EU: Tech Wolf Pack Must Track Down and Kill Deep Fakes
June 20, 2022
I read “EU Wants Big Tech to Address Deepfakes or Face Consequences.” The European Union has decided that the members of the Big Tech Wolf Pack can solve a semi-difficult problem. A deepfake is a content object that has been manipulated to deceive. I suppose there are better definitions, but let’s roll with this simple one.
Is a doctored image in a TikTok video a deepfake? What about a company which uses a fake persona to sell something? An example would be a digital Betty Crocker. What about a video produced with DaVinci Resolve, a free software that permits Hollywood style special effects? What about a grumpy neighbor posting a shaped story about the couple living in a trailer who throw trash into the parking area? What about a real news person writing about a new crypto venture fund and using some colorful adjectives to stimulate interest? What about videos of certain activities between a cartoon character and a faux human? (Is it a fake or is it a new genre?)
I don’t know about you, but the line between real and fake is a tough one to discern.
The write up states:
According to an EU document obtained by Reuters, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other tech giants will have to combat deepfakes and fake accounts or face heavy fines under a revised European Union code of practice.
Here’s the part I like after a couple of decades of just handing out fines that are the equivalent of lunches at staff meetings for a couple of weeks. (Love that gluten free pizza and those kale salads, right?)
The code says that signatories will create, enforce, and execute explicit policies against unacceptable manipulative behaviors and practices on their platforms, based on the most recent evidence on hostile actors’ conduct, tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).
And what are the consequences? How about up to six percent of global revenue? That will keep the lawyers and accountants busy?
Does this approach sound possible? Sure, but the effort may prove to be impossible as technology marches on? Is that voice answering system’s recording of Bugs Bunny a deep fake? What about a Zoom background that shows me paying attention when I am not? (That happens on most of my Zoomies.) Perhaps yours too?
Stephen E Arnold, June 20, 2022
NSO Group: Is This a Baller Play to Regain Its PR Initiative or a Fumble?
June 15, 2022
Secrecy and confidentiality are often positive characteristics in certain specialized software endeavors. One might assume that firms engaged in providing technology, engineering support, and consulting services would operate with a low profile. I like to think of my first meeting with Admiral Craig Hosmer. We each arrived at the DC Army Navy Club at 2 30 pm Eastern time. The Admiral told me where to sit. He joined me about 15 minutes later. The Club was virtually empty; the room was small but comfortable; and the one staff member was behind the bar doing what bartenders do: Polishing glasses.
Looking back on that meeting in 1974, I am quite certain no one knew I was meeting the Admiral. I have no idea where the Admiral entered the building nor did I see who drove him to the 17th Street NW location. My thought is that this type of set up for a meeting was what I would call “low profile.”
“US Defence Contractor in Talks to Take Over NSO Group’s Hacking Technology” illustrates what happens when the type of every day precautions Admiral Hosmer took are ignored. A British newspaper reports:
The US defence contractor L3Harris is in talks to take over NSO Group’s surveillance technology, in a possible deal that would give an American company control over one of the world’s most sophisticated and controversial hacking tools. Multiple sources confirmed that discussions were centered on a sale of the Israeli company’s core technology – or code – as well as a possible transfer of NSO personnel to L3Harris.
Okay, so much for low profiling this type of deal.
I am not sure what “multiple sources” mean. If someone were writing about my meeting the Admiral, the only sources of information would have been me, the Admiral’s technical aide (a nuclear scientist from Argonne National Laboratory), and probably the bartender who did not approach the area in which the former chair of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy were sitting.
But what have we got?
- A major newspaper’s story about a company which has made specialized services as familiar as TikTok
- Multiple sources of information. What? Who is talking? Why?
- A White House “official” making a comment. Who? Why? To whom?
- A reference to a specialized news service called “Intelligence Online”. What was the source of this outfit’s information? Is that source high value? Why is a news service plunging into frog killing hot water?
- Ramblings about the need to involve government officials in at least two countries. Who are the “officials”? Why are these people identified without specifics?
- References to human rights advocates. Which advocates? Why?
Gentle reader, I am a dinobaby who was once a consultant to the company which made this term popular. Perhaps a return to the good old days of low-profiling certain activities is appropriate?
One thing is certain: Not even Google’s 10-thumb approach to information about its allegedly smart software can top this NSO Group PR milestone.
Stephen E Arnold, June 15, 2022
Yandex: Just Helping Others to Understand Geography
June 14, 2022
The Yandex news has been interesting. Some staff turnover. Some outages. Some changes to Yandex images. But there’s more! Example:
On June 3, European Union introduced sanctions against one of the company’s founders, Arkady Volozh prompting his immediate resignation.
