Apple and Meta: Virtual Automatic Teller Machines for the EU
April 29, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby watching the world respond to the tech bros.
I spotted this story in USA Today. You remember that newspaper, of course. The story “Apple Fined $570 Million and Meta $228 Million for Breaching European Union Law” reports:
Apple was fined 500 million euros ($570 million) on Wednesday and Meta 200 million euros, as European Union antitrust regulators handed out the first sanctions under landmark legislation aimed at curbing the power of Big Tech.
I have observed that to many regulators the brands Apple and Meta (Facebook) are converted to the sound of ka-ching. For those who don’t recognize the onomatopoeia for an old-fashioned cash register ringing up a sale. The modern metaphor might be an automatic teller machine emitting beeps and honks. That works. Punch the Apple and Meta logos and bonk, beep, out comes millions of euros. Bonk, beep.
The law which allows the behavior of what some Europeans view as “tech bros” to be converted first to a legal process and then to cash is the Digital Markets Act. The idea is that certain technology centric outfits based in the US operate without much regard for the rules, regulations, and laws of actual nation-states and their governing entities. I mean who pays attention to what the European Union says? Certainly not a geek à la sauce californienne.
The companies are likely to interpret these fines as some sort of deus ex machina, delivered by a third-rate vengeful god in a TikTok-type of video. Perhaps? But the legal process identified some actions by the fined American companies as illegal. Examples range from preventing an Apple store user from certain behaviors to Meta’s reluctance to conform to some privacy requirements. I am certainly not a lawyer, nor am I involved with either of the American companies. However, I can make several observations from my dinobaby point of view, of course:
- The ka-ching / bonk beep incentive is strong. Money talks in the US and elsewhere. It is not surprising that the fines are becoming larger with each go-round. How does one stop the cost creep? One thought is to change the behavior of the companies. Sorry, EU, that is not going to happen.
- The interpretation of the penalty as a reaction against America is definitely a factor. For those who have not lived and worked in other countries, the anti-American sentiment is not understood. I learned when people painted slurs on the walls of our home in Campinas, Brazil. I was about 13, and the anger extended beyond black paint on our pristine white, eight-foot high walls with glass embedded at the top of them. Inviting, right?
- The perception that a company is more powerful than a mere government entity has been growing as the concentration of eyeballs, money, and talented people has increased at certain firms. Once the regulators have worked through the others in this category, attention will turn to the second tier of companies. I won’t identify any entities but the increased scrutiny of Cloudflare by French authorities is a glimpse of what might be coming down the information highway.
Net net: Ka-ching, ka-ching, and ka-ching. Beep, bong, beep, bong.
Stephen E Arnold, April 29, 2025
The Only-Google-Can-Do-It Information Campaign: Repeat It, and It Will Be “True.” Believe Now!
April 28, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby who gets revved up with buzzwords and baloney.
After more than two decades of stomping around the digital world, the Google faces some unpleasant consequences of what it hath wrought. There is the European Union’s ka-ching factor; that is, Google is a big automatic teller machine capable of spitting out oodles of cash after the lawyers run out of gas. The US legal process is looking more like the little engine that could. If it can, Google may lose control of some of its big-time components; for example, the Chrome browser. I think this was acquired by the Google from someone in Denmark years ago, but I am a bit fuzzy about this statement. But, hey, let’s roll with it. Google “owns” the browser market, and if the little engine that could gets to the top of the hill (not guaranteed by any means, of course) then another outfit might acquire it.
Among the players making noises about buying the Google browser is OpenAI. I find this interesting because [a] Sam AI-Man wants to build his version of Telegram and [b] he wants to make sure that lots of people use his firm’s / organization’s smart software. Buy Chrome and Sam has users and he can roll out a browser enabled version of the Telegram platform with his very own AI system within.
Google is not too keen on losing any of its “do good” systems. Chrome has been a useful vector for such helpful functions as data gathering, control of extensions, and having its own embedded Google search system everywhere the browser user goes. Who needs Firefox when Google has Chrome? Probably not Sam AI-Man or Yahoo or whoever eyes the browser.
