Google and Its Age Verification System: Will There Be a FAES Off?
December 18, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Just in time for the holidays! Google’s user age verification system is ready for 2024. “Google Develops Selfie Scanning Software Ahead of Porn Crackdown” reports:
Google has developed face-scanning technology that would block children from accessing adult websites ahead of a crackdown on online porn. An artificial intelligence system developed by the web giant for estimating a person’s age based on their face has quietly been approved in the UK.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. A good enough eyeball with a mobile phone, a pencil, a valise, stealthy sneakers, and data.
Facial recognition, although widely used in some countries, continues to make some people nervous. But in the UKL, the Google method will allow the UK government to obtain data to verify one’s age. The objective is to stop those who are younger than 18 from viewing “adult Web sites.”
[Google] says the technology is 99.9pc reliable in identifying that a photo of an 18-year-old is under the age of 25. If users are believed to be under the age of 25, they could be asked to provide additional ID.
The phrase used to describe the approach is “face age estimation system.”
The cited newspaper article points out:
It is unclear what Google plans to use the system for. It could use it within its own services, such as YouTube and the Google Play app download store, or build it into its Chrome web browser to allow websites to verify that visitors are over 18.
Google is not the only outfit using facial recognition to allegedly reduce harm to individuals. Facebook and OnlyFans, according to the write up are already deploying similar technology.
The news story says:
It is unclear what privacy protections Google would apply to the system.
I wonder what interesting insights would be available if data from the FAES were cross cross correlated with other information. That might have value to advertisers and possibly other commercial or governmental entities.
Stephen E Arnold, December 18, 2023
Google and Its Epic Magic: Will It Keep on Thrilling?
December 17, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The Financial Times (the orange newspaper) published a paywalled essay/interview with Epic Games’s CEO Tim Sweeney. The hook for the sit down was the decision that a court proceeding determined that Google had acted in an illegal way. How? Google developed Android, then Google used that mobile system as a platform for revenue generation. These appear to have involved one-off special deals with some companies and a hefty commission on sales made via the Google Play Store.
Will the magic show continue to surprise and entertain the innocent at the party? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Close enough for horseshoes, but I wanted a Godzilla monster in a tuxedo doing the tricks. But that’s forbidden.
Several items struck me in the article “Epic Games Chief Concerned Google Will Get Away with App Store Charges.”
First, the trial made clear that Google was unable to back up certain data. Here’s how the Financial Times’s story phrased this matter:
The judge in the case, US district judge James Donato, also criticized the company for its failure to preserve evidence, with internal policies for deleting chats. He instructed the jury that they were free to conclude Google’s chat deletion policies were designed to conceal incriminating evidence. “The Google folks clearly knew what they were doing,” Sweeney said. “They had very lucid writings internally as they were writing emails to each other, though they destroyed most of the chats.” “And then there was the massive document destruction,” Sweeney added. “It’s astonishing that a trillion-dollar corporation at the pinnacle of the American tech industry just engages in blatantly dishonest processes, such as putting all of their communications in a form of chat that is destroyed every 24 hours.” Google has since changed its chat deletion policy.
Taking steps to obscure evidence suggests to me that Google operates in an ethical zone with which I and the judge find uncomfortable. The behavior also implies that Google professionals are not just clever, but that they do what pays off within a governance system which is comfortable with a philosophy of entitlement. Google does what Google does. Oh, that is a problem for others. Well, that’s too bad.
Second, according to the article, Google would pursue “alternative payment methods.” The online ad giant would then slap a fee to list a product in the Google Play Store. The method has a number of variations which can include a fee for promoting a product to offering different size listings. The idea is similar to a grocery chain charging a manufacturer to put annoying free standing displays of breakfast foods in the center of a high traffic aisle.
Third , Mr. Sweeney seems happy with the evidence about payola which emerged during the trial. Google appears to have payed Samsung to sell its digital goods via the Google Play Store. The pay-to-play model apparently prevented the South Korean company from setting up an alternative store for Android equipped mobile devices.
Several observations:
- The trial, unlike the proceedings in the DC monopoly probe produced details about what Google does to generate lock in, money, and Googliness
- The destruction of evidence makes clear a disdain for behavior which preserves the trust and integrity of certain norms of behavior
- The trial makes clear that Google wants to preserve its dominant position and will pay to remain Number One.
Net net: Will Google’s magic wow everyone as it did when the company was gaining momentum? For some, yes. For others, no, sorry. I think the costume Google has worn for decades is now weakening at the seams. But the show must go on.
