Google News Says Goodbye to Russian Propaganda
January 29, 2018
The United States is still reeling from possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Every other day has some headline associated with the Trump Administration’s ties with the great bear, but what they still remain unclear. However, one cold, hard fact is that Russia did influence online news outlets and media companies are taking steps to guarantee it does not happen again. Motherboard reports that, “Eric Schmidt Says Google News Will ‘Engineer’ Russian Propaganda Out Of News Feed.”
Alphabet Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt has faced criticism that Google News still displays Russian Web sites in news feeds. In response, Schmidt responded that his company is well aware of the problem and have a plan to ferret out Russian propaganda. The top two Russian news outlets that are featured in Google News are Sputnik and RT. Both Sputnik and RT are owned by the Russian government and have ceaselessly argued their legitimacy. Their “legitimacy” allows them to benefit from Google AdSense.
Despite the false legitimacy, Schmidt said Alphabet is aware of Russia’s plans to influence western politics:
Schmidt said the Russian strategy is fairly transparent, and usually involves ‘amplification around a message.’ That information can be “repetitive, exploitative, false, [or] likely to have been weaponized,’ he said. ‘My own view is that these patterns can be detected, and that they can be taken down or deprioritized.’
The problem is that Alphabet has not really outlined their plans to deter Russian influence. Russian propaganda in the news bears some similarities to the Watergate Scandal during the Nixon Administration. We have yet to see the long-term aftermath, but it peeks our curiosity about how it will affect the United States in years to come.
Whitney Grace, January 29, 2018
Strava: Revealing Secrets
January 28, 2018
I read “Fitness Tracker Heat Map Reveals Sensitive Information about US Soldiers around the World.” The main point is that Strava has aggregated data from a variety of sources. The data from Fitbit-type devices reveals details about certain facilities; for example, military bases. The write up stated:
Strava boasts 27 million users around the world, including people using Fitbit, Jawbone and Vitofit and the company’s mobile app. It posted the Global Heat Map online in November 2017, which shows a pattern of accumulated activity over the two-year period, shows activity in war zones and deserts in countries including Iraq and Syria.
Security risk or a way to identify popular paths and highways?
Stephen E Arnold, January 28, 2018
Quote to Note: More Computing Power!
January 27, 2018
I read “Microsoft Boss: World Needs More Computing Power.” The idea is a variant upon “Technology will solve our problems.” I noted this passage in the article:
The world is rapidly “running out of computing capacity”, the head of tech giant Microsoft has warned.
He allegedly revealed:
“Moore’s Law is kinda running out of steam,” Mr Nadella told assembled delegates, referring to the maxim that the power of computer chips doubles every two years.
Yep, “kinda.” Hip World Economic Forum lingo.
Stephen E Arnold, January 27, 2018
Facebook and Google: An Easy Shift from Regulated to Menace
January 26, 2018
I read “George Soros: Facebook and Google a Menace to Society.” I thought the prevailing sentiment was regulation. Many industries are regulated, and some which should be like consulting are not.
The British newspaper which is popular in Harrod’s Creek for its digital commitment and its new chopped down form factor offered this nugget from George Soros, an interesting billionaire:
Facebook and Google have become “obstacles to innovation” and are a “menace” to society whose “days are numbered”, said billionaire investor and philanthropist George Soros at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday. “Mining and oil companies exploit the physical environment; social media companies exploit the social environment,” said the Hungarian-American businessman, according to a transcript of his speech.
Let’s assume that Mr. Soros’ viewpoint grabs the hearts and minds of his fellow travelers. Will Facebook and Google face actions which are more than mere regulatory harnesses?
Not even good old Microsoft warranted the “menace” label. I think of menace as a word suggesting physical harm. Other definitions range from “a declaration of an intention to cause evil to happen” to scare, startle, or terrify.
Now Facebook and Google can be characterized in many ways. When we disseminate links to Facebook’s intellectual underbelly, none of the goslings is particularly frightened. When one of the DarkCyber researchers to I run a query on the GOOG, our blood does not run cold. We sigh, and run the same query on different systems, even www.searx.me which is often quite useful.
