TikTok: A Murky, Poorly Lit Space
April 15, 2022
TikTok, according to its champions, is in the words of Ernie (Endurance) Hemingway:
You do not understand. This is a clean and pleasant café. It is well lighted. (Quote from “A Clean, Well-Lighted Place”)
No, I understand. If the information in “TikTok under US Government Investigation on Child Sexual Abuse Material” is on the money, the Department of Justice and the US Department of Homeland Security, TikTok may not be a “clean and pleasant café.”
The paywalled story says that TikTok is a digital watering hole for bad actors who have an unusually keen interest in young people. The write up points out that TikTok is sort of trying to deal with its content stream. However, there is the matter of a connection with China and that country’s interest in metadata. Then there is the money which just keeps flowing and growing. (Facebook and Google are now breathing TikTok’s diesel exhaust. Those sleek EV-loving companies are forced to stop and recharge as the TikTok tractor trailer barrels down the information highway.
For those Sillycon Valley types who see TikTok as benign, check out some of TikTok’s offers to young people. Give wlw a whirl. Oh, and the three letters work like a champ on YouTube. Alternatively ask some young people. Yeah, that’s a super idea, isn’t it. Now about unclean, poorly illuminated digital spaces.
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
Is Tim Apple Worried: How Can Regulators Ignore What Apple Wants?
April 13, 2022
I know Apple and Tim are important. Fresh from a right to repair campaign and the cute move to make upgrades to the new and improved Mac Mini Studio, Tim Apple faces a poor report card. Tim Apple has failed Apple’s employee-acolyte examination. “Apple’s Tim Cook Warns of Unintended Consequences in App Store Antitrust Legislation” reports:
Apple CEO Tim Cook blasted regulatory proposals by Congress and in the European Union on Tuesday, arguing that legislation aimed at cracking open the company’s app store will hurt user security and privacy.
Are we talking Apple stalker gizmos? (This is my synonym for the Apple AirTag. Please, see “Apple AirTags Allegedly Being Used by Stalkers: Viral Twitter Thread.”
Nope. The idea that elected officials want to permit sideloading.
Let me translate: If an iPhone user wants to load an application without going through Apple’s online store, bad things will happen. Remember the good, old days of buying software in a box and installing it. That’s sideloading in my book.
Are we talking Apple compliance with rules in China and Russia (pre-Ukraine, of course)?
The write up continues:
Former top national security officials have sided with Apple, saying that requiring iPhones to accept apps that may lack sufficient security protections could ultimately endanger the country.
Are we talking Apple’s often decidedly un-snappy response to legitimate government requests? Nope. We are talking national security and the unnamed terrible things waiting to roar down the on ramp of the information highway to deliver (my goodness!) unintended consequences.
Several observations:
- Tense much, Mr. Apple?
- Are we talking about AirTags?
- Concerned about losing a revenue stream?
- Worried about regulation after decades of riding horses hard in the digital Wild West?
I would prefer more action related to the personnel issues which are smoking on the burning brush at the spaceship.
Stephen E Arnold, April 13, 2022
DOD Cloud Program JWCC Pushed Back Until December
April 13, 2022
Turns out it takes longer to evaluate the options in the cloud than the DOD thought. Nextgov reveals, “Pentagon’s Effort to Supply Departmentwide Cloud Capabilities is Delayed, Again.” Reporters Lauren C. Williams and Brandi Vincent write:
“The Defense Department is delaying the award for its latest multibillion-dollar program to provide enterprise-wide commercial cloud services to the end of the year—which means certain solutions likely won’t be deployed until at least mid-2023. Amazon Web Services, Google, Microsoft and Oracle were named by the Pentagon as contenders for the potentially massive $9 billion Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability contract in November and invited to submit proposals. But DOD Chief Information Officer John Sherman said ‘conducting the due diligence with four vendors’ is taking more time than previously anticipated and that is contributing to the shift from the original award scheduled for April 2022.”
At stake are four separate contracts worth up to $9 billion in total. Each will have a three-year base period with two one-year options. The Joint War fighting Cloud Capability (JWCC) will replace the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI), which became bogged down by protest and litigation. The DOD’s Deputy CIO for Information Enterprise Danielle Metz tells us what has changed:
“What sets JWCC apart from the other current cloud service offerings that we have is that this is going to be a direct partnership with a cloud service provider. So, it’s going to enable us to be able to have commercial parity and to hold into account the cloud service providers from a cybersecurity perspective. We’ll be able to glean a lot and work closely with the cloud service providers, which will set the stage for our future acquisition activities.”
