gluttony, is now a full-blown diagnosis. This one by itself could tag millions of people considered healthy, if often overindulgent, with a psychiatric label, some experts said.

But the deeper story is one of compromise. It is most evident in how the committee handled three of the thorniest diagnoses in psychiatry: autism, depression and pediatric bipolar disorder.

The group working on depression declared early on that it wanted to eliminate the so-called bereavement exclusion, which stated that grieving the loss of a loved one should not be considered a clinical disorder, though it shares many of the same outward signs. Grief has always been a normal reaction to death, not a kind of depression.

Advocacy and support groups, such as those representing people who have lost a child, objected furiously to the idea that the bereaved might be given a diagnosis of depression.

“This was just astonishing, that they would eliminate the exclusion, and a distortion of the research on the subject,” said Jerome Wakefield, a professor of social work and psychiatry at New York University, who did not work on the manual.

In the end the committee cut a deal. It eliminated the grief exclusion but added a note in the text, reminding doctors that any significant loss — of a job, a relationship, a home — could cause depressive symptoms and should be carefully investigated.

“It’s like they took it all back,” Dr. Wakefield said. “I don’t like the way it was done — in a footnote — but it’s there.”

The debate over autism was even more furious, and it resulted in a similar rapprochement.

From the outset, the committee intended to tighten the definition of autism and simplify it, eliminating related labels like Asperger syndrome and “pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified,” or PDD-NOS. The rate of diagnosis of such conditions has exploded over the past decade, in part due to the vagueness of the definitions, and the committee wanted to draw clearer boundaries.

It proposed a single “autism spectrum disorder” category, with stricter requirements.

Some outside researchers raised concerns. In January one of them, Dr. Fred Volkmar of the Yale School of Medicine, who had quit the committee in protest, presented research suggesting that 45 percent or more of people who currently had an autism or related diagnosis would not have one under the proposed revision.

Autism groups reacted immediately, fearing that the change in the diagnosis would deny services to children and families who need them.

The committee countered with its own study, suggesting that the new definition would exclude about 10 percent of people currently with a diagnosis. And again, the experts took a half step back.

The new, streamlined definition was approved, but with language that took into account a person’s diagnostic history. “It’s explicit that anyone who’s had an Asperger’s or autism or PDD-NOS diagnosis before is now included,” said Catherine Lord, a committee member who worked on the new definition and who is director of the Center for Autism and the Developing Brain in New York. “Essentially everyone gets in.”

Pediatric bipolar disorder posed a different challenge.

In the 1990s and 2000s, psychiatrists began giving aggressive, explosive children a diagnosis of bipolar disorder in increasing numbers. The trend appalled many patient advocates and doctors.

Bipolar disorder, which is characterized by episodes of depression and mania, had previously been an adult problem; now the diagnosis is given to children as young as 2 — along with powerful psychiatric drugs and tranquilizers that also cause rapid weight gain. The committee wanted to stop the trend in its tracks, said experts who were involved.

Most of the children treated for bipolar disorder did not have it, recent research found. The committee settled on an alternative label: “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder,” or D.M.D.D., which describes extreme hostility and outbursts beyond normal tantrums.

“They essentially wanted to have some place for these kids, and D.M.D.D. was all they had in their kit,” said Dr. Gabrielle Carlson, a child psychiatrist at Stony Brook University Medical Center, who provided some outside consultation. “These are mostly kids who have A.D.H.D. or what we would call oppositional defiant disorder, but with this explosive feature. They need help; you can’t wait forever. The question was what to call it, without pretending we know enough to saddle them with a lifelong diagnosis” like bipolar disorder.

D.M.D.D. has its own problems, as many experts were quick to point out. It could be a symptom of an underlying condition, as Dr. Carlson argues. It could “medicalize” frequent temper tantrums. It’s brand new, and no one knows how it will play out in practice.

But it is now in the book — because it was the best solution available, experts inside and outside of the revision process said.

From beginning to end, many experts said, the process of defining psychiatric diagnoses is very much like finding the right one for an individual: it’s a process of negotiation, in many cases.

“That’s one of the take-aways from all this, and I think it’s a good one,” Dr. Carlson said. “A diagnosis is a hypothesis. It’s a start, and you have to start somewhere. But that’s all it is.”

