Google, the Modern Samurai, Becomes a Ronin. Banzai!
January 2, 2025
Written by a dinobaby, not an over-achieving, unexplainable AI system.
I read “Google to Fight Japan’s Claims That It Harms Rivals in Search.” This paywalled Bloomberg story explains that Google is going to fight Japan’s allegations about hampering its competitors. Would Google do that?
A brave online advertising samurai reduces arguments to tiny flakes of paper. Arguments don’t stand a chance when a modern samurai fights injustice. Thanks, ChatGPT. Good enough.
The write up reports:
Alphabet Inc. is preparing to counter Japanese government allegations that it engages in anticompetitive practices such as forcing smartphone makers to give priority to Google Search in default screen placement.
Google’s position is a blend of smarm and lawyer lingo. As reported by Bloomberg:
“We have continued to work closely with the Japanese government to demonstrate how we are supporting the Android ecosystem and expanding user choice in Japan,” Google said in a statement without providing details of the allegations. “We will present our arguments in the hearing process,” it said, adding it was “disappointed” and the FTC didn’t give enough consideration of the company’s proposed solution. The company didn’t elaborate.
With Google explaining how the US government should respond to the shocking decision that Google was a monopoly, the company seems to bounce from one legal matter to the next.
What’s interesting is that Bloomberg characterized Google’s approach as a “fight.” I don’t know too much about Japanese culture. I have watched a Akira Kurosawa film and I recall John Belushi’s interpretation of a modern samurai warrior. Google definitely can send throngs of legal warriors into court. For PR purposes, I think adopting Mr. Kurosawa’s use of color for different groups of brave fighters would contribute some high impact imagery to YouTube videos.
However, with some EU losses and the twist of Googzilla’s tail by the US legal system, the innocent-until-proven-guilty company is likely to become a Saturday Night Live skit. Maybe Joe Koy will slip the Belushi-type of samurai into a set about how Google helps everyone, 24×7, and embodies the quaint motto “Do no evil.”
Stephen E Arnold, January 2, 2024
Does Apple Thinks Google Is Inept?
December 25, 2024
At a pre-holiday get together, I heard Wilson say, “Don’t ever think you’re completely useless. You can always be used as a bad example.”
I read the trust outfit’s write up “Apple Seeks to Defend Google’s Billion Dollar Payments in Search Case.” I found the story cutting two ways.
Apple, a big outfit, believes that it can explain in a compelling way why Google should be paying Apple to make Google search the default search engine on Apple devices. Do you remember the Walt Disney film The Hunchback of Notre Dame? I love an argument with a twisted back story. Apple seems to be saying to Google: “Stupidity is far more dangerous than evil. Evil takes a break from time to time. Stupidity does not.”
The Thomson Reuters article offers:
Apple has asked to participate in Google’s upcoming U.S. antitrust trial over online search, saying it cannot rely on Google to defend revenue-sharing agreements that send the iPhone maker billions of dollars each year for making Google the default search engine on its Safari browser.
Apple wants that $20 billion a year and certainly seems to be sending a signal that Google will screw up the deal with a Googley argument. At the same holiday party, Wilson’s significant other observed, ““My people skills are just fine. It’s my tolerance to idiots that needs work.” I wonder if that person was talking about Apple?
Apple may be fearful that Google will lurch into Code Yellow, tell the jury that gluing cheese on pizza is logical, and explain that it is not a monopoly. Apple does not want to be in the court cafeteria and hear, “I heard Google ask the waiter, “How do you prepare chicken?” The waiter replied, “Nothing special. The cook just says, “You are going to die.”
The Thomson Reuters’ article offers this:
Apple wants to call witnesses to testify at an April trial. Prosecutors will seek to show Google must take several measures, including selling its Chrome web browser and potentially its Android operating system, to restore competition in online search. “Google can no longer adequately represent Apple’s interests: Google must now defend against a broad effort to break up its business units,” Apple said.
I had a professor from Oklahoma who told our class:
“If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?”
Apple and Google arguing in court. Google has a lousy track record in court. Apple is confident it can convince a court that taking Google’s money is okay.
Albert Eistein allegedly observed:
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
Yep, Apple and Google, quite a pair.
Stephen E Arnold, December 25, 2024
FOGINT: Intelware Tension Ticks Up
December 24, 2024
Observations from the FOGINT research team.
