Some Criticism of Microsoft? Warranted or Not?
May 13, 2022
Microsoft’s LinkedIn comes out on top—in one regard, anyway. IT-Online reports, “LinkedIn the Brand Most Imitated for Phishing.” In its Brand Phishing Report for the first quarter of 2022, Check Point Research found the professional network was imitated in more than half of all phishing attempts during January, February, and March. The write-up tells us:
“Dominating the rankings for the first time ever, LinkedIn accounted for more than half (52%) of all phishing attempts during the quarter. This represents a dramatic 44% uplift from the previous quarter, where the professional networking site was in fifth position accounting for only 8% of phishing attempts. LinkedIn overtook DHL as the most targeted brand, which is now in second position and accounted for 14% of all phishing attempts during the quarter.”
Social media platforms in general jumped in popularity as phishing spots. Shipping companies like DHL, which became attractive targets with the rise in e-commerce, are now in second place. Apparently different types of companies make juicy bait for different kinds of attacks. The article quotes Check Point’s Omer Dembinsky:
“Some attacks will attempt to gain leverage over individuals or steal their information, such as those we’re seeing with LinkedIn. Others will be attempts to deploy malware on company networks, such as the fake emails containing spoof carrier documents that we’re seeing with the likes of Maersk.”
Of course, a phishing attack can only work if someone falls for it. Do not be that person. Dembinsky advises:
“The best defense against phishing threats, as ever, is knowledge. Employees in particular should be trained to spot suspicious anomalies such as misspelled domains, typos, incorrect dates and other details that can expose a malicious email or text message. LinkedIn users in particular should be extra vigilant over the course of the next few months.”
In Check Point’s list of the top ten companies to find themselves on phishing hooks, LinkedIn and DH are followed by Google (at 7%), Microsoft (6%), FedEx (6%), WhatsApp (4%), Amazon (2%), Maersk (1%), AliExpress (0.8%), and Apple (0.8%).
Cynthia Murrell, May 13, 2022
Quantum Computing: Who Sent the Memo? Who Read It?
May 12, 2022
I read “America Is Losing the Quantum Race with China.” Interesting because Google claimed “quantum supremacy” in 2019. NASA helped out the Google, and I wonder if the author of the Newsweek article got the memo. Then, as I recall, an IBM blog took a positive view of Google’s PR play, but in 2021 fired up its marketing system and announced it had achieved quantum supremacy (whatever this term means).
Okay, what’s the story? Is it IBM, Google, or the mysterious and semi-questionable Chinese?
The Newsweek story designed to strike fear into the hearts of those who care about keeping encrypted messaging encrypted learned:
Quantum computing, a form of high-speed calculation at the subatomic level conducted at extraordinarily cold temperatures, will bring computers to speeds barely imaginable today. Atoms, photons and electrons that operate beyond the classical laws of physics and in the realm of “quantum” can be harnessed for extraordinary computing power. Complex problems that once took years to solve could take seconds. And that means everything we know about cybersecurity—every lock secured by current encryption methods—could get blown wide open.
Yikes.
What’s the solution? Teaching American students to make change, avoid the plague of innumeracy as one expert called being sort of stupid, and reading books, not TikTok hashtags?
Here’s the fix:
President Biden’s recent moves will better coordinate our government’s efforts to prevent this nightmare scenario, by bringing federal agencies and critical infrastructure companies together to address quantum threats. It also brings the National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee under White House control.
Sounds like a plan. However, with US firms already quantumly supreme is a committee necessary? And if the US methods fall short of the mark, there’s always PR. TikTok videos are much more important than wrestling with a differential equation.
Stephen E Arnold, May 12, 2022
Google and Skin Color: What Is AI Unable to Learn?
May 12, 2022
In the wake of high school science club management innovations, the Google has turned its attention to skin color. “Google Adopts 10-Step Skin Tone Scale to Teach Diversity to Its AI” reports:
Google has adopted a 10-grade scale to help it better judge and present skin tones, a change that highlights the tech giant’s efforts to better reflect the range of people who use Google Photos, search and other products.
Interesting. Pantone (the color for printers people) has a YouTube video with more than 100 skin tones. Not to be outdone, , I recall seeing on Creativa Fabrica a chart with 180 skin colors.
