Will New EU Privacy Oversight Members Be Googley?
October 27, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The European Union has tried to protect individual privacy and tries to keep US technology companies in line. Unlike some other government constructs, EU countries have agencies to enforce privacy regulations and Tech Crunch reports how Ireland’s DPC “Major Big Tech Privacy Watchdog In EU Set To Get Two More Commissioners Soon.” As an EU member, Ireland has the Data Protection Commission (DPC) to ensure big tech companies comply with laws. The DPC recently posted job ads for two more commissioners.
Ireland’s DPC is a major player in enforcing Europe’s privacy laws as part of the pan-EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Many tech companies have a branch on Irish soil. The DPC changed its structure in July 2022 to increase its monitoring capabilities as the GDPR’s caseload increases. The DPC monitors Apple, X, Meta, Google, TikTok, and soon will watch AI-based companies like OpenAI.
Whoever joins the DPC will have an F-150 load of responsibility parked in their driveway. Part of their job will involve battling with privacy advocates and politicians. The DPC is also dealing with lots of criticism, particularly in how slow the organization moves. The DPC has rallied for more help since its founding in 2018 and how it handles enforcing the GDPR:
“The European Commission itself has been forced to dial up its monitoring of how regulators including the DPC are enforcing the GDPR, following complaints lodged with its ombudsman which stemmed from criticism of the DPC. This summer the EU’s executive also came out with a proposal for reforming procedural rules around GDPR enforcement with the aim of making the handling of cross-border cases ‘more efficient and harmonized across the EU.’”
The DPC is enforcing laws on big tech companies that have the funds and time to waste in litigation. The DPC can also raise fines on big tech companies and penalize them for not obeying EU laws. Who will win? Our bet is that the US outfits have the money and motivation to prevail. Governments! Pesky things.
Whitney Grace, October 27, 2023
Autonomy: More Legal Activity
October 25, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Though the UK legal system seems to have lost interest, the US is still determined to throw the book at Autonomy’s founder for his alleged deceit of HP. Now, The Telegraph reports, “Mike Lynch Files Legal Challenge to Have Fraud Case Thrown Out by US Courts.” While their client languishes in San Francisco under self-funded house arrest, Lynch’s lawyers insist the US has no jurisdiction to prosecute. Reporter James Titcomb writes:
“The filing states: ‘At all times between 2009 and 2011, Autonomy was fundamentally a UK-centric business. Autonomy listed its shares on the London Stock Exchange. All major decisions about the strategic direction of the company, its revenue-generating operations, and its compliance with financial reporting obligations were made in England. ‘The “means and methods” identified in the [indictment] – revenue recognition issues, allegedly fraudulent entries in Autonomy’s books, allegedly false and misleading quarterly and annual reports – all comprise conduct that occurred in another country.’ Mr Lynch has long maintained that any case against him should be heard in Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office dropped its investigation into the matter in 2015.”
Will this tactic work? The US DOJ filed charges in 2018 and 2019. Despite all efforts to block extradition, Lynch was moved to San Francisco in May 2023. The article states a judge will hear the request to throw out the case in November. Meanwhile, the trial remains scheduled for 2024.
The saga of Autonomy and HP continues. Who knew enterprise search could become a legal thriller? Netflix, perhaps a documentary?
Cynthia Murrell, October 25, 2023
The Google Experience: Personnel Management and Being Fair
October 23, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The Google has been busy explaining to those who are not Googley that it is nothing more than a simple online search engine. Heck, anyone can use another Web search system with just a click. Google is just delivering a service and doing good.
I believe this because I believe everything a big high-technology outfit says about the Internet. But there is one facet of this company I find fascinating; namely, it’s brilliant management of people or humanoids of a particular stripe.
The Backstory
Google employees staged a walkout in 2018, demanding a safer and fairer workplace for women when information about sexual discrimination and pay discrepancies leaked. Google punished the walkout organizers and other employees, but they succeed in ending the forced arbitration policy that required employees to settle disputes privately. Wired’s article digs into the details: “This Exec Is Forcing Google Into Its First Trial over Sexist Pay Discrimination.”
Google’s first pay discrimination case will be argued in New York. Google cloud unit executive Ulku Rowe alleges she was hired at a lower salary than her male co-workers. When she complained, she claims Google denied her promotions and demoted her. Rowe’s case exposed Google’s executive underbelly.