One of the committee’s most ambitious proposals was perhaps the least noticed: a commitment to update the book continually, when there’s good reason to, rather than once every decade or so in a giant heave. That was approved without much fanfare.

Read More..

Mind: A Compromise on Defining and Diagnosing Mental Disorders

They plotted a revolution, fell to debating among themselves, and in the end overturned very little except their own expectations.

But the effort itself was a valuable guide for anyone who has received a psychiatric diagnosis, or anyone who might get one.

This month, the American Psychiatric Association announced that its board of trustees had approved the fifth edition of the association’s influential diagnostic manual — the so-called bible of mental disorders — ending more than five years of sometimes acrimonious, and often very public, controversy.

The committee of doctors appointed by the psychiatric association had attempted to execute a paradigm shift, changing how mental disorders are conceived and posting its proposals online for the public to comment. And comment it did: Patient advocacy groups sounded off, objecting to proposed changes in the definitions of depression and Asperger syndrome, among other diagnoses. Outside academic researchers did, too. A few committee members quit in protest.

The final text, which won’t be fully available until publication this spring, has already gotten predictably mixed reviews. “Given the challenges in a field where objective lines are hard to draw, they did a solid job,” said Dr. Michael First, a psychiatrist at Columbia who edited a previous version of the manual and was a consultant on this one.

Others disagreed. “This is the saddest moment in my 45-year career of practicing, studying and teaching psychiatry,” wrote Dr. Allen Frances, the chairman of a previous committee who has been one of the most vocal critics, in a blog post about the new manual, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM5.

Yet many experts inside and outside the process said the final document was not radically different from the previous version, and its lessons more mundane than the rhetoric implied. The status quo is hard to budge, for one. And when changes do happen, they are not necessarily the ones that were intended.

The new manual does extend the reach of psychiatry in some areas, as many critics feared it might. Hoarding is now a mental disorder (previously it was considered a symptom of obsessive-compulsive behavior). “Premenstrual dysphoric disorder,” a severe form of premenstrual syndrome, is also new (it was previously in the appendix).

And binge-eating disorder (also formerly in the appendix), a kind of severe, highly distressing gluttony, is now a full-blown diagnosis. This one by itself could tag millions of people considered healthy, if often overindulgent, with a psychiatric label, some experts said.

But the deeper story is one of compromise. It is most evident in how the committee handled three of the thorniest diagnoses in psychiatry: autism, depression and pediatric bipolar disorder.

The group working on depression declared early on that it wanted to eliminate the so-called bereavement exclusion, which stated that grieving the loss of a loved one should not be considered a clinical disorder, though it shares many of the same outward signs. Grief has always been a normal reaction to death, not a kind of depression.

Advocacy and support groups, such as those representing people who have lost a child, objected furiously to the idea that the bereaved might be given a diagnosis of depression.

“This was just astonishing, that they would eliminate the exclusion, and a distortion of the research on the subject,” said Jerome Wakefield, a professor of social work and psychiatry at New York University, who did not work on the manual.

In the end the committee cut a deal. It eliminated the grief exclusion but added a note in the text, reminding doctors that any significant loss — of a job, a relationship, a home — could cause depressive symptoms and should be carefully investigated.

“It’s like they took it all back,” Dr. Wakefield said. “I don’t like the way it was done — in a footnote — but it’s there.”

The debate over autism was even more furious, and it resulted in a similar rapprochement.

From the outset, the committee intended to tighten the definition of autism and simplify it, eliminating related labels like Asperger syndrome and “pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified,” or PDD-NOS. The rate of diagnosis of such conditions has exploded over the past decade, in part due to the vagueness of the definitions, and the committee wanted to draw clearer boundaries.

It proposed a single “autism spectrum disorder” category, with stricter requirements.

Some outside researchers raised concerns. In January one of them, Dr. Fred Volkmar of the Yale School of Medicine, who had quit the committee in protest, presented research suggesting that 45 percent or more of people who currently had an autism or related diagnosis would not have one under the proposed revision.

Autism groups reacted immediately, fearing that the change in the diagnosis would deny services to children and families who need them.

The committee countered with its own study, suggesting that the new definition would exclude about 10 percent of people currently with a diagnosis. And again, the experts took a half step back.

The new, streamlined definition was approved, but with language that took into account a person’s diagnostic history. “It’s explicit that anyone who’s had an Asperger’s or autism or PDD-NOS diagnosis before is now included,” said Catherine Lord, a committee member who worked on the new definition and who is director of the Center for Autism and the Developing Brain in New York. “Essentially everyone gets in.”