The article tells us this direction marks a purposeful shift for the DOD—focusing on multiple vendors and interoperability should speed up the entire contracting, acquisition, and funding process so personnel will get the capabilities they need faster. Sounds great in theory, but as this recent delay shows, that cloud stuff can be more complicated than it looks.
A bureaucracy bureaucratizes.
Cynthia Murrell, April 13, 2022
NSO Group Knock On: More Attention Directed at Voyager Labs?
April 12, 2022
Not many people know about Voyager Labs, its different businesses, or its work for some government entities. From my point of view, that’s how intelware and policeware vendors should conduct themselves. Since the NSO Group’s missteps have fired up everyone from big newspaper journalists to college professors, the once low profile world of specialized software and services has come to center stage. Unfortunately most of the firms providing these once secret specialized functions are, unlike Tallulah Bankhead, ill prepared for the rigors of questions about chain smoking and a sporty life style. Israeli companies in the specialized software and services business are definitely not equipped for criticism, exposure, questioning by non military types. A degree in journalism or law is interesting, but it is the camaraderie of a military unit which is important. To be fair, this “certain blindness” can be fatal. Will NSO Group be able to survive? I don’t know. What I do know is that anyone in the intelware or policeware game has to be darned careful. The steely gaze, the hardened demeanor, and the “we know more than you do” does not play well with an intrepid reporter investigating the cozy world of secretive conferences, briefings at government hoe downs, or probing into private companies which amass user data from third-party sources for reselling to government agencies hither and yon.
Change happened.
I read “On the Internet, No One Knows You’re a Cop.” The author of the article is Albert Fox-Cahn, the founder and director of STOP. Guess what the acronym means? Give up. The answer is: The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project.
Where does this outfit hang its baseball cap with a faded New York Yankees’ emblem? Give up. The New York University Urban Justice Center. Mr. Fox-Cahn is legal type, and he has some helpers; for example, fledgling legal eagles. (A baby legal eagle is technically eaglets or is it eaglettes. I profess ignorance.) This is not a Lone Ranger operation, and I have a hunch that others at NYU can be enjoined to pitch in for the STOP endeavor. If there is one thing college types have it is an almost endless supply of students who want “experience.” Then there is the thrill of the hunt. Eagles, as you know, have been known to snatch a retired humanoid’s poodle for sustenance. Do legal eagles enjoy the thrill of the kill, or are they following some protein’s chemical make up?
The write up states:
Increasingly, internet surveillance is operating under our consent, as police harness new software platforms to deploy networks of fake accounts, tricking the public into giving up what few privacy protections the law affords. The police can see far beyond what we know is public on these platforms, peaking behind the curtains at what we mean to show and say only to those closest to us. But none of us know these requests come from police, none of us truly consent to this new, invasive form of state surveillance, but this “consent” is enough for the law, enough for the courts, and enough to have our private conversations used against us in a court of law.
Yeah, but use of public data is legal. Never mind, I hear an inner voice speaking for the STOP professionals.
The article then trots through the issues sitting on top of a stack of reports about actions that trouble STOP; to wit, use of fake social media accounts. The idea is to gin up a fake name and operate as a sock puppet. I want to point out that this method is often helpful in certain types of investigations. I won’t list the types.
The write up then describes Voyager Labs’ specialized software and services this way:
Voyager Labs claims to perceive people’s motives and identify those “most engaged in their hearts” about their ideologies. As part of their marketing materials, they touted retrospective analysis they claimed could have predicted criminal activity before it took place based on social media monitoring.
Voyager Labs’ information was disclosed after the Los Angeles government responded to a Brennan Center Freedom of Information Act request. If you are not familiar with these documents, you can locate at this link which I verified on April 9, 2022. Note that there are 10,000 pages of LA info, so plan on spending some time to locate the information of interest. If you want more information about Voyager Labs, navigate to the company’s Web site.
Net net: Which is the next intelware or policeware company to be analyzed by real news outfits and college professors? I don’t know, but the revelations do not make me happy. The knock on from the NSO Group’s missteps are not diminishing. It appears that there will be more revelations. From my point of view, these analyses provide bad actors with a road map of potholes. The bad actors become more informed, and government entities find their law enforcement and investigative efforts are dulled.
Stephen E Arnold, April 12, 2022
Consultants and Conflicts of Interest: Fast Action
April 7, 2022
My recollection is that a Northwestern graduate named Edwin Booz cooked up big chunks of modern consulting. Was this a year ago? Maybe three years? Nope. Mr. Booz helped Sears become a high-value resource in 1914. Eddie had a master’s in psychology, not business. Think about that. What modern consulting has become began in the climate wonderland of Chicago. You remember. The city with big shoulders.