“Only Google Can Run Chrome, Company’s Browser Chief Tells Judge” reveals to me how Google will argue against a decision forcing Google to sell its browser. That argument is, not surprisingly, is anchored within Google’s confidence in itself, its wizards, its money, and its infrastructure. The Los Angeles Times’ article says:
Google is the only company that can offer the level of features and functionality that its popular Chrome web browser has today, given its “interdependencies” on other parts of the Alphabet Inc. unit, the head of Chrome testified. “Chrome today represents 17 years of collaboration between the Chrome people” and the rest of Google, Parisa Tabriz, the browser’s general manager, said Friday as part of the Justice Department’s antitrust case in Washington federal court. “Trying to disentangle that is unprecedented.”
My interpretation of this comment is typical of a dinobaby. Google’s browser leader is saying, “Other companies are not Google; therefore, those companies are mentally, technically, and financially unable to do what Google does.” I understand. Googzilla is supreme in the way it is quantumly supreme in every advanced technology, including content marketing and public relations.
The write up adds:
James Mickens, a computer science expert for the Justice Department, said Google could easily transfer ownership of Chrome to another company without breaking its functionality. … “The divestiture of Chrome is feasible from a technical perspective,” said Mickens, a computer science professor at Harvard University. “It would be feasible to transfer ownership and not break too much.”
Professor Mickens has put himself in the category of non-Googley people who lack the intelligence to realize how incorrect his reasoning is. Too bad, professor, no Google consulting gig for you this year.
Plus, Google has a plan for its browser. The write up reports:
In internal documents, Google said it intends to develop Chrome into an “agentic browser,” which incorporates AI agents to automate tasks and perform actions such as filling out forms, conducting research or shopping. “We envision a future of multiple agents, where Chrome integrates deeply with Gemini as a primary agent and one we’ll prioritize and enable users to engage with multiple 3P agents on the web in both consumer and enterprise settings,” Tabriz wrote in a 2024 email.
How will this play out? I have learned that predicting the outcome of legal processes is a tough job. Stick to estimating the value of a TONcoin. That’s an easier task.
What does seem clear to me are three points:
- Google’s legal woes are not going away
- Google’s sense of its technology dominance is rising despite some signals that that perception may not align with what’s happening in AI and other technical fields
- Google’s argument that only it can do its browser may not fly in the midst of legal eagles.
I don’t think the “browser chief” will agree with this dinobaby. That’s okay. Trust me.
Stephen E Arnold, April 28, 2025
Japan Alleges Google Is a Monopoly Doing Monopolistic Things. What?
April 28, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby himself.
The Google has been around a couple of decades or more. The company caught my attention, and I wrote three monographs for a now defunct publisher in a very damp part of England. These are now out of print, but their titles illustrate my perception of what I call affectionately Googzilla:
- The Google Legacy. I tried to explain why Google’s approach was going to define how future online companies built their technical plumbing. Yep, OpenAI in all its charm is a descendant of those smart lads, Messrs. Brin and Page.
- Google Version 2.0. I attempted to document the shift in technical focus from search relevance to a more invasive approach to using user data to generate revenue. The subtitle, I thought at the time, gave away the theme of the book: “The Calculating Predator.”
- Google: The Digital Gutenberg. I presented information about how Google’s “outputs” from search results to more sophisticated content structures like profiles of people, places, and things was preparing Google to reinvent publishing. I was correct because the new head of search (Prabhakar Version 2.0) is making little reports the big thing in search results. This will doom many small publications because Google just tells you what it wants you to know.
I wrote these monographs between 2002 and 2008. I must admit that my 300 page Enterprise Search Report sold more copies than my Google work. But I think my Google trilogy explained what Googzilla was doing. No one cared.
Now I learn “Japan orders Google to stop pushing smartphone makers to install its apps.”* Okay, a little slow on the trigger, but government officials in the land of the rising sun figured out that Google is doing what Google has been doing for decades.
Enlightenment arrives!
The article reports:
Japan has issued a cease-and-desist order telling Google to stop pressuring smartphone makers to preinstall its search services on Android phones. The Japan Fair Trade Commission said on Tuesday Google had unfairly hindered competition by asking for preferential treatment for its search and browser from smartphone makers in violation of the country’s anti-monopoly law. The antitrust watchdog said Google, as far back as July 2020, had asked at least six Android smartphone manufacturers to preinstall its apps when they signed the license for the American tech giant’s app store…
Google has been this rodeo before. At the end of a legal process, Google will apologize, write a check, and move on down the road.
