Google Play Store Content Curation Flop, Well, Thousands of Flops
September 20, 2021
Google does collect user personal information for targeted ads, but more than 19000 apps in the Google Play Store could violate user privacy. The Daily Hunt shares the warning in the article: “Alert! More Than 19000 Apps On Google Play Store Could Leak Your Personal Data-Check Details.”
Digital security company Avast discovered that over 19000 apps hosted on the Google Play Store could leak user data and risk the phone’s security. Avast said the apps leak information, because there is a misconfiguration in the Firebase data. Android developers use Firebase to store user data. Avast reported the problem to Google, so it can notify app developers.
Most of the apps affected are:
“The apps that could be facing the issue are mostly related to lifestyle, gaming, food delivery and email, among others, the firm said, adding that users in Europe, South-East Asia and Latin America region are likely to have been impacted by it. More than 10 percent of 180,300 publicly available Firebase instances were found to be open by researchers at the Avast Threat Labs, which means that apps users’ data in those cases have been exposed to the public.”
User information is waiting to be stolen. Hopefully Google and Android app developers will fix the Firebase misconfiguration quickly so information is stolen by bad actors.
Whitney Grace, September 20, 2021
Facebook: A Pattern That Matches the Zuck
September 20, 2021
The laws of the United States (and most countries) are equally applied to everyone, unless you are rich and powerful. Facebook certainly follows this rule of thumb according to The Guardian article, “Facebook: Some High-Profile Users ‘Allowed To Break Platform’s Rules.’” Facebook has to sets of rules, one for high profile users and everyone else. The Wall Street Journal investigated Facebook’s special list.
Rich and powerful people’s profiles, such as politicians, journalists, and celebrities, are placed on a special list that exempts them from Facebook’s rules. The official terms for these shortlisted people are “newsworthy”, “influential or popular” or “PR risky” The special list is called the XCheck or “CrossCheck” system. Supposedly if these exempt people do post any rule breaking content, it is subject to review but that never happens. There are over 5.8 million people on the XCheck system and the list continues to grow:
The WSJ investigation details the process known as “whitelisting”, where some high-profile accounts are not subject to enforcement at all. An internal review in 2019 stated that whitelists “pose numerous legal, compliance, and legitimacy risks for the company and harm to our community”. The review found favouritism to those users to be both widespread and “not publicly defensible”.
Facebook said that the information The Wall Street Journal dug up were outdated and glosses over that the social media platform is actively working on these issues. Facebook is redesigning CrossCheck to improve the system.
Facebook is spouting nothing but cheap talk. Facebook and other social media platforms will allow rich, famous, and powerful people to do whatever they want on their platforms. It does not make sense why Facebook and other social media platforms allow this, unless money is involved.
Whitney Grace, September 20, 2021
Facebook and Social Media: How a Digital Country Perceives Its Reality
September 17, 2021
I read “Instagram Chief Faces Backlash after Awkward Comparison between Cars and Social Media Safety.” This informed senior manager at Facebook seems to have missed a book on many reading lists. The book is one I have mentioned a number of times in the last 12 years since I have been capturing items of interest to me and putting my personal “abstracts” online.
Jacques Ellul is definitely not going to get a job working on the script for the next Star Wars’ film. He won’t be doing a script for a Super Bowl commercial. Most definitely Dr. Ellul will not be founding a church called “New Technology’s Church of Baloney.”
Dr. Ellul died in 1994, and it is not clear if he knew about online or the Internet. He jabbered at the University of Bordeaux, wrote a number of books about technology, and inspired enough people to set up the International Jacques Ellul Society.
One of his books was the Technological Society or in French Le bluff technologique.
The article was sparked my thoughts about Dr. Ellul contains this statement:
“We know that more people die than would otherwise because of car accidents, but by and large, cars create way more value in the world than they destroy,” Mosseri said Wednesday on the Recode Media podcast. “And I think social media is similar.”
Dr. Ellul might have raised a question or two about Instagram’s position. Both are technology; both have had unintended consequences. On one hand, the auto created some exciting social changes which can be observed when sitting in traffic: Eating in the car, road rage, dead animals on the side of the road, etc. On the other hand, social media is sparking upticks in personal destruction of young people, some perceptual mismatches between what their biomass looks like and what an “influencer” looks like wearing clothing from Buffbunny.
