Need a Human for Special Work? Just Buy One Maybe?
December 29, 2022
Is it possible to purchase a person? Judging from the rumors I have heard in rural Romania, outside the airport in Khartoum, and in a tavern in Tirana — I would suggest that the answer is “possibly.” The Times of London is not into possibilities if the information in “Maids Trafficked and Sold to Wealthy Saudis on Black Market” is accurate. Keep in mind that I am mindful of what I call open source information blindspots. Shaped, faked, and weaponized information is now rampant.
The article focuses on an ecommerce site called Haraj.sa. The article explains:
[The site] Saudi Arabia’s largest online marketplace, through which a Times investigation shows that hundreds of domestic workers are being illegally trafficked and sold to the highest bidders.
Furthermore, the Times adds:
The app, which had 2.5 million visits last year — more than Amazon or AliExpress within the kingdom — is still available on the Apple and Google Play stores despite being criticised by the UN’s Special Rapporteurs in 2020 for facilitating modern slavery.
If true, the article is likely to make for some uncomfortable days as the world swings into 2023; specifically:
- The Saudi government
- Apple
- Assorted law enforcement professionals.
If the information in the write up is accurate, several of the newspaper’s solicitors will be engaged in conversations with other parties’ solicitors. I assume that there will be some conversations in Mayfair and Riyadh about the article. Will Interpol become curious? Probably.
Let’s step back and ask some different questions. I am assuming that some of the information in the article is “correct”; that is, one can verify screenshots or chase down the source of the information. Maybe the lead journalist will consent to an interview on a true crime podcast. Whatever.
Consider these questions:
- Why release the story at the peak of some countries’ holiday season? Is the timing designed to minimize or emphasize the sensitive topic of alleged slavery, the Kingdom’s conventions, or the apparent slipshod app review process at controversial US high technology companies?
- What exactly did or does Apple and Google know about the app for the Haraj marketplace? If the Times’ story is accurate, what management issue exists at each of these large, but essential to some, companies?
- Is the ecommerce site operating within the Kingdom’s cultural norms or is the site itself breaking outside legal guidelines? What does Saudi Arabia say about this site?
To sum up, human trafficking is a concern for many individuals, government entities, and non-governmental organizations. I keep coming back to the question “Why now?” The article states:
Apple said: “We strictly prohibit the solicitation or promotion of illegal behaviour, including human trafficking and child exploitation, in the App Store and across every part of our business. We take any accusations or claims around this behaviour very seriously.” Google declined to comment. Haraj, Saudi Arabia’s human rights commission and the government have been contacted for a response.
Perhaps taking more time to obtain comments would have been useful? What’s the political backstory for the disclosure of the allegedly accurate information during the holiday season? Note that the story is behind a paywall which further limits its diffusion.
Net net: Many questions have I.
Stephen E Arnold, December 29, 2022
How Regulation Works: Irritate Taylor Swift and Find Out
December 29, 2022
Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation have been scamming consumers for decades. There was a lawsuit in the 2010s about inflated service fees that Ticketmaster lost. Plaintiffs were awarded gift certificates with minuscule amounts that could not be combined and had expiration dates. The bigger question, Engadget asks, is why did it take a poster to force the federal government into action: “Ticketmaster’s Taylor Swift Fiasco Sparks Senate Antitrust Hearing.”
Ticketmaster screwed up tickets for Taylor Swift’s first tour in five years. The ticket seller’s systems were overwhelmed by fourteen million people, including bots, when tickers went up for sale. Ticketmaster’s Web site was hit with 3.5 million system requests.
Ticketmaster informed Swift they could handle the mass of fans, but she was “pissed off” when they failed.
“Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mike Lee (R-UT), the chair and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust and Consumer Rights, have announced a hearing to gather evidence on competition in the ticketing industry. They have yet to confirm when the hearing will take place or the witnesses that the committee will call upon.”
New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated Live Nation should be broken up. The US government has been investigating Live Nation’s monopoly for several months, but the Swift fiasco has garnered the issue more public attention.
Ticketmaster was sued in the past for similar issues and the company lost. Why is Live Nation allowed to continue its poor business practices?