On Friday, December 20, 2024, NSO Group, the Pegasus specialized software outfit, found itself losing a court squabble with Facebook (Meta and WhatsApp). According to the Reuters’ news story pushed out at 915 pm Eastern time, “US Judge Finds Israel’s NSO Group Liable for Hacking in WhatsApp Lawsuit.” In case you don’t have the judgment at hand, you can find the United States District Court, Norther District of California document at this link.
The main idea behind the case is that the NSO Group’s specialized software pressed into duty for the purpose of obtaining information about WhatsApp users. The mechanism was to exploit “a bug in the messaging app to install spy software allowing unauthorized surveillance.” NSO Group’s fancy legal two step did not work.
The NSO Group has become the poster child for the “compromise the mobile” phone and obtain data. The Pegasus system exfiltrates data and, when properly configured, can capture information from a mobile device. Furthermore, the company’s hassles about its customers’ use of the Pegasus tool unwittingly created a surge in software and specialized services performing identical or similar tasks.
The FOGINT team has identified firms which have found different ways of compromising mobile devices. The company, therefore, has been an innovator and its approach to compromising devices has [a] focused attention on Israel’s technical competence in this specialized software niche and [b] rightly or wrongly illustrated that the technology can act with extreme prejudice when used by some clients to solve what they perceive as “problems.”
There are several larger consequences which the FOGINT team has identified:
- Specialized software is more prevalent because the revelations about Pegasus have encouraged entrepreneurs and technologists to develop more effective surveillance methods
- Unique delivery methods have been crafted. These range for in-app malware to more sophisticated multi-stage malware installed as a consequence of a user’s carelessness
- Making clear that powerful surveillance tools can be installed in a way that does not require the user to click, email, or interact. The malware simply dials up a mobile and bingo! the device is compromised.
How will this judgment affect the specialized software industry? In FOGINT’s view, the decision will further stimulate competition and the follow of novel surveillance techniques. One consequence also may be that law enforcement and intelligence professionals will encounter headwinds when similar specialized software is required for certain investigations. FOGINT’s view is that NSO Group’s go-go approach to sales created a problem for the company and for specialized software. Some technologies should remain “secret,” which is now becoming an old-fashioned viewpoint. Marketing is not always a benefit.
Stephen E Arnold, December 24, 2024
The Starlink Angle: Yacht, Contraband, and Global Satellite Connectivity
December 16, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
I have followed the ups and downs of Starlink satellite Internet connectivity in the Russian special operation. I have not paid much attention to more routine criminal use of the Starlink technology. Before I direct your attention to a write up about this Elon Musk enterprise, I want to mention that this use case for satellites caught my attention with Equatorial Communications’ innovations in 1979. Kudos to that outfit!
“Police Demands Starlink to Reveal Buyer of Device Found in $4.2 Billion Drug Bust” has a snappy subtitle:
Smugglers were caught with 13,227 pounds of meth
Hmmm. That works out to 6,000 kilograms or 6.6 short tons of meth worth an estimated $4 billion on the open market. And it is the government of India chasing the case. (Starlink is not yet licensed for operation in that country.)
The write up states:
officials have sent Starlink a police notice asking for details about the purchaser of one of its Starlink Mini internet devices that was found on the boat. It asks for the buyer’s name and payment method, registration details, and where the device was used during the smugglers’ time in international waters. The notice also asks for the mobile number and email registered to the Starlink account.
The write up points out:
Starlink has spent years trying to secure licenses to operate in India. It appeared to have been successful last month when the country’s telecom minister said Starlink was in the process of procuring clearances. The company has not yet secured these licenses, so it might be more willing than usual to help the authorities in this instance.
Starlink is interesting because it is a commercial enterprise operating in a free wheeling manner. Starlink’s response is not known as of December 12, 2024.
Stephen E Arnold, December 16, 2024
Google and 2025: AI Scurrying and Lawsuits. Lots of Lawsuits
December 6, 2024
This is the work of a dinobaby. Smart software helps me with art, but the actual writing? Just me and my keyboard.
I think there are 193 nations which are members of the UN. Two entities which one can count but are what one might call specialty equipment organizations: The Holy See aka Vatican City and the State of Palestine. The other 193 are “recognized,” mostly pay their UN dues, and have legal systems of varying quality and diligence.
I read “Google Earns Fresh Competition Scrutiny from Two Nations on a Single Day.” The write said:
In India – the most populous nation on Earth – the Competition Commission ordered [PDF] a probe after a developer called WinZo – which promotes itself with the chance to “Play Mobile Games & Win Cash” – complained that Google Play won’t host games that offer real money as prizes, only allowing sideloading onto Android devices.