Flash forward to 2022. “Citing ProPublica’s Reporting on McKinsey, Senators Propose Bill Addressing Contractors’ Conflicts of Interest” stated, after patting itself vigorously on its / thems back:
Yet the consultancy [McKinsey], which is known for maintaining a veil of secrecy around its client list, never disclosed to the FDA that other McKinsey consulting teams were simultaneously working for some of the country’s largest pharmaceutical companies. McKinsey’s commercial clients at the time included companies, such as Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson, that were responsible for manufacturing and distributing the opioids that decimated communities nationwide. In some instances, McKinsey consultants working for drug makers even helped their clients ward off more robust FDA oversight.
McKinsey is one of the heirs to Eddie’s insight that clueless outfits would pay big money for reports written in summary format with lots of bullet points, horizons, and snappy aphorisms. BCG, another blue chip consulting firm, must be credited for taking General Eisenhower’s quadrant diagram and pioneering the era of easy to understand graphics and simple words like “dog” and “star” and “cash cow.”
From pop psychology to snazzy charts, the blue chip consulting business has been roaring along for more than a century. Now the opioid thing combined with the blue chip consulting firm “we’re special” thing may result in meaningful regulation.
Note I wrote “may.” Does anyone believe that government agencies can regulate the firms upon which the very same government agencies depend for advice, guidance, and a reason to have meetings.
Get real.
Here’s the wrap up to the article:
Jessica Tillipman, an assistant dean and government procurement law expert at George Washington University Law School, called the legislation a welcome development. As government contractors have merged in recent decades, the industry has grown more concentrated, increasing the risk of conflicts of interest, and the federal contracting industry, Tillipman said, could use clearer guidance on disclosure requirements tied to the private-sector work of government contractors. “Any attempt to address these growing problems is a good thing,” Tillipman said, “and important to ensuring that we reduce these risks in the government procurement system.”
What? Fix procurement? Let’s see. I estimate that another century will pass before draft regulations emerge from joint meetings between an executive branch agency and Congress. That time estimate may be too optimistic.
Think of the consultants needed to work on the issues related to regulating consultants. Think of the meetings. Think of the revolving door opportunities. Think of the inputs from law firms and accounting firms which must be obtained.
Think of the meetings. Psychology, not business acumen, fuels consulting as it did from the git go. What did that unusual poet say in “Chicago”? This sticks in my mind:
And they tell me you are crooked and I answer: yes…
Proud of it too.
Stephen E Arnold, April 7, 2022
Google: Nosing into US Government Consulting
April 4, 2022
I spotted an item on Reddit called “Google x Palantir.” Let’s assume there’s a smidgen of truth in the post. The factoid is in a comment about Google’s naming Stephen Elliott as its head of artificial intelligence solutions for the Google public sector unit. (What happened to the wizard once involved in this type of work? Oh, well.)
The interesting item for me is that Mr. Elliott will have a particular focus on “leveraging the Palantir Foundry platform.” I thought that outfits like Praetorian Digital (now Lexipol) handled this type of specialist consulting and engineering.
What strikes me as intriguing about this announcement is that Palantir Foundry will work on the Google Cloud. Amazon is likely to be an interested party in this type of Google initiative.
Amazon has sucked up a significant number of product-centric searches. Now the Google wants to get into the “make Palantir work” business.
Plus, Google will have an opportunity to demonstrate its people management expertise, its ability to attract and retain a diverse employee group, and its ability to put some pressure on the Amazon brachial nerve.
How will Microsoft respond?
The forthcoming Netflix mockumentary “Mr. Elliot Goes to Washington” will fill someone’s hunger for a reality thriller.
And what if the Reddit post is off base. Hey, mockumentaries can be winners. Remember “This Is Spinal Tap”?
Stephen E Arnold, April 4, 2022
The Art and Craft of Sending Document Copies to Legal Eagles: The Googley Method
April 1, 2022
Not joke. I read an allegedly accurate write up. It is called “Justice Department Accuses Google of Hiding Business Communications.” The idea is that in the US communications between a lawyer and his/her/them clients are privileged. I am not attorney, but the idea is to allow the lawyer to discuss sensitive issues with the his/her/them paying the bills.
The write up states:
The DOJ writes in its brief that Google teaches employees to request advice from counsel around sensitive business communications, thereby shielding documents from discovery in legal situations. Once counsel is involved, the company can treat the documents as protected under attorney-client privilege.
My view is that Google is just being “Googley.” When people who perceive themselves as entitled and really smart, those his/her/thems get advice from bright, often lesser individuals. The Googlers process the advice and when a suggestion measures up to Googzilla’s standards, the suggestion just sorta maybe becomes a way to handle certain issues.
Those who are Googley understand. Individuals who are not Googley — presumably like those in the Department of Justice — don’t understand the Googliness of the action.
