A group of small advertisers suing the Menlo Park social media titan alleged in the filing that Facebook “induced” advertisers to buy video ads on its platform because advertisers believed Facebook users were watching video ads for longer than they actually were. That “unethical, unscrupulous” behavior by Facebook constituted fraud because it was “likely to deceive” advertisers, the filing alleged.
Silicon Valley Insight?
October 20, 2018
I read “Silicon Valley’s Ultimate Status Symbol Is the Sneaker — Here Are the Rare, Expensive, and Goofy Sneakers Worn by the Top Tech CEOs.” I had to check my calendar to see if I confused October 20 with April 1.
I didn’t. This is a real news story from real journalists. I suppose it is a less risky topic than some a real journalist might cover.
I noted this statement, which I assume is part of the real news arsenal of great writing tips:
the right pair of kicks is a trademark accessory carefully selected to convey a mix of power and nonchalance, creativity and exclusivity.
Yeah, gym shoes, sneakers, shoes made of fabric and synthetics by well paid workers with generous benefits.
Remarkable. I wonder why Brotopia failed to include sneaker fold outs to enliven the text about bros.
Stephen E Arnold, October 20, 2018
The War Room Fallacy: Facebook Embraces Its Confidence in Itself
October 19, 2018
I read “Facebook Opens A War Room To Fight Election Interference and Bad PR.” The idea is that a team can solve the problem of humans manipulating Facebook to change opinions, alter elections, or cause some physical or mental reaction.
In some companies, the “war room” lingo is replaced with “clear the decks” or “a SWAT team”. The idea is that a group of insiders can solve a problem. The assumption is, of course, that the insiders are able to resolve a crisis. In many cases, the crisis has been created by those insiders.
In my work career, I have found myself involved in various teams assembled to deal with a problem. One of my former colleagues who was a former TV news anchor, believed that he could solve any problem—yes, any problem—by forming a team to swarm, analyze, and resolve the issue.
I found this belief a little crazy. Consulting firms routinely employ this process clients. After all, who would pay seven figures for a group of MBAs and “really smart people” to to fix a tough problem unless the insiders were desperate. When an insider task force calls for help, the problem is a big one, and only the confidence of the consulting firm can save the day.
So whether the strike force is composed of insiders, just outside experts given the power to solve the problem, or a some hybrid group—the assumption is the same, “We can do it.”
In some cases, the special team can solve a problem, particularly if it is narrow and the team has the expertise to deal with the issue. It is unlikely that a group of MBAs could deal with the nuclear waste generated by the Fukushima disaster, for example. I would assume that the the power company has legions of strike forces at work. How are they doing? Well, check it out from a location well away from the radioactive facility.
The write up explains the Facebook approach:
20 employees — software engineers, threat intelligence and security, data scientists, researchers, lawyers and policy experts — keep their eyes glued to smaller screens. All are coiled tightly and waiting to spring into action when something untoward is spotted on the network.
Yeah, that sounds workable. Smart software cannot reliably identify and act upon weaponized information. Now 20 humans will be able to spot weaponized information and take action. Facebook has tens of millions of users posting content, and 20 people will be able to deal with the content flow? Yeah, that sounds like something a highly confident, somewhat unrealistic individual would cook up.
The article points out:
Facebook’s war room is the nerve center where the company will wage a potentially never-ending battle against disinformation and election interference.
Yeah. Disinformation. No problem.
I highlighted this statement:
The war room is a step in the right direction. It’s infinitely more important that Facebook is making strides in the battle against election interference… but stepping up its efforts — and giving the world a behind-the-scenes look — is a much-needed PR win.
Was it Mao who observed, “The longest journey begins with a single step.”
Yeah, as long as it is in the right direction. I noted the word “infinite.” That’s the scope of the Facebook problem and its strike force in the war room.
Infinite. No problem. 20 people.
Stephen E Arnold, October 19, 2018
Amazon: Not Yet Immune to Staff Push Back
October 18, 2018
I recall reading that Jeff Bezos suggested that high technology companies work for the US government. I thought about that suggestion, which was probably ignored by Google and Microsoft, when I read “I’m an Amazon Employee. My Company Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police.” Maybe Amazon will give in to employee democracy. On the other hand, the situation will be managed and employees encouraged to take one of the two paths identified below.