Then it added:
Advertising is the reason for the other Google probe announced Thursday, by the Competition Bureau of Canada – the world’s second-largest country by area. The Bureau announced its investigations found Google’s ads biz “abused its dominant position through conduct intended to ensure that it would maintain and entrench its market power” and “engaged in conduct that reduces the competitiveness of rival ad tech tools and the likelihood of new entrants in the market.” The Bureau thinks the situation can be addressed if Google sells two of its ads tools – but the filing in which the identity of those two products will be revealed is yet to appear on the site of the Competition Tribunal.
Whether Google is good or evil is, in my opinion, irrelevant. With the US, the EU, Canada, and India chasing Google for its alleged misbehavior, other nations are going to pay attention.
Does that mean that another 100 or more nations will launch their own investigations and initiate legal action related to the lovable Google’s approach to business? In practical terms what does this mean?
- Google will be hiring lawyers and retaining firms. This is definitely good for legal eagles.
- Google will win some, delay some, and lose some cases. The losses, however, will result in consequences. Some of these will require Google to write checks for penalties. These can add up.
- Conflicting decisions are likely to result in delays. Those delays means that Google will be more Googley. The number of ads in YouTube will increase. The mysterious revenue payments will become more quirky. Commissions on various user-customer-Google touch points will increase.
Net net: We have a good example of what a failure to regulate high technology companies for a couple of decades creates. Kicking the can down the road has done what exactly?
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2024
Googlers Face Another Ka-Ching Moment in the United Kingdom
December 5, 2024
This write up is from a real and still-alive dinobaby. If there is art, smart software has been involved. Dinobabies have many skills, but Gen Z art is not one of them.
Mr. Harold Carlin, my high school history teacher, made us learn about the phrase “The sun never sets on the British empire.” It has, and Mr. Carlin like many old-school teachers forced our class to read about protectionism, subjugation of people who did not enjoy beef Wellington, or assorted monopolies.
Two intelligent entities discuss how to resolve legal problems. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
Now Google may want to think about the phrase, “The sun never sets on Google legal matters related to its alleged behavior in the datasphere.”
“Google Must Face £7B UK Class Action over Search Engine Dominance” reported:
The complaint centers around Google shutting out competition for mobile search, resulting in higher prices for advertisers, which were allegedly passed on to consumers. According to consumer rights campaigner Nikki Stopford, who is bringing the claim on behalf of UK consumers, Android device makers that wanted access to Google’s Play Store had to accept its search service. The ad slinger also paid Apple billions to have Google Search as the default for the Safari browser in iOS.
The write up noted:
According to Stopford [a UK official], Google used its position to up prices paid by advertisers, resulting in higher costs to consumers. “What we’re trying to achieve with this claim is essentially compensate consumers,” she said.
Google has moved some of its smart software activities to the UK. One would think that with Google’s cash resources, its attorneys, and its smart software — mere government officials would have zero chance of winning this now repetitive allegation that dear Google has behaved in an untoward way.
If I were a government litigator, I would just drop the suit, Jack Smith style.
Will the sun set on these allegations against the “do no evil” outfit?
Nope, not as long as the opportunity for a payout exists. Google may have been too successful in its decades long rampage through traditional business practices. The good news is that Google has an almost limitless supply of money. The bad news is that countries have an almost limitless supply of regulators. But Google has smart software. Remember the film “The Terminator”? Winner: Google.
Stephen E Arnold, December 5, 2024
Google Chrome Generating Attention. A Lot of Attention
November 26, 2024
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) took the first step in breaking up Google’s Big Tech monopoly by forcing Alphabet Inc. to sell its popular Web browser, Chrome. Alphabet Inc. is responding like all past companies who had their market dominance broken up by the government: it is throwing a major temper tantrum. The BBC reports on Google’s meltdown in: “Google Reacts Angrily To Report It Will Have To Sell Chrome.”
Google claimed it had a right to retain its monopoly on search because it was the best in the world. Not so, the Judge Amit Mehta of the DOJ replied, especially since the word “Google” is now a verb and there’s no fair competition. Instead of facing their fate with dignity, Google is saying it will harm consumers and businesses if it’s forced to sell Chrome. While that could be interpreted as a threat, Google probably meant it to sound like it was worried about its users. We think it sounds like a disguised threat.
