Being Googley: Is the Chrome Browser at Risk in Some SolarWinds?
April 15, 2022
I read “Google Issues Third Emergency Fix for Chrome This Year.” The main idea is that Google is pumping out software which appears to invite bad actors to a no-rules party. The article states:
The emergency updates the company issued this week impact the almost 3 billion users of its Chrome browser as well as those using other Chromium-based browsers, such as Microsoft Edge, Brave and Vivaldi. It is the third such emergency update Google has had to issue for Chrome this year.
Yeah, the browser thing.
Several observations:
- If a wildly popular Google output cannot be made secure, what about the services and software which are less engineer “rich”?
- Does Google deserve the scrutiny that Microsoft and other alleged monopolies attracts? Google has been “off the radar” compared with other companies in the last couple of years it seems.
- What will bad actors do with the signal that three security updates have been issued, and we have not made it to the summer solstice? My thought is that computer science students in some Eastern European countries will be getting some new homework assignments.
Like other large companies, making any security issue public poses risks: There are stakeholders, there are legal eagles, and there are those fresh faced, motivated students in countries which crank out capable programmers and engineers. Some of these individuals may find that exploit creation provides a way to spin up some extra cash.
How many of these individuals are available on gig work sites? What information is flowing through private Telegram groups? The limping Dark Web still has some interesting for a too.
Net net: What Googley vulnerabilities exist which have not been disclosed? How many weak spots exist in the Google just waiting for a bright person to exploit? We know what the article reports, and that information begs more difficult questions.
Stephen E Arnold, April 15, 2022
Google Hits Microsoft in the Nose: Alleges Security Issues
April 15, 2022
The Google wants to be the new Microsoft. Google wanted to be the big dog in social media. How did that turn out? Google wanted to diversify its revenue streams so that online advertising was not the main money gusher. How did that work out? Now there is a new dust up, and it will be more fun than watching the antics of coaches of Final Four teams. Go, Coach K!
The real news outfit NBC published “Attacking Rival, Google Says Microsoft’s Hold on Government Security Is a Problem.” The article presents as actual factual information:
Jeanette Manfra, director of risk and compliance for Google’s cloud services and a former top U.S. cybersecurity official, said Thursday that the government’s reliance on Microsoft — one of Google’s top business rivals — is an ongoing security threat. Manfra also said in a blog post published Thursday that a survey commissioned by Google found that a majority of federal employees believe that the government’s reliance on Microsoft products is a cybersecurity vulnerability.
There you go. A monoculture is vulnerable to parasites and other predations. So what’s the fix? Replace the existing monoculture with another one.
That’s a Googley point of view from Google’s cloud services unit.
And there are data to back up this assertion, at least data that NBC finds actual factual; for instance:
Last year, researchers discovered 21 “zero-days” — an industry term for a critical vulnerability that a company doesn’t have a ready solution for — actively in use against Microsoft products, compared to 16 against Google and 12 against Apple.
I don’t want to be a person who dismisses the value of my Google mouse pad, but I would offer:
- How are the anti ad fraud mechanisms working?
- What’s the issue with YouTube creators’ allegations of algorithmic oddity?
- What’s the issue with malware in approved Google Play apps?
- Are the incidents reported by Firewall Times resolved?
Microsoft has been reasonably successful in selling to the US government. How would the US military operate without PowerPoint slide decks?
From my point of view, Google’s aggressive security questions could be directed at itself? Does Google do the know thyself thing? Not when it comes to money is my answer. My view is that none of the Big Tech outfits are significantly different from one another.
Stephen E Arnold, April 15, 2022
StreetView AI Protects Privacy of Canadian Sasquatch Statue
April 15, 2022
Here is an amusing AI edge case that could have benefitted from a helping human hand. The Vernon Morning Star reports, “Sasquatch Censored? Harrison’s Landmark Carving is Camera Shy in Google StreetView’s Eyes.” Writer Adam Louis tells us:
“Local Facebook groups were amused by a quirk of the interactive map-making technology that normally blurs the faces of people pictured in StreetView pictures. According to an observation originally posted on Twitter from CBC Vancouver municipal affairs reporter Justin McElroy, it seems the face-hiding feature also works on large wooden statues; the grinning face of the iconic Sasquatch statue that sits outside the welcome sign at the entrance of Harrison Hot Springs has also been blurred.”
Of course, automatically blurring human faces is StreetView’s default policy. It could be considered a complement to the sculptor that their work fooled the algorithm. Though that unnamed artist or other Sasquatch enthusiasts may want to see the mistake reversed, it seems to be set in stone. The write-up notes:
“While there is a link that allows users to report items for additional blurring – whether it’s a car, house or person – there does not appear to be a way to request a person or object to be un-blurred. Answers in Google Maps Help forums largely agree that once blurring is done, it’s permanent and irreversible.”
