Data: Such a Flexible and Handy Marketing Tool
July 5, 2019
Love Big Data? Like New Age research? Enjoy studies funded by commercial enterprises? If you are nodding in agreement, head on over to ““Evidence-Based Medicine Has Been Hijacked: A Confession from John Ioannidis.”
Here’s a statement to ponder:
Since clinical research that can generate useful clinical evidence has fallen off the radar screen of many/most public funders, it is largely left up to the industry to support it. The sales and marketing departments in most companies are more powerful than their R&D departments. Hence, the design, conduct, reporting, and dissemination of this clinical evidence becomes an advertisement tool. As for “basic” research, as I explain in the paper, the current system favors PIs who make a primary focus of their career how to absorb more money. Success in obtaining (more) funding in a fiercely competitive world is what counts the most. Given that much “basic” research is justifiably unpredictable in terms of its yield, we are encouraging aggressive gamblers. Unfortunately, it is not gambling for getting major, high-risk discoveries (which would have been nice), it is gambling for simply getting more money.
Does this observation apply to the world of Big Data, online advertising, and the spreadsheet fever plaguing MBAs? Yep.
- People believe numbers and most do not ask, “Where did this number come from? What was the sample? How did you verify these data?”
- Outputs can be shaped. Check out your college class notes for Statistics 101; that is, I am assuming you kept your college notes. See anything about best practices? Validity tests?
- What about those thresholds? Many Bayesian methods are based upon guesses. Toss in some Monte Carlo? How representative of the outputs? What are the deltas between the current outputs and other available data?
Our next Factualities will appear in this blog on Wednesday. There are some special numbers in that round up.
A friend of mine who owns a successful online business said, “Nobody cares.”
Nobody cares?
Stephen E Arnold, July 5, 2019
YouTube: About Face
July 5, 2019
DarkCyber noted another example of high school science club management methods. “YouTube Reinstates Yanked Ethical Hacking Videos” reports:
YouTube’s clear as mud moderation rules were once again confused this week as the site pulled a bunch of ethical hacking videos, only to reinstate them shortly afterwards.
The UK news source reports that Google allegedly said to another online information service:
“With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call,” a Google spokesperson told The Verge after the videos were restored. “We have an appeals process in place for users, and when it’s brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it.”
The Inquirer.net writes:
Iffy moderation on YouTube. Surely not.
DarkCyber wants to point out that “iffy” is a standard operating procedure when implementing high school science club management methods. The science club is, by definition, correct. There is a corollary about consistency; that is, “What the science club does is, by definition, consistent.
You have to be in the science club to appreciate the truth of this statement.
Stephen E Arnold, July 5, 2019
Knowledge Graphs: Getting Hot
July 4, 2019
Artificial intelligence, semantics, and machine learning may lose their pride of place in the techno-jargon whiz bang marketing world. I read “A Common Sense View of Knowledge Graphs,” and noted this graph:
This is a good, old fashioned, Gene Garfield (remember him, gentle reader) citation analysis. The idea is that one can “see” how frequently an author or, in this case, a concept has been cited in the “literature.” Now publishers are dropping like flies and are publishing bunk. Nevertheless, one can see that using the phrase knowledge graph is getting popular within the sample of “literature” parsed for this graph. (No, I don’t recommend trying to perform citation analysis in Bing, Facebook, or Google. The reasons will just depress me and you, gentle reader.)
The section of the write I found useful and worthy of my “research” file is the collection of references to documents defining “knowledge graph.” This is useful, helpful research.
The write up also includes a diagram which may be one of the first representations of a graph centric triple. I thought this was something cooked up by Drs. Bray, Guha, and others in the tsunami of semantic excitement.
One final point: The list of endnotes is also useful. In short, good write up. The downside is that if the article gets wider distribution, a feeding frenzy among money desperate consultants, advisers, and analysts will be ignited like a Fourth of July fountain of flame.