The case is also a direct result of the walkout:
“The costs and uncertainty of a trial combined with a fear of airing dirty laundry cause companies to settle most pay discrimination lawsuits, says Alex Colvin, dean of Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Last year, the US government outlawed forced arbitration in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases, but half of US employers still mandate it for other disputes. Rowe would not be scheduled to have her day in court if the walkout had not forced Google to end the practice. “I think that’s a good illustration of why there’s still a push to extend that law to other kinds of cases, including other kinds of gender discrimination,” Colvin says.”
The Outcome
“Google Ordered to Pay $1 Million to Female Exec Who Sued over Gender Discrimination” reported:
A New York jury on Friday decided that Google did commit gender-based discrimination, and now owes Rowe a combined $1.15 million for punitive damages and the pain and suffering it caused. Rowe had 23 years of experience when she started at Google in 2017, and the lawsuit claims she was lowballed at hiring to place her at a level that paid significantly less than what men were being offered.
Observation
It appears that the Googley methods at the Google are neither understood nor appreciated by some people.
Whitney Grace, October 23, 2023
True or False: Does Google Cha-Cha with Search Results?
October 19, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t2-17.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Megan Gray is a former Federal Trade Commission employee, former DuckDuckGo executive, and is experienced fighting Google’s legal team. Her background provides key insights into Google’s current antitrust case and how Alphabet Inc. is trying to wring more money from consumers. Gray discusses her case observations in Wired’s article: “How Google Alters Search Queries To Get At Your Wallet.”
Google overhauled its SERP algorithm with “semantic matching” that returned results with synonyms and NLP text phrasing. The overhaul also added more commercial results to entice consumers to buy more stuff. Google’s ten organic links are a lie, because the search engine alters queries to be more shopping oriented. Google works their deviousness like this:
“Say you search for “children’s clothing.” Google converts it, without your knowledge, to a search for “NIKOLAI-brand kidswear,” making a behind-the-scenes substitution of your actual query with a different query that just happens to generate more money for the company, and will generate results you weren’t searching for at all. It’s not possible for you to opt out of the substitution. If you don’t get the results you want, and you try to refine your query, you are wasting your time. This is a twisted shopping mall you can’t escape.”
All these alternations are to raise Google’s ad profit margins. Users and advertisers are harmed but they aren’t aware of it because Google’s manipulations are imperceptible. Google’s search query manipulations are black hat genius because it’s different from the usual Internet scams:
“Most scams follow an elementary bait-and-switch technique, where the scoundrel lures you in with attractive bait and then, at the right time, switches to a different option. But Google “innovated” by reversing the scam, first switching your query, then letting you believe you were getting the best search engine results. This is a magic trick that Google could only pull off after monopolizing the search engine market, giving consumers the false impression that it is incomparably great, only because you’ve grown so accustomed to it. “
This won’t be the end of Google lawsuits nor the end of query manipulation. For now, only Google knows what Google does.
Whitney Grace, October 19, 2023
New Website Brings Focus to State Courts and Constitutions
October 11, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t2-3.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Despite appearances, constitutional law is not all about the US Supreme Court. State courts and constitutions are integral to the maintenance (and elimination) of citizen rights. But the national media often underplays or overlooks key discussions and decisions on the state level. NYU Law’s Brennan Center‘s nonpartisan State Court Report is a new resource that seeks to address that imbalance. Its About page explains:
“What’s been missing is a forum where experts come together to analyze and discuss constitutional trends emerging from state high courts, as well as a place where noteworthy state cases and case materials are easy to find and access. State constitutions share many common provisions, and state courts across the country frequently grapple with similar questions about constitutional interpretation. Enter State Court Report, which is dedicated to covering legal news, trends, and cutting-edge scholarship, offering insights and commentary from a nationwide network of academics, journalists, judges, and practitioners with diverse perspectives and expertise. By providing original content and resources that are easily accessible, State Court Report fosters informed dialogue, research, and public understanding about an essential but chronically underappreciated source of law. Our newsletter offers a deep dive into legal developments across the states. Our case database highlights notable state constitutional decisions and cases to watch in state high courts. Our state pages provide information on high courts and constitutions in all 50 states. In addition, State Court Report supports and participates in symposia, conferences, educational training, and panels, and also partners with other organizations to disseminate and share information and research.”
The organization debuts with two high-profile guest essays, from former U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and former Michigan Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack. One can browse articles by issue or state or, of course, search for any particulars. Not surprisingly, a subscription to the newsletter is one prominent click away. We hope the Brennan Center succeeds with this effort to bring attention to important constitutional issues before they wind their way to SCOTUS.