Pediatric bipolar disorder posed a different challenge.

In the 1990s and 2000s, psychiatrists began giving aggressive, explosive children a diagnosis of bipolar disorder in increasing numbers. The trend appalled many patient advocates and doctors.

Bipolar disorder, which is characterized by episodes of depression and mania, had previously been an adult problem; now the diagnosis is given to children as young as 2 — along with powerful psychiatric drugs and tranquilizers that also cause rapid weight gain. The committee wanted to stop the trend in its tracks, said experts who were involved.

Most of the children treated for bipolar disorder did not have it, recent research found. The committee settled on an alternative label: “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder,” or D.M.D.D., which describes extreme hostility and outbursts beyond normal tantrums.

“They essentially wanted to have some place for these kids, and D.M.D.D. was all they had in their kit,” said Dr. Gabrielle Carlson, a child psychiatrist at Stony Brook University Medical Center, who provided some outside consultation. “These are mostly kids who have A.D.H.D. or what we would call oppositional defiant disorder, but with this explosive feature. They need help; you can’t wait forever. The question was what to call it, without pretending we know enough to saddle them with a lifelong diagnosis” like bipolar disorder.

D.M.D.D. has its own problems, as many experts were quick to point out. It could be a symptom of an underlying condition, as Dr. Carlson argues. It could “medicalize” frequent temper tantrums. It’s brand new, and no one knows how it will play out in practice.

But it is now in the book — because it was the best solution available, experts inside and outside of the revision process said.

From beginning to end, many experts said, the process of defining psychiatric diagnoses is very much like finding the right one for an individual: it’s a process of negotiation, in many cases.

“That’s one of the take-aways from all this, and I think it’s a good one,” Dr. Carlson said. “A diagnosis is a hypothesis. It’s a start, and you have to start somewhere. But that’s all it is.”

One of the committee’s most ambitious proposals was perhaps the least noticed: a commitment to update the book continually, when there’s good reason to, rather than once every decade or so in a giant heave. That was approved without much fanfare.

Read More..

Moroccans Fear That Flickers of Democracy Are Fading

TANGIER, Morocco — Until recently, politics in Morocco involved red carpets and speeches in high Arabic that the average citizen could not understand. But on a campaign swing this fall through a working-class area of this port city, Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane stood on a makeshift podium in a muddy vacant lot.

He spoke without notes, kissed babies passed forward by the crowd and promised, as he has done all along, to fight corruption and return the government to the people.

“We will get stronger with the help of God and accomplish what we wanted,” he told the crowd, which roared its approval.

But more and more Moroccans are questioning his ability to do that, wondering whether Morocco’s version of the Arab Spring brought anything more than cosmetic changes to this impoverished country, which has been one of America’s most stable and staunch allies in a region marked by turmoil.

A year ago, it seemed Moroccans were giddy with the sense that they had found a gentle, negotiated answer to the popular uprisings in the streets. The country’s king, Mohammed VI, 49, defused angry protesters by volunteering to share his power. Within months, Morocco had a new Constitution.

Mr. Benkirane’s moderate Islamist party, the Justice and Development Party, won a plurality in parliamentary elections in November. Western governments heaped praise on the election process, satisfied that this strategically important country, just 12 miles south of Spain and atop a changing and uncertain continent, was settling in to a new more democratic order. (This week Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is scheduled to visit Morocco for a meeting of the Friends of Syria.)

But these days, many here are questioning whether the king and his entourage really gave up anything at all. Telquel, perhaps the country’s most influential magazine, ran a cover story this fall saying that the palace had gradually taken back its concessions: the king’s shadow cabinet was interfering at will and was even sending its own emissaries to the United States and Brussels when Moroccan interests needed tending to. Mr. Benkirane, the magazine pointed out, had publicly admitted that the king’s advisers sometimes met with government officials without consulting him.

Some also point to a quiet clamping down on political activists. In October, the United Nations said there was evidence of a recent spike in reports of torture in Morocco. About 70 protesters associated with the pro-democracy February 20 Movement are still in prison. In May, a popular rapper was sentenced to a year in jail for a song about police corruption. And six political activists testified at a hearing in September that they had been physically — and sexually — abused after being arrested for protesting in July.