Laws. Rules of the road. Those are often designed for the non Googley. The Googley must tolerate the others. But having the cash to throw legal cannon fodder in the path of the lesser lights who would do the Google harm is a useful tactic.
Stephen E Arnold, April 1, 2022
Do Amazon and Google Shape Information to Advance Their Legislative Agenda?
March 31, 2022
The meeting in which it was decided to fund the Connected Commerce Council must have been fun: High fives, snorts of laughter, and derogatory comments perhaps? CNBC, a most interesting source of real 21st century news, published “How Google and Amazon Bankrolled a Grassroots’ Activist Group of Small Business Owners to Lobby Against Big Tech Oversight.” This is not a high school essay about “How to Make a Taco.” Nope. If true, the write up explains how two companies funded an information management campaign. I would describe this a weaponized propaganda, but I live in rural Kentucky and I am luck if I can remember where I left my bicycle. (Answer: in the garage.)
The write up explains:
The Connected Commerce Council, which pitches itself as a grassroots movement representing small business owners, is actually a well-financed advocacy group funded by tech heavy hitters Google and Amazon.
Interesting.
Here’s the newsy bit:
Lobbying watchdog group the Campaign for Accountability called 3C an “Astroturf” lobbying organization, thanks to the tech giants’ financial support. That’s a bit of Washington slang for a group that claims to represent grassroots entities, but in reality serves as an advocate for big industry. It’s a tactic used in Washington to push for specific legislative or regulatory goals using the sympathetic face of mom and pop organizations. The Campaign for Accountability described 3C in a 2019 report as an “Astroturf-style front group for the nation’s largest technology companies.”
Let’s think about the meeting or meetings which made it possible for two big outfits conclude that weaponizing content was a peachy keen idea. Some questions:
- When will the regulators emulate their European brothers, sisters, and thems and make meaningful steps to deal with cute weaponizing plays like this one?
- Why do executives sign off on such content manipulation — excuse me, I mean public interest messaging? Confidence in their ability to let loose flocks of legal eagles, a “hey, why not” attitude, or a belief in their own infallibility. (CNBC is not exactly Bellingcat, right?)
- Is it a disconnect between ethical behavior and high school science club insouciance?
These are good questions, and I don’t have answers.
The write up includes this remarkable quotation from a Connected Commerce big wheel:
In a statement to CNBC, Connected Commerce Council Executive Director Rob Retzlaff said all of the group’s members “affirmatively sign up – at events, online, or through a personal connection – and thousands have opened emails, responded to surveys, attended meetings and events, and communicated with legislators.” Retzlaff said, “I sincerely hope you do not (a) mischaracterize our efforts or the views of small businesses by suggesting we are an astroturf organization that puts words in people’s mouths, or (b) use outdated membership information to distract readers from legitimate concerns of small businesses and their engagement with policymakers.”
I like the “sincerely hope.”
Read the original. I think the article is a thought starter.
Oh, one more question:
Why didn’t Google just filter search results to add sauce to the Max Miller recreation of Genghis Khan’s fave little meat cakes? Low profile and the perfect explanation: The algorithm makes its own decisions.
Sure, just like the people in the meeting that concluded disinformation and propaganda to preserve the nifty cash machines that make astroturfing useful.
Stephen E Arnold, March 31, 2022
Simple, Fair Digital Markets: Saddle Up, Don Quixote
March 25, 2022
Who knew that I would continue to reference the very long, very weird book I had to read in the seventh grade? Yet here I am: Don Quixote, slayer of windmills, a trusted sidekick, and a study horse.
“Europe Agrees New Law to Curb Big Tech Dominance” explains that the proud animal and adept rider is ambling from the barn after decades of training. Tally ho! The write up says:
Under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), giants such as Google and Apple will be forced to open up their services and platforms to other businesses. Major technology firms have long faced criticism that they use their market dominance to squeeze out competition.
Now that certain US technology outfits are dominant, what’s the fix? I suppose one could dismount and paint the windmills a different color. Where would one locate a color? How about Googling? Alternatively one might consult a Facebook group. And there is the ever objective Amazon, complete with fake reviews and odd ball videos showing a functioning product? Amazing.
Outfitted like the elegant Don, the trusted source of information reports:
The EU wants to give users more choice over how people send messages. The new rules would require that technology make their messaging services interoperable with smaller competitors.
As the rider, cohorts, and snorting animals charge at their targets, will the companies be fungible. Might they prove to be chimera?
At least one of the evil entities is Googzilla? Despite its age, the creature still has teeth, lots of teeth, and lawyers, lots of lawyers.
Stephen E Arnold, March 25, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