Stephen E Arnold, December 17, 2023
Intel Inference: A CUDA Killer? Some Have Hope
December 15, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Intel is embracing “inference” approach. Why? Maybe it will irritate fewer legal eagles? Maybe it is a marketing differentiator? Maybe Intel knows how to make probability less of a “problem”?
Brilliant, right? The answer to these questions are supposed to be explained in “Intel CEO Attacks Nvidia on AI: The Entire Industry Is Motivated to Eliminate the CUDA Market.” The Tom’s Hardware report uses the “attack” angle as a hook. Intel is thinking differently. The company has not had the buzz of nVidia or OpenAI. Plus, no horse metaphors.
Marketing professionals explain to engineers what must be designed, tested, and delivered in 2024. The engineers are skeptical. The marketing team is confident that their TikTok strategy will be a winner. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
What’s an inference? According to Bing (the stupid version), inference is “a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.” But in mathematics, inference has a slightly different denotation; to wit, this explanation from Britannica:
Inference, in statistics, the process of drawing conclusions about a parameter one is seeking to measure or estimate. Often scientists have many measurements of an object—say, the mass of an electron—and wish to choose the best measure. One principal approach of statistical inference is Bayesian estimation, which incorporates reasonable expectations or prior judgments (perhaps based on previous studies), as well as new observations or experimental results. Another method is the likelihood approach, in which “prior probabilities” are eschewed in favor of calculating a value of the parameter that would be most “likely” to produce the observed distribution of experimental outcomes. In parametric inference, a particular mathematical form of the distribution function is assumed. Nonparametric inference avoids this assumption and is used to estimate parameter values of an unknown distribution having an unknown functional form.
Now what does Tom’s Hardware present at Intel’s vision for its “to be” chips. I have put several segments together for the purposes of my blog post:
"You know, the entire industry is motivated to eliminate the CUDA market. [Gelsinger, the Intel CEO] said. He cited examples such as MLIR, Google, and OpenAI, suggesting that they are moving to a "Pythonic programming layer" to make AI training more open. "We think of the CUDA moat as shallow and small," Gelsinger went on. "Because the industry is motivated to bring a broader set of technologies for broad training, innovation, data science, et cetera." But Intel isn’t relying just on training. Instead, it thinks inference is the way to go. "As inferencing occurs, hey, once you’ve trained the model… There is no CUDA dependency," Gelsinger continued. "It’s all about, can you run that model well?"
CUDA is definitely the target. “CUDA” refers to nVidia’s parallel computing platform and programming model … With more than 20 million downloads to date, CUDA helps developers speed up their applications by harnessing the power of GPU accelerators.
Tom’s Hardware raises a question:
It’s a bold strategy, and Gelsinger appeared confident as he led his team through presentations today. Can he truly take on CUDA? Only time will tell as applications for the chips Intel launched today — and that his competitors are also working on — become more widespread.
Of course. With content marketing, PR professionals, and a definite need to generate some buzz in an OpenAI-dominated world, Intel will be capturing some attention. The hard part will be making sufficiently robust sales to show that an ageing company still can compete.
Stephen E Arnold, December 15, 2023
An Effort to Put Spilled Milk Back in the Bottle
December 15, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Microsoft was busy when the Activision Blizzard saga began. I dimly recall thinking, “Hey, one way to distract people from the SolarWinds’ misstep would be to become an alleged game monopoly.” I thought that Microsoft would drop the idea, but, no. I was wrong. Microsoft really wanted to be an alleged game monopoly. Apparently the successes (past and present) of Nintendo and Sony, the failure of Google’s Grand Slam attempt, and the annoyance of refurbished arcade game machines was real. Microsoft has focus. And guess what government agency does not? Maybe the Federal Trade Commission?
Two bureaucrats to be engage in a mature discussioin about the rules for the old-fashioned game of Monopoly. One will become a government executive; the other will become a senior legal professional at a giant high-technology outfit. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. You capture the spirit of rational discourse in a good enough way.
The MSFT game play may not be over. “The FTC Is Trying to Get Back in the Ring with Microsoft Over Activision Deal” asserts:
Nearly five months later, the FTC has appealed the court’s decision, arguing that the lower court essentially just believed whatever Microsoft said at face value…. We said at the time that Microsoft was clearly taking the complaints from various regulatory bodies as some sort of paint by numbers prescription as to what deals to make to get around them. And I very much can see the FTC’s point on this. It brought a complaint under one set of facts only to have Microsoft alter those facts, leading to the courts slamming the deal through before the FTC had a chance to amend its arguments. But ultimately it won’t matter. This last gasp attempt will almost certainly fail. American regulatory bodies have dull teeth to begin with and I’ve seen nothing that would lead me to believe that the courts are going to allow the agency to unwind a closed deal after everything it took to get here.