Cynthia Murrell, October 11, 2023
Blue Chip Consultancy Gets Cute and Caught
October 4, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I was not going to read “PwC Caught Hiding Terms of secret Review.” However, my eye spotted the delectable name “Ziggy Switkowski” and I had to devour the write up. Imagine a blue chip outfit and a blue chip consultant named Ziggy.
The story reports about PwC (once the esteemed Price Waterhouse Coopers firm) and how it conducted a “secret internal investigation” in a “tax affair.” To me, the fuzzy words suggest tax fraud, but I am a dinobaby and a resident of Harrods Creek, Kentucky.
The Ziggy affair warranted this comment by the Klaxon, an Australian online publication:
“There’s only one reason why you’re not releasing your terms of reference,” governance expert Dr Andy Schmulow told The Klaxon last night. “And that’s because you know you’ve set up a sham inquiry”.
Imagine that! A blue chip consulting firm and a professional named Ziggy. What’s not to believe?
The article adds a rhetorical flourish; to wit:
In an interim report called “PwC: A calculated breach of trust” the inquiry found PwC was continuing to obfuscate, with its actions indicating “poor corporate culture” and a lack of “governance and accountability”. “PwC does not appear to understand proper process, nor do they see the need for transparency and accountability,” the report states. “Given the extent of the breach and subsequent cover-up now revealed on the public record, when is PwC going to come clean and begin to do the right thing?”
My hunch is that blue chip consulting firms may have a different view of what’s appropriate and what’s not. Tax irregularities. Definitely not worth the partners’ time. But Ziggy?
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2023
Google and Its Embarrassing Document: Sounds Like Normal Google Talk to Me
October 3, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “DOJ Finally Posted That Embarrassing Court Doc Google Wanted to Hide.” I was surprised that the anti-trust trial exhibit made its way to this link. My initial reaction was that the judge was acting in a non-Googley way. I am not sure some of the people I know want Google’s activities to be impaired in any way.
The senior technology executive who seems to look like a gecko lizard is explaining how a business process for an addictive service operates. Those attending the meeting believe that a “lock in” approach is just the ticket to big bucks in the zippy world of digital trank. Hey, MidJourney, nice lizard. Know any?
That geo-fencing capability is quite helpful to some professionals. The second thing that surprised me was… no wait. Let me quote the Ars Technica article first. The write up says:
The document in question contains meeting notes that Google’s vice president for finance, Michael Roszak, “created for a course on communications,” Bloomberg reported. In his notes, Roszak wrote that Google’s search advertising “is one of the world’s greatest business models ever created” with economics that only certain “illicit businesses” selling “cigarettes or drugs” “could rival.” At trial, Roszak told the court that he didn’t recall if he ever gave the presentation. He said that the course required that he tell students “things I don’t believe as part of the presentation.” He also claimed that the notes were “full of hyperbole and exaggeration” and did not reflect his true beliefs, “because there was no business purpose associated with it.”
Gee, I believe this. Sincere, open comment about one’s ability to “recall” is in line with other Google professionals’ commentary; for example, Senator, thank you for the question. I don’t know the answer, but we will provide your office with that information. (Note: I am paraphrasing something I may have heard or hallucinated with Bard, or I may not “recall” where and when I heard that type of statement.)
Ars Technica is doing the he said thing in this statement:
A Google spokesman told Bloomberg that Roszak’s statements “don’t reflect the company’s opinion” and “were drafted for a public speaking class in which the instructions were to say something hyperbolic and attention-grabbing.” The spokesman also noted that Roszak “testified he didn’t believe the statements to be true.” According to Bloomberg, Google lawyer Edward Bennett told the court that Roszak’s notes suggest that the senior executive’s plan for his presentation was essentially “cosplaying Gordon Gekko”—a movie villain who symbolizes corporate greed from 1987’s Wall Street.
I think the Gordon Gekko comparison is unfair. The lingo strikes me as normal Silicon Valley sell-it-with-sizzle lingo.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2023
What Is the US High-Tech Service Hosing Bad Info? X Marks the Spot for the EU
September 29, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-7.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I do my little, inconsequential blog posts to pass my time. I am a dinobaby, not an entitled and over-confident Millennial or troubled GenX or GenY grouser. The Twitter thing did not seem useful to me as a career builder, personal megaphone, and individualized hype machine. Sure, we once had a script to post headlines of my blog posts, but I don’t think that I had a single constructive outcome from that automated effort. However, Twitter or X did provide me with examples of bad actors, general scams, and assorted craziness for my lectures. But Twitter or X did not mark the spot for me.