Several observations:
- Facebook is influential, at least sufficiently noteworthy for China to take steps to trim the sails of the motor yacht Zucky
- Facebook’s pattern of shaping reality via its public pronouncements, testimony before legislative groups, and and on podcasts generates content that seems to be different from a growing body of evidence that Facebook facts are flexible
- Social media as shaped by the Facebook service, Instagram, and the quite interesting WhatsApp service is perhaps the most powerful information engine created. (I say this fully aware of Google’s influence and Amazon’s control of certain data channels.) Facebook is a digital Major Gérald, just with its own Légion étrangèr.
Net net: Regulation time and fines that amount to more than a few hours revenue for the firm. Also reading Le bluff technologique and writing an essay called, “How technology deconstructs social fabrics.” Blue book, handwritten, and three outside references from peer reviewed journals about human behavior. Due on Monday, please.
Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2021
Will Life Become Directed Nudges?
September 17, 2021
I read an article with a thought provoking message. The write up is “Changing Customer Behavior in the Next New Normal.” How do these changes come about? The article is about insurance, which has seemed like a Ponzi pie dolloped with weird assurances when disaster strikes. And when disaster strikes where are the insurance companies? Some work like beavers to avoid fulfilling their end of the financial deal policy holders thought was a sure thing. House burn up in California? Ida nuke your trailer? Yeah, happy customers.
But what’s interesting about the write up is that it advocates manipulation, nudges, and weaponized digital experiences to get people to buy insurance. I learned:
The experience of living through the pandemic has changed the way people live and behave. Changes which offered positive experiences will last longer, especially the ones driven by well-being, convenience, and simplicity. Thereby, digital adoption, value-based personalized purchasing, and increased health awareness will be the customer behaviors that will shape the next new normal. This will be a game-changer for the life insurance industry and provide an opportunity for the industry to think beyond the usual, innovate, and offer granular, value-based and integrated products to meet customer needs. The focus will be on insurance offerings, which will combine risk transfer with proactive and value-added services and emerge as a differentiator.
Not even the murky writing of insurance professionals can completely hide the message. Manipulation is the digital future. If people selling death insurance have figured it out, other business sectors will as well.
The future will be full of directed experiences.
That’s super.
Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2021
A US Tool Repurposed by Taliban
September 17, 2021
China is the notorious Big Brother of Asia, but the now Taliban run Afghanistan will be using US-made tools to technologically repress people. According to Market Beat article: “US-Built Databases A Potential Tool Of Taliban Repression,” the United States designed databases for the democratically lead Afghanistan. The databases were designed to help Afghanis by promoting law, government accountability, and modernize the country.
The databases were built without much security and they are now in the Taliban’s hands. There are many databases, including ones that include biometrics for identify verification. The Taliban could use the databases for government surveillance and harm Taliban detractors. Former American allies or possible anti-Taliban people have already received threatening messages and taking precautions.
The Taliban claims they are not interested in retribution and are seeking International aid and unfreezing foreign held assets. The world is waiting with bated breath about what the Taliban will do to Afghanis.
The US created the Afghanistan Automated Biometric Identification Database and former officials in the country state the entire database was erased before the pullout. There are still other databases the Taliban has access to:
“Among crucial databases that remained are the Afghanistan Financial Management Information System, which held extensive details on foreign contractors, and an Economy Ministry database that compiled all international development and aid agency funding sources, the former security official said.
Then there is the data — with iris scans and fingerprints for about 9 million Afghans — controlled by the National Statistics and Information Agency. A biometric scan has been required in recent years to obtain a passport or a driver’s license and to take a civil service or university entrance exam.”
It is also possible that voter registration databases and an anti-fraud database of government officials could be under Taliban control.
Unexpected consequences? Exciting.