“Russia’s Yandex Maps to Stop Displaying National Borders” also reports:
the company said that their updated digital maps would “focus on natural features rather than on state boundaries.”
What’s this “real news” statement mean?
My thought is that national borders can be fuzzy and then defined as necessary.
The map is not the territory as YouTube videos about a certain dust up near the Black Sea makes evident.
Stephen E Arnold, June 14, 2022
Google Et Al: A Small Matter Perhaps?
May 24, 2022
In India, the Lok Sabha is a bit like the US Congress. Like its US equivalent, the group of distinguished individuals can be frisky, intellectually speaking, of course. “Standing Committee On Finance To Discuss Big Tech Firms’ Practices” reports:
…the parliamentary panel will be hearing views of hospitality, restaurants and travel agents associations on the subject ‘Anti-Competitive Practices by Big-tech companies…
By itself, this type of investigation and questioning is chugging along in the US, the EU, and India. In Russia, the country has seized the Google’s assets, and it is not clear what the future will hold for other US Big Tech Firms.
I noted this statement in the source article:
Representatives of Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and others too were summoned by the panel.
I anticipate that the answers to the interlocutors’ questions will be along the line, “Thank you for the question. I will collect the information and provide it to your office.”
However, this sentence suggests that India may be considering adding some teeth to its approach to the alleged monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior of the Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Twitter outfits:
The CCI Act was initiated in 2002 and last amended in 2007. A bill to amend the Act is also under consideration wherein provisions are likely to be introduced to deal with anti-competition practices of tech giants.
Worth watching? India? Is that a significant market? Yep.
Stephen E Arnold, May 24, 2022
China Targets Low-Profile Social Network Douban for Censorship
May 20, 2022
China continues to do one of the things it does best: control the flow of information within its borders. Rest of World reports, “China’s Most Chaotic Social Network Survived Beijing’s Censors—Until Now.” Writer Viola Zhou describes the low-profile site:
“The chaotic Chinese social network Douban never looked for fame; it was designed for people with niche obsessions and an urge to talk about them. … Douban began as a review site for books, film, and music: the interests of its charismatic founder, Ah Bei. It quickly grew into a social network of millions of users.”
Those users bonded around shared interests both playful and serious. To keep the site rooted in a spirit of community, it has resisted both large-scale advertising and (unlike other social networks) government propaganda accounts. Douban managed to avoid scrutiny by China’s fervent censors since it launched in 2005. Until now. Zhou continues:
“In March, a government censorship task force was set up at the company’s headquarters. Over the past year, some of its most popular groups have shut down, its app was scrubbed from major Chinese stores, and on April 14, Douban froze a significant traffic driver, the gossip forum Goose Group, though it’s unclear whether each of those actions were the decisions of the website or government regulators. As China’s tech crackdown seeps into all parts of online life, the ability to organize around something as mild as shared interests is being throttled by Beijing’s censors. Rest of World spoke to more than a dozen early Douban employees, prominent group admins, and current users, most of whom requested anonymity in order to freely discuss Chinese censorship. For them, the reining-in of Douban signals that its creative, tight-knit communities have become an unacceptable political risk, as the Chinese government grows increasingly vigilant about any form of civil gathering.”
Yes, it seems citizens coming together over any topic, no matter how far from political or social matters, is a threat. The pressure on Douban is said to be part of the government’s campaign against a scourge dubbed “fan circle chaos.” Colorful. Some users hold out hope their beloved groups will someday be reinstated. Meanwhile, founder Ah Bei’s account has been inactive since 2019. See the write-up for more about Douban and some of its forums that have been shuttered.
Cynthia Murrell, May 20, 2022
Child Related Issues and Smart Software: What Could Go Wrong?
May 19, 2022
It is understandable that data scientists would like to contribute to solving a heart-wrenching problem. But what if their well-intended solutions make matters worse? The Bismarck Tribune shares the article, “An Algorithm that Screens for Child Neglect Raises Concerns.” AP Reporters Sally Ho and Garance Burke describe the apprehension of one Pittsburgh family’s attorney in the face of an opaque predictive algorithm. The software uses statistical calculations to pinpoint families for investigation by social workers, but neither the families nor their lawyers are privy to the details. We learn:
“From Los Angeles to Colorado and throughout Oregon, as child welfare agencies use or consider tools similar to the one in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania [in which Pittsburgh is located], an Associated Press review has identified a number of concerns about the technology, including questions about its reliability and its potential to harden racial disparities in the child welfare system. Related issues have already torpedoed some jurisdictions’ plans to use predictive models, such as the tool notably dropped by the state of Illinois. According to new research from a Carnegie Mellon University team obtained exclusively by AP, Allegheny’s algorithm in its first years of operation showed a pattern of flagging a disproportionate number of Black children for a ‘mandatory’ neglect investigation, when compared with white children. The independent researchers, who received data from the county, also found that social workers disagreed with the risk scores the algorithm produced about one-third of the time.”