Stephen E Arnold, July 4, 2019
Google: The Deciders Decide and Damage Some Security Data Flows
July 4, 2019
I read “YouTube Strikes Infosec Channels for Instructional Hacking Content.” DarkCyber view is that some information which routinely makes its way into open source should not be there. But, hey, we’ve been accused of being dinosaurs before. DarkCyber’s beloved leader, Stephen E Arnold, coined the term “Googzilla” and its reptilian connotations definitely applies to some of the DarkCyber team.
The point of the write up strikes DarkCyber as:
‘Youtube banning security disclosures doesn’t make products more secure, nor will it prevent attackers from exploiting defects – but it will mean that users will be the last to know that they’ve been trusting the wrong companies, and that developers will keep on making the same stupid mistakes…forever.’
Several observations:
ITEM 1: DarkCyber’s sparkling fountains of fire describes the management of some Silicon Valley firms as following the management precepts of “high school science clubs.” This means that bright, arrogant, confident, and generally mathy type people create an us-them dichotomy. Then the “us” people create a tidy little world which allows pranks, outstanding decisions, and numerous snide comments to pass for intelligence. Apply the HSSC method and you get…
High School Science Club Management Methods
A good example is a decision which is short sighted, difficult to explain, and probably as practical as driving a US Fourth of July parade war fighting vehicle to a party at the local Burger King.
ITEM 2: Figuring out what is positive information versus negative information is subjective. This means that one person will see the dress as one color and another person will see the garment as another color. Which is it? Don’t ask me, just ask the people at the search company. I know I can’t figure out what people will “perceive.” Obviously, the HSSCMM allows this type of decision making. The science club is, by definition, right. Plus, now member of the science club have lots of money.
ITEM 3: When making the Loon balloon into a commercial company or insisting that search results are relevant, Silicon Valley type companies are delightful. When these firms decide what information is technically permissible or not allowed demonstrates their decision making capabilities. If there were viable MBA programs, perhaps this type of deciderism would become a case study. Oh, right, MBA programs are facing some headwinds now.
Net net: The deciders decide. The followers follow. Medieval methods are good. The punishment? Banishment. DarkCyber assumes this is preferable to a dungeon in Mountain View or a ban on Philz coffee.
Stephen E Arnold, July 4, 2019
Microsoft and Data Practices: No Backups as a Little Aerial Burst Burns Backup Floppies
July 4, 2019
I read “Microsoft Restores Deleted Technet and MSDN Blogs.” The title is incorrect. DarkCyber suggests “Microsoft Cannot Restore Deleted Blogs Because Backup Practices Fail.” I rarely pay attention to old Microsoft anything. Sure, we noticed that a desktop computer reported that the registration code was no longer valid. We plugged in another legal code and forgot about Microsoft’s odd ineptness with any type of data management. Hey, where are my digital books?
The point of this write up deep in the hollows of rural Kentucky is encapsulated in this passage from the write up:
The problem with the above delete and restore operation: Apparently there was no backup, but you had to restore it from any backups. There is a risk that parts will be lost or that the structure will not return in its old form.
Ever wonder why backups of SQLServer don’t work? Ever wonder where documents went in SharePoint? What happened to historical data in Bing queries?
If the above statement highlight in red is accurate, the reason is that Microsoft’s data practices leave something to be desired; for example, stringent application of such mantras as 1, 2, 3 backup procedures and software that sort of actually works. Hey, where are those restore points?
In the last few days, Facebook nuked itself. Google undergoes self inflicted carpet bombing consistently. Now Microsoft reveals that a fundamental function has been ignored or simply does not work.
What’s up? Complexity hides problems until the fragility of the super duper structures break down. Of course, if the write up is sour grapes, Microsoft remains just the wonderfulest outfit in the digital world.
Stephen E Arnold, July 4, 2019
GSA Inspector General Finds Something Obvious
July 3, 2019
I read “GSA IG: Federal Acquisition Service Ineffective in Administering Enterprise IT Modernization Contract.” Startling. Amazing. Shocking.