Exactly who is the happy humanoid lost in space? Is it an EU regulator? Is it a certain Silicon Valley wizard? Is it journalist who wants to be famous on the X Twitter thing? Thanks, MidJourney. Your gradient descent is accelerating.
But the EU is a different beastie. I am a dinobaby; the EU is chock full of educated regulators, policy makers, and big thinkers. “The EU Says Twitter/X Is the Worst Platform for Disinformation” explains that X (the spot marker) is making it tough to report election misinformation just as the EU wants it to be easier to report the allegedly bad stuff. The article states:
The European Union has identified X, formerly Twitter, as the social media platform with the highest ratio of misinformation/disinformation posts. The news came just as X disabled a feature that allows users to report misinformation related to elections.
The article adds:
It was found that X, which is no longer under the voluntary Code, is the worst social media platform when it comes to this practice. It was also discovered that those spreading disinformation had a lot more followers than those who did not and they tend to have joined the platform more recently. The Code has 44 signatories, including Facebook, Google, YouTube, TikTok, and LinkedIn. Musk’s platform pulled out of the Code in May, a move that followed EU warnings that a lack of moderation could be inadvertently helping Vladimir Putin as Russian propaganda relating to the war in Ukraine isn’t being removed.
True or false? That depends, of course.
What’s interesting is that the X.com Twitter thing charts its own course on its poly-dimensional business road map. How will this work out? Probably in ways beyond the ken of a dinobaby. No wonder so many regulators are uncomfortable with US high-tech type companies.
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2023
What Is for Lunch? A Digital Hot Dog or Burger?
September 28, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-5.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “EU Warns Elon Musk after Twitter Found to Have Highest Rate of Disinformation.” My hunch is that the European Union did not plan on getting into the swamps of epistemological thought. But there the EU is. Knee deep. The write up includes a pointer too research about “disinformation.”
“Do I want a digital hot dog or a digital burger?” The young decider must choose when grazing online. He believes he likes both hot dogs and burgers. But what is the right choice? Mom will tell him. Thanks, MidJourney, you gradient descent master.
The cited article states:
On Twitter, she [European commissioner V?ra Jourová] said “disinformation actors were found to have significantly more followers than their non-disinformation counterparts and tend to have joined the platform more recently than non-disinformation users”.
The challenge in my mind is one that occupied Henri Bergson. Now the EU wants to codify what information is “okay” and what information is “not okay.” The point of view becomes important. The actual “disinformation” is “information.” Therefore, the EU wants to have the power to make the determination.
Is it possible the EU wants to become the gatekeeper? Is information blocked or deleted “gone”? What about those who believe the “disinformation”? Pretty exciting and probably a bit problematic if the majority of a population believe the “disinformation” to be accurate. How does one resolve this challenge?
Another committee meeting to neutralize “disinformation” and the technologies facilitating dissemination? Sounds like a good next step? What’s for lunch?
Stephen E Arnold, September 28, 2023
Getty and Its Licensed Smart Software Art
September 26, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-1.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid. (Yep, the dinobaby is back from France. Thanks to those who made the trip professionally and personally enjoyable.)
The illustration shows a very, very happy image rights troll. The cloud of uncertainty from AI generated images has passed. Now the rights software bots, controlled by cheerful copyright trolls, can scour the Web for unauthorized image use. Forget the humanoids. The action will be from tireless AI generators and equally robust bots designed to charge a fee for the image created by zeros and ones. Yes!
A quite joyful copyright troll displays his killer moves. Thanks, MidJourney. The gradient descent continues, right into the legal eagles’ nests.
“Getty Made an AI Generator That Only Trained on Its Licensed Images” reports:
Generative AI by Getty Images (yes, it’s an unwieldy name) is trained only on the vast Getty Images library, including premium content, giving users full copyright indemnification. This means anyone using the tool and publishing the image it created commercially will be legally protected, promises Getty. Getty worked with Nvidia to use its Edify model, available on Nvidia’s generative AI model library Picasso.
This is exciting. Will the images include a tough-to-discern watermark? Will the images include a license plate, a social security number, or a just a nifty sting of harmless digits?
The article does reveal the money angle:
The company said any photos created with the tool will not be included in the Getty Images and iStock content libraries. Getty will pay creators if it uses their AI-generated image to train the current and future versions of the model. It will share revenues generated from the tool, “allocating both a pro rata share in respect of every file and a share based on traditional licensing revenue.”
Who will be happy? Getty, the trolls, or the designers who have a way to be more productive with a helping hand from the Getty robot? I think the world will be happier because monetization, smart software, and lawyers are a business model with legs… or claws.
Stephen E Arnold, September 26, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