Ah bias, the consistent thorn in AI’s side. Allegheny officials assure us their social workers never take the AI’s “mandatory” flags at face value, using them as mere suggestions. They also insist the tool alerts them to cases of neglect that otherwise would have slipped through the cracks. We will have to take them at their word, as this tech is as shrouded in secrecy as most algorithms. And what of the growing number of other cities and counties adopting the tool? Surely some will not be as conscientious.
Still, the tool’s developers appear to be taking concerns into account, at least a little. The authors note:
“The latest version of the tool excludes information about whether a family has received welfare dollars or food stamps, data that was initially included in calculating risk scores. It also stopped predicting whether a child would be reported again to the county in the two years that followed. However, much of the current algorithm’s design remains the same, according to American Civil Liberties Union researchers who have studied both versions.”
See the thorough article for more on this contentious issue, including descriptions of welfare agencies under pressure, calls for transparency, and perspectives from advocates of the software.
Cynthia Murrell, May 19, 2022
Big Tech, Big Winners: Good or Bad
May 17, 2022
Science-fiction and many different types of smart people have informed us that technology and related information is dangerous if unregulated and left in the hands of a few individuals. Engadget focuses on the current reasons why big tech companies are dangerous in the article, “Hitting the Books: US Regulators Are Losing The Fight Against Big Tech.” Meta (formerly Zuckbook), Amazon, Google, and Apple control the technology space and consume…er…purchase startups before they can become a competitor. The government used to regulate the technology marketplace and, according to some written laws, they still do. The current advancement in technology has overwhelmed the government’s capacity to govern it.
Oxford professor Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and author Thomas Range wrote Access Rules: Freeing Data From Big Tech For a Better Future agree that Big Tech companies are hoarding information and there needs to be a more equitable way of accessing it. Biden’s administration has attempted to address Big Tech’s monopolies, but their efforts aren’t effective.
Biden appointed Tim to the National Economic Council as a special assistant to the president for technology and competition policy. Wu favors breaking up Big Tech companies and it was a sign that Biden leaned this way. Another signal of Biden’s leanings was Lina Khan as the Federal Trade Commission chair. Khan favors regulating Big Tech like utilities similar to electricity and AT&T before telecom deregulation. The Big Tech monopolies are not good, because it is preventing future innovation, but politicians are arguing over how to solve a convoluted issue. There are antitrust laws but are they enforceable? The complicated issue is:
“And yet it’s questionable that well-intentioned activist regulators bolstered by broad public support will succeed. The challenge is a combination of the structural and the political. As Lina Khan herself argued, existing antitrust laws are less than useful. Big Tech may not have violated them sufficiently to warrant breaking them up. And other powerful measures, such as declaring them utilities, require legislative action. Given the delicate power balance in Congress and hyper-partisan politics, it’s likely that such bold legislative proposals would not get enough votes to become enacted. The political factions may agree on the problem, but they are far apart on the solution. The left wants an effective remedy, while the right insists on the importance of market forces and worries about antitrust action micromanaging economic activity. That leaves a fairly narrow corridor of acceptable incremental legislative steps, such as “post-acquisition lockups.” This may be politically palatable, but insufficient to achieve real and sustained success.”
The Big Tech people, politicians, and other involved parties are concerned with short-term gains. The long game is being ignored in favor of the present benefits, while the future is left to deteriorate. Europe has better antitrust laws in actions against Big Tech companies. To plan for a better future, the US should copy Europe.
Whitney Grace, May 17, 2022
Will Big Tech Be Disciplined? Sure, You Have to Start Work Before 11 am
May 12, 2022
Some believe that monopolies are detrimental to free enterprise and the mixed economy that thrives in the United States. Unfortunately, most of the technology developments in the country are controlled by several large companies: Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft. According to US law, these companies may be forced to break up. Greenwald shares a story of how breaking up the large tech companies could be harmful to US security: “Former Intelligence Officials, Citing Russia, Say Big Tech Monopoly Power Is Vital To National Security.”