Will 10 do the trick? I assume that Google’s smart software was not able to identify human skin color using the “learning while processing” methods of some AI wizards. But 10? That seems like a modest number when a cosmetic outfit requires 60 to move its products.
Why would a consumer products company waste money on unneeded skin hues? Maybe L’Oral is just not Googley?
Stephen E Arnold, May 12, 2022
AI as a Service Dominated by the Usual Science Club Members
May 12, 2022
A burgeoning AI-as-a-Service field may enable businesses of all sizes to take advantage of AI tools without the high cost of developing their own solutions in-house. So declares ReadWrite in its look at the “Growth of AI as a Service (AIaaS) Market.” Writer Neeraj Agarwal touts the purported advantages of such tools, which include NLP, robotics, machine learning, and computer vision:
“After having a view of what the future holds for you, businesses will be able to:
* Create strategies specifically for regional and country based on figures and facts.
* Identify where and when to invest.
* Outperform against key competitors using data and the drivers and trends shaping the market.
* Understand customers based on the latest market research findings.
* Grow Businesses by strategically positioning themselves in tech run.”
Sounds great. But we wonder what happens when just a few companies dominate. We are told:
“Big Companies like Microsoft, IBM, Google, and other market leaders have actively introduced AI services in their business models, increasing their reach and revenue without much time investments.”
So are smaller firms are shut out of this lucrative market? If so, does the lack of competition limit the benefits of these tools? These points are not addressed in the write-up. It does share some other information about the AIaaS arena, however, like how much, and in which directions, it has grown:
“The global AI-as-a-Service market was valued at USD 1.35 Bn in 2016 and is estimated to reach USD 43.1 Bn by 2028, at a CAGR of 46.9% during the forecast period. The base year considered for the study is 2017, while the forecast period is between 2018 and 2028. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) forecast till 2028 of the different categories of the AI market are:
* AI Services- 22%
* AI Hardware- 20.5%
* AI platforms- 34.6%
* AI System Infrastructure Software- 14.1%
* AI Lifecycle Software- 38.9%
* AI Business Services- 21.9%
The market has been bifurcated into cloud-based and on-premises deployment models based on the deployment model.”
The piece also discusses types of applications available, segmentation of the market, and an analysis of competition among the major players. See the article for those details.
Cynthia Murrell, May 12, 2022
Will Big Tech Be Disciplined? Sure, You Have to Start Work Before 11 am
May 12, 2022
Some believe that monopolies are detrimental to free enterprise and the mixed economy that thrives in the United States. Unfortunately, most of the technology developments in the country are controlled by several large companies: Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft. According to US law, these companies may be forced to break up. Greenwald shares a story of how breaking up the large tech companies could be harmful to US security: “Former Intelligence Officials, Citing Russia, Say Big Tech Monopoly Power Is Vital To National Security.”
A group of former national security and intelligence officials released a jointly signed letter that current legislative attempts to hinder High Tech monopolies will harm US safety. They argued in their letter that centralized censorship power is important to the US’s foreign policy. The argument was justified by the current war in Ukraine. These claims are dubious:
“While one of their central claims is that Big Tech monopoly power is necessary to combat (i.e., censor) “foreign disinformation,” several of these officials are themselves leading disinformation agents: many were the same former intelligence officials who signed the now-infamous-and-debunked pre-election letter fraudulently claiming that the authentic Hunter Biden emails had the “hallmarks” of Russia disinformation (former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Obama CIA Director Michael Morrell, former Obama CIA/Pentagon chief Leon Panetta). Others who signed this new letter have strong financial ties to the Big Tech corporations whose power they are defending in the name of national security (Morrell, Panetta, former Bush National Security Adviser Fran Townsend).”
It should not come as a surprise that these former officials have ties to Big Tech and want to preserve the monopolies so they benefit. Big Tech companies support politicians who in turn support legislation favorable to them. It is a typical quid pro quo situation. What makes the situation hypocritical is that politicians profess they want to dismantle Big Tech monopolies but vote the opposite.
Are Big Tech monopolies good? It depends on one’s point of view.