In other countries rocked by Arab Spring uprisings, tensions today are being felt largely over the role of Islam in government. These issues have come up in Morocco, too. But here, the larger tensions appear to be over the power of the old guard. Many Moroccans will not criticize the king, instead focusing on the network of power and privilege that surrounds him and the corruption that they believe sucks any hope of prosperity from this country.

The problems Morocco faces are enormous. The country has invested heavily in infrastructure: superhighways are everywhere and there are plans for a high-speed train, too. But 40 percent of the population cannot read or write. Forbes has estimated the king’s fortune to be more than $2 billion. But the average income here is low, roughly half of what it was in Tunisia, where the Arab Spring first took off.

Mr. Benkirane took office showing a flare for the dramatic. He quickly slashed ministerial salaries and perquisites, and he refused to move to the prime minister’s mansion. He also took on Morocco’s notorious cronyism. To widespread amazement, his government published the names of those who had been given lucrative bus licenses. Since then, however, his efforts have foundered.

Some critics say the prime minister has been outmaneuvered at every turn. Once last spring, Mr. Benkirane seemed to lash out at the king and his entourage, suggesting that protesters could easily return to the streets. But soon after, he said the remarks had been misunderstood.

Aida Alami contributed reporting.

Read More..

Many Mobile Apps for Children Fall Short on Disclosure to Parents, F.T.C. Report Says

Hundreds of mobile apps for children fail to provide parents with basic information on the kinds of sensitive information the apps collect and share about their children, said a new federal report Monday.

Only 20 percent of children’s apps provided disclosures about their data collection practices, according to a staff report from the Federal Trade Commission released on Monday. The apps that did offer disclosures often provided links to long, dense, technical privacy policies “filled with irrelevant information,” according to the report. Other apps, it said, gave misleading information about their practices.

The agency’s study examined the privacy policies of 400 popular children’s apps — half of them available through the Apple App Store and the other half through Google’s Android Market — and compared the apps’ disclosures to their actual data collection practices.

“Most apps failed to provide any information about the data collected through the app, let alone the type of data collected, the purpose of the collection, and who would obtain access to the data,” the F.T.C. report said. “Even more troubling, the results showed that many of the apps shared certain information” — like a device’s phone number, precise location or unique identification code — with third parties, according to the report.

More than half of the apps studied were transmitting children’s data, often to marketers. The researchers also reported that most apps failed to tell parents when they involved interactive features like advertising, social network sharing or allowing children to make purchases for virtual goods within the app. For instance, while 9 percent of the children’s apps disclosed to parents that they contained advertising, F.T.C. researchers found that 58 percent actually contained ads. Moreover, of the 24 apps that stated they did not contain in-app advertising, 10 actually contained ads, the report said.

The report added that some of these practices could violate the F.T.C.’s prohibition against unfair or deceptive practices. The practices could also violate a federal law, called the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, known as Coppa for short. That law requires Web site operators to obtain parental permission before collecting or sharing the names, phone numbers, addresses or other personal information about children under 13.

Regulators said they were starting “numerous nonpublic investigations” to determine whether the discrepancies between the children’s apps’ disclosures and their actual practices violated the law.

The report is part of the F.T.C.’s preparations to strengthen the children’s online privacy rule.

Over the last few months, however, some prominent media companies, app developer and advertising industry groups have pressed F.T.C. commissioners to water down the agency’s proposed updates to the Coppa rule. The timing of the report suggests that the F.T.C. may be trying to lay the groundwork for broader children’s online privacy protections.

The agency hopes to update them to keep up with developments in mobile apps, voice recognition, facial recognition and comprehensive online data collection by marketers. The agency has proposed, for example, a longer list of data about children that would require prior parental consent to collect: photos, voice recordings and unique mobile device serial numbers that could be used to track children and compile information about their activities across apps.

In the report, regulators said their concern was that marketers and data collection companies could potentially use information from children’s apps to develop detailed profiles of children without their parents’ knowledge or consent. Children’s advocates have argued that such detailed profiling could potentially present a safety hazard — like the ability for strangers to contact or locate a child — as well as a risk that children could be unfairly discriminated against or influenced by marketers.

Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: Training Needed for Home Care Is Lacking

“H” from Chicago, I heard you when you joined a lively discussion over hospice at home here a couple of weeks ago and asked, “where can family members get the training to do all the nursing tasks?”

