New America calls a feature in the latest Google Android phone “A Malicious Root Kit”.

…one of the microchips embedded into the G2 prevents device owners from making permanent changes that allow custom modifications to the the Android operating system. This is the same Android that purposefully opened up its source code under the Apache License, allowing anyone to use, modify, and redistribute the operating system code even if they choose not to contribute back to the development community. Even among other Android computing devices and phones, the G2 is touted as an open platform.

Unfortunately, the hardware in this device completely undermines this license by allowing mobile network providers to override end-user changes to the source code. Wireless network operators have deployed a hardware rootkit that restricts modifications to a device owned by the user. This would be akin to a computer sold with Microsoft Windows containing chip that prevented users from installing Linux or another operating system of their choice.

How excited are you to buy one?

Imagine a car that each time it started would remove all your performance enhancements and return to stock.

Imagine a house that every time you opened the door had the same wiring and plumbing (issues) as when you first bought it.

Yeah, me either. Why does HTC’s Android phone want to race with Apple to the opposite of cool?

I noted an interesting section of a CNN article on Stanford’s MBA program. The article is about MBA applications declining at the school but it paints an odd picture of how the program is managed.

[Director of Admissions] Bolton could just as easily come off as a CIA officer in Islamabad. He weaves and bobs his way around questions, often reluctant to surrender what you might consider harmless details, including his age.

Unlike many administrators at the school, Bolton has no résumé or biography on Stanford’s website. Why? “It’s not about me,” he says plainly. “The more people try to get into my head, the more of a disservice they do to themselves.”

When you ask Bolton how often he reverses a decision by his admissions team, he says: “It would be a number.” And when you ask how many of the 389 students in the class of 2012 have GMAT scores below 700, he says, “We report the things that we report.”

Pressed, he still declines an answer.

“One question,” he explains, “just leads to another question which leads to another question. There is no end to this. We’ll be asked, ‘How many marketers who are Portuguese who studied architecture in undergrad and live in Minneapolis are there in the class?’ There is a lot of information that applicants want that has no value to them in the process.”

You could say the same about any set of questions, yet questions still get answered.

Why not answer questions and only stop when a question is unreasonable, instead of stopping every question and refusing to answer? Define a level of unreasonableness and let people know what is acceptable.

“It would be a number” sounds intentionally evasive and opaque, instead of saying I am afraid I can not answer that because of x. It is like he is in battle, trying to deflect rather than absorb or block the pointy tips fired at him. At least he does not taunt those who seek information — “You want answers? Ha ha! Try and get them.”

The article puts Bolton in an unfavorable light. He seems to say that no question can be reasonable — data shared can not be questioned. That should raise eyebrows and put the admissions process and perhaps the whole program under more scrutiny for better transparency. The demand for more transparency in business, after recent market failures and fraud cases, perhaps makes more scrutiny of the management ethics and transparency of MBA programs timely as well as appropriate.

Suspicious behavior led to the arrest of a “former member of the Rhodesian SAS” who was trying to illegally export peregrine falcon eggs to Dubai. An sharp-eyed Birmingham cleaner is being hailed as a hero for alerting police

[Jeffrey Lendrum] was caught with the rare eggs, valued at £70,000 on the black market, strapped to his body.

Lendrum, who had previous convictions in Zimbabwe and Canada for stealing rare eggs, had asked to use a shower room in the VIP Emirates Lounge.

But Mr Struczynski spotted him dashing in and out the cubicle. He became suspicious when he noticed the cubicle was still dry.

He checked bins in the room nearby where he discovered two discarded egg boxes, which contained a single red-coloured egg.

The cleaner contacted counter-terrorism officers who searched Lendrum.

Previous convictions apparently did not do the trick. Easy to see why. The thief admitted to using helicopters to steal eggs — the eggs are clearly worth a high enough reward to make it worth taking big risks.

This time he was only given 30 months in jail. Some say that will do nothing to stop him from stealing again.

Interesting to note the smuggler attempted to hatch a plan that would trick customs officials even if they found the eggs:

Mr Featherstone established that 14 of the 15 eggs found on Lendrum were fertilized peregrine falcon eggs.

He said the 15th egg, a single unfertilised chicken egg, had probably been bought in a supermarket and painted pinkish brown.

He believes that may have been a decoy attempt, to break open in front of customs officers in case he was stopped.

Really? That helicopter footage was also in his bag when he was arrested. Seems to me if customs goes to the length of asking for an egg to be cracked they might also check the tapes. When they see a nest that has to be reached by helicopter…might be a big clue that those eggs are not from chickens. The thief, in other words, was trying to carry two proofs at the same time — that the eggs are both authentic and fake.

Peregrine Falcon Video Monitor, Buffalo, NY: