Smart Intelligence Analysis Software: What Operators Need Versus What Operators Get
February 24, 2020
DarkCyber noted “The ABCs of AI Enabled Intelligence Analysis.” The major problem with today’s intelware solutions is stated clearly:
The inability to adjust analysis tools to the operational environment is a prodigious problem.
Vendors want operators (licensees) to adapt to their environment. The idea is that the vendor’s environment is the only way to get the most out of an intelware system. What if the customer does not like this approach? Yeah.
Now the marketers, developers, and field engineers will insist that this statement is incorrect.
Here’s a passage from the write up which explains the operator’s point of view:
There are two key concepts to any data-centric system: First, analysis tools and applications should change with the data, and second, data should be easily accessible. Analysts must be able to configure the tools and algorithms of the systems to meet the realities of the battlefield, and data access should be as seamless as possible.
So what’s wrong? Here’s the explanation:
Within a data-centric context, the use of machine learning algorithms has led to breakthroughs in nearly every analysis endeavor, from fraud detection to image identification. To take advantage of these advances, intelligence analysts need systems that allow them to use computational tools and to constantly adjust, or retrain, their algorithms to a changing battlefield. Unfortunately, nearly all analysis software products in use today — including advanced systems like Palantir or Analyst Notebook — are closed systems that do not allow analysts to code custom algorithms, use the latest machine-learning algorithms, use the latest research in “explainable AI,” or even allow analysts to provide feedback to the software’s algorithms.
DarkCyber recommends taking a look at this write up.
Several observations:
- Marketers, vendors, and field engineers are busy with their own agendas. As a result, paying customers are usually ignored. Their requests are not on the road map, too difficult to make, or of no interest.
- Existing intelware solutions are purpose built to require training, support, and tradition. In one demo, the marketer could not understand that his actions were obscured by the control panel of the video conferencing system used to show off features. The person did not listen; the eager beaver was on auto pilot.
- Legacy systems like Analyst Notebook are often rarely used. The license is simply paid because, as one top dog law enforcement professional told me, “We don’t want to be without it. But no one has been to training recently. It is just here.”
These three problems are not part of the “AI baloney party.” I think these dot points underscore how deep the disconnect and how severe a problem today’s intelware helps foster.
For those who want to point out that certain tools developed in other countries are “better, faster, and cheaper.” Based on DarkCyber’s exposure to these systems, the newest tools are repeating the errors of the past 20 years.
A goldfish knows only water. The real world is different. But intelware fish don’t die. They force the customer to learn how to exist within their watery world.
Stephen E Arnold, February 24, 2020
Trovicor Acquired
February 21, 2020
Information online suggests that Trovicor, a lawful intercept and specialized services company, has been acquired. One source (Clairfield) identifies the purchasers as the French firm Boss Industries, which may be a red herring. Another source (Intelligence Online, which is paywalled, thank you very much) says that the buyer is Nexa Technologies. Trovicor operates from Dubai, a city which is on the path to displacing Herliya, Israel, as the Silicon Valley of intelware and policeware.
Why the confusion? No idea.
DarkCyber’s sources suggest that the owner of Trovicor is Nexa Technologies. Nexa has an office in Dubai, and the firm has been working to create an “alliance” or “tie up” among other specialized services companies called Intellexa. Those mentioned as part of the Nexa “alliance” are Senpai Technologies and WiSpear. Nexa offers some well regarded audio surveillance capabilities. Other capabilities of Nexa are likely to include:
Network Intelligence – remote intelligence collection and production solutions based on a range of data sources
Lawful intercept – Mobile phone centric and WiFi data
Cyber Intelligence services – Malware, OSINT
InSight Data Fusion and Analytics systems – Text processing and analysis
OverSight – Administrative modules (Source: Varindia)
Nexa may have put the allegations that it sold surveillance equipment to countries on a “do not sell to” list. The investigation, according to Corpwatch, was allegedly
an expansion of an ongoing investigation of Amesys, which was a unit of Bull International SAS in France, for the 2007 sale of a surveillance system named Eagle GLINT to the Gaddafi regime in Libya, for approximately $25 million. The investigation was initiated in the summer of 2011 after FIDH and LDH lodged a complaint alleging that Eagle GLINT enabled widespread oppression and human and civil rights violations of in Libya between 2007 and 2011.
