Out of curiosity, I decided to look up what the average police chief salary is in the United States. According to salary.com, the median base salary for a police chief is around $100,000 per year. For West Virginia, it’s a bit lower — right around $83,000 per year. That’s certainly a comfortable salary but I’m not sure it’s out of line for a job that includes organizing and leading a group of law enforcement officers who, as part of their job, could be put into deadly situations on a regular basis.

Further, much of the information posted by the group was already publicly available. It just wasn’t collected in a single database available to the public before now. But let’s set all that aside.

If there is any justification in the group’s actions — if police in West Virginia have been guilty of victimizing citizens — addressing the problem through official channels can be complicated. It also tends to be a slow and thorough process. This is by design — rushing to mete out justice can sometimes lead to very unjust outcomes. But having to wait for wrongs to be righted isn’t easy, particularly if it looks like the system is protecting its own agents even if they’re in the wrong. We tend to want our gratification to fall into the instant category. I think that’s one reason why vigilante fantasies have been so popular.

Vigilante fantasies are nothing new. Our mythology is packed with stories of people who take it upon themselves to right the wrongs of society when institutionalized approaches can’t  help — or are part of the problem. Just look at tales about Robin Hood, Batman or Hello Kitty. Well, probably not that last one, but I have a feeling she could really mess you up if you got on her bad side.

But usually vigilante activity stays put in the realm of fantasy. There are only a few examples of people actually becoming a vigilante in real life. For one thing, the complications of such a lifestyle choice are many and it’s likely you’d be caught and put away shortly after your first outing. At least, that’s how it’s been until fairly recently. Computers and the Internet give average citizens access to far more power than they had a generation or two ago. It’s not really feasible for a ticked-off person to don a pair of tights and fight corruption effectively. But to use a computer to infiltrate a network and cause trouble? That’s totally possible.

And that’s what has happened. Whether you think of Anonymous as a group of experienced hackers or a collection of script kiddies (the truth is probably somewhere in the middle — some members of Anonymous clearly know their way around a security system), there’s no denying they and other hacker groups have made an impact. They’ve exposed scandals and have caused trouble for numerous companies, organizations and governments. And even though law enforcement agencies are scrambling to identify and potentially arrest members of Anonymous there’s no sign of them slowing down anytime soon.

Increasing security and chasing after hackers is a reactionary strategy that ultimately isn’t likely to prevail. There will always be more hackers willing to exploit vulnerabilities if they feel it serves a greater purpose. Personally, I think the best response to hacker attacks is to adopt a transparent approach that allows for a reasonably-paced avenue for people who feel wronged to pursue their claims. Making the system itself easier to understand and navigate — and removing elements that contribute to a perception of self-protection — would go a long way to mollifying attackers. It’s when there’s the perception of injustice and corruption that leads to a vigilante mindset. That’s a key factor — the system itself may be free from corruption but if it’s not a transparent system people may come to the conclusion that it’s compromised.

To be clear, I’m not in favor of vigilante justice. Not only do I find it presumptuous to attack someone or something without knowing all the facts, but also I think it’s more likely to lead companies and governments to enact tougher policies that could end up causing an even bigger problem down the road. However, I can understand the frustration of living in a world that seems to favor certain large organizations that at times may seem indifferent to the fate of an average Joe, particularly when it can be difficult (if not impossible) and confusing to fix the problem through legal means. What’s your opinion? Are hacktivist groups fighting the good fight or do they cause more trouble than they solve?

The seven people are linked to MegaUpload, a file locker site that lets users store and share large files online. The Department of Justice and the FBI charge that MegaUpload is a haven for piracy and illegal file sharing. And it would be silly to deny that illegal file sharing isn’t taking place at MegaUpload. But there are also plenty of legitimate, legal ways people can use MegaUpload.

The reaction to the indictment has been anything but measured. An attack called “Operation MegaUpload,” mainly coordinated by the amorphous hacker group called Anonymous, launched against sites like the Department of Justice, the Motion Picture Association of America and the FBI. The sites have been up and down throughout the evening as they’ve endured attacks.