The write up explains (in and around the ads covering up the Medium article’s page):
A couple weeks ago, my co-workers delivered a letter to this effect, signed by over 450 employees, to Jeff Bezos and other executives. The letter also contained demands to kick Palantir, the software firm that powers much of ICE’s deportation and tracking program, off Amazon Web Services and to institute employee oversight for ethical decisions.
I am confident that these employees believe that the world’s richest man should do what a “group” of employees want.
On the other hand, Amazon has been chugging along in the policeware sector for a number of years. Rekognition and the Palantir Technologies’ use of the Amazon platform are pretty tiny fish. Amazon, as I demonstrate in my forthcoming four part series about Amazon’s policeware. (You can view the four short DarkCyber videos beginning on Tuesday, October 30, 2018. The second program becomes available on November 6, the third on November 13, and the final program on November 20.)
Amazon has an active contract with a major intelligence agency. Specialist vendors of policeware use the Amazon platform to serve their government customers with specific technology solutions. Examples range from an index of the Dark Web, social media, and the Surface Web updated hourly to crunching numbers to identify persons of interest involved in specific matters of interest to the United States. Furthermore, Amazon has been assembling or “growing” its own vendor, integrator, and contractor ecosystem. Furthermore Amazon is providing policeware services to certain UK agencies. I have heard that there is keen interest in the Amazon policeware services, the streaming data marketplace, the Sagemaker machine learning system, and the advanced analytics the company has integrated into the policeware suite. Do you think tax authorities and regulatory authorities will be interested in some of the policeware capabilities? The grousing employees are not I would wager.
Why?
Watch the DarkCyber Amazon policeware video series.
To sum up, I think that employees who object to what their employers pay them to do have some choices to make:
- Remain on the job. Do good work. Accept their paychecks, bonuses, healthcare and retirement benefits, and any perks that come their way from the employer.
- Find their future elsewhere.
- Transfer to a warehouse job in Indiana or Kentucky and enjoy the minimum wage, the facility breaks, and the opportunity to build those biceps.
i suppose I am old fashioned, but when once accepts money and has a job description which spells out what one does, I am not too keen on spending much time listening to suggestions about what products to make or what contracts to pursue.
Watch for the Amazon video series which is an exclusive on DarkCyber, my weekly news program about policeware, cybercrime, and related subjects. Links to the video will appear in this blog on each Tuesday.
Stephen E Arnold, October 18, 2018
Google: Is Technical Erosion Taking Place?
October 17, 2018
Two interesting reports caught my attention.
The first concerns the access problems experienced on October 16, 2018, with YouTube and YouTube Music. The details appear in “Back online. It’s Not Just You, YouTube and Other Google Services Are Down.” The write up states:
According to downtime tracker DownDetector, most people who are seeing the YouTube outage are in eastern and western United States and the UK. The site is seeing a very notable spike in reports of the web’s most popular video hosting site being down. Readers as far spread as Canada, India, Australia and Brazil are also reporting being affected.
Google’s infrastructure is large, complex, and subject to anomalies. Google was on top of the problem. The write up reports that Google dispatched “a team of highly trained monkeys” to rectify the glitch. Understandable, but YouTube is an ad revenue machine. The outage may have had an impact on Google Play, the pay-to-use-it service which will be available in the European Union soon. A YouTube outage is difficult to ignore even for monkeys. Did a monkey cause the problem or was it an annoying human user or a bad actor?
The second issue is related to Google’s self driving automobiles. “Google Engineer Triggered Self-Driving Car Accident That Went Unreported” asserts:
Google never publicly reported multiple autonomous vehicle crashes.
Let’s assume that the statement is accurate. The notion of a “failure to report” echoes the information in “Alphabet in the Soup for Keeping Quiet about Google Plus Data Leak Bug.” The article says:
Alphabet also failed to make investors aware that the company’s security measures “had failed recently and massively”; that they had been breached “due to employee error, malfeasance, system errors or vulnerabilities”; and that security protections had not shielded personal user data.