Is Trovicor going to help Nexa challenge the leaders in specialized services?
Possibly. A more realistic scenario is to compete for the steadily increasing funds allocated to deal with threats to nation states by actors antagonist to these sovereignties. Displacing firms like BAE Systems, NSO, and Verint may be a challenge.
Stephen E Arnold, February 21, 2020
Africa: Booming Intelware and Policeware Markets?
February 20, 2020
DarkCyber has a difficult time determining what information is on the money and what information is on the floor of the data casino. We read “Inside Africa’s Increasingly Lucrative Surveillance Market.” The write up is chock full of details. Some of the allegedly accurate information was interesting.
Here’s a sampling of factoids to evaluate:
Market size, but it is not clear what “market” means, just Africa, the world, or developed countries: The cybersecurity market was worth $118.78bn in 2018. By 2024, this figure is expected to hit $267.73bn.
Name of Gabonese Republic’s enforcement unit: SILAM which is allegedly run by French national Jean-Charles Solon. The write up states: “Solon previously worked for the General Directorate for External Security (Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure – DGSE), France’s intelligence agency.” Allegedly Solor is familiar with the ins and outs of wire tapping. The write up asserts without providing a specific source: “According to our sources, Solon is well equipped and handles everything from wiretap transcripts, text message and WhatsApp conversation interceptions, and email and social media surveillance.” Solon is likely to find the write up in This Is GCN worth some special attention, but that’s just DarkCyber hunch.
Entities (governmental and commercial) linked to the Gabonese Republic include: Amesys and its Cerebro tool, SDECE/DGSE, AMES, Nexa Technologies, and Suneris Solutions (Thales).
Current market leaders: The write up reports, “Ercom and Suneris Solutions have a leading position in the African market, especially in the sub-Saharan region.” These two companies are owned by Thales.
What sells and where to buy: The write up notes, ““Clients want to buy something that has a proven track record. They’re not looking for an experimental gadget.” For Africa, the two must-see events are Milipol Paris, held in November, and ISS World Middle East and Africa, held in March in Dubai.”
Israeli companies selling or trying to sell in Africa: The write up identifies these firms as eyeing the African markets –—Thales (includes Ercom and Suneris Solutions), Mer Group and its unit Athena GS3 (Mer Group (Congo, Guinea, Nigeria and DRC), Verint Systems and Elbit Systems (South Africa, Angola, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc.), AD Consultants, and NSO Group. The write up asserts, “The Israelis are everywhere. They even managed to equip Saudi Arabia! It’s pretty much impossible to bypass them.”
Other companies trying to sell to African markets include: BAE Systems, Gamma Group, Trovicor (now a unit of Nexa), Hacking Team, VasTech, Protei (a Russian firm), Huawei, and ZTE Corporation (described in the article as a compatriot of Huawei).
DarkCyber will leave it to you, gentle reader, to figure out if the write up in This is GCN is fact or fluff. What is known is that most of the named entities in this write up work overtime to avoid big time news coverage, traditional marketing, and noisy public relations. DarkCyber believes that firms providing specialized services should remain low profile.
In closing, if you want information about Sudanese intelligence activities, you may find this thesis by Muhammad Bathily helpful. Its title is “Reform of Senegalese Gendarmerie Intelligence Services.” You can locate the document at this url https://t.co/0cp1CCqiKy. (Verified at 1049 am US Eastern time, 2 20 20)
Stephen E Arnold, February 20, 2020
Belated Recognition: Barn Burned, Intelligence Costco Operating
December 18, 2019
Amnesty International has described the “Architecture of Surveillance.” Quick out of the gate?