I imagine we’ll see many more of these types of attacks in the next few years. The barrier to joining in on attacks isn’t terribly high — even someone with very little knowledge about network traffic can become a part of it. Then there are the zombie computer armies out there, legions of compromised computers that launch attacks without their owners even knowing about it. I don’t want to spread FUD around (that’s fear, uncertainty and doubt) but I do think government and law enforcement agencies have a pretty tough task of reining in anarchy online.

It’s taken a while for textbooks to migrate over to the electronic format. There are a lot of reasons for this — electronic devices are an investment in themselves and it can be difficult to budget such a purchase on top of a semester’s worth of textbooks. The textbook publishers haven’t exactly been rushing to adopt the format either. But that might be changing, and the advantages of the electronic format go far beyond reducing backpack weight.

This morning, Apple held a press conference to unveil iBooks 2, a new iPad app designed to bring rich, interactive textbooks to education. Instead of staring at a static picture on a page, the textbooks in iBooks 2 can include videos and images that students can manipulate and explore. You can also look up the meanings of terms and words directly from the app or take a quiz that gives you immediate feedback about your comprehension of the material. There’s also a feature that lets you highlight sections and take notes — it will even convert the notes into a flashcard-like format to help you cram for the big test.

On the development side, Apple also introduced an authoring tool called iBooks Author that authors can use to create interactive textbooks. Apple included layout tools resembling the features from Keynote. And if you know Javascript or HTML 5, you can even code unique features for your textbook.

Both the iBooks 2 and the authoring app are free to download. The books themselves will be sold individually. At launch, Apple said that it had entered into an agreement with several high school textbook publishers and each book would be sold for no more than $14.99 each.

Is Apple revolutionizing the textbook? Or is this just another example of a premium product that will only see limited use in schools? Will poor school districts be able to afford iPads and electronic textbooks? If not, could Apple’s new product only widen the digital divide? What do you think?

Both SOPA and PIPA take aim at Web sites that promote piracy and theft of intellectual property. Specifically, their goal is to hit sites that exist on servers that are outside the jurisdiction of the United States. You see, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) helps companies go after US domestic sites that host pirated content. But how can a government target a site if the computers that store the site itself are in another country? That can get pretty tricky.

Both SOPA and PIPA try to cut off support (and access) to sites hosted on foreign servers. They do this by forcing search engines and payment services from connecting to the foreign sites. Until very recently, SOPA went a step further by including language that would allow the attorney general to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to remove these sites’domain names from their registries. This, as it turns out, would be a bad thing — it would effectively undermine DNSSEC, a point-to-point security protocol that helps keep Internet traffic safe and encrypted.

After numerous protests, the DNS language in SOPA disappeared. But the opposition to SOPA and PIPA remains in full effect. The Obama administration released a statement last week opposing the language in SOPA, PIPA and another anti-piracy bill called OPEN.

As you might imagine, there are some enormous companies and organizations that would like to see SOPA, PIPA and related bills become law. These companies cite figures that suggest they lose billions of dollars in revenue every year due to piracy. An independent study of the facts finds that it’s much more complex than that — you can’t assume every pirated movie, show, song or whatever represents a lost sale. In fact, the United States Government Accountability Office published a report in 2010 saying that it’s essentially impossible to come up with an accurate figure representing losses. It could be that the various entertainment industries are exaggerating (or simply overestimating) the amount of money lost due to piracy. The bottom line is that piracy may not be that big of a problem in the first place, which would make this proposed legislation at best an overreaction and at worst unnecessary. It’s like using a bomb to remove an anthill.