Google’s technology is quite good. Maybe there is no deterioration. What seems to be surfacing are examples of management decisions which are situational. I will pass these articles to the Beyond Search team compiling data about high school science club management methods.
Glitches and judgment could become the metaphorical equivalent of peanut butter and jelly, ham and eggs, or pressure and cracking in Inconel tubes.
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2018
Facebook Follies: Consistency, Completeness, and Credibility
October 17, 2018
Years ago, we set up Beyond Search so that posts were distributed to Facebook. The Beyond Search goose assumes that Facebook tracks what it can from our office in rural Kentucky. But Facebook is clogging our Overflight system with factoids and “real” news about a proud company anchored in a Harvard dorm.
For example, I learned today that Facebook said that it would not collect data via its Portal video calling service. Recode, a podcast company, that Facebook will collect data from this service and use it to target ads. One day, no use of data; a few days later, use of data. A misunderstanding or an alternative definition of consistency? The Beyond Search goose is deeply skeptical about the information flowing from Facebook. But the humans on the team love Facebook and can easily see that yes and no are exactly the same.
We also noted a report in the estimable Wall Street Journal. Apparently some advertisers misunderstood the completeness of Facebook’s reports about the number of people who watched the social media giant’s video ads. Some advertisers doubt that Facebook revealed necessary information about the efficacy of the system. With errors, the accuracy and completeness of the Facebook data are questioned. Log files can be baffling, and their data can be misinterpreted. Skeptics might suggest that click data are suggestive, not definitive. When it comes to delivering data about online traffic, complete is complete. Unless it is not. “Facebook Lured Advertisers by Inflating Ad Watch Times Up to 900 Percent: Lawsuit” asserts:
Finally, Axios reported that Facebook is delivering traffic from mobile phones to its publishing “partners.” That makes sense because online access is on its way to being the only way some people will get information, communicate with fellow humans, and output tracking data. Good news. But the Axios report suggests that “Facebook traffic to publishers is down.” Some traffic up, some down. Due to the credibility which clings to Facebook data like lint to black socks on a winter’s morn, it seems as if Facebook is chugging along. Chug, chug goes the credibility engine.
Net net: Facebook manifests itself as an outfit which behaves in a consistent manner, outputs complete information when asked, and maintains a posture which evokes credibility.
The Beyond Search goose believes this.
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2018
Google and IBM: Me Too Marketing or a Coincidence?
October 15, 2018
I noted this article: “Google AI Researchers Find Strange New Reason to Play Jeopardy.” What caught my attention was the introduction of the TV game show which featured IBM Watson stomping mere humans in a competition. I dismissed the human versus machine as a Madison Avenue ad confection. IBM wanted to convince the folks in West Virginia and rural Kentucky that Watson smart software was bigger than college basketball.
I think it worked. It allowed me to crank out write ups poking fun at the cognitive computing assertion, the IBM billion dollar revenue target, and the assorted craziness of IBM’s ever escalating assertions about the efficacy of Watson. I even pointed out that humans had to figure out the content used to “train” Watson and then fiddle with digital knobs and levers to get the accuracy up to snuff. The behind the scenes work was hidden from the Madison Avenue creatives; the focus was on the sizzle, not the preparatory work in the knowledge abattoir.
The Googlers have apparently discovered Jeopardy. I learned that Google uses Jeopardy to inform its smart software about reformulating questions. Here’s a passage I highlighted:
Active Question Answering,” or Active QA, as the TensorFlow package is called, will reformulate a given English-language question into multiple different re-wordings, and find the variant that does best at retrieving an answer from a database.
I am not going to slog through the history of query parsing. The task is an important one, and in my opinion, without providing precise indexing such as “company type” and other quite precise terms, queries go off base. The elimination of explicit Boolean has put the burden on query processors figuring out what humans mea when they type a query using the word “terminal” for instance. Is it a computer terminal or is it a bus terminal. No indexing? Well, smart software which looks up data in a dynamic table will do the job in a fine, fine way. What if one wants to locate a white house? Is it the DC residence of the president or is it the term for Benjamin Moore house paint when one does not know 2126-70?