Google doesn’t want to lose its 90% hold on the global search market augmented by Chrome as the world’s most used Web browser at 64.61%. Chrome is the default browser on many PCs and mobile devices. Judge Mehta wants to end that dominance:
Judge Mehta said in his ruling in August that the default search engine was "extremely valuable real estate" for Google.
‘Even if a new entrant were positioned from a quality standpoint to bid for the default when an agreement expires, such a firm could compete only if it were prepared to pay partners upwards of billions of dollars in revenue share’ he wrote.
The DOJ had been expected to provide its final proposed remedies to the court by Wednesday.
It said in an October filing documenting initial proposals it would be considering seeking a break-up of Google.
Potential remedies "that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play [its app store], and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products" were among its considerations, it said then.”
Google replied:
“In response to the DOJ’s filing in October, Google said "splitting off" parts of its business like Chrome or Android would "break them".
‘Breaking them off would change their business models, raise the cost of devices, and undermine Android and Google Play in their robust competition with Apple’s iPhone and App Store,’ the company said.
It also said it would make it harder to keep Chrome secure.”
Those sounds like inflated arguments, especially when the only thing that will break is Google’s record profits. Investors will also be harmed, but that’s why it’s good to have a diverse portfolio. Wah Wah!
Whitney Grace, November 26, 2024
More Googley Human Resource Goodness
November 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The New York Post reported that a Googler has departed. “Google News Executive Shailesh Prakash Resigns As Tensions with Publishers Mount: Report” states:
Shailesh Prakash had served as a vice president and general manager for Google News. A source confirmed that he is no longer with the company… The circumstances behind Prakash’s resignation were not immediately clear. Google declined to comment.
Google tapped a professional who allegedly rode in the Bezos bulldozer when the world’s second or third richest man in the world acquired the Washington Post. (How has that been going? Yeah.)
Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
Google has been cheerfully indexing content and selling advertising for decades. After a number of years of talking and allegedly providing some support to outfits collecting, massaging, and making “real” news available, the Google is facing some headwinds.
The article reports:
The Big Tech giant rankled online publishers last May after it introduced a feature called “AI Overviews” – which places an auto-generated summary at the top of its search results while burying links to other sites. News Media Alliance, a nonprofit that represents more than 2,200 publishers, including The Post, said the feature would be “catastrophic to our traffic” and has called on the feds to intervene.
News flash from rural Kentucky: The good old days of newspaper publishing are unlikely to make a comeback. What’s the evidence for this statement? Video and outfits like Telegram and WhatsApp deliver content to cohorts who don’t think too much about a print anything.
The article pointed out:
Last month, The Post exclusively reported on emails that revealed how Google leveraged its access to the Office of the US Trade Representative as it sought to undermine overseas regulations — including Canada’s Online News Act, which required Google to pay for the right to display news content.
You can read that report “Google Emails with US Trade Reps Reveal Cozy Ties As Tech Giant Pushed to Hijack Policy” if you have time.
Let’s think about why a member of Google leadership like Shailesh Prakash would bail out. Among the options are:
- He wanted to spend more time with his family
- Another outfit wanted to hire him to manage something in the world of publishing
- He failed in making publishers happy.
The larger question is, “Why would Google think that one fellow could make a multi-decade problem go away?” The fact that I can ask this question reveals how Google’s consulting infused leaders think about an entire business sector. It also provides some insight into the confidence of a professional like Mr. Prakash.
What flees sinking ships? Certainly not the lawyers that Google will throw at this “problem.” Google has money and that may be enough to buy time and perhaps prevail. If there aren’t any publishers grousing, the problem gets resolved. Efficient.
Stephen E Arnold, November 22, 2024
EU Docks Meta (Zuckbook) Five Days of Profits! Wow, Painful, Right?
November 19, 2024
No smart software. Just a dumb dinobaby. Oh, the art? Yeah, MidJourney.
Let’s keep this short. According to “real” news outfits “Meta Fined Euro 798 Million by EU Over Abusing Classified Ads Dominance.” This is the lovable firm’s first EU antitrust fine. Of course, Meta (the Zuckbook) will let loose its legal eagles to dispute the fine.
The Facebook money machine keeps on doing its thing. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
What the “real” news outfits did not do is answer this question, “How long does it take the Zuck outfit to generate about $840 million US dollars?