In my opinion, the PR stakes are rising for these superstars of the Silicon Valley way.
This will be interesting. Perhaps Philz Coffee fueled protests will become more common in Plastic Fantasticland. Could some wealthy Davos types fund such gatherings? The T shirts could become collectibles too.
Stephen E Arnold, January 26, 2018
Facebook: Regulate It
January 26, 2018
I read “Facebook Is Addictive and Should Be Regulated Like a Cigarette Company: Salesforce CEO.” Yes, another call to regulate online services. I noted this statement in the authoritative USA Today “real” journalism type article:
“I think that you do it exactly the same way that you regulated the cigarette industry. Here’s a product: Cigarettes. They’re addictive. You know, they’re not good for you…There’s a lot of parallels,” Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff told CBNC’s Squawk Alley.
I wonder if Salesforce has forgotten the advice it received from pundit Steve Gilmor about attention and the role it would play in boosting Salesforce’s customer activity?
Must be a different thing. Email, phone calls, and reports about “sales” calls. Different stuff with contacts, analyses, mechanisms for capturing data from multi-tenant systems, etc. Different, right?
Stephen E Arnold, January 26, 2018
Google Takes On Russia In Epic Fight
January 26, 2018
It is foolish to challenge Russia to a fight. Napoleon lost his throne because he tried to invade Russia during winter. Hitler pissed off Stalin during World War II, so Russia switched sides, then the Nazis invaded in winter. It is a really bad idea to invade Russia, especially in winter. Google is duking it out with Russia, but this war is digital so maybe Alphabet stands a chance. The Washington Report discusses the wired Cold war in, “Google Is Getting Pulled Into A Fight With Russia Over RT And Sputnik.” The real battle is with two Russian news outlets RT and Sputnik, but they are owned by the government.
The reason for battle is due to Russians apparent and supposed influence on US politics-most notably, the 2016 presidential election. Russia is accused of spreading fake news through RT and Sputnik. News outlets like Google News picks these up and are pushed to US readers. Russia is threatening to retaliate if Google pushes RT and Sputniks’ ratings lower in search rankings. Google decided to curb fake news stories that could be weaponized information against the US. Russia’s RT and Sputnik are amongst those that distribute fake news.
When asked why Russian-backed sites enjoy favorable placement on Google’s platforms, Schmidt said, ‘We are working on detecting this kind of scenario … de-ranking those kinds of sites. It’s basically RT and Sputnik are the two.’ He added that the company does not want to ban the outlets. And according to Google, the company does not re-rank individual websites.
Russia is, of course, is not happy. They claim that Google is being discriminatory and are demanding that Eric Schmidt explain himself. Google just wants to curb fake news and also make sure their platform is not used for nefarious purposes. Good luck, Google. Russia is hard to defeat, but how do they stand on the digital front?
Whitney Grace, January 26, 2018
Facebook and Google: Set Up a Standards Entity
January 25, 2018
Ah, governance. A murky word which means figuring out the rules of the road. Tough job.
I read “UK Advertisers urge Facebook and Google to Set Up Standards Body.” The idea is interesting. It reminds me of the hapless part time teacher who was supposed to manage my high school science club. Shortly before one of the wags ignited a smoke bomb in chemistry class, our science club was asked to stop playing pranks. Yep, that notion lasted less than 24 hours.
I think of Facebook, Google, and some other outfits as high school science and math clubs whose DNA is now more mature—just with niftier technology.
The write up ignores what I perceive as the basis of some interesting corporate behavior. I learned from the article:
Advertisers have called on Facebook and Google to establish an independent body to regulate and monitor content on both of their platforms.
Okay, both companies are supposed to generate a return for their shareholders. Both companies are not too keen on people not working in a sufficiently advanced field offering suggestions. This is similar to the concierge of a fancy hotel telling the bank president financing the outfit what to have for breakfast.
