Amazon: An Ecosystem in Which Some Bad Actors Thrive
October 6, 2022
Wow! Who knew? I must admit that I have developed what I call a “Hypothetical Ecommerce Crime Ecosystem.” Because I am an old, dinobaby, I have not shared my musings in this semi entertaining Web log. I do relatively few “public” talks. I am careful not to be “volunteered” for a local networking meet up like those organized by the somewhat ineffectual “chamber of commerce” in central Kentucky. Plus, I am never sure if those with whom I speak are “into” ecosystems of crime. Sure, last week I gave a couple of boring lectures to a few law enforcement, crime analysts, and government senior officials. But did the light bulbs flashing during and after my talk impair my vision. Nah.
I did read a write up which nibbles around the edges of my diagram for my hypothetical crime ecosystem. “There’s an Underground Market Where Secondhand Amazon Merchant Accounts Are Bought and Sold for Thousands of Dollars” asserts as 100 percent actual factual:
An Insider investigation revealed a thriving gray market for secondhand Amazon seller accounts. On Telegram and forums like Swapd and PlayerUp, thousands of brokers openly sell accounts, with prices ranging from a few hundred bucks for a new account to thousands of dollars apiece for years-old accounts with established histories. … The accounts sometimes steal random people’s identities to disguise themselves, and sellers are using these fake credentials to engage in questionable behavior on Amazon, Insider found — including selling counterfeit textbooks. The people’s whose names and addresses are being stolen are sometimes then sent hundreds of returns by unhappy customers.
Is there other possibly inappropriate activity on the Amazon giant bookstore? The write up says:
Merchants have used shady tactics like submitting false fraud reports targeting rivals, or bribing Amazon employees to scuttle competitors. Others peddle counterfeit or shoddily produced wares. Amazon bans fraudulent sellers, along with other accounts they’re suspected of owning, and blacklists their business name, physical location, and IP address.
Okay, but why?
My immediate reaction is money. May I offer a few speculations about such ecosystem centric behavior? You say, No. Too bad. Here are my opinions:
- Amazon does basic cost benefit analyses. The benefit is the amount of money Amazon gets to keep. The cost is the sum of the time, effort, and direct outflow of cash required to monitor and terminate what might be called the Silicon Valley way. (Yeah, I know Amazon like Microsoft is in some state in the US Northwest, but the spirit of the dudes and dudettes in Silicon Valley knows no geographic boundaries. Did you notice the “con” in “silicon.” Coincidence?
- Bad actors know a thriving ecosystem when they see one. Buy stolen products from a trusted third party, and who worries to much about where the person in the white van obtained them. Pay the driver, box ‘em up, and ship out those razors and other goods easily stolen from assorted brick-and-mortar stores in certain US locations; for example, the Walgreen’s in Tony Bennett’s favorite city.
- The foil of third party intermediaries makes it easy for everyone in the ecosystem to say, “Senator, thank you for the question. I do not know the details of our firm’s business relationship. I will obtain the information and send a report to your office.” When? Well, maybe struggling FedEx or the Senate’s internal mail system lost the report. Bummer. Just request another copy, rinse, and repeat. The method has worked for a couple of decades. Don’t fix it if the system is not broken.
What’s interesting about my “Hypothetical Ecommerce Crime Ecosystem” in my opinion is:
- Plausible deniability is baked in
- Those profiting from exploitation of the Amazon money rain forest have zero incentive or downside to leave the system as it is. Change costs money and — let’s face it — there have been zero significant downsides to the status quo for decades. Yep, decades.
- Enforcement resources are stretched at this time. Thus, what I call “soft fraud” is easier than ever to set up and embed in business processes.
Is the cited article correct? Sure, I believe everything I read online, including Amazon reviews of wireless headphones and cheap T shirts.
Is my analysis correct? I don’t know. I am probably wrong and I am too old, too worn out, too jaded to do much more than ask, “Is that product someone purchased on Amazon an original, unfenced item?”
Stephen E Arnold, October 6, 2022
Standards: Just Lower Them Already
October 5, 2022
Snow flurries? Cancel grade school and high school classes. Covid? Cancel in person classes and shift to the “tech will solve it” approach to education. Algebraic identities? Talk about TikToks.
The clash of the dinobabies is illustrated in “NYU Chemistry Professor Fired After Students Said His Class Was Too Hard.” The subtitle to the article identifies one issue:
Students were misreading exam questions at an astonishing rate
The idea is an important one: Reading with comprehension.