Whitney Grace, September 17, 2021
Useless Search Results? Thank Advertising
September 17, 2021
We thought this was obvious. The Conversation declares, “Google’s ‘Pay-Per-Click’ Ad Model Makes it Harder to Find What You’re Looking For.” Writers Mohiuddin Ahmed and Paul Haskell-Dowland begin by pointing out “to google” has literally become synonymous with searching online via any online search platform. Indeed, Google has handily dominated the online search business, burying some competitors and leaving the rest in the dust. Not coincidentally, the company also rules the web browser and online advertising markets. As our dear readers know, Google is facing pushback from competition and antitrust regulators in assorted countries. However, this article addresses the impact on search results themselves. The authors report:
“More than 80% of Alphabet’s revenue comes from Google advertising. At the same time, around 85% of the world’s search engine activity goes through Google. Clearly there is significant commercial advantage in selling advertising while at the same time controlling the results of most web searches undertaken around the globe. This can be seen clearly in search results. Studies have shown internet users are less and less prepared to scroll down the page or spend less time on content below the ‘fold’ (the limit of content on your screen). This makes the space at the top of the search results more and more valuable. In the example below, you might have to scroll three screens down before you find actual search results rather than paid promotions. While Google (and indeed many users) might argue that the results are still helpful and save time, it’s clear the design of the page and the prominence given to paid adverts will influence behavior. All of this is reinforced by the use of a pay-per-click advertising model which is founded on enticing users to click on adverts.”
We are reminded Google-owned YouTube is another important source of information for billions of users, and it is perhaps the leading platform for online ads. In fact, these ads now intrude on videos at a truly annoying rate. Unless one pays for a Premium subscription, of course. Ahmed and Haskell-Dowland remind us alternatives to Google Search exist, with the usual emphasis on privacy-centric DuckDuckGo. They conclude by pointing out other influential areas in which Google plays a lead role: AI, healthcare, autonomous vehicles, cloud computing, computing devices, and the Internet of Things. Is Google poised to take over the world? Why not?
Cynthia Murrell, September September 17, 2021, 2021
Big Tech Defines Material: What Does That Really Mean to Oligopolistic-Type Outfits?
September 16, 2021
I noted a US government study called “Non HSR Reported Acquisitions by Select Technology Platforms: 2010-2019: FTC Study.” The report, assuming it is spot on, suggests that large companies interpreted the word “material” differently from what some financial / accountant types think it means; for example, “Items are considered to be material when they have an excessive impact on reported profits, or on individual line items within the financial statements.” [Source: The Google, of course.] Some MBAs and accountants have remarkably flexible connotative skills. Is this a Deloitte Touche-type touch?
The report states:
My hunch is that standard deviation is not a hot topic at Zoom happy hours. The standard deviations in the table above suggest that the big tech outfits in the study pretty much redefined “material,” bought stuff and did not make a big deal about it, and chugged along in their cheerfully unregulated state during the period of the study.
The report states:
The five technology platform 6(b) respondents identified 616 non-HSR reportable transactions above $1 million, in addition to 101 Hiring Events and 91 Patent Acquisitions. The respondents reported an additional approximate 60 transactions below $1 million and 160 financial investments. Voting Security (Control) and Asset acquisitions comprise 65% of all of the above transactions. When excluding Hiring Events, Patent Acquisitions, and transactions below $1 million, Voting Security (Control) and Asset acquisitions comprise 85% of the transactions.
I interpret this to mean that the big tech outfits in the sample decided what to report and what to ignore; that is, the deals were not material. There’s that MBA word again.
Here’s another passage I circled:
Most of the transactions that were classified into technology categories were concentrated in the categories of Mobility (mobile devices and device-based software and content, which comprised more than 10% of the acquired firms), Application Software (front-end applications such as CRM, ERP, SCM, BI, commerce and vertical business software, which comprised more than 9% of the acquired firms), and Internet Content & Commerce (internet destination and internet-enabled services, which comprised more than 6% of the acquired firms). In the Mobility and Application Software categories, the number of transactions peaked in 2015; in the Internet Content & Commerce category, the number of transactions peaked in 2011.
Observations:
- Fancy dancing is popular among the companies in the sample; notably, Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft
- Regulators, probably with MBAs, looked the other way
- The power of unregulated commercial enterprises makes clear who is in charge of many important technical and social activities.
Interesting stuff, and I am confident that a lawyer with an MBA can explain this misalignment about the meaning of “material.” I wonder if the hints about the behavior of the companies in the sample suggest that we now live in a digital banana republic with the centers of power concentrated among a few corporate entities in their plantation houses.
Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2021
Google and Record Keeping: The Spin Method
September 16, 2021
A number of years ago, I was working in Washington, DC, when I heard chatter in a meeting. Elsewhere in the same building a Labor Department group was trying to figure out why Google didn’t have employment records. My team and I were working in a unit of the Capitol Police and the information elicited a chuckle. Who knew if the info about Google’s inability to provide employment data was accurate or just a poke at the online ad vendor.