In the comments section, many readers wrote in to say that caring for relatives at the end of their lives was a duty and a privilege. Others said they were unprepared for the physical and emotional burdens of doing so.

Your question stood out because of its practical character. Do caregivers have to figure out how to handle all these complicated medical issues on their own? Or is some help out there?

For an answer, I called two of the authors of “Home Alone: Family Caregivers Providing Complex Chronic Care,” put out by the United Hospital Fund and the AARP Public Policy Institute. That study recently made headlines by reporting that 46 percent of the nation’s 42 million caregivers handle medical and nursing tasks such as giving injections, caring for wounds or administering I.V.s.

Susan Reinhard, senior vice president and director of the AARP Public Policy Institute, sighed when I reached her, and said “this is a huge gap,” referring to a notable absence of available training in demanding caregiving tasks.

To the extent training exists through local agencies on aging, disease-specific organizations or social service groups, it deals mostly with so-called “activities of daily living” — helping someone bath, dress, eat, or use the bathroom — not the demands of nursing-style care, Ms. Reinhard observed.

Really, this kind of training should be the responsibility of health care providers, but doctors and nurses often give only cursory, unsatisfactory explanations of complex tasks that fall to caregivers, said Carol Levine, director of the Families and Health Care Project of the United Hospital Fund.

That leaves the burden on caregivers to be assertive and ask for help, these experts agreed. If someone is hospitalized and ready to return home, they suggest asking a nurse or another provider “show me what you are doing so I can learn how to do it,” and then asking “now, watch me do it and tell me if I am doing it wrong or right.”

Don’t give up after the first time if you feel awkward or uncomfortable. Ask to do the task again, and ask again for feedback.

No videos or written manuals, can substitute for this one-on-one, hands-on instruction. If you don’t get it to your satisfaction before a loved-one is ready to go home, don’t sign the form that says you have been given instructions on what to do, Ms. Reinhard advised. The hospital is legally obligated to ensure that discharges are safe, and this operates in your favor.

The same goes for the pharmacy: don’t sign that sheet that the pharmacist hands you indicating that you have been adequately informed about the medications you are purchasing. If you are concerned about the number of prescriptions, what they are for, their possible side effects and whether all are necessary, ask the pharmacist to sit down with you and go over all this information. Again, don’t leave until you are satisfied.

Often, caregiving tasks will change as someone with a chronic condition like Parkinson’s disease or heart failure becomes more frail. Should this happen, consider calling a home care agency and asking for a nurse to come out and teach you how to administer oxygen or help transfer someone safely from a bed to a wheelchair, Ms. Reinhard said.

You may want to videotape the session so you can view it several times; most of us don’t pick these skills up right away and need repeat practice, Ms. Levine said.

Be as specific in your request for help as possible. Rather than complaining that you are overwhelmed, say something along the lines of, “I want to make sure I know how to clean this wound and prevent an infection” or “I need to know what texture the food should be so I can feed mom without having her choke,” Ms. Levine suggested.

Her organization has prepared comprehensive materials for caregivers called “Next Step in Care.” While the focus isn’t on nursing-style caregiving tasks, three might be useful: a self-assessment tool for family caregivers, a medication management guide, and a guide to hospice and palliative care.

Other helpful materials are few and far between. Ms. Levine’s staff identified a $24.95 American Red Cross training manual for family caregivers that has a DVD explaining the mechanics of transfers and a few other complicated tasks. Also, some videos are available for free at www.mmlearn.org, a Web site that says its mission is to provide caregivers with online training and education.

Asked about model programs, Ms. Reinhard said she knew of only one: the Schmieding Home Caregiver Training Program in Arkansas, operated by the Donald W. Reynolds Institute on Aging of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. The Schmieding program trains family caregivers as well as professional caregivers who work in people’s homes or nursing homes.

On the family side, it offers eight hours of instruction in “physical needs” associated with caregiving — managing incontinence, skin care, turning someone regularly in bed, using adaptive equipment, transfers from a bed to a wheelchair, helping patients remain mobile, and more. Classes are offered at five sites and four more are planned in the next several years, said Robin McAtee, associate director of the Reynolds Institute on Aging. If people, churches or senior centers want the instruction, which is free, Schmieding nurses will take the program to them. One-on-one instruction for tasks is also available on request.

A separate eight-hour program is available for caregivers dealing with dementia, who have additional concerns.