Whitney Grace, December 29, 2022
Surprise: TikTok Reveals Its Employees Can View European User Data
December 28, 2022
What a surprise. The Tech Times reports, “TikTok Says Chinese Employees Can Access Data from European Users.” This includes workers not just within China, but also in Brazil, Canada, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States. According to The Guardian, TikTok revealed the detail in an update to its privacy policy. We are to believe it is all in the interest of improving the users’ experience. Writer Joseph Henry states:
“According to ByteDance, TikTok’s parent firm, accessing the user data can help in improving the algorithm performance on the platform. This would mean that it could help the app to detect bots and malicious accounts. Additionally, this could also give recommendations for content that users want to consume online. Back in July, Shou Zi Chew, a TikTok chief executive clarified via a letter that the data being accessed by foreign staff is a ‘narrow set of non-sensitive’ user data. In short, if the TikTok security team in the US gives a green light for data access, then there’s no problem viewing the data coming from American users. Chew added that the Chinese government officials do not have access to these data so it won’t be a big deal to every consumer.”
Sure they don’t. Despite assurances, some are skeptical. For example, we learn:
“US FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr told Reuters that TikTok should be immediately banned in the US. He added that he was suspicious as to how ByteDance handles all of the US-based data on the app.”
Now just why might he doubt ByteDance’s sincerity? What about consequences? As some Sillycon Valley experts say, “No big deal. Move on.” Dismissive naïveté is helpful, even charming.
Cynthia Murrell, December 28, 2022
Ka-Ching, Ka-Ching: The Unforgettable Tune Haunting Meta
December 26, 2022
What’s the sound of the European cash registers? Ka-ching, ka-ching. The melody of money.
I spotted two allegedly true real news stories this morning that sound like previous write ups about the Zuckbook, oops, Facebook, oh, darn, Meta.
The first is “Meta Settles Cambridge Analytica Class-Action Lawsuit for $725 Million.” The story reports:
Parent company Meta has agreed to pay $725 million to settle a long-running class-action lawsuit accusing Facebook of allowing Cambridge Analytica and other third parties to access user’s private information…
Cambridge Analytica. Four years ago. Links to possible intelligence activities in a certain special operation favoring nation state. Lies. What’s not to love? The is writing a check for $725 million. In terms of fellow traveler Twitter that’s peanuts. No big deal. Guilty? “Senator, thank you for that question….”
The second write up is “EU Tells Meta That Facebook Marketplace Breaches Anti-Trust Rules.” This write up explains:
In yet another demonstration of the new aggressive stance of European regulators, the EU has lodged a notice accusing Meta of ‘abusive practices’. The allegation relates to the fact that Facebook Marketplace currently ties its online classified ads service to the Facebook social network. The European Commission alleges that the company imposes unfair trading conditions on rivals to its Facebook Marketplace, in order to gain a commercial advantage.
How disrespectful! The Zuck has worked to bring people together. The Marketplace does that. I live in rural Kentucky. One of my neighbors was killed meeting a person to purchase a mobile phone. The connection making mechanism seems to have been a certain social network. It is clear to me that I don’t understand the bridge building, good vibe generating mechanisms of social media. That’s okay. I am a dinobaby.
Let’s get back to the music of ka-ching, ka-ching.
I have some expectation that the European Union will be ringing its cash registers in 2023. Some US high-technology companies output cash when the tune ka-ching, ka-ching sounds. That may be a conditioned reflex similar to Ivan Pavlov’s demonstration of conditioning. Yes, ka-ching may be a suitable substitute for dog treats. Woof.
In my opinion, the ka-ching, ka-ching thing suggests:
- A pattern of behavior that flaunts expected business practices
- Management attitudes that encourage behavior some lawmakers consider illegal
- An increasing perception that some of the societal pressure points are becoming more sensitive because of certain social media practices.
Fair or unfair? True or false?
Well, just listen: Ka-ching, ka-ching.
Stephen E Arnold, December 26, 2022
How Does a China-Affiliated Outfit Identify Insider Threats? Surveillance, Of Course
December 26, 2022
I will not revisit my comments about the risks posed by TikTok to the US. I do find it amusing that statements offered in one of those “Thank you, Senator, for that question….” sessions has been demonstrated to be false. Hello, perjury?
“TokTok Admits Tracking FT Journalist in Leaks Investigation” reports:
Two members of staff in the US and two in China gained access to the IP addresses and other personal data of FT journalist Cristina
Criddle, to work out if she was in the proximity of any ByteDance employees, the company said. However, the company failed to find any leaks.