Concerns about privacy and the ways in which large tech companies use and profit off user data have been more and more in the news lately. A recent report by Amnesty International goes so far as to say Facebook and Google, in particular, maintain a “surveillance-based business model.” Common Dreams discusses the report in its article, “Unprecedented ‘Architecture of Surveillance’ Created by Facebook and Google Poses Grave Human Rights Threat: Report.” Writer Andrea Germanos summarizes:
“With Facebook controlling not only its eponymous social media platform but also WhatsApp, Messenger, and Instagram, and Google parent company Alphabet in control of YouTube and the Android mobile operating system as well as the search engine, the companies ‘control the primary channels that people rely on to engage with the internet.’ In fact, the report continues, the two companies control ‘an architecture of surveillance that has no basis for comparison in human history.’ … The companies hoover up user data—as well as metadata like email recipients—and ‘they are using that data to infer and create new information about us,’ relying in part on artificial intelligence (AI).The report says that ‘as a default Google stores search history across all of an individual’s devices, information on every app and extension they use, and all of their YouTube history, while Facebook collects data about people even if they don’t have a Facebook account.’ Smart phones also offer the companies a ‘rich source of data,’ but the reach of surveillance doesn’t stop there.”
In fact, the reach now extends into homes via AI assistants like Alexa and devices connected to the internet of things. It also extends through public spaces courtesy of smart city implementations. All of this has crept upon us gradually and, largely, with the full cooperation of the subjects being surveilled (a.k.a. “users”), whether they fully understood what they were signing up for or not. The connections and conclusions algorithms can draw from all this information is mind-boggling even to someone who writes about data and AI for a living. See the article for a more in-depth discussion of the possibilities and repercussions.
Because the big tech companies are not going to stop these lucrative practices on their own, Amnesty International insists governments must step in. Companies must stop requiring users to surrender all rights to their data in order to use their services, for example, and the right to not be tracked must be enshrined into law. Transparency is also to be required, and companies mustn’t be allowed to lobby for weakened protections. Society has gone so far down the digital road that opting out of an online existence is simply not a workable option for most—that’s just not how it works anymore. But will it be possible to hold the big techs’ feet to the fire, or have they become too powerful?
Cynthia Murrell, December 18, 2019
This Snooping Stuff
December 14, 2019
The Economist’s story “Offering Software for Snooping to Governments Is a Booming Business” sounds good. The article is locked behind a paywall so you will have to sign up to read the quite British analysis. There are some interesting comments zipping around about the article. For example, a useful thread appears at this link.
Several observations struck me as informative; for example:
- The Economist does not mention Cisco. This is important because Cisco has an “intelligence” capability with some useful connections to innovators in other countries.
- Palantir, a recipient of another US government contract, is not mentioned in the write up. For information about this new Palantir project, navigate to “Palantir Wins New Pentagon Deal With $111 Million From the Army.” This is paywalled as well.
- There is even a reference to surveillance technology delivering a benefit.
Perhaps those interested in surveillance software will find the interview Robert Steele, a former CIA professional, conducted with me. You can find that information at this link.
Perhaps the Economist will revisit this topic and move beyond NSO Group and colloquial language like snooping?
Stephen E Arnold
Facebook Takes on NSO Group
October 30, 2019
Now this is an interesting and possibly inadvisable move. Facebook is big and it has become the one company able to create more negative vibes than an outfit like Boeing (737 Max which allegedly was called “flying coffins”or Johnson & Johnson (the outfit famous for baby powder with a possible secret ingredient).
“Why WhatsApp Is Pushing Back on NSO Group Hacking” provides a Facebook professional’s explanation of the decision to go after the NSO Group, a specialized software and services firm with some government clients:
As we gathered the information that we lay out in our complaint, we learned that the attackers used servers and Internet-hosting services that were previously associated with NSO. In addition, as our complaint notes, we have tied certain WhatsApp accounts used during the attacks back to NSO. While their attack was highly sophisticated, their attempts to cover their tracks were not entirely successful.
I particularly relished this statement by the Facebook professional:
At WhatsApp, we believe people have a fundamental right to privacy and that no one else should have access to your private conversations, not even us. Mobile phones provide us with great utility, but turned against us they can reveal our locations and our private messages, and record sensitive conversations we have with others.
Yeah, yeah, the DarkCyber team hears your voice. Is that voice one that resonates with truth, honor, and “ethical behavior” cranked up on the baloney amplifier?