From my small office in rural Kentucky, the government’s desire or attempt to get “back in the ring” is interesting. It illustrates how many organizations approach difficult issues.
The advantage goes to the outfit with [a] the most money, [b] the mental wherewithal to maintain some semblance of focus, and [c] a mechanism to keep moving forward. The big four wheel drive will make it through the snow better than a person trying to ride a bicycle in a blizzard.
The key sentence in the cited article, in my opinion, is:
“I fail to understand how giving somebody a monopoly of something would be pro-competitive,” said Imad Dean Abyad, an FTC attorney, in the argument Wednesday before the appeals court. “It may be a benefit to some class of consumers, but that is very different than saying it is pro-competitive.”
No problem with that logic.
And who is in charge of today Monopoly games?
Stephen E Arnold, December 15, 2023
FTC Enacts Investigative Process On AI Products and Services
December 15, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Creative types and educational professionals are worried about the influence of AI-generated work. However, law, legal, finance, business operations, and other industries are worried about how AI will impact them. Aware about the upward trend in goods and services that are surreptitiously moving into the market, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took action. The FTC released a briefing on the new consumer AI protection: “FTC Authorities Compulsory Process For AI-Related Products And Services.”
The executive recruiter for a government contractor says, “You can earn great money with a side gig helping your government validate AI algorithms. Does that sound good?” Will American schools produce enough AI savvy people to validate opaque and black box algorithms? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. You hallucinated on this one, but your image was good enough.
The FTC passed an omnibus resolution that authorizes a compulsory process in nonpublic investigations about products and services that use or claim to be made with AI or claim to detect it. The new omnibus resolution will increase the FTC’s efficiency with civil investigation demands (CIDs), a compulsory process like a subpoena. CIDs are issued to collect information, similar to legal discovery, for consumer protection and competition investigations. The new resolution will be in effect for ten years and the FTC voted to approve it 3-0.
The FTC defines AI as:
“AI includes, but is not limited to, machine-based systems that can, for a set of defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. Generative AI can be used to generate synthetic content including images, videos, audio, text, and other digital content that appear to be created by humans. Many companies now offer products and services using AI and generative AI, while others offer products and services that claim to detect content made by generative AI.”
AI can also be used for deception, privacy infringements, fraud, and other illegal activities. AI can causes competition problems, such as if a few companies monopolize algorithms are other AI-related technologies.
The FTC is taking preliminary steps to protect consumers from bad actors and their nefarious AI-generated deeds. However, what constitutes a violation in relation to AI? Will the data training libraries be examined along with the developers? Where will the expert analysts come? An online university training program?
Whitney Grace, December 15, 2023
Microsoft Snags Cyber Criminal Gang: Enablers Finally a Target
December 14, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Earlier this year at the National Cyber Crime Conference, we shared some of our research about “enablers.” The term is our shorthand for individuals, services, and financial outfits providing the money, services, and management support to cyber criminals. Online crime comes, like Baskin & Robbins ice cream, in a mind-boggling range of “flavors.” To make big bucks, funding and infrastructure are needed. The reasons include amped up enforcement from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, Europol, and cooperating law enforcement agencies. The cyber crime “game” is a variation of a cat-and-mouse game. With each technological advance, bad actors try out the latest and greatest. Then enforcement agencies respond and neutralize the advantage. The bad actors then scan the technology horizon, innovate, and law enforcement responds. There are many implications of this innovate-react-innovate cycle. I won’t go into those in this short essay. Instead I want to focus on a Microsoft blog post called “Disrupting the Gateway Services to Cybercrime.”
Industrialized cyber crime uses existing infrastructure providers. That’s a convenient, easy, and economical means of hiding. Modern obfuscation technology adds to law enforcements’ burden. Perhaps some oversight and regulation of these nearly invisible commercial companies is needed? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Close enough and I liked the investigators on the roof of a typical office building.
Microsoft says:
Storm-1152 [the enabler?] runs illicit websites and social media pages, selling fraudulent Microsoft accounts and tools to bypass identity verification software across well-known technology platforms. These services reduce the time and effort needed for criminals to conduct a host of criminal and abusive behaviors online.
What moved Microsoft to take action? According to the article:
Storm-1152 created for sale approximately 750 million fraudulent Microsoft accounts, earning the group millions of dollars in illicit revenue, and costing Microsoft and other companies even more to combat their criminal activity.
Just 750 million? One question which struck me was: “With the updating, the telemetry, and the bits and bobs of Microsoft’s “security” measures, how could nearly a billion fake accounts be allowed to invade the ecosystem?” I thought a smaller number might have been the tipping point.