I thought about this anecdote when I read “Revealed: Google Illegally Underpaid Thousands of Workers across Dozens of Countries.” The write up explains in what seems a truthful way:
Google executives have been aware since at least May 2019 that the company was failing to comply with local laws in the UK, Europe and Asia that mandate temporary workers be paid equal rates to full-time employees performing similar work, internal Google documents and emails reviewed by the Guardian show. But rather than immediately correct the errors, the company dragged its feet for more than two years, the documents show, citing concern about the increased cost to departments that rely heavily on temporary workers, potential exposure to legal claims, and fear of negative press attention.
“Gee, we don’t have employment data” flashed across my mind. If the write up is accurate, today’s thought is “Gee, we can just try to hide this misstep.”
Seems as if there might be a pattern. I am not sure, but I do recognize selective memory, situational corporate governance, and ignoring rules and regulations.
Gee, what a surprise after a quarter century of regulatory indifference. Hard to believe? Nope. Just institutionalized behavior for a digital country perhaps?
Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2021
Lucky India. Google Wants to Help
September 16, 2021
Google seeks to clear up a misunderstanding. Odisha’s OrissaPost reports, “Google Says Firmly Sees Itself as Partner to India’s Financial Ecosystem.” At issue is Google Pay and its Spot platform. It sounds like some reports about its partnerships with banks may have given the impression Google is trying to supplant or undermine existing financial institutions in India. We learn:
“The company emphasized that in every geography where Google Pay is present, its stance is consistently one of partnering with the existing financial services and banking systems to help scale and enable frictionless delivery of financial products and services and contribute to the goal of financial inclusion. In a blogpost, Google India said there have been a few instances where these offerings have been reported as ‘Google Pay’s offerings’, which fuels misinterpretation. ‘To be clear, we have always looked at our role firmly as a partner to the existing financial ecosystem that brings unique skill sets and offerings to drive further adoption of digital payments in the country,’ it said. … The internet major also noted that its Spot platform works as an additional discovery channel for many businesses to build and offer new experiences to users to drive adoption of their services. The use cases span across ticket purchase, food ordering, paying for essential services like utility bills, shopping and getting access to various financial products.”
See the write-up or Google India’s blog post for more specific details. The company emphasizes bringing partners onto the Google Pay platform connects them to customers around India who would otherwise be unable to access their services, helping to “level social inequalities.” Aw Google, always looking out for the little guy aren’t you?
Cynthia Murrell, September 16, 2021
Just a Little Help from Friends Government Style
September 16, 2021
Nothing should be surprising anymore when it comes to online privacy and targeted ads, but The Guardian shares how governments are trying to alter behavior in the article: “Study Finds Growing Government Use of Sensitive Behavior To ‘Nudge’ Behavior.” Governments have turned to targeted ads on search engines and social media platforms to shape or “nudge” their citizens’ behaviors.
This is a new move “stems from a marriage between the introduction of nudge theory in policymaking and an online advertising infrastructure that provides unforeseen opportunities to run behavioural adjustment campaigns.” Implementing this type of behavior modification could create a perfect feedback loop:
“’With the government, you’ve got access to all this data where you can see pretty much in real time who you need to talk to demographically, and then on the other end you can actually see, well, ‘did this make a difference?’,’ said Ben Collier, of the University of Edinburgh. ‘The government doing this supercharges the ability of it to actually work.’”
Government behavioral modification programs are not new. Countries across the globe have long histories of altering citizens’ behaviors. The United Kingdom is currently employing targeted ad campaigns to deter minors from becoming online fraudsters. Identified at-risk minors online activities are monitored collect data on them that are then used for “influence policing” campaigns with targeted ads. Another influence policing campaign the UK dealt with fire safety. People who purchased candles or matches on Amazon were sent targeted fire safety messages.
The targeted ads appear innocuous and helpful, but the government farms out the work to third party companies. Governments and companies could become lackadaisical with people information and it could impart disinformation. For example, minors targeted with anti-knife violence campaigns might believe that more people carry knives than reality. This could inspire minors to start carrying knives. The anti-fraudster campaigns could also inspire minors to become online bad actors, while the fire safety ads might encourage playing with fire.
Cue the music, please.
Whitney Grace, September 16, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