The question for me is, “How many other countries will see Google as a check writing machine?”
Quite a few in my opinion. The only problem is that these actions have taken many years to move from the thrill of getting a Google mouse pad to actual governmental action. (The best Google freebie was its flashing LED pin. Mine corroded and no longer flashed. I dumped it.)
Note for the * — Links to Microsoft “news” stories often go dead. Suck it up and run a query for the title using Google, of course.
Stephen E Arnold, April 28, 2025
FOGINT: Pavel Durov Responds to His Problems without Crisis PR Inputs
April 22, 2025
Before the US National Cyber Crime Conference, possibly significant news emerged about Telegram.
In my Telegram lecture at the NCCC 2025, I don’t talk about the psychological and financial impact Pavel Durov experienced as a result of his interaction with the French government. He was greeted at a Paris airport and detained. He talked with French officials. He hired Kaminski and his associates to represent him in the legal matter. Within a few weeks of his being confined to France, although not in St. Denis or Maison d’arrêt de Fleury-Mérogis, he seemed to be showing interest in providing some government authorities with Telegram “user names” or made-up handles and phone numbers (some real and some obtained through services providing temporary phone numbers). Mr. Durov, via indirect communication methods, seemed to indicate that he was doing what he had always done: Followed the rules of the jurisdictions in which Telegram operated. Then, without going to the French equivalent of a trial, Mr. Durov was allowed to return to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, one of the countries which has granted him citizenship.
Upon his return, he took some interesting actions:
- He began fiddling with some knobs and dials in order to get the TONcoin out of its doldrums
- He ramped up the marketing activities of the TON Foundation. (Please, keep in mind that Telegram and its proxy say they do not do marketing. The Telegram entities also do not do personnel or content control either.) Telegram and the Open Network Foundation (aka TON Foundation or ONF) are “there is no there there” or virtual outifts making do with coffee shop meetings, Telegram Messenger interactions, and maybe some face-to-face activity in a rented temporary space.)
- He started talking on CNN, for example.
From one of my team, I learned a couple of new “facts” this morning (April 22, 2025, 6 am US Eastern time). This individual reported:
Telegram has never shared private messages. The source is https://news.az/news/t-elegram-has-never-shared-private-messages-durov-says. Now there are two types of messages on Telegram Messenger. First, there are the default messages. These are encrypted from sender to the Telegram command-and-control system. There the messages are decrypted and processed. Then the messages are re-encrypted and forwarded to the recipient who opens them. The second type of message is the “secret” message which requires that the recipient be on Telegram when the sender creates and sends the message. That message is forwarded by the command-and-control system to the recipient. These “secret” messages remain encrypted for their digital journey. What Telegram shares with law enforcement is the IP address and the phone number of the sender. I will leave it to you to consider the “value” to Telegram’s command-and-control center of logging the metadata for messages and what happens when an investigator receives a bogus or temporary mobile number.,
A second item he shared with me this morning is that Pavel Durov continues to find himself at the edge of chaos with Russia. According to Meduza.io:
Russia slaps Telegram with another multi-million-ruble fine for refusing to take down ‘prohibited content’.
Several observations may be warranted:
- For a company that does not “do” marketing, Pavel Durov has been a busy and willing marketer on behalf of the Telegram operation. In fact, he seems to be sending out the message, “We cooperate with law enforcement.” Then he tries to make clear that he doesn’t reveal too much when Telegram cooperates with investigators.
- As a Russian citizen, Mr. Durov may want to [a] work with certain Russian officials to create the appearance of a problem with Russia in order to reduce the pressure from France or [b] Russia is acting independently to let Mr. Durov know he is a person of interest to the Kremlin. In short, which is it? Is Mr. Durov an asset for a certain country or is he a problem for a certain country in which some of his family and possibly some of his “core developers” reside? Uncomfortable either way I think.
- Telegram and its crypto play are not enjoying significant TONcoin upsides. The TONcoin is not the would-be high flier, Hamster Kombat home run it was prior to Mr. Durov’s arrest.