Another interesting point in the essay is that Microsoft identifies the third party Arkose Labs as contributing to the action against the bad actors. The company is one of the firms engaged in cyber threat intelligence and mitigation services. The question I had was, “Why are the other threat intelligence companies not picking up signals about such a large, widespread criminal operation?” Also, “What is Arkose Labs doing that other sophisticated companies and OSINT investigators not doing?” Google and In-Q-Tel invested in Recorded Future, a go to threat intelligence outfit. I don’t recall seeing, but I heard that Microsoft invested in the company, joining SoftBank’s Vision Fund and PayPal, among others.
I am delighted that “enablers” have become a more visible target of enforcement actions. More must be done, however. Poke around in ISP land and what do you find? As my lecture pointed out, “Respectable companies in upscale neighborhoods harbor enablers, so one doesn’t have to travel to Bulgaria or Moldova to do research. Silicon Valley is closer and stocked with enablers; the area is a hurricane of crime.
In closing, I ask, “Why are discoveries of this type of industrialized criminal activity unearthed by one outfit?" And, “What are the other cyber threat folks chasing?”
Stephen E Arnold, December 14, 2023
Why Modern Interfaces Leave Dinobabies Lost in Space
December 14, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Until the advent of mobile phones, I paid zero attention to interfaces. As a dinobaby, I have well-honed skills remembering strings of commands. I would pump these into the computing device via a keyboard or a script and move on with the work. Now, when a new app arrives, I resist using it. The reasons are explained quite well in “Modern iOS Navigation Patterns.” I would suggest that the craziness presented clearly in the essay be extended to any modern interface: Desktop anchor, zippy tablet, or the look-alike mobiles.
The dinobaby says, “How in the world do I send a picture to my grandson?” Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Did you learn something with the Windows phone interface?
The write up explains and illustrates the following types of “modern” iOS interfaces. I am not making these up, and I am assuming that the write up is not a modern-day Swiftian satire. Here we go:
- Structural navigation with these options or variants: Drill down, flat, pyramid, and hub and spoke
- Overlay navigations with these options or variants: High friction, low friction, and non-modal (following along?)
- Embedded navigation with these options or variants: State change, step by step, or content driven (crystal clear, right?)
Several observations. I want an interface to deliver the functions the software presents as its core functionality. I do not want changing interfaces, hidden operations, or weirdness which distracts me from the task which I wish to accomplish.
What do designers do when they have to improve an interface. Embrace one of the navigation approaches, go to meetings, decide on which to use and where. When the “new” interface comes out, poll users to get feedback. Ignore the dinobabies who say, “You are nuts because the app is unusable.”
Stephen E Arnold, December 14, 2023
Apple Harvests Old Bell Tel Ideas
December 14, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I am not a Bell head. True, my team did work at Bell Labs. In mid project, Judge Green’s order was enforced; therefore, the project morphed into a Bellcore job. I had opportunities to buy a Young Pioneer T shirt. Apple’s online store has “matured” that idea. The computer platform was one of those inviolate things. Apple is into digital chastity belts too I believe. Lose your iTunes’ password, and you are instantly transferred back to the world of Bell Tel hell if you “lost” your Western Electric 202 handset.
So what?
I read “Apple Shutters Third-Party Apps That Enabled iMessage on Android.” In my opinion, the write up says, “Apple killed a cross platform messaging application.” This is no surprise to anyone who had the experience of attending pre-Judge Green meetings. May I illustrate? In one meeting in Manhattan, the firm with which I was affiliated attended a meeting to explain a proposal and the fee for professional services. I don’t recall what my colleagues and I were pitching, I just remember the reaction to the fee. I am a dinobaby, but the remark ran along this railroad line:
A Fruit Company executive visits a user. The visit is intended to make clear that the user will suffer penalties if she continues to operate outside the rules of the orchard. That MSFT Copilot. Only three tries today to get one good enough cartoon.
That’s a big number. We may have to raise the price of long-distance calls. But you guys won’t get paid until we get enough freight cars organized. We will deliver the payment in nickels, dimes, and quarters.
Yep, a Bell head joke, believe it or not. Ho, ho, ho. Railcars filled with coins.
The write up states:
The iPhone maker said in a statement it “took steps to protect our users by blocking techniques that exploit fake credentials in order to gain access to iMessage.” It added that “these techniques posed significant risks to user security and privacy, including the potential for metadata exposure and enabling unwanted messages, spam, and phishing attacks.” The company said it would continue to make changes in the future to protect its users.
If you remember the days when a person tried to connect a non-Western Electric device into the Bell phone system, the comments were generally similar. Unauthorized devices could imperil national security or cause people to die. There you go.