Curious readers need not travel to the Harrison River Valley to view the statue’s face, however. As of this writing, a photo of is featured at the top of the Sasquatch Trail web page.
Cynthia Murrell, April 15, 2022
If True, This Google Story Is Like a Stuck 45 RPM Disc
April 8, 2022
I don’t know if the information in “DeepMind Accused of Mishandling Sexual Misconduct Allegations” is spot on. The source is supposed to be one of those unimpeachable bastions of high brow journalism. (I won’t hold the Endeca search implementation up as evidence of making interesting decisions.) You will have to pay to read the source article unless you have access at the local news stand to a fungible copy of the orange thing.
The main idea in the write up is like the old hit Rag Mop stuck in a groove. You know, Rag Mop, Rag Mop, R A G G M O P P, Rag Mop? An ear worm with piranha teeth. Not a Candiru, but nasty nevertheless.
I noted this assertion:
A former DeepMind employee has accused the artificial intelligence group’s leadership of mishandling multiple allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment, raising concerns over how grievances are dealt with at the Google-acquired company.
Juicy details are not included. The approach parallels the lack of color related to the attempted suicide by a Xoogler. This particular female hooked up with Google’s Icarus, burned a family, and suicidally unlatched her safety belt. Gravity, not the Thomas Pynchon type of rainbow, presented itself.
I spotted some hint of Google’s management tactics; to wit:
Julia [this is a fake name to protect the individual making the assertion of wonky behavior] has argued that there are major flaws in how grievances such as hers are handled at DeepMind. Alleged failures include extended delays in workplace investigations and insufficient safeguarding of sexual assault victims.
Are these characteristics of a Silicon Valley type company channeling the decision making of adolescent high school science club members?
The orange newspaper slipped in some thought provoking comments; for instance:
She was also emailed a six-page confessional document by the researcher, written in the third person, on August 18 2019. The document detailed suicidal tendencies, allusions to raping unconscious women, and sex addiction indicated by reference to a string of affairs with sex workers during work hours, and with colleagues on and off DeepMind premises. Another document sent to her on September 19 2019 included graphic and degrading sexual depictions of her.
I like the use of email by an alleged Google DeepMind individual. I wonder if this particular wizard understands the concept of legal discovery?
The write up includes some details about Google DeepMind’s administrative procedures and the alacrity which some issues are addressed. If I understand the source article, we’re not talking millisecond response time. Weeks seems to be the basic unit of time.
One may want to keep in mind that one of DeepMind’s founders moved on in the time period about which the Julia persona encountered some science club analyses of outlier work behavior.
Same repetitive phrases. Here’s an example my tin ear caught:
DeepMind said it was unable to comment on that latter case but added: “Any incident of sexual assault or harassment is abhorrent and it’s unacceptable that anyone at DeepMind or in the world should experience it.”
R A G G M O P P, Rag Mop. Do doo doo, dah dee ah dah Rag Mop.
Stephen E Arnold, April 8, 2022
Google YouTube Search Working the Way Alphabet Wants?
April 8, 2022
The online news service Mashable may be in gear for April’s Fool Day early. The story “YouTube Added 1,500 Free Movies, But Good Luck Finding Them” makes clear that Google YouTube search doesn’t work.
The write up reports:
YouTube has also made browsing its free titles much more annoying than it needed to be. The platform won’t just show you all its free titles and let you scroll through them to find your next binge watch. It certainly won’t let you filter them, so you can’t narrow your search to all of YouTube’s free action movies, or free romantic comedies. Rather, YouTube’s algorithm selects a few hundred ad-supported titles to show you in its “free to watch movies” section, hiding the rest.
The Mashable take is definitely not Googley. A new age, Silicon Valley like information service should be able to make sense of Google YouTube’s brilliant approach. A casual user will have access to some, smart software selected content. The desire for a way to browse a comprehensive result set is irrelevant. The Googley person will recognize:
- Paying for Google’s TV service delivers a better experience. Presumably that experience includes a listing of available content. On second thought, I am kidding myself. Smart software does not understand exceptions unless the system was trained to implement fine grained user classification.
- There are Google Dorks available to make quick work of narrowing Google result sets. Not familiar with Google Dorks? Well, certain individuals in Russia are and possibly a bright 12 year old near your home has this expertise.
- The results you see represent “all the world’s information.” The fact that you have knowledge which indicates a partial result set makes one point and only one point: You take what you get.
- Oh, those contractors and interns are enhancing the search experience again whilst doing no evil.
I hope this explains why Mashable does not understand the brilliant method Google uses to remain in close contact with its humanoid users.
Stephen E Arnold, April 8, 2022
Google: Who Makes the Tweaks? Smart Software or Humanoids?