What’s clear is that Mr. Durov’s legal problems in France have been resolved. What is Mr. Durov’s relationship with the Russia’s government? Fuzzy stuff.
Net net: Mr. Durov’s recent actions appear to be signals that suggest Telegram is going to have to pull a rabbit from someone’s hoodie.
Stephen E Arnold, April 22, 2025
JudyRecords: Is It Back or Did It Never Go Away?
April 22, 2025
Believe it or not, no smart software. Just a dumb and skeptical dinobaby.
I was delighted to see that JudyRecords is back online. Here’s what the service says as of April 19, 2025:
Judyrecords is a 100% free nationwide search engine that lets you instantly search hundreds of millions of United States court cases and lawsuits.judyrecords has over 100x more cases than Google Scholar and 10x more cases than PACER, the official case management system of the United States federal judiciary.As of Jul 2022, judyrecords now features free full-text search of all United States patents from 1/1/1976 to 07/01/2022 — over 8.1 million patents in total.
My thought is that lawyers, law students, and dinobabies like me will find the service quite useful.
The JudyRecords’ Web site adds:
The first 500K results are displayed instead of just the first 2K.
- murder – 926K cases
- fraud – 2.1 million cases
- burglary – 3.7 million cases
- assault – 8.2 million cases
Most people don’t realize that the other “free” search engines limit the number of hits shown to the user. The old-fashioned ideas of precision and recall are not operative with most of the people whom I encounter. At the Googleplex, precision and recall are treated like a snappy joke when the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show appears in a major venue like courtrooms.
If you want to control the results, JudyRecords provides old-fashioned and definitely unpopular methods such as Boolean logic. I can visualize the GenZs rolling their eyes and mouthing, “Are you crazy, old man?”
Please, check out JudyRecords because the outstanding management visionaries at LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters, and other “professional” publishers will be taking a look themselves.
Stephen E Arnold, April 22, 2025
Kiddie Loving Google and Data Hoovering
April 22, 2025
If you do not have kids or grandkids in school, you may have missed Google’s very successful foray into K-12 education. Google’s “Workspace for Education” tools are free to schools, but is the company providing them purely from a sense of civic duty? Of course not. Bloomberg Law reports, “Google Hit with Lawsuit over Data Collection on School Kids.” Apparently, US schools did not learn from Denmark’s 2022 ban on Google Workspace in its schools. Or they decided savings and convenience trumped student privacy and parental consent. Writer Isaiah Poritz tells us:
“Google LLC is unlawfully using its products—ubiquitous in K-12 education—to secretly gather information about school age children, substituting the consent of the school for that of parents, a proposed class action filed in California federal court said Monday. The tech giant collects not only traditional education records ‘but thousands of data points that span a child’s life,’ and ‘neither students nor their parents have agreed to this arrangement, according to the US District Court for the Northern District of California complaint.”
This is a significant breach, if true, considering almost 70% of K-12 schools in the US use these tools. We also learn:
“The company doesn’t disclose that it embeds hidden tracking technology in its Chrome browser that creates a child’s unique digital ‘fingerprint,’ the plaintiffs said. The fingerprint allows Google to ‘to track a child even when she or her school administrator has disabled cookies or is using technologies designed to block third-party cookies.’ The suit said Google has failed to obtain parental consent to take school childrens’ personal data. ‘Instead, Google relies on the consent of school personnel alone,’ the complaint said. ‘But school personnel do not have authority to provide consent in lieu of parents.’”
No, they do not. Or they shouldn’t. It seems like parents’ rights groups should have something to say about this. Perhaps they are too busy policing library shelves. The suit alleges Google is both selling students’ data to third parties and using it for its own targeted advertising. We note it would also be very easy, if the firm is so inclined, to build up a profile of a student who later creates a Google account which is then mapped onto that childhood data.
Naturally, Google denies the suit’s allegations. Of course, our favorite company does.
Cynthia Murrell, April 22, 2025
Google: Keep a Stiff Upper Lip and Bring Fiat Currency Other Than Dollars
April 17, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby himself.
Poor Googzilla. After decades of stomping through virtual barrier, those lovers of tea, fried fish, and cricket have had enough. I think some UK government officials have grown tired of, as Monty Python said:
“..what I object to is you automatically treat me as an inferior..” “Well, I am KING.”