At a Web site called Elder Stay at Home, Schmieding sells a package of materials (three DVDs and a booklet, for $99) summarizing the content of its family caregiver training program. Separately, it has begun selling its curriculum for paid caregivers, and programs in California, Hawaii and Texas are among the first buyers. The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences also has received a $3.7 million innovation grant from the government to expand the caregiver training program more broadly and develop online training materials.

Ms. Reinhard said AARP would like to see Schmieding-style programs rolled out across the country and begin to offer structured, reliable support to caregivers now providing nursing-style care in homes with little or no assistance.

What else am I missing here? Do you know of resources or other organizations providing intensive caregiver training along the lines of what I’ve been discussing? Where would you suggest people turn for this kind of help?

Editor’s Note:

Correction: An earlier version of this post contained an incorrect spelling of the first name of the director of the Families and Health Care Project of the United Hospital Fund. She is Carol Levine, not Carole Levine.

Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: Training Needed for Home Care Is Lacking

“H” from Chicago, I heard you when you joined a lively discussion over hospice at home here a couple of weeks ago and asked, “where can family members get the training to do all the nursing tasks?”

In the comments section, many readers wrote in to say that caring for relatives at the end of their lives was a duty and a privilege. Others said they were unprepared for the physical and emotional burdens of doing so.

Your question stood out because of its practical character. Do caregivers have to figure out how to handle all these complicated medical issues on their own? Or is some help out there?

For an answer, I called two of the authors of “Home Alone: Family Caregivers Providing Complex Chronic Care,” put out by the United Hospital Fund and the AARP Public Policy Institute. That study recently made headlines by reporting that 46 percent of the nation’s 42 million caregivers handle medical and nursing tasks such as giving injections, caring for wounds or administering I.V.s.

Susan Reinhard, senior vice president and director of the AARP Public Policy Institute, sighed when I reached her, and said “this is a huge gap,” referring to a notable absence of available training in demanding caregiving tasks.

To the extent training exists through local agencies on aging, disease-specific organizations or social service groups, it deals mostly with so-called “activities of daily living” — helping someone bath, dress, eat, or use the bathroom — not the demands of nursing-style care, Ms. Reinhard observed.

Really, this kind of training should be the responsibility of health care providers, but doctors and nurses often give only cursory, unsatisfactory explanations of complex tasks that fall to caregivers, said Carol Levine, director of the Families and Health Care Project of the United Hospital Fund.

That leaves the burden on caregivers to be assertive and ask for help, these experts agreed. If someone is hospitalized and ready to return home, they suggest asking a nurse or another provider “show me what you are doing so I can learn how to do it,” and then asking “now, watch me do it and tell me if I am doing it wrong or right.”

Don’t give up after the first time if you feel awkward or uncomfortable. Ask to do the task again, and ask again for feedback.

No videos or written manuals, can substitute for this one-on-one, hands-on instruction. If you don’t get it to your satisfaction before a loved-one is ready to go home, don’t sign the form that says you have been given instructions on what to do, Ms. Reinhard advised. The hospital is legally obligated to ensure that discharges are safe, and this operates in your favor.

The same goes for the pharmacy: don’t sign that sheet that the pharmacist hands you indicating that you have been adequately informed about the medications you are purchasing. If you are concerned about the number of prescriptions, what they are for, their possible side effects and whether all are necessary, ask the pharmacist to sit down with you and go over all this information. Again, don’t leave until you are satisfied.

Often, caregiving tasks will change as someone with a chronic condition like Parkinson’s disease or heart failure becomes more frail. Should this happen, consider calling a home care agency and asking for a nurse to come out and teach you how to administer oxygen or help transfer someone safely from a bed to a wheelchair, Ms. Reinhard said.

You may want to videotape the session so you can view it several times; most of us don’t pick these skills up right away and need repeat practice, Ms. Levine said.

Be as specific in your request for help as possible. Rather than complaining that you are overwhelmed, say something along the lines of, “I want to make sure I know how to clean this wound and prevent an infection” or “I need to know what texture the food should be so I can feed mom without having her choke,” Ms. Levine suggested.

Her organization has prepared comprehensive materials for caregivers called “Next Step in Care.” While the focus isn’t on nursing-style caregiving tasks, three might be useful: a self-assessment tool for family caregivers, a medication management guide, and a guide to hospice and palliative care.