The write up opined in a “real” news way:
Google and Facebook should “thrash out some common principles” over content moderation and removal that could be adopted and enforced by an independent body, which they would fund, he [Phil Smith, director general of the Incorporated Society of British Advertiser or ISBA] said.
The write up reported:
Mr Smith, a former marketing director of Kraft, said advertisers expect the big technology companies to take action because consumers are becoming skeptical of digital advertising. “Our consumer research tells us that digital advertising is intrusive and not being trusted,” he said. Consumers “know that television advertising is regulated in some way – both the advertising and the content – but they don’t believe that to be the case in any respect when it comes to digital”.
Yep, great idea.
I believe that regulators are interested in paying more attention to Facebook and Google. I would toss Amazon and Apple into the basket as well.
However, the interest is less about sales and more about tax revenue.
How would a regulatory body go about making a modification to an automated algorithm which reacts to what users do in real time?
Facebook and Google operate in interesting ways; regulatory authorities may not be into the “interesting” thing.
Stephen E Arnold, January 25, 2018
DuckDuckGo: Delivering Privacy. That Is the Claim.
January 25, 2018
I read “Protecting Your Personal Data Has Never Been This Easy.” The metasearch engine asserts that it delivers what other browsers cannot. Privacy.
I don’t feel strongly about browsers. I don’t feel much about free Web search systems either.
I circled this statement in the write up:
Today we’re taking a major step to simplify online privacy with the launch of fully revamped versions of our browser extension and mobile app, now with built-in tracker network blocking, smarter encryption, and, of course, private search – all designed to operate seamlessly together while you search and browse the web.
DuckDuckGo was one of the Surface Web services to offer a Dark Web alternative. The New York Times dabbles in the Dark Web as well.
I assume that DuckDuckGo’s browser extension will perform as advertised.
However, I would point out that operations mounted by Lebanon’s GDGS and other government authorities use a wide range of mechanisms to obtain information about certain online users.
A number of companies operating outside the US have systems and methods which perform a number of surveillance functions. Each week, I mention some of the firms and describe in simple terms a few of the methods employed by those who have the responsibility to enforce laws and protect citizens. You can view the DarkCyber videos at this link.
Several observations:
- Some of the engineers working for specialists who design, deploy, and manage systems for governments are using sophisticated systems which perform remarkable data collection tasks
- Mathematical recipes identify items of data which are “interesting” and knit these together into useful patterns. Australia’s success in shutting down a Dark Web site has become a useful case example for innovative data analysis and investigation
- Users, regardless of the security methods employed, are often the vector for revealing information. One anecdote circulated at a security event I attended. Lebanon’s surveillance activities were revealed by a mistake by the operatives.
Has DuckDuckGo delivered on its privacy promise? On the surface, one might conclude that the metasearch system has executed a slam duck. However, mashing a nerf ball through a hoop hanging on an office door is different from pulling off the stunt in the NBA finals.
Stephen E Arnold, January 25, 2018
IBM and Algorithmic Bias
January 25, 2018
I read “Unexplainable Algos? Get Off the Market, Says IBM Chief Ginni Rometty.” The idea is in line with Weapons of Math Destruction and the apparent interest in “black box” solutions. If you are old enough, you will remember the Autonomy IDOL system. It featured a “black box” which licensees used without the ability to alter how the system operated. You may also recall that the first Google Search Appliances locked users out as well. One installed the GSA and it just worked—at least, in theory.
This article includes information derived from the IBM content output for the World Economic Forum where it helps to have one’s own helicopter for transportation.
I noted this statement:
“When it comes to the new capabilities of artificial intelligence, we must be transparent about when and how it is being applied and about who trained it, with what data, and how,” the IBM chairman, president and CEO wrote.