Several observations:
- It is generally a good idea to understand one’s opponent before getting into a bit of a tussle. Some opponents have special capabilities which are not often understood in the go go, move fast and break things world of Facebook
- Facebook lacks what DarkCyber thinks of as “credibility stature.” In fact, the shadow the firm casts is a long one, but the path the company has followed in its crepuscular journey of those who may be afraid of the light. (Apologies to Plato)
- NSO Group states: “NSO products are used exclusively by government intelligence and law enforcement agencies to fight crime and terror.”
Based on information I glean from my lectures at law enforcement and intelligence conferences, WhatsApp is an encrypted messaging service popular among some bad actors.
Oh, one final question, “Where did some of NSO’s team garner their operational experience?”
Give up. Gentle reader, knowing the answer is probably important. Does Facebook know the answer? Another good question.
Stephen E Arnold, October 30, 2019
Smart Software and Investigations
October 30, 2019
It should come as no surprise that governments are using AI to boost their surveillance capabilities, but we find some interesting specifics in the piece, “Artificial Intelligence Used for Mass Surveillance in 75 Countries” at WiredFocus. The article shares some details of a recent report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that examined just how different countries are using the technologies. Reporter Steven Feldstein writes:
“A growing number of states are deploying advanced AI surveillance tools to monitor, track, and surveil citizens to accomplish a range of policy objectives—some lawful, others that violate human rights, and many of which fall into a murky middle ground. In order to appropriately address the effects of this technology, it is important to first understand where these tools are being deployed and how they are being used. Unfortunately, such information is scarce. To provide greater clarity, this paper presents an AI Global Surveillance (AIGS) Index—representing one of the first research efforts of its kind. The index compiles empirical data on AI surveillance use for 176 countries around the world. It does not distinguish between legitimate and unlawful uses of AI surveillance. Rather, the purpose of the research is to show how new surveillance capabilities are transforming the ability of governments to monitor and track individuals or systems. It specifically asks:
*Which countries are adopting AI surveillance technology?
*What specific types of AI surveillance are governments deploying?
*Which countries and companies are supplying this technology?”
Navigate to the write-up for key findings. For example, these practices are spreading faster than expected, with at least 75 out of 176 countries now actively using AI tech for surveillance—56 use smart city/safe city platforms, 64 use facial recognition systems, and 52 use “smart policing.” Not surprisingly, China is a major source of AI surveillance technology worldwide, but companies based in democracies also play a large role (including the US). Autocratic governments, of course, are especially prone to abuse these technologies, and counties that spend a lot on their militaries also invest heavily in AI surveillance.
The article closes with some links to more information. The AI Global Surveillance Index itself can be found here, while an interactive map based upon it is at this link. The truly curious should check out the open Zotero library holding all reference source material that researchers used to build the index.
Cynthia Murrell, October 30, 2019
Why Analyzing Amazon EBook Reading Lists Is Useful
October 30, 2019
An intriguing study in machine-learning models suggests human language behaviors may be more affected by what we read than previously thought. Neuroscience News tells us “What 26,000 Books Reveal When it Comes to Learning Language.” Brendan T. Johns, an assistant professor at the University at Buffalo, and Randall K. Jamieson, a professor at the University of Manitoba, created the models. The article tells us:
“The models, called distributional models, serve as analogies to the human language learning process. The 26,000 books that support the analysis of this research come from 3,000 different authors (about 2,000 from the U.S. and roughly 500 from the U.K.) who used over 1.3 billion total words. George Bernard Shaw is often credited with saying Britain and America are two countries separated by a common language. But the languages are not identical, and in order to establish and represent potential cultural differences, the researchers considered where each of the 26,000 books was located in both time (when the author was born) and place (where the book was published). With that information established, the researchers analyzed data from 10 different studies involving more than 1,000 participants, using multiple psycholinguistic tasks. ‘The question this paper tries to answer is, “If we train a model with similar materials that someone in the U.K. might have read versus what someone in the U.S. might have read, will they become more like these people?”’ says Johns. ‘We found that the environment people are embedded in seems to shape their behavior.’”