“Google Faces £5bn UK Lawsuit” reports:
The lawsuit alleges that the tech giant has abused its dominant market position to prevent both existing and potential competitors from entering the general search and search advertising markets, thereby allowing Google to impose supra-competitive advertising prices. The lawsuit seeks compensation for thousands of UK advertisers impacted by the company’s actions.
Will Googzilla trample this pesky lawsuit the way cinematic cities fell to the its grandfather, Godzilla?
Key allegations include Google’s contracts with smartphone manufacturers and network operators that mandate the pre-installation of Google Search and the Chrome browser on Android devices. The suit also highlights Google’s agreement with Apple, under which it pays to remain the default search engine on iPhones. Plaintiffs argue that these practices have made Google the only practical platform for online search advertising.
I know little about the UK, but I did work for an outfit on Clarendon Terrace, adjacent Buckingham Palace, for a couple of years. I figured out that the US and UK government officials were generally cooperative, but there were some interesting differences.
Obviously there is the Monty Python canon. Another point of differentiation is a tendency to keep a stiff upper lip and then bang!
The wonderful Google and its quantumly supreme approach to business may be approaching one of those bang moments. Will Google’s solicitors prevail?
I am not very good at fancy probability and nifty gradient descent calculations. I would suggest that Googzilla bring a check book or a valid cargo container filled with an acceptable fiat currency. Pounds, euros, or Swiss francs are probably acceptable at this particular point in business history.
Oh, that £5bn works out to 5.4 million Swiss francs.
Stephen E Arnold, April 17, 2025
The French Are Going After Enablers: Other Countries May Follow
April 16, 2025
Another post by the dinobaby. Judging by the number of machine-generated images of young female “entities” I receive, this 80-year-old must be quite fetching to some scammers with AI. Who knew?
Enervated by the French judiciary’s ability to reason with Pavel Durov, the Paris Judicial Tribunal is going after what I call “enablers.” The term applies to the legitimate companies which make their online services available to customers. With the popularity of self-managed virtual machines, the online services firms receive an online order, collect a credit card, validate it, and let the remote customer set up and manage a computing resource.
Hey, the approach is popular and does not require expensive online service technical staff to do the handholding. Just collect the money and move forward. I am not sure the Paris Judicial Tribunal is interested in virtual anything. According to “French Court Orders Cloudflare to ‘Dynamically’ Block MotoGP Streaming Piracy”:
In the seemingly endless game of online piracy whack-a-mole, a French court has ordered Cloudflare to block several sites illegally streaming MotoGP. The ruling is an escalation of French blocking measures that began increasing their scope beyond traditional ISPs in the last few months of 2024. Obtained by MotoGP rightsholder Canal+, the order applies to all Cloudflare services, including DNS, and can be updated with ‘future’ domains.
The write up explains:
The reasoning behind the blocking request is similar to a previous blocking order, which also targeted OpenDNS and Google DNS. It is grounded in Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code, which empowers rightsholders to seek court orders against any outfit that can help to stop ‘serious and repeated’ sports piracy. This time, SECP’s demands are broader than DNS blocking alone. The rightsholder also requested blocking measures across Cloudflare’s other services, including its CDN and proxy services.
The approach taken by the French provides a framework which other countries can use to crack down on what seem to be legal online services. Many of these outfits expose one face to the public and regulators. Like the fictional Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, these online service firms make it possible for bad actors to perform a number of services to a special clientele; for example:
- Providing outlets for hate speech
- Hosting all or part of a Dark Web eCommerce site
- Allowing “roulette wheel” DNS changes for streaming sites distributing sports events
- Enabling services used by encrypted messaging companies whose clientele engages in illegal activity
- Hosting images of a controversial nature.
How can this be? Today’s technology makes it possible for an individual to do a search for a DMCA ignored advertisement for a service provider. Then one locates the provider’s Web site. Using a stolen credit card and the card owner’s identity, the bad actor signs up for a service from these providers:
This is a partial list of Dark Web hosting services compiled by SporeStack. Do you recognize the vendors Digital Ocean or Vultr? I recognized one.