April 7, 2022
I read “Google Tweaks Search and News Results to Direct People to Trusted Sources.” The main idea is that Google wants to do good. Instead of letting people read any old news, the Google “will offer information literacy tips and highlight widely cited source.” That was quick. Google News became available in 2002. Let’s see. My math is no too good, but that sure looks like more than a week ago.
How are the tweaks implemented? That’s a good question. The write up reports:
Since last June, the company has applied labels to results for “rapidly evolving topics,” which include things like breaking news and viral videos that are spreading quickly. It may suggest checking back later for more details as they become clearer. Starting in the US (in English) today, the labels will include some information literacy tips.
Right. Google and it. Are the changes implemented by Snorkelized software learns on the fly what news is not Google quality? Or, will actual Googlers peruse news and decide what’s okay and what needs to be designated l’ordure?
My bet is on one thing. Google’s many protestations that its algorithms do the heavy lifting is a useful way to put on a ghillie suit and disappear from the censorship, editing, and down checking of the inferior information.
If my assumption is incorrect, I can protest and look for my pen. I am 77 and prone to forgetfulness. Google has digital ghillies. Lucky outfit.
Stephen E Arnold, April 7, 2022
Google: Pesky Memories of the Past
April 7, 2022
We suppose some people will never understand or accept Googley ways of working. Namely European regulators. Similarly, Google may never accept the EU has any authority over its business practices. TechCrunch reports, “Google Sued in Europe for $2.4BN in Damages Over Shopping Antitrust Case.” Writer Natasha Lomas reveals:
“Google is being sued in Europe on competition grounds by price comparison service PriceRunner which is seeking at least €2.1 billion (~2.4 billion) in damages. The lawsuit accuses Google of continuing to breach a 2017 European Commission antitrust enforcement order against Google Shopping. As well as fining Google what was — at the time — a record-breaking antitrust penalty (€2.42 billion), the EU’s competition division ordered the search giant to cease illegal behaviors, after finding it Google giving prominent placement to its own shopping comparison service while simultaneously demoting rivals in organic search results.”
But cease those behaviors it did not, though it made a gesture or two in that direction. Meanwhile, according to Sky News, Google tried to sidestep the ruling with fake comparison sites packed with ads for their clients’ products running alongside the Google Shopping box. Very creative. The platform also continues to run product search ads alongside general search results. Apparently, PriceRunner decided five years of flouting the enforcement order was enough. The write-up continues:
“PriceRunner’s lawsuit alleges Google has continued to violate competition law in relation to product search, as well as seeking compensation for historical infringements that have allowed Google to reap revenue at rivals’ expense. To back up its allegations, the search comparison company points to a study conducted by accountancy company, Grant Thornton, which it says found prices for offers shown in Google’s own comparison shopping service can be 16-37% higher for popular categories like clothes and shoes, and between 12-14% higher for other types of products vs rival price comparison services.”
Many of our readers will not be surprised to learn Google search continues to dominate in Europe. It maintains a greater than 90% market share in most of the European Economic Area and in the U.K. Nevertheless, PriceRunner is prepared to fight for many years, if necessary, with help from litigation funder Nivalion. We shall see whether the suit gets anywhere, but either way we suspect Google will continue with business as usual.
Cynthia Murrell, April 7, 2022
Do The Google AI Claims Grow Like a Pinocchio Body Part?
April 6, 2022
“Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540 Billion Parameters for Breakthrough Performance” is a variant of the Google quantum supremacy announcement. Bigger, better, faster, more powerful, able to leap problems with a single tap on the Enter key. The graphic in the Google AI Blog post does grow. Didn’t Carlo Collodi cook up a dummy. The chief feature — other than teaching some how not to lie — was that the marketing was handled by Walt Disney. Like IBM’s humorous announcement that a mainframe could defeat a quantum computer’s ability to crack encryption, a claim pointed at something not invented yet is interesting. Are those marketing people at Google and IBM mentally enervated by swigs of Five Hour Energy?
Like a certain fictional character’s nose and the anigif in the blog post, the claims continue to grow.
I looked at this graphic closely. I noted a few omissions; for example:
- A mechanism to report the incidence of outliers or exceptions between the baseline system and the state of the system after iterating over a period of a month
- Any reference to bias identification and amelioration. This is Dr. Timnit Gebru territory, and this landscape is one that Google appears to ignore, at least in public. In private negotiations and legal chambers, maybe the Google addresses the baked in biases? Maybe not?
- Any reference to the handling of images, content, videos that are related to sexual harassment; for instance, allegations about personnel issues at Google and DeepMind themselves?
- Data about the accuracy of the outputs? Are we in 95 percentile territory or close enough for horse shoes and ad matching?