The write up explained:
The IG said that FAS failed to ensure that the Transition Ordering Assistance task order met the requirements for the EIS information technology modernization initiative, resulting in “high rates of spending with minimal transition progress.” Other findings include deficiencies in planning and management, invoicing and contractor performance assessments.
How does one address the shortcomings?
Easy.
Get in the consultants. Form a team. Work up “metrics for work completion”. Make sure these are in line “with budget concerns.” Then everyone implement “interagency agreements.”
Who knew that solving a problem would be so straightforward.
Why do these problems exist? Maybe consultants and staff struggling to deal with certain types of complex interactions.
What happens to projects underway as these recommendations are followed? Maybe more inefficiency, delays, and waste.
Camus might have dropped Sisyphus as his hero and substituted the GSA’s Inspector General?
Stephen E Arnold, July 3, 2019
Google: A Question of Judgment
July 3, 2019
In the realm of unintended consequences, this one is a doozy. MIT Technology Review reports, “YouTube’s Algorithm Makes it Easy for Pedophiles to Find More Videos of Children.” The brief write-up provides just-the-facts coverage of the disturbing issue. Writer Charlotte Jee summarizes:
“YouTube’s automated recommendation system has gathered a collection of prepubescent, partially clothed children and is recommending it to people who have watched similar videos, the New York Times reports. While some of the recommendations have been switched off on certain videos, the company has refused to end the practice. …
We noted:
“YouTube disabled comments on many videos of children in February after an outcry over pedophiles using the comment section to guide each other. It doesn’t let kids under 13 open accounts. However, it won’t stop recommending videos of children because it is worried about negative impact on family vloggers, some of whom have many millions of followers. In a blog post responding to the New York Times story, YouTube said that it was ‘limiting’ recommendations on some videos that may put children at risk.”
Those limits are to be applied to videos with minors in “risky situations,” though the blog post does not specify who, or what, will make that judgment. Jee is suspicions of YouTube’s motivations, noting that the site’s goal is to capture and keep “eyeballs.” Despite what else is allowed to thrive across the platform, the company apparently decided to draw a (dotted) line at this issue.
Cynthia Murrell, July 3, 2019
Factualities for July 3, 2019
July 3, 2019
The rush toward the end of a numerically thrilling year is upon us. Some of the rock solid, outstanding numbers the DarkCyber team noted and believed by golly. Statistics 101 has not failed the productive and creative thinkers providing us real factualities, particularly some interesting pairs from different research wizards.
$1. Amount DoorDash pays for a trip. Source: Forbes
7. Number of years hackers have been stealing data from global cell networks. Source: TechDirt
11. The percentage of enterprise search users which find the technology “effective.” Source: CMSWire (Content management? What’s that?)
11. Number of steps required to reset a GE “smart” light bulb. Source: General Electric
20. The percent of IBM revenue which comes from “Asia.” Source: SCMP
22. The number of megatons (a megaton is equal to 1,000,000 tons) of carbon dioxide emissions produced by “Bitcoin”. Source: Eurekalert
22. The number of third party companies which provide technology to create dark patterns (that is, ways to trick site visitors) and be funneled to deceptive messages. Source: Princeton University
46. The percentage of those in a global study prefer a physical store. Source: Computer Weekly
46. The percentage of US adults who never use voice assistants. Source: Ecommerce Daily News
48.96. The quite precise percentage of Google search searches which ended with zero clicks. [ DarkCyber question: Does this mean the results were irrelevant?] Source: Sparktoo
66. Percent of those in a US sample want social networks to police offensive content. 69 percent have little or no confidence that social networks can correctly identify such content. Note that a leading legal eagle believe that he could spot offensive content when he could see it. Ah, the benefits of a legal education versus engineering expertise.