These providers offer virtual machines and an API for interaction. With a bit of effort, the online providers have set up a vendor-customer experience that allows the online provider to say, “We don’t know what customer X is doing.” A cyber investigator has to poke around hunting for the “service” identified in the warrant in the hopes that the “service” will not be “gone.”
My view is that the French court may be ready to make life a bit less comfortable for some online service providers. The cited article asserts:
… the blockades may not stop at the 14 domain names mentioned in the original complaint. The ‘dynamic’ order allows SECP to request additional blockades from Cloudflare, if future pirate sites are flagged by French media regulator, ARCOM. Refusal to comply could see Cloudflare incur a €5,000 daily fine per site. “[Cloudflare is ordered to implement] all measures likely to prevent, until the date of the last race in the MotoGP season 2025, currently set for November 16, 2025, access to the sites identified above, as well as to sites not yet identified at the date of the present decision,” the order reads.
The US has a proposed site blocking bill as well.
But the French may continue to push forward using the “Pavel Durov action” as evidence that sitting on one’s hands and worrying about international repercussions is a waste of time. If companies like Amazon and Google operate in France, the French could begin tire kicking in the hopes of finding a bad wheel.
Mr. Durov believed he was not going to have a problem in France. He is a French citizen. He had the big time Kaminski firm represent him. He has lots of money. He has 114 children. What could go wrong? For starters, the French experience convinced him to begin cooperating with law enforcement requests.
Now France is getting some first hand experience with the enablers. Those who dismiss France as a land with too many different types of cheese may want to spend a few moments reading about French methods. Only one nation has some special French judicial savoir faire.
Stephen E Arnold, April 16, 2025
Meta a Great Company Lately?
April 10, 2025
Sorry, no AI used to create this item.
Despite Google’s attempt to flood the zone with AI this and AI that, Meta kept popping up in my newsfeed this morning (April 10, 2025). I pushed past the super confidential information from the US District Court of Northern District of California (an amazing and typically incoherent extract of super confidential information) and focused on a non-fiction author.
The Zuck – NSO Group dust up does not make much of a factoid described in considerable detail in Wikipedia. That encyclopedia entry is “Onavo.” In a nutshell, Facebook acquired a company which used techniques not widely known to obtain information about users of an encrypted app. Facebook’s awareness of Onavo took place, according to Wikipedia, prior to 2013 when Facebook purchased Onavo. My thought is that someone in the Facebook organization learned about other Israeli specialized software firms. Due to the high profile NSO Group had as a result of its participation in certain intelligence-related conferences and the relatively small community of specialized software developers in Israel, Facebook may have learned about the Big Kahuna, NSO Group. My personal view is that Facebook and probably more than a couple of curious engineers learned how specialized software purpose-built to cope with mobile phone data and were more than casually aware of systems and methods. The Meta – NSO Group dust up is an interesting case. Perhaps someday someone will write up how the Zuck precipitated a trial, which to an outsider, looks like a confused government-centric firm facing a teenagers with grudge. Will this legal matter turn a playground-type of argument about who is on whose team into an international kidney stone for the specialized software sector? For now, I want to pick up the Meta thread and talk about Washington, DC.
The Hill, an interesting publication about interesting institutions, published “Whistleblower Tells Senators That Meta Undermined U.S. Security, Interests.” The author is a former Zucker who worked as the director of global public policy at Facebook. If memory serves me, she labored at the estimable firm when Zuck was undergoing political awakening.
The Hill reports:
Wynn-Williams told Hawley’s panel that during her time at Meta: “Company executives lied about what they were doing with the Chinese Communist Party to employees, shareholders, Congress and the American public,” according to a copy of her remarks. Her most explosive claim is that she witnessed Meta executives decide to provide the Chinese Communist Party with access to user data, including the data of Americans. And she says she has the “documents” to back up her accusations.
After the Zuck attempted to block, prevent, thwart, or delete Ms. Wynn-Williams’ book Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism from seeing the light of a Kindle, I purchased the book. Silicon Valley tell-alls are usually somewhat entertaining. It is a mark of distinction for Ms. Wynn-Williams that she crafted a non-fiction write up that made me downright uncomfortable. Too much information about body functions and allegations about sharing information with a country not getting likes from too many people in certain Washington circles made me queasy. Dinobabies are often sensitive creatures unless they grow up to be Googzillas.