I don’t want to be too picky but IBM owns the i2 Analyst Notebook system. If you are not familiar with this platform, it provides law enforcement and intelligence professionals with tools to organize, analyze, and marshal information for an investigation. As a former consultant to i2, I am not sure if the plumbing developed by i2 is public. In fact, IBM and Palantir jousted in court when IBM sued Palantir for improper use of its intellectual property; that is a fancy way of saying, “Palantir engineers tried to figure out how i2 worked.” The case settled out of court and many of the documents are sealed because no one party to the case wanted certain information exposed to bright sunlight.
IBM operates a number of cybersecurity services. One of these has the ability to intercept a voice call and map that call to email and other types of communications. The last time I received some information about this service I had to sign a bundle of documents. The idea, of course, is that much of the technology was, from my point of view, a “black box.”
So what?
The statement by IBM’s CEO is important because it is, in my opi9nion, hand waving. IBM deals in systems which are neither fully understood by some of the IBM experts selling these solutions, and some of the engineers who may know more about the inner working of secret or confidential systems and methods are not talking. An expert knows stuff others do not; therefore, why talk and devalue one’s expertise.
To sum up, talk about making math centric systems and procedures transparent is just noise. The number of people who can explain how systems which emerged from Cambridge University like Autonomy’s Neurolinguistic System or i2’s Analyst Notebook are in short supply.
How can one who does not understand explain how a complex system works. Black boxes exist to keep those which thumbs for fingers from breaking what works.
Talk doesn’t do much to deal with the algorithmic basics:
- Some mathematical procedures in wide use are not easily explained or reverse engineered; hence, the IBM charge that Palantir tried a short cut through the words to the cookie jar
- Most next generation systems are built on a handful of algorithms. I have identified 10 which I explain in my lectures about the flaws embedded in “smart” systems. Each of the most widely used algorithms can be manipulated in a number of ways. Some require humans to fiddle; other fiddle when receiving inputs from other systems.
- Explainable systems are based on rules. By definition, one assumes the rules work as the authors intended. News flash. Rule based systems can behave in unpredictable, often inexplicable ways. A fun example is for you, gentle reader, to try and get the default numbering system in Microsoft Word to perform consistently with regard to left justification of numbered lists.
- Chain a series of algorithms together in a work flow. Add real time data to update thresholds. Watch the outputs. Now explain what happened. Good luck with that.
I love IBM. Always marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, January 25, 2018
Moving Legacy Apps to the Cloud: Failure Looms
January 25, 2018
I read “How to Move Legacy Applications to the Cloud.” The write up is interesting because in my opinion what’s offered will guarantee failure. As I recall from English 101 taught by a certain PhD who believed in formulaic writing, a “how to” consists of a series of steps. These should be explained in detail and, if possible, illustrated with word pictures or diagrams. Get it wrong. Get an F.
This “How to Move Legacy” essay would probably warrant a rewrite.
Here’s an example of a real life situation.
A small company has a mainframe running a Cobol application to keep track of products. The company has a client server system to keep track of money. The company has a Windows system to provide data to the company’s Web site which resides on its ISP’s system.
Okay, read this article and tell me how to move this real life system to the cloud.
Telling me to pick a cloud provider which meets my needs is not a how to, gentle reader. It is hoo-hah which would make an English 101 instructor fret.
Some companies cannot move legacy applications to the cloud. In my experience there are several reasons:
First, the person who coded the legacy system may not be around anymore and reverse engineering a legacy system may not be something the current IT staff and its consultants are keen to tackle.
Second, figuring out how three systems which are working takes time and money. Note the money part. Documentation is often sparse. The flow diagrams are long gone. Why spend the money? I would love to hear the reasons from the soon-to-be-terminated project manager.
Third, savvy managers ask, “What’s the payoff?” Marketing generalizations should not be the “facts” marshaled to fund a cloud migration effort. If there are good reasons, these can be quantified or back up with verifiable information, not opinions from a vendor.
Articles which explain how to move legacy systems without facts, details, and a coherent plan of attack are not too helpful here in Harrod’s Creek.
Stephen E Arnold, January 25, 2018
Management resistance
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