Other helpful materials are few and far between. Ms. Levine’s staff identified a $24.95 American Red Cross training manual for family caregivers that has a DVD explaining the mechanics of transfers and a few other complicated tasks. Also, some videos are available for free at www.mmlearn.org, a Web site that says its mission is to provide caregivers with online training and education.

Asked about model programs, Ms. Reinhard said she knew of only one: the Schmieding Home Caregiver Training Program in Arkansas, operated by the Donald W. Reynolds Institute on Aging of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. The Schmieding program trains family caregivers as well as professional caregivers who work in people’s homes or nursing homes.

On the family side, it offers eight hours of instruction in “physical needs” associated with caregiving — managing incontinence, skin care, turning someone regularly in bed, using adaptive equipment, transfers from a bed to a wheelchair, helping patients remain mobile, and more. Classes are offered at five sites and four more are planned in the next several years, said Robin McAtee, associate director of the Reynolds Institute on Aging. If people, churches or senior centers want the instruction, which is free, Schmieding nurses will take the program to them. One-on-one instruction for tasks is also available on request.

A separate eight-hour program is available for caregivers dealing with dementia, who have additional concerns.

At a Web site called Elder Stay at Home, Schmieding sells a package of materials (three DVDs and a booklet, for $99) summarizing the content of its family caregiver training program. Separately, it has begun selling its curriculum for paid caregivers, and programs in California, Hawaii and Texas are among the first buyers. The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences also has received a $3.7 million innovation grant from the government to expand the caregiver training program more broadly and develop online training materials.

Ms. Reinhard said AARP would like to see Schmieding-style programs rolled out across the country and begin to offer structured, reliable support to caregivers now providing nursing-style care in homes with little or no assistance.

What else am I missing here? Do you know of resources or other organizations providing intensive caregiver training along the lines of what I’ve been discussing? Where would you suggest people turn for this kind of help?

Editor’s Note:

Correction: An earlier version of this post contained an incorrect spelling of the first name of the director of the Families and Health Care Project of the United Hospital Fund. She is Carol Levine, not Carole Levine.

Read More..

DealBook: Standard Chartered Agrees to Settle Iran Money Transfer Claims

The British bank Standard Chartered reached a deal with federal and state prosecutors on Monday over accusations that it had illegally funneled money for Iranian banks and corporations.

The 150-year-old bank will pay $327 million to settle claims by the Justice Department, the Manhattan district attorney’s office, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Treasury Department.

“Investigations of financial institutions, businesses and individuals who violate U.S. sanctions by misusing banks in New York are vitally important to national security and the integrity of our banking system,” Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, said in a statement.

The agreement allows the bank to move beyond a turbulent period.

In August, the New York State Department of Financial Services, headed by Benjamin M. Lawsky, broke from regulators and moved to accuse Standard Chartered of scheming for nearly a decade to hide 60,000 transactions worth $250 billion. Standard Chartered agreed to pay $340 million over the matter a month later.

United States authorities have been cracking down on banks that flouted federal law to transfer money on behalf of sanctioned nations. Investigations into Standard Chartered began in 2009, according to several law enforcement officials.

Executives at Standard Chartered have spent months trying to work out a settlement and resolve the investigation. Lawyers for the bank, in numerous conversations with federal and state prosecutors, maintained vociferously that a large majority of the transactions with Iran were permitted under a federal law that previously allowed foreign banks to transfer money for Iranian clients to another foreign institution through their American subsidiaries.

The settlement will also help to quell tensions between the law enforcement agencies, which were riven by divisions after Mr. Lawsky moved independently against the bank.

Since January 2009, the Justice Department, Treasury and the Manhattan prosecutor have charged five foreign banks in an effort to crack down on the illegal movement of tainted money across the globe. In June, ING Bank reached a $619 million settlement to resolve claims that it had transferred billions of dollars in the United States for Cuba and Iran.

As part of the agreement announced on Monday, Standard Chartered admitted to processing more than $200 million for Iranian and Sudanese clients through its American subsidiaries. To avoid having those transactions detected by Treasury Department computer filters, Standard Chartered deliberately removed identifying information, according to the authorities.

Until 2008, foreign banks like Standard Chartered were permitted to transfer money for Iranian clients through their American branches to separate offshore institutions. These so-called U-turn transactions required banks to provide scant information about the original client to their American operations as long as they had checked for questionable activities. The Iranian loophole was closed in 2008 after American authorities suspected that Iranian banks were funneling money to support nuclear weapons development.