A group of former national security and intelligence officials released a jointly signed letter that current legislative attempts to hinder High Tech monopolies will harm US safety. They argued in their letter that centralized censorship power is important to the US’s foreign policy. The argument was justified by the current war in Ukraine. These claims are dubious:
“While one of their central claims is that Big Tech monopoly power is necessary to combat (i.e., censor) “foreign disinformation,” several of these officials are themselves leading disinformation agents: many were the same former intelligence officials who signed the now-infamous-and-debunked pre-election letter fraudulently claiming that the authentic Hunter Biden emails had the “hallmarks” of Russia disinformation (former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Obama CIA Director Michael Morrell, former Obama CIA/Pentagon chief Leon Panetta). Others who signed this new letter have strong financial ties to the Big Tech corporations whose power they are defending in the name of national security (Morrell, Panetta, former Bush National Security Adviser Fran Townsend).”
It should not come as a surprise that these former officials have ties to Big Tech and want to preserve the monopolies so they benefit. Big Tech companies support politicians who in turn support legislation favorable to them. It is a typical quid pro quo situation. What makes the situation hypocritical is that politicians profess they want to dismantle Big Tech monopolies but vote the opposite.
Are Big Tech monopolies good? It depends on one’s point of view.
Whitney Grace, May 12, 2022
NSO Group Knock On: Live from Madrid
May 10, 2022
The NSO Group fan Paz Esteban has been gored (metaphorically speaking, of course). “Spain’s Spy Chief Sacked after Pegasus Spyware Revelations” reports that “Paz Esteban reportedly loses job after Catalan independence figures were said to have been targeted.” How about those hedging Latinate structures. The write up alleges:
Paz Esteban reportedly confirmed last week that 18 members of the Catalan independence movement were spied on with judicial approval by Spain’s National Intelligence Centre.
I suppose spying on the Barcelona football team makes sense if one roots for Real Madrid. It is a stretch that 18 individuals who want to do a 180 degree turn away from Madrid’s approach to maintaining law, order, health, peace, prosperity, etc. etc.
The write up notes:
Esteban reportedly confirmed last week to a congressional committee that 18 members of the Catalan independence movement were spied on with judicial approval by Spain’s National Intelligence Centre (CNI), leaving the Catalan regional government demanding answers.
Yep, the action was approved. Life would have been more like a late dinner than a burger from a fantastic American fast food restaurant. That’s the problem. The gobbling of the fries was approved by lawyers.
That’s a crisis. Making the spry 64 year old Ms. Esteban López the beard is unfortunate. My hunch is that some youthful whiz kids found the NSO Group’s Pegasus a fun digital horse to ride. The idea floated upwards for approval and ended up in front of the “judiciary.” That mysterious entity thought letting the kids ride the Pegasus was a perfectly okay idea.
Now a crisis is brewing. The gored Ms. Esteban López may only be one of the first in the intelligence, law enforcement, and judiciary to feel the prick of the digital bull’s horns and the knock from the beastie’s hooves.
Several observations:
- Who else will be implicated in this interesting matter? Who will be tossed aloft only to crash to the albero del ruedo?
- Will a parliamentary inquiry move forward? What will that become? A romp with Don Quixote and Sancho?
- Is a new Spanish inquisition about to begin?
Excitement in the Plaza de Toros de Las Ventas perhaps?
Stephen E Arnold, May 10, 2022
Some Real News People Are Never Happy
May 10, 2022
The European Publishers Council has joined the fight against Googley ad practices. Reuters reveals, “Google’s Advertising Tech Targeted in European Publishers’ Complaint.” Reporter Foo Yun Chee suggests the move could strengthen the current EU antitrust investigation into the company, but we have seen how Google tends to shrug off European efforts to constrain it. We are not sure this is the straw to break the behemoth’s back. Nevertheless, the write-up tells us:
“The European Commission opened an investigation in June into whether Google favors its own online display advertising technology services to the detriment of rivals, advertisers and online publishers. read more The publishers’ trade body, whose members include Axel Springer (SPRGn.S), News UK, Conde Nast, Bonnier News and Editorial Prensa Iberica, took its grievance to the European Commission, alleging Google has an adtech stranglehold over press publishers. ‘It is high time for the European Commission to impose measures on Google that actually change, not just challenge, its behavior,’ EPC Chairman Christian Van Thillo said in a statement. ‘Google has achieved end-to-end control of the ad tech value chain, boasting market shares as high as 90-100% in segments of the ad tech chain,’ he said.”
Indeed, which is why it is difficult to imagine consequences strong enough to make the company change its rapacious practices. Naturally Google denies any wrongdoing, gesturing at the billions of dollars it pays out to publishers each year. We appreciate the effort at redirection, but the real issue is whether publishers and other advertisers would be making more if Google played fair.
Cynthia Murrell, May 10, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