The Hill says:
Wynn-Williams testified that Meta started briefing the Chinese Communist party as early as 2015, and provided information about critical emerging technologies and artificial intelligence. “There’s a straight line you can draw from these briefings to the recent revelations that China is developing AI models for military use,” she said.
But isn’t open source AI software the future a voice in my head said?
What adds some zip to the appearance is this factoid from the article:
Wynn-Williams has filed a shareholder resolution asking the company’s board to investigate its activity in China and filed whistleblower complaints with the Securities and Exchange Administration and the Department of Justice.
I find it fascinating that on the West Coast, Facebook is unhappy with intelware being used on a Zuck-purchased service to obtain information about alleged persons of interest. About the same time, on the East coast, a former Zucker is asserting that the estimable social media company buddied up to a nation-state not particularly supportive of American interests.
Assuming that the Northern District court case is “real” and “actual factual” and that Ms. Wynn-Williams’ statements are “real” and “actual factual,” what can one hypothesize about the estimable Meta outfit? Here are my thoughts:
- Meta generates little windstorms of controversy. It doesn’t need to flood the zone with Google-style “look at us” revelations. Meta just stirs up storms.
- On the surface, Meta seems to have an interesting public posture. On one hand, the company wants to bring people together for good, etc. etc. On the other, the company could be seen as annoyed that a company used his acquired service to do data collection at odds with Meta’s own pristine approach to information.
- The tussles are not confined to tiny spaces. The West Coast matter concerns what I call intelware. When specialized software is no longer “secret,” the entire sector gets a bit of an uncomfortable feeling. Intelware is a global issue. Meta’s approach is in my opinion spilling outside the courtroom. The East Coast matter is another bigly problem. I suppose allegations of fraternization with a nation-state less than thrilled with the US approach to life could be seen as “small.” I think Ms. Wynn-Williams has a semi-large subject in focus.
Net net: [a] NSO Group cannot avoid publicity which could have an impact on a specialized software sector that should have remained in a file cabinet labeled “Secret.” [b] Ms. Wynn-Williams could have avoided sharing what struck me as confidential company information and some personal stuff as well. The book is more than a tell-all; it is a summary of what could be alleged intentional anti-US activity. [c] Online seems to be the core of innovation, finance, politics, and big money. Just forty five years ago, I wore bunny ears when I gave talks about the impact of online information. I called myself the Data Bunny. and, believe it or not, wore white bunny rabbit ears for a cheap laugh and make the technical information more approachable. Today many know online has impact. From a technical oddity used by fewer than 5,000 people to disruption of the specialized software sector by a much-loved organization chock full of Zuckers.
Stephen E Arnold, April 10, 2025
Original Research: Not-So-Original Assertions about Content Appropriation
April 2, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby sharing an observation about younger managers and their innocence.
The Social Science Research Council published the 30-plus page report “Beyond Public Access in LLM Pre-Training Data.” The subtitle reveals the principal finding: “Non-Public Non-Public Book Content in OpenAI’s Models.”
The write up states:
Using a legally obtained dataset of 34 copyrighted O’Reilly Media books, we apply the DE-COP membership inference attack method to investigate whether OpenAI’s large language models were trained on copyrighted content without consent. Our AUROC scores show that GPT-4o, OpenAI’s more recent and capable model, demonstrates strong recognition of paywalled O’Reilly book content (AUROC = 82%), compared to OpenAI’s earlier model GPT-3.5 Turbo. In contrast, GPT-3.5 Turbo shows greater relative recognition of publicly accessible O’Reilly book samples. GPT-4o Mini, as a much smaller model, shows no knowledge of public or non-public O’Reilly Media content when tested (AUROC ? 50%). Testing multiple models, with the same cutoff date, helps us account for potential language shifts over time that might bias our findings. These results highlight the urgent need for increased corporate transparency regarding pre-training data sources as a means to develop formal licensing frameworks for AI content training.
I want to mention that the DE-COP method provide one way to determine whether a specific data record was part of the training dataset for a machine learning model. The result of the SSRC’s research suggests that as OpenAI enhanced its models, the OpenAI organization appears to have used non-public content. Smaller (less capable OpenAI) models seemed to know less about the test set; the bigger models knew more.