While the overwhelming majority of payments processed by Standard Chartered for Iran and Sudan were technically legal, they should have been disclosed, the Manhattan district attorney said on Monday.

Mr. Lawsky of the New York financial services department had based his case against Standard Chartered, in large part, on similar claims that the bank had thwarted efforts to spot sanctions violations by cloaking the identities of Iranian clients and lying to regulators.

Read More..

Changes to Agriculture Highlight Cuba’s Problems

HAVANA — Cuba’s liveliest experiment with capitalism unfolds every night in a dirt lot on the edge of the capital, where Truman-era trucks lugging fresh produce meet up with hundreds of buyers on creaking bicycle carts clutching wads of cash.

“This place, it feeds all of Havana,” said Misael Toledo, 37, who owns three small food stores in the city. “Before, you could only buy or sell in the markets of Fidel.”

The agriculture exchange, which sprang up last year after the Cuban government legalized a broader range of small businesses, is a vivid sign of both how much the country has changed, and of all the political and practical limitations that continue to hold it back.

President Raúl Castro has made agriculture priority No. 1 in his attempt to remake the country. He used his first major presidential address in 2007 to zero in on farming, describing weeds conquering fallow fields and the need to ensure that “anyone who wants can drink a glass of milk.”

No other industry has seen as much liberalization, with a steady rollout of incentives for farmers. And Mr. Castro has been explicit about his reasoning: increasing efficiency and food production to replace imports that cost Cuba hundreds of millions of dollars a year is a matter “of national security.”

Yet at this point, by most measures, the project has failed. Because of waste, poor management, policy constraints, transportation limits, theft and other problems, overall efficiency has dropped: many Cubans are actually seeing less food at private markets. That is the case despite an increase in the number of farmers and production gains for certain items. A recent study from the University of Havana showed that market prices jumped by nearly 20 percent in 2011 alone. And food imports increased to an estimated $1.7 billion last year, up from $1.4 billion in 2006.

“It’s the first instance of Cuba’s leader not being able to get done what he said he would,” said Jorge I. Domínguez, vice provost for international affairs at Harvard, who left Cuba as a boy. “The published statistical results are really very discouraging.”

A major cause: poor transportation, as trucks are in short supply, and the aging ones that exist often break down.

In 2009, hundreds of tons of tomatoes, part of a bumper crop that year, rotted because of a lack of transportation by the government agency charged with bringing food to processing centers.

“It’s worse when it rains,” said Javier González, 27, a farmer in Artemisa Province who described often seeing crops wilt and rot because they were not picked up.

Behind him were the 33 fertile, rent-free acres he had been granted as part of a program Mr. Castro introduced in 2008 to encourage rural residents to work the land. After clearing it himself and planting a variety of crops, Mr. Gonzalez said, he was doing relatively well and earned more last year than his father, who is a doctor, did.

But Cuba’s inefficiencies gnawed at him. Smart, strong, and ambitious, he had expansion plans in mind, even as in his hand he held a wrench. He was repairing a tractor part meant to be grading land. It was broken. Again.

The 1980s Soviet model tractor he bought from another farmer was as about good as it gets in Cuba. The Cuban government maintains a monopoly on selling anything new, and there simply is not enough of anything — fertilizer, or sometimes even machetes — to go around.

Government economists are aware of the problem. “If you give people land and no resources, it doesn’t matter what happens on the land,” said Joaquin Infante of the Havana-based Cuban National Association of Economists.

But Mr. Castro has refused to allow what many farmers and experts see as an obvious solution to the shortages of transportation and equipment: Let people import supplies on their own. “It’s about control,” said Philip Peters, a Cuba analyst with the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based research group.

Other analysts agree, noting that though the agricultural reforms have gone farther than other changes — like those that allow for self-employment — they remain constrained by politics.

“The government is not ready to let go,” said Ted Henken, a Latin American studies professor at Baruch College. “They are sending the message that they want to let go, or are trying to let go, but what they have is still a mechanism of control.”

For many farmers, that explains why land leases last for 10 years with a chance to renew, not indefinitely or the 99 years offered to foreign developers. It is also why many farmers say they will not build homes on the land they lease, despite a concession this year to allow doing so.

Read More..