That’s the basic foundation for SOPA and PIPA. Let’s look at what these pieces of legislation could do:

• They could force search engines, payment services and advertising services to cut off access/support to sites without any due process. There’d be no trial and no strikes — one complaint would be enough to cut off support.
• If the targeted site proves that it was unfairly punished under these pieces of legislation there’d be no way for the site to pursue damages against anyone. You see, SOPA protects all parties acting under SOPA from lawsuits.
• Sites like WikiLeaks and other whistleblower organizations could be targeted by numerous parties and effectively silenced (or at least cut off from financial support).
• Search engines, payment services and advertising agencies would have to do a lot of work to keep up with the demands of SOPA and PIPA even though these companies aren’t responsible for the content that appears on other Web sites.

Here’s what they wouldn’t do:

• They wouldn’t stop people from accessing piracy sites. Enterprising developers have already created extensions in Firefox, Chrome and other browsers that would allow users to get around DNS blocking. And, since the wording about DNS blocking is now gone from SOPA, access isn’t really a problem anymore.
• Not all piracy sites generate revenue. Cutting off financial support from the US might come as a blow to some sites but others will continue as if nothing has happened. In other words, the anti-piracy legislation won’t actually stop piracy.
• They don’t target users who are accessing sites. These pieces of legislation are targeting the sites themselves, not the folks who visit to access pirated content.
• They don’t target domestic sites. This part is tricky — many companies have Web sites that include foreign URLs. Some may host part of or the entirety of their Web presence on servers outside the United States. It’s possible for an American company to feel the effects of SOPA or PIPA directly. But the real focus is on foreign piracy sites.

And here’s what’s vague:

• They target sites that are “US-directed.” In general, this means a site that is easy for someone within the US to access and navigate. But with tools like Google Translate, even a site written in another language is navigable by an average Internet user. In my mind, this definition is largely without meaning.
• They target sites that primarily exist to distribute pirated material. How do we determine if a site is primarily about piracy? If there’s a Web site that has hundreds of pages under its domain and only a few have anything to do with piracy or unauthorized use of intellectual property, is it fair game under SOPA or PIPA? Could the entire site be cut off from financial support as a result?
• What could the registrant of the site do to prove innocence or get decisions overturned? And what happens afterward?

One company I had seen the previous year was BodyMedia, which markets a few different versions of its FITarmband. The basic armband has a gadget containing several sensors to help monitor your activity levels and caloric burn. With the device comes a subscription service that gives you raw data presented in easy to understand charts, graphs and breakdowns. By entering in your meals and syncing your device, you can monitor how many calories you take in versus burn (there’s no screen or readout on the device itself – you have to use your computer to see your results). Hint: burning more is good if you’re trying to lose weight. The newest version of the technology will even suggest new types of exercise you can try to help you meet your goals.

While at the show, I also got to see a demo of MOTOACTV, Motorola Mobility’s answer to the activity sensor. You can pair it wirelessly with a smartphone, receive calls and texts, listen to music and keep track of how many calories you’re burning on your morning jog all at the same time. The MOTOACTV includes a GPS sensor and accelerometer as well as sensors that detect your heart rate. And MOTOACTV can sync to your computer through Wi-Fi. Motorola’s software takes the data collected by the device and generates charts and plots progress for you to review at your convenience.

One of the simpler approaches I saw at CES was the Striiv. Billed as a “personal trainer in your pocket,” Striiv is a next-generation pedometer. It doesn’t just keep track of your steps. It has a touch-screen interface and games built into the device. You can choose to challenge yourself with varying degrees of difficulty or you can convert the physical effort you’ve put forth into in-game currency in a Farmville-like game. You can even challenge friends who own a Striiv device and compete in fitness activities. In my mind, the best feature of the Striiv is that you can help others while using one. Here’s how it works: use your Striiv device to count your steps, sync your device with your computer using a USB cable and Striiv and its corporate partners will donate money to one of three charities. You can take a stroll in the park and save the world at the same time!

There were other examples of fitness technology at CES. Some were full-sized exercise machines. Others were gadgets that monitor one or more factors to help you get a handle on how your workouts are going. Last year, I used tech to help me drop several pounds. Remember, these tools can’t do all the work for you. Ultimately, losing weight is going to come down to discipline and hard work. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be fun too!