As a resident of Kentucky, I am delighted that big companies want to protect me. Those Kentuckians unfortunate enough to have gobbled a certain pharma company’s medications may not believe the “protect users” argument.
As a dinobaby, I see Apple’s “protect users” play as little more than an overt and somewhat clumsy attempt to kill cross platform messaging. The motives are easy to identify:
- Protect the monopoly until Apply-pleasing terms can be put in place
- Demonstrate that the company is more powerful than an upstart innovator
- Put the government on notice that it will control its messaging platform
Oh, I almost forget. Apple wants to “protect users.” Bell/AT&T thinking has fertilized the soil in the Apple orchard in my view. I feel more protected already even though a group fired mortars at a certain meeting’s attendees, causing me to hide in a basement until the supply of shells was exhausted.
Oh, yeah, there were people who were supposed to protect me and others at the meeting. How did that work out?
Stephen E Arnold, December 13, 2023
x
x
x
Stressed Staff Equals Security Headaches
December 14, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
How many times does society need to say that happy employees mean a better, more profitable company? The world is apparently not getting the memo, because employees, especially IT workers, are overworked, stressed, exhausted, and burnt out like blackened match. While zombie employees are bad for productivity, they’re even worse for cyber security. BetaNews reports on an Adarma, a detection and response specialist company, survey, “Stressed Staff Put Enterprises At Risk Of Cyberattack.”
The overworked IT person says, “Are these sticky notes your passwords?” The stressed out professional service worker replies, “Hey, buddy, did I ask you if your company’s security system actually worked? Yeah, you are one of those cyber security experts, right? Next!” Thanks, MSFT Copilot. I don’t think you had a human intervene to create this image like you know who.
The survey responders believe they’re at a greater risk of cyberattack due to the poor condition of their employees. Five hundred cybersecurity professionals from UK companies with over 2000 employees were studied and 51% believed their IT security are dead inside. This puts them at risk of digital danger. Over 40% of the cybersecurity leaders felt that their skills were limited to understand threats. An additional 43% had little or zero expertise to respond or detect threats to their enterprises.
IT people really love computers and technology but when they’re working in an office environment and dealing with people, stress happens:
“‘Cybersecurity professionals are typically highly passionate people, who feel a strong personal sense of duty to protect their organization and they’ll often go above and beyond in their roles. But, without the right support and access to resources in place, it’s easy to see how they can quickly become victims of their own passion. The pressure is high and security teams are often understaffed, so it is understandable that many cybersecurity professionals are reporting frustration, burnout, and unsustainable stress. As a result, the potential for mistakes being made that will negatively impact an organization increases. Business leaders should identify opportunities to ease these gaps, so that their teams can focus on the main task at hand, protecting the organization,’ says John Maynard, Adarma’s CEO.”
The survey demonstrates why it’s important to diversify the cybersecurity talent pool? Wait, is this in regard to ethnicity and biological sex? Is Adarma advocating for a DEI quota in cybersecurity or is the organization advocating for a diverse talent pool with varied experience to offer differ perspectives?
While it is important to have different education backgrounds and experience, hiring someone simply based on DEI quotas is stupid. It’s failing in the US and does more harm than good.
Whitney Grace, December 14, 2023
The Cloud Kids Are Not Happy: Where Is Mom?
December 13, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
An amusing item about the trials and tribulations of a cloud techno feudalists seems appropriate today. Navigate to the paywalled story “Microsoft Has Stranglehold on the Cloud, Say Amazon and Google.” With zero irony, the write up reports:
Amazon and Google have complained to the UK’s competition regulator that their rival, Microsoft, uses practices that restrict customer choice in the £7.5 billion cloud computing market.
What’s amusing is that Google allegedly said before it lost its case related to the business practices of its online store:
“These licensing practices are the only insurmountable barrier preventing competition on the merits for new customers migrating to the cloud and for existing workloads. They lead to less choice, less innovation, and increased costs for UK customers of all sizes.”
What was Amazon’s view? According to the article:
“Microsoft changed its licensing terms in 2019 and again in 2022 to make it more difficult for customers to run some of its popular software offerings on Google Cloud, AWS and Alibaba. To use many of Microsoft’s software products with these other cloud services providers, a customer must purchase a separate license even if they already own the software. This often makes it financially unviable for a customer to choose a provider other than Microsoft.”
How similar is this finger pointing and legal activity to a group of rich kids complaining that one child has all the toys? I think the similarities are — well — similar.
The question is, “What entity will become the mom to adjudicate the selfish actions of the cloud kids?”
Stephen E Arnold, December 13, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