The researchers have developed what they call their “selective reading hypothesis.” They report that culture-specific and time-specific collections represent different language environments, and different behaviors arise from exposure to these environments. Conversely, they say one could predict what types of things people have read based on their language behavior.
Informed by the results, Johns is now working to build machine-learning frameworks for education that would pinpoint information to enhance each individual’s learning. He also sees a potential here to help people at risk of developing Alzheimer’s—researchers might be able to create exercises and stimuli to help such patients retain semantic associations longer, for example, or at least develop more personalized assessments. It is nice to see machine language models being put to such worthwhile purposes.
Now about that Kindle library some individuals have amassed?
Cynthia Murrell, October 30, 2019
Percipient.ai: A Promising Innovator
October 4, 2019
Intelware refers to software designed to support the work of intelligence officers, analysts, and related personnel. Percipient.ai is one of the leading “artificial intelligence, machine learning and computer vision firm in Silicon Valley focused on intelligence and national security missions. Mirage’s modules provide state-of-the-art computer vision and correlation to operators and analysts in front line missions.”
According to “Percipient.ai delivers Mirage into the US National Security Market and Closes its Series B”, the company received confirmation of:
…the operational procurement of Mirage’s Full Motion Video Module and Mirage’s Geospatial Module by organizations in the US Intelligence Community and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), respectively.
The company was founded in 2017 and has attention from the intelligence community.
The company’s funding is less than $25 million, which is peanuts compared to Palantir Technologies’ intake of about $2 billion.
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2019
Palantir Technologies: Fund Raising Signal
September 6, 2019
Palantir Technologies offers products and services which serve analysts and investigators. The company was founded in 2003, and it gained some traction in a number of US government agencies. The last time I checked for Palantir’s total funding, my recollection is that the firm has ingested about $2 billion from a couple dozen funding rounds. If you subscribe to Crunchbase, you can view that service’s funding round up. An outfit known as Growjo reports that Palantir has 2,262 employees. That works out cash intake of $884,173 per employee. Palantir is a secretive outfit, so who knows about funding, the revenue, the profits or losses, and the number of full time equivalents, contractors, etc. But Palantir is one of the highest profile companies in the law enforcement, regulatory, and intelligence sectors.
I read “Palantir to Seek Funding on Private Market, Delay IPO” and noted this statement:
The company has never turned an annual profit.
Bloomberg points out that customization of the system is expensive. Automation is a priority. Sales cycles are lengthy. And some stakeholders and investors are critical of the company.
Understandable. After 16 years and allegedly zero profits, annoyance is likely to surface in the NYAC after an intense game of squash.
But I am not interested in Palantir. The information about Palantir strikes me as germane to the dozens upon dozens of Palantir competitors. Consider these questions:
- Intelligence, like enterprise search, requires software and services that meet the needs of users who have quite particular work processes. Why pay lots of money to customize something that will have to be changed when a surprise event tips over established procedures? Roll your own? Look for the lowest cost solution?
- With so many competitors, how will government agencies be able to invest in a wide range of solutions. Why not seek a single source solution and find ways to escape from the costs of procuring, acquiring, tuning, training, and changing systems? If Palantir was the home run, why haven’t Palantir customers convinced their peers and superiors to back one solution? That hasn’t happened, which makes an interesting statement in itself. Why isn’t Palantir the US government wide solution the way Oracle was a few years ago?
- Are the systems outputting useful, actionable information. Users of these systems who give talks at LE and intel conferences are generally quite positive. But the reality is that cyber problems remain and have not been inhibited by Palantir and similar tools or the raft of cyber intelligence innovations from companies in the UK, Germany, Israel, and China. What’s the problem? Staff turnover, complexity, training cost, reliability of outputs?
Net net: Palantir’s needing money is an interesting signal. Stealth, secrecy, good customer support, and impressive visuals of networks of bad actors — important. But maybe — just maybe — the systems are ultimately not working as advertised. Sustainable revenues, eager investors, and a home run product equivalent to Facebook or Netflix — nowhere to be found. Yellow lights are flashing in DarkCyber’s office for some intelware vendors.
Stephen E Arnold, September 6, 2019
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