A college professor expected students to read the course material, do the required exercises, read examination questions, and answer them. A failure to understand what one reads means that one does not ingest information, understand it, and explain what one has learned.
That seems to have been a problem at New York University, a school distinguished by its proximity to a thriving informal market in controlled substances.
How did the students react to the professor who expected the students to learn chemistry? The TikTok aficionados protested.
How did the university respond to the bleating students? The institution fired the professor. No tenure; therefore, no problem.
Several observations seem to be warranted:
- Learning can be fun, even easy, but in most cases, learning requires carving new pathways in the brain and forcing new connections therein. Focus, effort, are commitment required. TikTok learning and YouTube short cuts may not do the job.
- Reading is FUNdamental. Was, is, and will be. Can’t read? Flashing warning lights.
- Institutions tossing standards in the dumper ensure an accelerating decline in decision making, understanding, and sticking to a difficult task. Lose these skills, lose trust in education, government, people, and probably most touch points in life.
- Discipline is a valuable trait. No discipline and one’s life may wobble.
Who cares? TikTok and YouTube don’t. Why are falling standards in vogue? Ah, that’s an interesting question. Let’s Google it.
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2022
Seagal and Snowden: Pets of the Russian Federation or Just Pals?
October 5, 2022
I have not be a fan of Mr. Snowden since he leaked classified US government PowerPoints. I am less of a fan now that he has seen the Red Dawn like the now chubby, somewhat overwrought former movie star Steven Seagal. One of his cinematic achievements is “Above the Law.” Perhaps a remake is in the works starring two Eurasian brown bears. Baited and chained, the two luminaries provide an example for today’s conceived (believe it or not in Kiev) and enshrined in the mud of the Port of the Five Seas.
I read a trusted news report from Thomson Reuters called “Putin Grants Russian Citizenship to U.S. Whistleblower Snowden.” The write up points out that the poster boy for zero trust security is now a “real” Russian. The snap in the Reuters’ story shows the honorable Mr. Snowden without his eye glasses with a broken nose piece, a logo of the National Security Agency whose secrecy agreement he found irrelevant, or his Russian Independent Party pin. (I believe this is the political party of everyone’s favorite world leader, Vlad the Visionary Planner.)
I noted this sentence:
Snowden’s lawyer, Anatoly Kucherena, told RIA news agency that his client could not be called up because he had not previously served in the Russian army.
But what about Steven Seagal? He was a military type. He is a trained operator. Will he re-up for Mother Russia? I believe he became a Russian citizen in 2016. Perhaps Seagal and Snowden could team up for a podcast tentatively titled “Pets or Pals”.
Winner.
People who ignore confidentiality agreements and become citizens of nation states not friending the US.
Losers maybe?
Stephen E Arnold, October 5, 2022
Amazon: Two Day Delivery? Well, Sort Of?
October 5, 2022
Amazon Prime subscribers love the two-day shipping. When their item does not arrive within time, they get upset because they paid good morning for a service! Removing the Karen spirit from the last sentence, it is understandable that there will be occasional holdups with delivery. If delays continue, then there is something wrong with the pipeline. Vox digs into what is happening with Amazon’s delivery system in: “Some Amazon Prime Customers Say They Don’t Have Two Day Shipping Anymore.”
Former corporate Amazon employee Peter Freese noticed that Amazon delivery times were taking longer than expected in his hometown Omak, Washington. After he read complaints similar to his own online, Freese decided to experiment. He had Amazon packages sent to random residential addresses in all thirty-nine Washington counties. All the orders were branded with Amazon Prime, but lacked the “two-day” or “next-day” shipping option.
Lauren Samaha, an Amazon spokesperson, stated there were no problems with Amazon’s delivery times, but they fluctuate based on mitigating factors. She affirmed the company was not cutting costs nor denying two-day delivery to addresses within the continental US.
Freese, however, discovered that was not true:
“Freese’s analysis goes beyond those semantics, though: What he’s found is that some customers who once had Prime two-day shipping no longer do, even on commonly purchased items. Yet they’re still paying the full Prime membership fees like everyone else.”
Amazon’s warehouse employees work under a tight surveillance ship that keeps going 24/7. According to many former and present workers, the working conditions are exploitative, harmful, and can result in injury. Amazon admitted that they underestimated how many employees they needed to staff their warehouses during the pandemic. Delivery delays also point out that Amazon is not infallible and it is beginning to show cracks.
It would be nice if Amazon admitted its weaknesses, then focused on improving employees’ working conditions. Happy workers means higher productivity.