The write up uses a number of buzzwords, some Google jargon, and quite a few links to other Google documents and experts at Microsoft and NVidia. I am convinced. I believe everything I read on the Internet and Google’s blogs.
Three observations:
First, what’s at stake in my opinion is dominance if possible of off the shelf smart methods. Consolidation is the name of the game, and Google wants to beat out Amazon, Microsoft, assorted China backed outfits, and any other challengers who want to go a different direction. Not every company wants to SAIL down a certain flow of methods.
Second, Google is — bless its single revenue stream — embracing Madison Avenue techniques to convince people that it is the Big Dog in smart methods: New, improved, money back guarantee, and free trial sell toothpaste. Why not Google AI?
Third, Google — despite the alleged monopoly position — is struggling with the what’s next? Legal hassles, management practices, competition from nuisance companies like Amazon, competition for technical talent, hard to control costs — These are real issues at the Alphabet Google YouTube construct.
At end of a Silicon Valley day, some in Mountain View see Google as a one trick pony. It seems far fetched, but it looks as if Steve Ballmer may have been spot on with that one-trick pony metaphor. And there is Pinocchio’s nose.
Stephen E Arnold, April 6, 2022
What about the Alphabet Google DeepMind Personnel Zeitgeist? The What?
April 5, 2022
Ah, has, do you remember that zeitgeist (a popular word among some college student embroiled in German philosophy)? Zeitgeist apparently means “to a form of supraindividual mind at work in the world and developed in the cultural world view which pervades the ideas, outlooks, and emotions of a specific culture in a particular historical period.” But you knew that, right? Supraindividual. Cultural world. Pervasive in a specific culture. Let’s accept this Psychology Dictionary definition and move forward, shall we?
“Google AI Unit’s High Ideals Are Tainted With Secrecy” captures the spirit of Alphabet Google DeepMind implicit systems and methods for personnel management. (You may have to pay to view this story. The collection of money befits the cowboy-hatted Big Dog who has an interest in the real news outputs of the Washington Post.) The main idea in the write up is less that Google is secretive and more that Google makes situational decisions and refused to talk about the thought process behind them. Surprise? Nope.
The write up states:
The former DeepMind employee wrote that she was threatened with disciplinary action if she spoke about her complaint with her manager or other colleagues. And the process of the company’s sending her notes and responding to her allegations took several months, during which time the person she reported was promoted and received a company award. DeepMind said in a statement that while it “could have communicated better throughout the grievance process,” a number of factors including the Covid pandemic and the availability of the parties involved contributed to delays.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda — perfect in grade school explanations about a failure, less impressive from a very large, super sophisticated outfit with smart software and wizards occupying hip workspaces. (What about those cubbies for people which allow a door to be closed? Privacy, please!)
The write up includes another of those “we don’t want to remember that” moments. This is the Mustafa Suleyman lateral arabesque. You can visit the real news source for the apparently interesting details. I must admit this incident is cut from the same fabric as the baby making in Google legal and the hooker/drug matter on a yacht called Escape. For some color around this matter, see this CBS report.
I loved this passage about one allegedly harassed Googler’s alleged interactions with co workers:
DeepMind said it is “digesting” its former employee’s open letter to understand what further action it should take. A bold and positive step would be to remove the confidentiality clauses in harassment settlements.
Consequences? Presumably authorities are letting the information work through their bureaucratic intestines. The good news: No attempted suicide, no heroin, no divorces and fatherless children, and no death — this time. Alphabet Google DeepMind want to benefit humanity. That’s great. But the Googley zeitgeist reveals the spirit of the firm in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, April 5, 2022
When Filtering Is Not Enough: Google Lobbies
April 4, 2022
Lawmakers are finally getting serious about curbing the prodigious power of large tech firms. Google, for one, is fighting back with a resource it has in abundance: money. MarketScreener briefly reports, “Google U.S. Lobbying Jumps 27% as Lawmakers Aim to Rein In Big Tech.” The increase brings the company’s 2021 lobbying expenditure to $9.6 million. Writers Diane Bartz and Paresh Dave observe:
“That’s far below the more than $20 million it spent in 2018 but more than the $7.53 million that went to lobbying in 2020. Google spent $2.2 million on lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2021. Google’s lobbying spend dipped in 2020 as it restructured its government relations teams. The biggest technology companies, including Amazon.com Inc, Meta Platforms Inc’s Facebook and Apple Inc, have been under pressure in Congress over allegations they abused their outsized market power. A long list of bills have been introduced aimed at reining them in, but none have become law.”
Not yet, but one significant bill did recently pass the Senate Judiciary Committee. Will Google’s and other companies’ lobbyists succeed in stopping it and similar legislation? We are sure they will do their best to fulfill their oh-so-lucrative contracts.
Cynthia Murrell, April 4, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