Well, Google has embraced Jeopardy to make its smart software smarter and ignore the cost, time, and knowledge work of creating controlled term lists, assigning and verifying index accuracy, and fine grained indexing to deal with the vagaries of language.
So, Google seems to have hit upon the idea of channeling IBM Watson.
But I recalled seeing this article: “Google AI Can Spot Advanced Breast Cancer More Effectively Than Humans.” That reminded me of IBM Watson’s message carpet bombing about the efficacy of Big Blue cancer fighting. The only problem was that articles like “IBM Pitched Its Watson Supercomputer As a Revolution in Cancer Care. It’s Nowhere Close” Continue to Appear.”
Is Google channeling IBM’s marketing?
My hypothesis is that Google is either consciously or unconsciously tilling an already prepped field for marketing touch points. IBM did Jeopardy; Google does Jeopardy with the question understanding twist. IBM did cancer; Google does a specific type of cancer better than humans and, obviously, better than IBM Watson.
So what? My thought is that Google is shifting its marketing gears. In the process, the Google-dozer is dragging its sheep’s’ foot roller across the landscape slowly recovering from IBM’s marketing blitzes.
Will this work?
Hey, Google, like Amazon, wants to be the 21st century IBM. Who knows? I thank both companies for giving me some new fodder for my real live goats which can walk away from behemoth smart machines reworking the information landscape.
Here’s a thought? Google is more like IBM than it realizes.
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2018
HSSCM Method: Update for October 10, 2018
October 10, 2018
The management methods inspired by high school science club behaviors are noteworthy. The goose calls these HSSCM methods or “high school science club management methods” to honor the behaviors of individuals who loved technology but were unfettered by such non essentials as football practice, the student council, and working as a volunteer at the retirement facility near the high school. Chemistry, math, physics, biology—the future.
Two items caught the Beyond Search goose’s attention this fine day.
First, the goose noted “Leaked Transcript of Private Meeting Contradicts Google’s Official Story on China.” The source is one of the popular real news sources associated with some NSA related information. The point of the write up, which the goose assumes is spot on, is:
On Sept. 26, a Google executive faced public questions on the censorship plan for the first time. Keith Enright told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee that there “is a Project Dragonfly,” but said “we are not close to launching a product in China.” When pressed to give specific details, Enright refused, saying that he was “not clear on the contours of what is in scope or out of scope for that project.”
Okay, that seems clear.
And, on September 23, 2018, a Googler said:
“Right now, all we’ve done is some exploration,” Gomes told the reporter, “but since we don’t have any plans to launch something, there’s nothing much I can say about it.”
The hitch in the git along surfaces in this comment from the write up:
In July, Gomes had informed employees that the plan was to launch the search engine as soon as possible — and to get it ready to be “brought off the shelf and quickly deployed” once approval from Beijing was received.
The HSSCM method is to say different things to different audiences. That seems similar to practices followed in the high school science clubs with which I am familiar. For example, “Did you hot wire the PA system to play rock and roll during Mr. Durham’s morning announcements?” Our sci club leader said, “No.”
Did not fly.
The second high school science club management method the goose spotted appeared in the real news story “Facebook Isn’t Sorry — It Just Wants Your Data.” Facebook, a firm which has been associated with Cambridge Analytica and the phrase “I’m sorry,” allegedly has created what BuzzFeed calls a “home surveillance device.”
We noted this statement in the write up:
It’s also further confirmation that Facebook isn’t particularly sorry for its privacy failures — despite a recent apology tour that included an expensive “don’t worry, we got this” mini-documentary, full-page apology ads in major papers, and COO Sheryl Sandberg saying things like, “We have a responsibility to protect your information. If we can’t, we don’t deserve it.” Worse, it belies the idea that Facebook has any real desire to reckon with the structural issues that obviously undergird its continued privacy missteps.
The HSSCM method is to do exactly what the science club wants. Need to experiment on pets, not frogs, as part of the biology course of study, have at it. I recall one of our science club members tried this stunt until the teacher learned that the student was expanding beyond the normal frog dissection.
These examples suggest that one just say what’s necessary to be left along. Then move forward. Fortunately the Beyond Search goose (a member, of course) evaded being cooked.