Whitney Grace, October 5, 2022
Insider Threat: Worse Than Poisoned Open Source Code and Major Operating System Flaws?
October 5, 2022
Here’s a question for you.
What poses a greater threat to your organization? Select one item only, please.
[a] Flaws in mobile phones
[b] Poisoned open source code
[c] Cyber security and threat intelligence systems do not provide advertised security
[d] Insider threats
[e] Operating systems’ flaws.
If you want to check more than one item, congratulations. You are a person who is aware that most computing devices are insecure with some flaws baked in. Fixing up flawed hardware and software under attack is similar to repairing an L-29 while the Super Defin is in an air race.
Each day I receive emails asking me to join a webinar about a breakthrough in cyber security, new threats from the Dark Web, and procedures to ensure system integrity. I am not confident that these companies can deliver cyber security, particularly the type needed to deal with an insider who decides to help out bad actors.
“NSA Employee Leaked Classified Cyber Intel, Charged with Espionage” reports:
A former National Security Agency employee was arrested on Wednesday for spying on the U.S. government on behalf of a foreign government. Jareh Sebastian Dalke, 30, was arrested in Denver, Colorado after allegedly committing three separate violations of the Espionage Act. Law enforcement allege that the violations were committed between August and September of 2022, after he worked as a information systems security designer at the agency earlier that summer.
So what’s the answer to the multiple choice test above? It’s D. Insider breaches suggest that management procedures are not working. Cyber security webinars don’t address this, and it appears that other training programs may not be pulling hard enough. Close enough for horse shoes may work when selling ads. For other applications, more rigor may be necessary.
Stephen E Arnold, October 5, 2022
Attention and Science: Rotating the Idea Seven Degrees
October 4, 2022
I read a BigThink article called “The Credibility of Science Is Damaged When Universities Brag about Themselves.” The basic premise of the article is fine: Attention is what matters today. The “why” is not explored, but it is characterized: Payoff.
I noted this statement in the article:
Scientists have always wanted to have their work noticed. That’s not new. However, when attention becomes currency, the ecosystem changes. And that changing ecosystem encompasses universities, academic publishing, and the way science is communicated to the public.
I am not comfortable with categorical affirmatives like “always.” I know from my work in online information and systems that the enabler of being noticed is content which is not intermediated by an institution, commercial enterprise, or government agency with a semi-reliable moral and ethical compass.
Scientists, like any other group of humanoids, get a kick out of the fame payoff. Some cannot cope and end up spending some time under special observation like Kurt Gödel or André Bloch. Others are content to chug along with some cocktail party ammunition tucked in their pockets.
A larger issue underlies the analysis of scientists chasing attention (adulation, prizes, lecture opportunities, etc.) The inherent function of online information is to disintermediate. Hasta la vista judgment, bureaucratic barriers, and traditional procedures.
How are those airline schedules matching up with the reality of getting from A to B? What about the functionality of the US health care system and the individuals who need treatment? Are those children graduating from grade school, high school, and college unable to read at their grade level mapping to job opportunities? You can think of your own examples.
My point is that the devaluation of science manifests itself in the “attention economy.” The driver, however, is online information.
Welcome to the online revolution. Remediation will be difficult, perhaps impossible. As “knowledge” is vaporized by the flows of online data, those responsible for the fixing up of science, basic service delivery, and certain American automobiles will be less well equipped than previous generations’ wizards.
The future is now. Log on, absorb TikToks, and surf Amazon… scientifically, of course. Maybe that seven degrees rotation is not reproducible. Some is not either.
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2022
Libraries: A Target?
October 4, 2022
Reading is FUNdamental. I am not sure that’s an accurate slogan today. “Libraries Across The US Are Receiving Violent Threats” reports:
In the last two weeks, at least a dozen public libraries across the U.S. received threats that resulted in canceled events and system-wide closures. While bomb and active shooter threats to public library systems in Nashville, Fort Worth, Denver, Salt Lake City, and Boston and other cities across the country were ultimately deemed hoaxes, library workers and patrons say they are still reeling in the aftermath.
Nice.
I grew up with the following impressions of libraries:
- My mother took me to the library each week so she could return the books she read from the previous week. She checked out books. I am not sure how old I was when I became aware of this library routine. Didn’t everyone go to the library once a week? Not to protest or make threats, but to get books and introduce a child to the “routine”?