A BuzzFeed journalist and a number of users connected to the reporters through their TikTok accounts were also targeted.
A government has the capacity to surveil who and when and where it wants. When a company focuses on vulnerable demographics and is directly affiliated with a government, Houston, we have a problem.
More problematic when that government/company can feed information to targeted users, that information can shape the impressionable target’s world view. That’s an opportunity creator. Toss in keep track of what immature minds do only may provide some useful information to force a target to take an action or else. The else can include salacious videos and much, much more interesting immature behavior. If released, the mature version of the nude dance at a high school party might derail a promotion at a secretive high-tech company, creating an opening for a more compliant target to apply for the job. Exciting? Yep.
What’s the tally? Deception. Check. Invasion of a non Chinese citizen’s rights. Check. Information warfare. Check.
Yep, TikTok.
Stephen E Arnold, December 26, 2022
In France, Tipping in Restaurants, Non. Showing Appreciation to the Government, Oui
December 23, 2022
Ah, France. Land of 200 cheeses, medallion bedecked chickens, and fat American high-tech creatures. Go to a French restaurant and order (in French certaInment) a cooked bird. Chow down. Do not tip the waiter. Say “merci” and smile. But if you a very fat, super large, very unpredictable American technology company tipping is mandatory.
Don’t believe me?
Read “Microsoft Hit with €60 Million Fine by France for Not Offering Cookie Opt Out on Bing.” Mais oui. The write up reports:
In addition, CNIL will fine Microsoft €60,000 per day within three months if it doesn’t ask users for consent to use an ad fraud detection cookie.
Will Microsoft’s paying up make the governmental doubt about Microsoft become like the mist in Verdon Gorge?
Ho ho ho.
In order to do business in France, American outfits have to go through a number of hoops. Some are easy; others require some bureaucratic finesse. One example is for an American company to sell something to the French government. There are hoops for American cheese. I have been informed that canned American cheese propelled by carbon dioxide is a hoot at some French parties. Mon dieu! Aerosol fromage. Interesting.
With the EU chasing some firms who say one thing and do another, fining some big tech companies is a way to get an allowance from mom. Amazon appears to decided to just pay up.
Microsoft may enter the fascinating French legal system to explain that its tracking devices are different. Oh, well. Some French judicial officials can use a mobile phone. But the cookie thing? Maybe not so much.
What’s the sound I hear? It is ka-ching.
Finding reasons to take legal action against US big tech companies is easy. The regret, as I understand it, is that it take a long time to get the money from the Americans.
What’s the outlook for 2023? That’s a softball question. The answer is more lawyers pecking on the confused Americans. The Monaco Grand Prix is in France right?
Stephen E Arnold, December 23, 2022
Predicting Google and the UK in 2023
December 21, 2022
For Google, coping with legal challenges is just a routine part of doing business in Europe it seems. The Register reports on the latest lawsuit in, “130,000 UK Businesses Sue Google Over £13.6B in Lost Ad Revenues.” To no one’s surprise, the class-action suit claims the company abuses its dominant position to disadvantage the competition. Reporter Katyanna Quach writes:
“The company’s anticompetitive practices, alleged in the lawsuit, have cost smaller businesses – like publishers and online apps selling ad space – up to 40 per cent, the law firm said. The losses incurred from 1 January 2014 to date for the companies in the lawsuit are estimated up to £13.6 billion (about $16.5B). Toby Starr, a partner at Humphries Kerstetter, leading the claim, pointed to similar antitrust probes, accusing Google of abusing its dominant position in online advertising, from the EU. Google’s misconduct in this matter is well known. The French authorities have fined the firm and multiple investigations are underway across the globe. However, none of these regulatory actions will do anything to compensate the UK publishers of thousands of websites and mobile apps who have lost billions in advertising revenue because of Google’s actions. The only way to recoup these losses is through a competition class action,’ he said in a statement.”
Closer to home, we are reminded:
“The US Department of Justice also accused Google of ‘unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets’ in a lawsuit in 2021.”
Audacious as ever, Google denies any wrongdoing and dubs the UK lawsuit “speculative and opportunistic.” Those same advertising tools that are unfairly vilified, a spokesperson insists, instead benefit publishers and other businesses “of all sizes.” One wonders why the company bothers to defend itself since its tens of billions of dollars [pdf] in revenue ensure it can easily absorb any fines and damages that come its way.