MBA programs may not have textbooks which explain the benefits of this approach. On the other hand, maybe the schools with forward looking professors do.
Stephen E Arnold, October 10, 2018
HSSCM Update: Two Little Used Methods
October 9, 2018
In the wake of the sinking of Google Plus, I wanted to highlight two HSSCM methods. You may recall that I use the acronym to mean “High School Science Club Management” to refer to the type of decision making found in secondary school extra curricular programs for students who perceive themselves as being pretty darned smart. I even ran a snap of me in my high school science club. We were a stellar group. Some PhDs, some published authors, and some pretty weird, anti social type dudes if I say so myself.
The first item concerns the apple of Amazon’s eye: the JEDI project for the Department of Defense. I learned from a highly reliable purveyor of information of real news that “Google Drops Out of Pentagon’s $10 Billion Cloud Competition.” That will make the day for some of the folks who labor in the Google’s DC vineyards really happy. Think of the many opportunities to explain, apologize, and reposition. On the other hand, Amazon may try to hire a couple of these Googlers. Getting some types of US government work might be tough.
What’s the management method? Well, surprise for starters. Also, creating enmity among those engaged in the RFP and procurement process. Plus, a clear signal that Google can and will change its mind on what has been a multi year process. Definitely sends a message. Just like the science club president in my high school who said, “Who wants to go to the prom? I have to work at the observatory that night?”
The second item concerns the Google Plus arabesque. If you want to get my take on the non management aspects of that exciting development, navigate to the story at this link.
The management method I want to highlight is revealed in the real news source the Wall Street Journal. You will have to pay to view the write up “Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public.” The main idea is the failure to notify. In my high school science club, I recall the time we broadcast the tune “Great Balls of Fire over the public address system.” We did not tell anyone we did it. Unfortunately it was highly unlikely that members of the football team or the wrestling team pulled off the stunt. As far as I know, our science club had the future electrical engineers in our quasi elite outfit. Google, in its wisdom, figured that keeping quiet was a prudent move.
The HSSCM method is to use exceptional judgment, ignore the advice of those who might have a different viewpoint, and create an opportunity for Google executives to explain themselves in a number of high profile venues. Will this question come up in a Congressional session? Maybe?
Net net: MBA courses can include these HSSCM methods as part of their initiative to reverse sagging enrollments.
Stephen E Arnold, October 9, 2018
Google and Social Media: An Orkut for 2018
October 9, 2018
The Google knew that it lacked person specific information at scale. Sure, the company had browser histories, ad click data, and info generated by cross correlation—but it was not specifically:
- An individual
- The personal details of that individual
- The connections (friends I suppose) of an individual
Also, the individual did not have a unique identifier. Think of this as a Google issued social security number.
The fix was to acquire Orkut and solve these data problems.
Orkut found some traction. If you follow Brazilian law enforcement, Orkut became a service of interest and utility. After a long slow decline, Orkut faded in 2014.
But Google had other “social media” designs; for example, those crazy folks from New York City playing Dodgeball. Then there was Jaiku. Too bad there was not a Jaiku-er in chief like Twitter enjoys today. Next up was Wave, which I found interesting. Anyone remember Googler Alon Halevy’s Transformic ideas? And Buzz? What about Buzz?
Now — drum roll — Google Plus or the service which killed the ability to specify AND in Boolean Google search syntax is heading down the Google sliding board.
I recall that Google Plus or Google + (isn’t that clever? using a reserved character for a name) was the future of Google. In its early days, there were 500 employees working on Google Plus, but that number grew. As I understand it, one’s compensation was linked to one’s outputs for Google Plus. Forbes calculated that in its formative stage, Google shoveled about $500 million into the service that would deliver particularized data. See “Google+ Cost $585 Million To Build (Or What Rupert Paid For MySpace).”
What’s up with Google Plus?
An alleged security lapse or gap (you decide which word fits the situation) has caused Google Plus to do a simple math process. Convert that plus to a minus. Works.
Buzzfeed News— a real news source — reported that “Google Is Shutting Down Google+ After It Discovered A Bug That Exposed Personal Information.” It seems that the security conscious company included a “breach” which shared user’s private data with apps. (More info on this at this link.)