- My sixth grade teacher, Ms. Costello, awarded a paper “flag” for each book read by a student. On the wall was a list of her students. The flags were pinned after each student’s name. One book received one white flag. Five books were converted to a white flag with a blue border. Ten books received a white flag with a red border. Twenty books were represented by a white flag with a yellow border. Each school year ended with Ms. Costello recognizing the students who read the most books. (Guess who won?) I made many trips to the Prospect Branch Library because I nuked the grade school library of books which interested me quickly.
- In high school, wearing my worn out sneakers, my cool plaid shirt, and my blue jeans with cuffs no less, I went to the downtown library which I reached via the bus. In my high school, English teachers assigned essays which had to have footnotes. The reference desk librarians were helpful and showed me the ropes of microfilm newspapers (wow, that technology sucked. Wasn’t there a better way to search?), the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature (wow, that print index sucked. Wasn’t there a better way to search and get access to the full text of the article?), the mysteries of the books behind the reference desk. (Oh, Constance Winchell, I loved you!)
- In college, I made the library my home away from home between classes. I had favorite tables at which to work. I loved the Library of Congress cataloging system. I knew exactly where certain book topics were shelved. I worked in the library on and off for a couple of years until I landed a higher paying job, but I learned how to get first crack at books professors put on reserve. I also located the COBOL instruction manuals and used them to do my first computer based indexed project for a professor named William Gillis. Believe it or not, that project was my ticket to the world of commercial database indexing and my first real job at Halliburton Nuclear in Washington, DC. I indexed nuclear information using good old PDP computers. Exciting? You bet.
Why have I isolated four library experiences?
None require terror threats, political actions, or any behavior other than respect for the professionals who assisted me. My wife has told me that I could have gone to work right after high school and skipped college. She’s wrong. I am not sure I learned too much in my college courses. The bulk of the information was repetitive or something with which I was familiar based on my reading.
What was valuable to me was the opportunity to spend significant time in the university library. Here’s a fun fact: I was thrilled when a college event took place on Friday nights. I knew I would be one of a very few students in the library when the event was underway. Silence, no delays at the photocopy machine, no waiting for a specific card catalog drawer, and no one clogging the space between the shelves.
What’s my view of libraries? Can’t figure it out? Perhaps you should consider what one can achieve by doing the library thing. Online is okay, but it sure isn’t the library thing. I should know because I was involved and maybe instrumental in a number of very successful and widely used commercial databases. I knew paper indexes sucked, and I did something about it.
But libraries. The prime mover for me. Why be afraid of learning, knowledge, information, and different ideas? My answer is that those without a library “backbone” are lost in a digital world in which TikTok information imparts wisdom. Ho ho ho.
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2022
TikTok: A Stream of Weaponized Information?
October 4, 2022
Much of GenZ is now using TikTok as a Google substitute. It seems logical: If one is already spending hours each day on the platform, why not pull up its search function whenever one has a question? Mashable supplies one good reason in, “TikTok’s Search Suggests Misinformation Almost 20 Percent of the Time, Says Report.” Reporter Amanda Yeo cites new research from NewsGuard as she writes:
“When looking for prominent news stories in September, the fact checking organisation found misinformation in almost 20 percent of videos surfaced by the app’s search engine. 540 TikTok videos were analysed as part of this investigation, with 105 found to contain ‘false or misleading claims.’ ‘This means that for searches on topics ranging from the Russian invasion of Ukraine to school shootings and COVID vaccines, TikTok’s users are consistently fed false and misleading claims,’ wrote NewsGuard. NewsGuard’s study also noted that while the four U.S.-based analysts partaking in this study used both neutral and more conspiracy-laden search terms, TikTok itself often suggested controversial terms. Typing in ‘climate change’ may cause the app to suggest searching ‘climate change doesn’t exist,’ and searching ‘COVID vaccine’ might prompt it to suggest tacking ‘exposed’ onto the end. Mashable’s own test from an existing Australian account found only innocuous phrases such as ‘getting my COVID vaccine’ when searching for the latter phrase, however typing in ‘climate change’ did cause TikTok to suggest the search term ‘climate change is a myth.”
Of particular concern is dangerous misinformation about abortion. As access to a safe abortion is blocked or threatened in more and more states, people are seeking alternatives online. Often what they find on TikTok, however, is at best ineffective and at worst lethal. TikTok points to its community guidelines and insists it not only removes dangerous misinformation but also elevates authoritative health-related content and partners with fact checkers. But since the very foundation of the platform rests on user-created and user-shared content, fighting misinformation is a Sisyphean task. It does seem TikTok could at least teach its algorithm not to suggest conspiracy theories. One thing is clear: It remains up to users to protect their own safety by checking facts and considering sources.