69. Number of police agencies using the zapping product once known as Taser. Source: New York Times
70. The percentage of unicorns (startups worth more than $1 billion) which are actually old products. Source: SaaSTR
110. The decibels produced by Dyson and Xcelerator hair and hand driers manufactured by these firms. Source: CBC
300. The percentage increase in the number of US taxi drivers since 2008.
300. The percentage increase in environmental “damage” jet contrails will do by 2050. Source: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
15,000. Number of users a for fee email service has. $33 million. The amount the company raised in venture capital. Source: New York Times
50,000. A nice round number reporting the number of plastic particles that you, gentle reader, consume each year. Source: The Guardian
432,000. Another nice round number representing the number of Macbook laptops recalled by Apple. Source: CBS News
$600,000. The amount a Florida city paid cyber criminals to regain access to its computer systems. Source: AP
11 million. The exact number of fake business listings in Google’s business listings. Source: Wall Street Journal
12.9 billion. The size of the threat intelligence market in 2023 or 48 months, whichever arrives first. Source: WAtech
Stephen E Arnold, July 3, 2019
ICE Vendors
July 2, 2019
We spotted a list of vendors working with ICE. You can find the company names plus some details about their work in “An Incomplete List of Companies Working with ICE.” The write up uses the phrases “concentration camps” and
ethnic cleansing” which spin the list in a way that advances a particular mental slant. Here’s the description of Palantir Technologies, a vendor providing intelligence software or what DarkCyber classifies as “intelware”:
Palantir Technologies (@PalantirTech): This famously evil company got a $39,340,901 contract from ICE for building and helping to run FALCON, “a database and analytical platform […] to track immigrants and crunch data on forms of cross-border criminal activity.” More info on Palantir’s involvement with ICE and deportation here. Reporting by Spencer Woodman (@SpencerWoodman).
My former employer appears in the list as well:
Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.(@BoozAllen): A huge infotech company which received a contract worth up to $100,457,166 for advising ICE with their ethnic cleansing campaign and concentration camp system.
However, for a company looking to sell support services to firms with existing government contractors, this list is useful. Cross correlate this list with the names of the individuals at these companies responsible for locating specialist subcontractors, and you might find a bonanza.
Recycling public information can be difficult, and this list is a good sales reference for certain types of vendors.
It would be helpful if the list were in alphabetical order, but that’s unnecessary if one has a short attention span and thumb types with agility.
You may have to register to read the article. However, that ploy is unlikely to deliver the benefits the Medium operation anticipates. Annoying those who suggest others read one’s work seems to be an interesting marketing angle. My dog is now officially a Medium “reader.” He’s a French bulldog, and he is indifferent to Facebook tracking. Good boy!
Stephen E Arnold, July 2, 2019
Facebook and Google: An Obvious Question Ignored
July 2, 2019
I read the Guardian’s opinion essay by Shoshana Zuboff, the author of the beach read The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The write up’s title is “It’s Not That We’ve Failed to Rein in Facebook and Google. We’ve Not Even Tried.” I marked this passage as interesting to me:
The tech companies’ innovation rhetoric effectively blinded users and lawmakers for many years. Facebook and Google were regarded as innovative companies that sometimes made dreadful mistakes at the expense of our privacy.
The argument is that words caused law makers, users, and observers to unwittingly help out the bright folks who created “surveillance capitalism.”
This is one of the themes in Dr. Zuboff’s best selling book. A couple of observations:
- I am not sure Facebook and Google knew what they were doing. Situational decisions, user acceptance, and revenue pulled the folks forward. Hindsight makes the path easy to spot like a satellite photo that reveals an old Roman road.
- The technology components became available. In the spirit of tinkerers, a bit of experimentation produced some winners. When internal innovation was not enough, a couple of acquisitions proved to be the spark Facebook and Google needed. Who knew that DoubleClick cookies would be a better idea? Who knew that bad actors would flock to Facebook services?
- Governments — particularly the Five Eyes’ group — realized that Facebook and Google could be very useful. I recall that after my lecture at the International Chiefs of Police meeting in Canberra seven or eight years ago, quite a few attendees wanted to talk about the utility of non governmental data captured by these two outfits.
So what’s the big question?
What value do Facebook and Google deliver to LE and intel agencies?
Answer that, and there might be some useful topics for discussion. Pointing at committees and officials who are groomed by lobbyists is not particularly helpful.
Stephen E Arnold, July 2, 2019
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