The write up concludes that developers of smart software are sucking down data without obtaining permission or entering into licensing deals with publishers, copyright holders, or entities working on content not yet available as public content like this dinobaby blog post.
To sum up: A not-to-original assertion that certain organizations just take content and ignore rights is apparently accurate in this set of research. OpenAI accelerates. Speed is a positive. Breaking speed limits is believed to be no big deal.
A bit of a flashback: Over 40 years ago, I participated in a series of meetings to license the right to create abstracts of original articles from more than 1000 different publications. Our efforts were successful. Most publishers of academic business and management publications knew zero about online information services. The idea of summarizing an eight page article about executive compensation was unfamiliar to most of the people with whom our organization interacted over a period of years. Nevertheless, the owner of the database unit of the Courier Journal & Louisville Times Company insisted that we get signed agreements. The process was time consuming and expensive. Some outfits had representatives. So a negotiation went through layers of bureaucracy. Other publishers wanted a sit down meeting and a dog-and-pony show to explain why we wanted to boil down a 600 word article to about 150 words. There were worries about the impact of online access. There were worries about control of editorial content. There were worries about signing away rights. We couldn’t assuage worries, but we chugged along. The reputations of the Courier Journal and Barry Bingham Jr. helped but our small database operation had to follow the rules.
If the data in the cited document are accurate, the attitude of Barry Bingham Jr. would not have gained much traction at OpenAI. Instead of my getting a pat on the head for setting up the licensing deals with the able help of other Courier Journal professionals, I would have gotten kicked on the shin or worse.
Several observations:
- Observing content ownership remains important despite the acceleration toward illegal behaviors in the online sector
- Using show-and-tells and explaining the benefits of participating in digital innovations remains important. Knowledge minimizes anger and other negative reactions to pre-emptive behavior
- Managing the process is as important as demonstrating an unwillingness to conform to industry, social, and legal norms.
Let’s assume that the findings in the SSRC are off by 50 percent. Does that change what appears to be a strong possibility of some fancy dancing at the OpenAI disco?
My conclusion is that taking short cuts is part of the Silicon Valley approach of doing whatever and just saying, “Wow, I am sorry.”
I asked ChatGPT 4 via You.com this question:
Should I create an online product and just use content from the Harvard Business Review without permission?
Here’s the response:
No, you should not create an online product using content from the Harvard Business Review (HBR) without permission. Doing so would likely violate copyright laws and HBR’s usage policies. Here’s why:
HBR’s Copyright and Usage Policies
- HBR Material is Copyrighted: Harvard Business Review explicitly states that its content is protected by copyright, and no part of its publications may be reproduced without permission.
- Usage Restrictions: HBR has strict policies regarding how its content can be used. For example, even in academic settings, HBR articles cannot be freely distributed unless done through specific channels like creating course packs via "Harvard Business Publishing for Educators"
Permission is Required: If you want to use HBR content, you must obtain explicit permission. This includes reproducing, distributing, or using their material in any form.
Legal and Ethical Implications
- Copyright Infringement: Using HBR content without permission would likely constitute copyright infringement, which can result in legal action, fines, or other penalties.
- Ethical Concerns: Beyond legal issues, using someone else’s intellectual property without authorization is unethical and could harm your reputation or business.
What You Should Do Instead
- Seek Permission: Contact Harvard Business Review to request permission to use their content. They may have licensing options available for your intended use.
- Create Original Content: Instead of using HBR’s material, consider creating your own original content inspired by their ideas (but without copying their text or proprietary materials).
- Use Public Domain or Licensed Content: Look for content that is in the public domain or available under a license (e.g., Creative Commons) that allows commercial use.
Conclusion
Using HBR content without permission is not only illegal but also against their explicit policies. To avoid legal and ethical issues, either seek proper licensing or create your own original material.
In this case, the OpenAI’s AI may be more intelligent that some people engaged in content acquisition at the firm. But I am a dinobaby. I try to follow the social, legal, and ethical rules as my parents who had only high school educations taught me. I am a dinobaby. A sad dinobaby.
Stephen E Arnold, April 2, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