Whitney Grace, May 12, 2022
UX: Brutalism with Zeros and Ones
May 12, 2022
Get ready for the appearance of everything online to change. Again. In a design-jargon-packed article, Hype4 Academy’s Design blog declares, “Neubrutalism is Taking Over the Web.” UI styling tends to settle into a pervading theme for about seven years at a time, after which audiences (or is it designers?) get bored and seek a fresh look. Since Google’s Material Design style took over the Web, the theme has included rounded edges, subtle gradients, and glowing shadow effects. It is a style writer Micha? Malewicz describes as “candy-like.” Apparently, though, all that is about to be knocked aside by a much less gentle aesthetic. Malewicz writes:
“Neubrutalism, or Neobrutalism as some people call it, is a mix of regular brutalism in web design and more modern typography, illustration and animation standards. … Brutalism is a 1950’s architectural trend that was abandoning all decorations, and creating brutally simple buildings made from concrete. They often weren’t even painted to emphasize their brutal nature. So big, brutal blocks of concrete. It was the architects showing they were bored with the status-quo and trying something different. That feels very similar to the current search for the UI trend to take over design. But how does that transfer to the web? Some forms of brutalism have existed in graphics design before, but they often broke most of the typical layout rules, with huge text blocks often getting out of view. It was mostly popular in poster-design / graphics-design but some attempts to use it on the web existed as early as the late 90’s. Neo brutalism ditches most of that and merges traditional layout concepts with super-high contrast, solid, often purposefully clashing colors and simpler, yet quirky typography.”
The write-up goes on to describe this “ugly on purpose” style in depth, with plenty of illustrations and even a video. Neobrutalism’s hallmarks include super-high-contrast (some would say clashing) colors, sharp shadows, and thick fonts. We suggest curious readers, particularly any involved in UI design, check it out for themselves. Just watch out for flying buzzwords.
Cynthia Murrell, May 12, 2022
Interesting List: Marketing Professionals, Start Your Spamming Bots
May 11, 2022
An outfit called Himalayas published or made available a list of more than 1,500 companies. The unifying thread for the diverse assortment of firms is that remote work is okay. The listing is displayed on Web pages, which makes browsing a bit of a pain. Each entry includes:
- The name of the company
- Broad index terms
- Short description of the company
- Number of staff the company allegedly wants to hire.
How long will the list be available? That’s anyone’s guess.
Stephen E Arnold, May 11, 2022
AT&T Innovation: I Thought Banjo Anticipated This Functionality
May 11, 2022
I read “AT&T Will Use Phone Location Data to Route 911 Calls to the Right Responders.” I thought that Banjo (now SafeXai) described a similar function. I thought I read a Banjo patent or two referencing the firm’s systems and methods. Despite this historical thought, I noted this statement in the article:
The company says it’ll be the first US carrier to “quickly and more accurately identify where a wireless 911 call is coming from using device GPS and hybrid information.” That’ll allow it to route the call to the correct 911 call center (public safety answering point or PSAP) which can then “dispatch first responders to the right location faster…
Banjo changed its name, but before its management shift, the company filed and obtained a number of forward-leaning patents. I recall that one of them provided a useful shopping list of off-the-shelf technologies used in smart software. If anyone is curious, the Banjo patents referencing what I think is a similar notion include US10585724, “Notifying entities of relevant events”, US10582343, “Validating and supplementing emergency call information,” and several others. I recall reading patents held by AT&T which reference this capability. I wonder how many firms can use mobile data to provide useful services to first responders, law enforcement, and intelligence entities. Once a system and method are disclosed, individuals can replicate or exploit some systems.
Collecting data via an app’s software is made more useful with real-time data from other collection points. The value of cross-correlation of data is quite high. I find it interesting that basic LE and intel methods continue to poke their nose through the heavy cloud cover over certain interesting systems and methods. I do long for the days when certain information was secret and kept that way.
Stephen E Arnold, May 11, 2022
Smart Software: Bureaucrats Race the 20 Somethings
May 11, 2022
One of the ArnoldIT team is delivering a talk about smart software. One of our points is that AI is moving along the innovation curve and bright young sprouts are installing “smart” software in interesting applications.