The answer is that it takes that fine firm about five days to earn or generate the cash to pay a fine that would cripple many organizations. In case you were wondering, five days works out to about 1.4 percent of a calendar year.
I bet that fine will definitely force the Zuck to change its ways. I wish I knew how much the EU spent pursuing this particular legal matter. My hunch is that the number has disappeared into the murkiness of Brussels’ bookkeeping.
And the Zuckbook? It will keep on keeping on.
Stephen E Arnold, November 19, 2024
Fake Defined? Next Up Trust, Ethics, and Truth
October 28, 2024
Another post from a dinobaby. No smart software required except for the illustration.
This is a snappy headline: “You Can Now Get Fined $51,744 for Writing a Fake Review Online.” The write up states:
This mandate includes AI-generated reviews (which have recently invaded Amazon) and also encompasses dishonest celebrity endorsements as well as testimonials posted by a company’s employees, relatives, or friends, unless they include an explicit disclaimer. The rule also prohibits brands from offering any sort of incentive to prompt such an action. Suppressing negative reviews is no longer allowed, nor is promoting reviews that a company knows or should know are fake.
So, what does “fake” mean? The word appears more than 160 times in the US government document.
My hunch is that the intrepid US Federal government does not want companies to hype their products with “fake” reviews. But I don’t see a definition of “fake.” On page 10 of the government document “Use of Consumer Reviews”, I noted:
“…the deceptive or unfair commercial acts or practices involving reviews or other endorsement.”
That’s a definition of sort. Other words getting at what I would call a definition are:
- buying reviews (these can be non fake or fake it seems)
- deceptive
- false
- manipulated
- misleading
- unfair
On page 23 of the government document, A. 465. – Definitions appears. Alas, the word “fake” is not defined.
The document is 163 pages long and strikes me as a summary of standard public relations, marketing, content marketing, and social media practices. Toss in smart software and Telegram-type BotFather capability and one has described the information environment which buzzes, zaps, and swirls 24×7 around anyone with access to any type of electronic communication / receiving device.
Look what You.com generated. A high school instructor teaching a debate class about a foundational principle.
On page 119, the authors of the government document arrive at a key question, apparently raised by some of the individuals sufficiently informed to ask “killer” questions; for example:
Several commenters raised concerns about the meaning of the term “fake” in the context of indicators of social media influence. A trade association asked, “Does ‘fake’ only mean that the likes and followers were created by bots or through fake accounts? If a social media influencer were to recommend that their followers also follow another business’ social media account, would that also be ‘procuring’ of ‘fake’ indicators of social media influence? . . . If the FTC means to capture a specific category of ‘likes,’ ‘follows,’ or other metrics that do not reflect any real opinions, findings, or experiences with the marketer or its products or services, it should make that intention more clear.”
Alas, no definition is provided. “Fake” exists in a cloud of unknowing.
What if the US government prosecutors find themselves in the position of a luminary who allegedly said: “Porn. I know it when I see it.” That posture might be more acceptable than trying to explain that an artificial intelligence content generator produced a generic negative review of an Italian restaurant. A competitor uses the output via a messaging service like Telegram Messenger and creates a script to plug in the name, location, and date for 1,000 Italian restaurants. The individual then lets the script rip. When investigators look into this defamation of Italian restaurants, the trail leads back to a virtual assert service provider crime as a service operation in Lao PDR. The owner of that enterprise resides in Cambodia and has multiple cyber operations supporting the industrialized crime as a service operation. Okay, then what?
In this example, “fake” becomes secondary to a problem as large or larger than bogus reviews on US social media sites.
What’s being done when actual criminal enterprises are involved in “fake” related work. According the the United Nations, in certain nation states, law enforcement is hampered and in some cases prevented from pursuing a bad actor.
Several observations:
- As most high school debaters learn on Day One of class: Define your terms. Present these in plain English, not a series of anecdotes and opinions.
- Keep the focus sharp. If reviews designed to damage something are the problem, focus on that. Avoid the hand waving.
- The issue exists due to a US government policy of looking the other way with regard to the large social media and online services companies. Why not become a bit more proactive? Decades of non-regulation cannot be buried under 160 page plus documents with footnotes.
Net net: “Fake,” like other glittering generalities cannot be defined. That’s why we have some interesting challenges in today’s world. Fuzzy is good enough.
PS. If you have money, the $50,000 fine won’t make any difference. Jail time will.
Stephen E Arnold, October 28, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