Cynthia Murrell, October 4, 2022
Webb Wobbles: Do Other Data Streams Stumble Around?
October 4, 2022
I read an essay identified as an essay from The_Byte In Futurism with the content from Nature. Confused? I am.
The title of the article is “Scientists May Have Really Screwed Up on Early James Webb Findings.” The “Webb” is not the digital construct, but the space telescope. The subtitle about the data generated from the system is:
I don’t think anybody really expected this to be as big of an issue as it’s becoming.
Space is not something I think about. Decades ago I met a fellow named Fred G., who was engaged in a study of space warfare. Then one of my colleague Howard F. joined my team after doing some satellite stuff with a US government agency. He didn’t volunteer any information to me, and I did not ask. Space may be the final frontier, but I liked working on online from my land based office, thank you very much.
The article raises an interesting point; to wit:
When the first batch of data dropped earlier this summer, many dived straight into analysis and putting out papers. But according to new reporting by Nature, the telescope hadn’t been fully calibrated when the data was first released, which is now sending some astronomers scrambling to see if their calculations are now obsolete. The process of going back and trying to find out what parts of the work needs to be redone has proved “thorny and annoying,” one astronomer told Nature.
The idea is that the “Webby” data may have been distorted, skewed, or output with knobs and dials set incorrectly. Not surprisingly those who used these data to do spacey stuff may have reached unjustifiable conclusions. What about those nifty images, the news conferences, and the breathless references to the oldest, biggest, coolest images from the universe?
My thought is that the analyses, images, and scientific explanations are wrong to some degree. I hope the data are as pure as online clickstream data. No, no, strike that. I hope the data are as rock solid as mobile GPS data. No, no, strike that too. I hope the data are accurate like looking out the window to determine if it is a clear or cloudy day. Yes, narrowed scope, first hand input, and a binary conclusion.
Unfortunately in today’s world, that’s not what data wranglers do on the digital ranch.
If the “Webby” data are off kilter, my question is:
What about the data used to train smart software from some of America’s most trusted and profitable companies? Could these data be making incorrect decisions flow from models so that humans and downstream systems keep producing less and less reliable results?
My thought is, “Who wants to think about data being wrong, poisoned, or distorted?” People want better, faster, cheaper. Some people want to leverage data in cash or a bunker in Alaska. Others like Dr. Timnit Gebru wants her criticisms of the estimable Google to get some traction, even among those who snorkel and do deep dives.
If the scientists, engineers, and mathematicians fouled up with James Webb data, isn’t it possible that some of the big data outfits are making similar mistakes with calibration, data verification, analysis, and astounding observations?
I think the “Webby” moment is important. Marketers are not likely to worry too much.
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2022
Google Quirks Identified
October 3, 2022
Stadia went away. The Hacker News thread “Stadia Died Because No One Trusts Google” included some comments which identified what some perceive as inherent Google defects. My hunch is that these defects can be stretched to cover other Google services, maybe the firm’s approach to advertising and “artificial intelligence.”
Here are a handful of comments which I found interesting:
h0l0cube: Google, Facebook, etc. are victims of early success. They made their billions on low hanging fruit, by throwing a lot of resources at problems with very high demand for a solution that weren’t yet tackled well (e.g. query the internet, keep in touch with friends). So it’s no wonder that in this day in age they are incapable of understanding product market fit, innovating, or competing in a market with competent players and a lower barrier to entry.
vxNsr: Google isn’t especially excited by OS, because their bread and butter is all in the cloud they just don’t have the institutional energy to care about consumer software for the consumer’s sake.
marcinzm: Even Google’s more public attempts at innovation are toys rather than useful products.
bitcharmer: These days their [Google’s] DNA is ads.
chopface: … Googlers just don’t care about people. They care about puzzles and systematicity.
josephg: Every time Google shuts down a product, they hurt their reputation. They’re pissing in the pool that future Google products need to survive. At this point I don’t know if Google can make successful new products because nobody trusts their follow through.
hinkley: IMO, Google died the day they announced they weren’t going to work on anything with less than a billion dollar revenue potential. It sounds like a financially smart thing to do but it cuts your legs out because nobody is doing research anymore, and you select for people with half a billion potential and an eagerness to lie.
Interesting to me, probably not to Alphabet Google YouTube DeepMind, definitely not to DeepMind. I can hear this echoing in my mind, “Senator, thank you for the question.”
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