Several observations/questions:
First, Google seems to struggle with the social media thing. It does sell online advertising, but the Facebook-type of service is a struggle. The me-too and let’s acquire approach simply has not worked. I hesitate to use the word “failure.” Maybe challenge is better?
Second, why did a security breach occur? My personal view is that people embrace projects, work on them, hunt for more interesting projects, and move on. Over time, the projects are lost in a mist of “non coolness.” Bugs are ignored; interface decisions are good enough; and interns make decisions, saying, “Wow, Google thinks I am smart. I can do this!” Right on, worker bee, right on.
Third, Google’s social media plays have been created as world services. Facebook was a dating app for a couple of Harvard whiz kids. Google’s social has been reactionary, rarely moving in a positive manner to an attainable goal. No wonder people on the team chugged along for a while and then headed off to more fun projects. Being a perpetual number two to Facebook is galling. Many Googlers just went to Google, including some high profile Googlers like its chief operating officer.
Fourth, why wasn’t security better? My view is that security has been perceived as “part of the Googleplex.” Obviously it wasn’t, and none of the Googlers realized it. Perhaps they were too busy running from meeting to meeting, looking for another assignment, starting venture capital firms, playing table tennis, or updating their Facebook page. Priorities can be a challenge.1
Net net: Google Plus may live on in a different role, sort of like Google Glass has become a super industrial and business success.
What happens if I view Google Plus through Google Glass?
I see a winner.
Stephen E Arnold, October 9, 2018
Google and the UK iPhone Data Matter: Do People Understand Digital Information?
October 8, 2018
I noted this ThomsonReuters’ real news story: “London Court Blocks Google Mass Legal Action over iPhone Data Collection.”
The main idea, as I understand it, was to accuse Google of obtaining details from iPhone users’ browsing data. In order to accomplish this access, Google sidestepped the iPhone privacy settings.
The court seems to think that the charge against Google did not hold water. (An interesting question to consider is, “Why?” What are the benefits of such collection?)
Richard Lloyd, the activist who brought the suit, allegedly said:
“Google’s business model is based on using personal data to target adverts to consumers and they must ask permission before using this data. The court accepted that people did not give permission in this case yet slammed the door shut on holding Google to account.”
This information complements the information in ABC.net’s story “Border Agents Can Demand Access to Your Digital Device — Here’s What to Say If It Happens to You.”
As we noted in a recent DarkCyber video, government authorities know that data on mobile devices can illuminate some types of activities. Access to digital data on mobile devices is not limited to one or two nations.
There are several schools of thought about obtaining and analyzing digital data. What is interesting to Beyond Search is that the value of usage data was known from the earliest days of the online industry.
That means that this ThomsonReuters story is reporting about activity which has been chugging along since the late 1960s. (How many years has ThomsonReuters been collecting and analyzing digital information? Think in terms of decades, gentle reader. Why? Digital data invites collection and analysis. It is part of the digital revolution.)
Beyond Search’s view is that analysis and decision making based on usage data are inherent in online activity. What is interesting is that it has taken about 50 years for those using online to begin to think about this difference between print media and online media are.
There are other aspects of online information which are not understood and documented; for example:
- The economics of online data. More expensive than print and more difficult to monetize; therefore, the “free” model and online ads (visible and invisible)
- The corrosive power of flows of digital information. Print accretes for high value information; online erodes high value information. Hence, there is not fix for fake news; the phenomenon goes with the territory.
- Provenance. It is hard, time consuming, expensive, and tedious, to figure out connections in printed information. Provenance in digital content becomes a plastic, easily manipulated characteristic. “Facts” are fluid when converted to zeros and ones.
- Collection. Digital data is easy to store and easier to analyze in both historical and real time. Print is a different kettle of fish.
There are other attributes as well. Over the years, I have tried to identify and explain these. Good luck finding those articles. I don’t plan on digging through my files to find the more than 80 article and columns I have written about digital information.
Why?
Old age and my general fatigue that people are surprised by what struck me as obvious more than half a century ago.
Are mobile phones transmitters and receivers? Duh.
Stephen E Arnold, October 8, 2018
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