The European Union is nervous about smart software. Johnny on the spot is that bureaucratic outfit.
One of the most common tropes in science-fiction is a computer or a robot achieving sentience. In the stories, technology gains sentience in a variety of ways: lightning strikes, digital evolution, alien intervention, etc. While some of the stories end on a positive note, many end with a warning message to humanity: Don’t play God. Tech Radar explains that the European Union is taking preventive measures: “New EU Rules Would Allow It To Shut Down Ai Before It Got Dangerous.”
The European Union has worked on an AI regulation framework since March 2018 as part of its Digital Decade regulations. Work on AI regulations has been slow because the EU has focused on the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act that manage how much power American tech companies can have.
The EU AI Act is also undergoing a review and critique phase through the Ada Lovelace Institute, an independent research facility that works on data policy. The Ada Lovelace Institute scrutinizes the AI Act:
“The full report (via TechCrunch) includes a lot of detail on the pros and cons of the regulation, which is a global first, with the main takeaway is that the EU is setting itself up to have some pretty powerful tools at its disposal. The EU plans to create and empower oversight bodies that can, theoretically, order the withdrawal of an AI system that is deemed high risk, before requiring the model be retrained. The draft AI Act has been under a lot of scrutiny – and has received a fair amount of criticism – and will likely still fall short of the EU’s most expansive goals: creating the conditions for “trustworthy” and “human-centric” AI.”
The current EU AI Act needs to be revised, but that does not mean it is a failure. The act is a good beginning to creating a viable framework to govern AI.
Our fearless but quite aged leader (Stephen E Arnold) believes that it may be difficult to regulate smart software, especially in the United States where big tech companies are influential in the economy and politics. AI often thrives in powerful black boxes that are inordinately programmed with ethnic and socioeconomic biases. Developers have yet to remove these biases because at the Google there may be zero biases or the datasets are synthetic. (Yep, that means what you think it means: Statistical confections and close enough for horseshoes outputs.)
Can the EU set the standard for how AI is regulated across the globe, a bit like kicking the Russian oil and natural gas habits? Worth watching… from a distance.
Whitney Grace, May 11, 2022
Screen Addiction: Digital Gratification Anytime, Anyplace
May 11, 2022
We are addicted to screens. The screens can be any size so long as they contain instantaneous gratification content. Our screen addiction has altered our brain chemistry and Medium explains how in the article, “Your Brain-Altering Screen Addiction Explained. With Ancient Memes.” The article opens by telling readers to learn how much time they spend on their phones by looking at their usage data. It is quickly followed by a line that puts into perspective how much time people spend on their phones related to waking hours.
The shocking fact is that Americans spend four hours on mobile devices and that is not including TV and desktop time! The Center for Humane Technology created the Ledge of Harms, an evidenced-based list of harms resulting from digital addiction, mostly social media. The ledger explains too much screen time causes cognitive impairment and that means:
“The level of social media use on a given day is linked to a significant correlated increase in memory failure the next day.
• The mere presence of your smartphone, even when it’s turned off and face down, drains your attention.
• 3 months after starting to use a smartphone, users experience a significant decrease in mental arithmetic scores (indicating reduced attentional capacity) and a significant increase in social conformity.
• Most Americans spend 1 hour per day just dealing with distractions and trying to get back on track — that’s 5 wasted full weeks a year!
• Several dozen research studies indicate that higher levels of switching between different media channels are significantly linked to lower levels of both working memory and long-term memory.
• Studies even showed that people who opened Facebook frequently and stayed on Facebook longer tended to have reduced gray matter volume in the brain. “
Screen addiction causes harm in the same way as drugs and alcohol. The same thing we turn to reduce depression, anxiety, and isolation creates more of it. Another grueling statistic is that we spend an average of nineteen seconds on content before we switch to another. The switch creates a high by the release of endorphins, so we end up being manipulated by attention-extractive economics.
Tech companies want to exploit this positive feedback loop. Our attention spans are inversely proportional to the better their technology and algorithms are. The positive feedback loop is compounded by us spending more time at home, instead of participating in the real world.
How does one get the digital monkey off one’s back? Cold turkey, gentle reader. Much better than an opioid.
Whitney Grace, May 11, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