Cynthia Murrell, December 21, 2022
The EU and the Tweeter Thing
December 16, 2022
Most of the folks who live in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, are not frequent tweeters. I am not certain if those in the city could name the countries wrapped in European Union goodness. The information in “Twitter Threatened with EU Sanctions over Journalists’ Ban” is of little interest. Some in the carpetland of Twitter may find the write up suggestive.
Here’s an illustrative statement from the BBC write up:
EU commissioner Vera Jourova warned that the EU’s Digital Services Act requires respect of media freedom. “Elon Musk should be aware of that. There are red lines. And sanctions, soon,” she tweeted. She said: “News about arbitrary suspension of journalists on Twitter is worrying. “[The] EU’s Digital Services Act requires respect of media freedom and fundamental rights. This is reinforced under our Media Freedom Act.”
One quick fix would be ban EU officials from Twitter. My hunch is that might poke the hornet’s nest stuffed full of well-fed and easily awakened officials.
There are several interesting shoes waiting to fall in one of the nice hotels in Brussels; for example:
- Ringing the Twitter cash register. Fines have a delayed effect. After months of legal wrangling, the targeted offenders pay something. That’s what I call the ka-ching factor.
- Creating more work for government officials in the US. The tweeter thing may not be pivotal to the economic well being of EU member states, but grousing about US regulatory laxness creates headaches for those who have to go to meetings, write memos, and keep interactions reasonably pleasant.
- Allowing certain information to flow; for example, data about the special action in Ukraine or information useful to law enforcement and certain intelligence agencies.
Excitement will ensue. I am waiting for certain Silicon Valley real news professionals to find themselves without a free info and opinion streaming service. The cries of the recently banned are, however, unlikely to distract the EU officials from their goal: Ka-ching.
Stephen E Arnold, December 16, 2022
Sisyphus, The EU Has a Job For You
December 14, 2022
I read an article which may be mostly accurate. Its title is “Google Must Delete Search Results about You If They’re Fake, EU Court Rules.” The write up reports:
People in Europe can get Google to delete search results about them if they prove the information is “manifestly inaccurate,” the EU’s top court ruled Thursday [December 8, 2022].
Okay, prove that information is “manifestly inaccurate.”
The article continues:
People who want to scrub inaccurate results from search engines have to provide sufficient proof that what is said about them is false. But it doesn’t have to come from a court case against a publisher, for instance. They have “to provide only evidence that can reasonably be required of [them] to try to find,” the court said.
When legal eagles get into a discussion of what is accurate and what is not accurate, the logic will be fascinating. Then once accuracy has been addressed, the sage birds will deal with the definition of manifestly. You know: What is is?
Justice and billing will be served with word salad.
Stephen E Arnold, December 10. 2022
Does the UK Really Want to End Google and Apple Mobile Monopolies?
December 14, 2022
While there continues to be some market competition with big tech companies, each has their own monopoly in the technology industry. The United Statuses slow to address these industry monopolies, but the United Kingdom wants to end Google and Apples’ control says Mac Rumors in the article: “UK Begins Market Investigation Into Apple and Google’s Mobile Dominance.”
The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) will investigate how Apple and Google dominate the mobile market as well as Apple’s restrictions on cloud gaming through its App Store. Smaller technology and gaming companies stated that Google and Apple are harming their bottom lines and holding back innovation:
“The consultation found 86% of respondents support taking a closer look at Apple and Google’s market dominance. Browser vendors, web developers, and cloud gaming service providers said the tech giants’ mobile ecosystems are harming their businesses, holding back innovation, and adding unnecessary costs. The feedback effectively justifies the findings of a year-long study by the CMA into Apple and Google’s mobile ecosystems, which the regulatory body called an “effective duopoly” that allows the companies to “exercise a stranglehold over these markets.” According to the CMA, 97% of all mobile web browsing in the UK in 2021 happened on browsers powered by either Apple’s or Google’s browser engine, so any restrictions can have a major impact on users’ experiences.”
The CMA will conduct an eighteen-month-long investigation and will require Apple to share information about its business products. After the investigation, the CMA could legally force Apple to make changes to its business practices. Apple, of course, denies its current practices promote innovation and competition as well as protect users’ privacy and security.
Whitney Grace, December 14, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