Let’s start with ultrabooks. These devices are taking the place of netbooks. More powerful than a traditional netbook and sporting sleek, thin designs, ultrabooks are meant to provide power and features that tablets can’t muster. The ultrabooks I’ve seen so far have been very pretty and several boast some pretty impressive horsepower beneath the case. In shorthand, an ultrabook is essentially a Windows-based competitor to Apple’s Macbook Air. And boy were they everywhere.

Samsung fired off with two series of ultrabooks: the Series 5 and the Series 9. For a company that just last year said it might divest itself of its personal computer business, HP surprised me with the HP Envy 14 Spectre. Covered in Gorilla Glass, it’s sleek, sturdy and comes with a $1,399 price tag. Lenovo’s IdeaPads also entered the fray. And during Intel’s press event, we learned that Intel chips will be part of more than 60 ultrabooks in the near future.

As for tablets, I got my hands on Toshiba’s Excite X10 tablet at a press party. Thin and lightweight, this tablet doesn’t sacrifice ports and slots. It has two cameras, an SD card slot and a micro HDMI port. It comes in two models: a 16GB version for $529 and a 32GB one for $599. It’s an Android tablet that may or may not launch with Ice Cream Sandwich built in (I couldn’t get any confirmation from the Toshiba representative).

There are a lot more tablets here at the show. I’ve heard of the Asus Transformer Prime but haven’t seen it for myself yet. The same goes for Samsung’s Galaxy Note, which looks like the love child of a smartphone and a tablet. It has a screen measuring 5.3 inches, which is enormous for a smartphone. I’d like to hold this just to get a feel for it and see if it feels too big for a phone. Or maybe I just need to shop for pants with larger pockets.

On the television side of the show, there was a lot to see. LG showed off a gorgeous OLED 55″ television. Typically, the OLED TVs I’ve seen here have been of a very modest size. This model also has an incredibly thin bezel — it’s just one-millimeter thick (they like to say one-millimeter thin here at CES). Samsung also introduced an OLED TV of the same size but I haven’t had a chance to look at that one in person yet.

At Sony’s press conference I got a chance to see a prototype television running on a technology the company calls Crystal LED. What does that mean? Heck if I know, but I hope to find out more today.

It’s going to be a busy week here in Vegas. While I won’t be hitting the casinos, I will be taking a gamble each day as I try to track down the coolest stories. It’s a huge task — for every piece of technology I stop to look at, I’ll miss 20 more. Wish me luck!

While the show floor is opening this morning to attendees for the first time, the show itself has been going on for two days. Sunday and Monday marked press events. Members of the press, including myself, received invitations to attend various press conferences and parties to learn more about what we can expect to see and experience at the show. In a way, these events are really advertisements designed to lure us to a particular booth. The show floor is enormous and it’s impossible to see everything at CES on your own so time is extremely valuable.

While it’s a bit early to discuss trends, there are some themes I’m seeing this year that indicate where this show is going. Tablets are still a big deal — it seems every major manufacturer has at least two or three to show off. The idea of a digital ecosystem within which all your devices can talk to each other has evolved since last year. I think the big idea this year is the redesign of the user interface experience. Products like Kinect and Siri have shown that people are intrigued by the idea of a new way to interact with technology. But while those products are interesting, they aren’t quite at the level where we can expect them to replace — or even heavily supplement — other interfaces like keyboards, the computer mouse, touchpads and touch screens.

That might be changing. Several companies here are showing products that incorporate gesture controls (touch and otherwise), voice recognition and even eye-tracking technology. Could we be seeing the dawn of a new user interface era? It’s difficult to say at this point — it will all depend on how useful and intuitive these interfaces actually are. If they’re just cool, they might impress people in the short term only to be set aside later on. But if companies can prove that the experience is worthy, we might soon be waving our arms and shouting at our tech and it will actually respond.

I look forward to my time here at the show. Today, I’ll be seeing more information about eye-tracking software and I’ll even get my hands on a Nintendo Wii U at the end of the day. It should be a great show!

Google Music opened to the general public today. (HowStuffWorks.com screenshot)

Yesterday in Los Angeles, Google finally opened its Music service to the public in an official press event. The service, which has been in beta for a few months now, officially allows users to store up to 20,000 songs for free.

Google’s obvious competitors are Apple’s iTunes Store (with the new iTunes Match service) and Amazon Cloud Player. iTunes Match doesn’t require subscribers to upload music; instead the service identifies albums in the user’s collection and provides streaming access. And unlike Google Music, iTunes Match carries a $24.99 annual fee.

Amazon’s Cloud Player service is free, but only allows users to save 5 GB worth of music — except music purchased and downloaded from Amazon, which doesn’t count against the cap. Users interested in more space can purchase it starting with an additional 20 GB for $20 per year.

The company also launched a music section of the Android store, with offerings from more than a thousand record labels, including music industry giants EMI, Sony and Universal. CNET’s live blog of the event was quick to point out that Warner is one of the service’s major-label holdouts.

Google Music may well be considered a boon for independent artists, who will be allowed to create their own pages and sell songs at prices they set themselves, unlike in Apple’s iTunes Store and other services. There will be no fees for artists to upload their tracks, and they’ll be able to keep 70 percent of the revenue from their Google Music sales.

Another interesting point: On The Verge, Thomas Houston wrote that Google+ users will be able to share entire tracks purchased via the Android Market with their friends for free. Also, to entice customers to join the service, Google will be offering exclusive artist content and probably a free song of the day.

Of course, this puts Google in the business of selling music, setting it squarely in competition with Apple and Amazon. Apple and Google have been frenemies for a while now, competing on a number of fronts. But at this point Google is head-to-head with Amazon in selling digital books and music, just after Amazon’s Kindle Fire tablet came out — though it runs on a version of Google’s Android operating system.

I’m interested to see what’s going to happen. Will Google Music make a big splash in the marketplace? Or do people prefer streaming services like MOG, Spotify and Rdio? Which do you prefer?

Be sure to follow TechStuff on Twitter and Facebook!

So PETA, an organization dedicated to promoting the well-being of real animals, is ticked off that a fake video game character is wearing fake video game fur. No animals were harmed in the making of the Tanooki Suit. These are all just pixels on a screen. But PETA says that the image of Mario wearing fur promotes the idea of wearing fur in general.

The group has created its own game in which a mutilated animal is chasing down a Mario-like character who is wearing a bloody fur. According to Ewalt, the game isn’t worth anyone’s time. In my mind, these shock tactics really just invite more ridicule and scorn from people who aren’t already members of PETA. And how many kids playing Mario actually decide to wear fur based on the game? This smacks of opportunism.

That’s really my big problem with PETA in general — based on media coverage, the group seems to cater to its own members and doesn’t really do much to actually help animals. Rather than reaching out to the overall community in a way that might win over support, the organization seems committed to creating outrageous publicity stunts. I don’t really see how that’s helping the animals the organization claims to cherish.

But I guess if just one fake video game animal can be saved it’s all worthwhile.

But one question that was unanswered until recently was if Siri would eventually migrate to older iPhone models or even the iPod Touch. Today, a man named Michael Steeber has an answer: nope. According to Steeber, a colleague wrote in to Apple to inquire about a special build of iOS that would include Siri but work on older devices. Apple’s response was in the negative — there are no plans to add Siri support to anything older than the iPhone 4S.

This isn’t exactly a shock. Siri sets the iPhone 4S apart from other iPhones. Since the iPhone 4S has the same form factor as the iPhone 4 and the other updates to the device may not capture the imaginations of potential customers the way Siri might, it makes sense to keep Siri exclusive to the newest iPhone. Why would Apple risk cannibalizing sales by extending Siri support to older devices?

For those of us who want to play with Siri but who don’t own an iPhone 4S, the news is a bit of a bummer. But as we upgrade to newer iOS devices we’ll likely have Siri on our side.