The AI Bandwagon: A Hoped for Lawyer Billing Bonanza
November 8, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The AI bandwagon is picking up speed. A dark smudge appears in the sky. What is it? An unidentified aerial phenomenon? No, it is a dense cloud of legal eagles. I read “U.S. Regulation of Artificial Intelligence: Presidential Executive Order Paves the Way for Future Action in the Private Sector.”
A legal eagle — aka known as a lawyer or the segment of humanity one of Shakespeare’s characters wanted to drown — is thrilled to read an official version of the US government’s AI statement. Look at what is coming from above. It is money from fees. Thanks, Microsoft Bing, you do understand how the legal profession finds pots of gold.
In this essay, which is free advice and possibly marketing hoo hah, I noted this paragraph:
While the true measure of the Order’s impact has yet to be felt, clearly federal agencies and executive offices are now required to devote rigorous analysis and attention to AI within their own operations, and to embark on focused rulemaking and regulation for businesses in the private sector. For the present, businesses that have or are considering implementation of AI programs should seek the advice of qualified counsel to ensure that AI usage is tailored to business objectives, closely monitored, and sufficiently flexible to change as laws evolve.
Absolutely. I would wager a 25 cents coin that the advice, unlike the free essay, will incur a fee. Some of those legal fees make the pittance I charge look like the cost of chopped liver sandwich in a Manhattan deli.
Stephen E Arnold, November 8, 2023
Is Utah a Step Behind As Meta Threads Picks Up Steam?
November 3, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Now that TikTok has become firmly embedded in US culture, regulators are finally getting around to addressing its purported harms. Utah joins Arkansas and Indiana in suing parent company ByteDance even as the US Supreme Court considers whether social-media regulation violates the US Constitution. No, it is not the threat of Chinese spying that has Utah’s Division of Consumer Protection taking action this time. Rather, Digital Trends reports, “TikTok Sued by Utah Over Alleged Child Addiction Harm.” Yes, that’s a big concern too. Writer Treavor Mogg tells us:
“Utah’s filing focuses on the app’s alleged negative impact on children, claiming that TikTok ‘surreptitiously designed and deployed addictive features to hook young users into endlessly scrolling through the company’s app.’ It accused TikTok of wanting Utah citizens to ‘spend as much time on its app as possible so it can place advertisements in front of them more often,’ and alleges that the company ‘misled young users and their parents about the app’s dangers.’ In damning comments shared in a statement on Tuesday, Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes said: ‘I’m tired of TikTok lying to Utah parents. I’m tired of our kids losing their innocence and even their lives addicted to the dark side of social media. TikTok will only change if put at legal risk — and ‘at risk’ is where they have left our youth in exchange for profit and greed. Immediate and pervasive threats require swift and bold responses. We have a compelling case against TikTok. Our kids are worth the fight.’”
Reyes is not bluffing. The state has already passed laws to limit minors’ social media usage, with measures such as verified parental consent required for sign-ups and even making accounts and messages accessible to parents. Though many are concerned the latter is a violation of kids’ privacy, the laws are scheduled to go into effect next year.
But what about the other social media apps? Elon is not dragging his heels. And the Zuck? Always the Zuck.
Cynthia Murrell, November 3, 2023
Cyber Security Professionals May Need Worry Beads. Good Worry Beads
November 1, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I read “SEC Charges SolarWinds and Its CISO With Fraud and Cybersecurity Failures.” Let’s assume the write up is accurate or — to hit today’s target for excellence — the article is close enough for horseshoes. Armed with this assumption, will cyber security professionals find that their employers or customers will be taking a closer look at the actual efficacy of the digital fences and news flows that keep bad actors outside the barn?
A very happy bad actor laughs after penetrating a corporate security system cackles in a Starbucks: “Hey, that was easy. When will these people wake up that you should not have fired me.” Thanks, MidJourney, not exactly what I wanted but good enough, the new standard of excellence.
The write up suggests that the answer may be a less than quiet yes. I noted this statement in the write up:
According to the complaint filed by the SEC, Austin, Texas-based SolarWinds and Brown [top cyber dog at SolarWinds] are accused of deceiving investors by overstating the company’s cybersecurity practices while understating or failing to disclose known risks. The SEC alleges that SolarWinds misled investors by disclosing only vague and hypothetical risks while internally acknowledging specific cybersecurity deficiencies and escalating threats.
The shoe hit the floor, if the write up is on the money:
A key piece of evidence cited in the complaint is a 2018 internal presentation prepared by a SolarWinds engineer [an employee who stated something senior management does not enjoy knowing] that was shared internally, including with Brown. The presentation stated that SolarWinds’ remote access setup was “not very secure” and that exploiting the vulnerability could lead to “major reputation and financial loss” for the company. Similarly, presentations by Brown in 2018 and 2019 indicated concerns about the company’s cybersecurity posture.
From my point of view, there are several items to jot down on a 4×6 inch notecard and tape on the wall:
- The “truth” is often at odds with what senior managers want to believe, think they know, or want to learn. Ignorance is bliss, just not a good excuse after a modest misstep.
- There are more companies involved in the foul up than the news sources have identified. Far be it from me to suggest that highly regarded big-time software companies do a C minus job engineering their security. Keep in mind that most senior managers — even at high tech firms — are out of the technology loop no matter what the LinkedIn biography says or employees believe. Accountants and MBA are good at some things, bad at others. Cyber security is in the “bad” ledger.
- The marketing collateral for most cyber security, threat intelligence services, and predictive alerting services talks about a sci-fi world, not the here and now of computer science students given penetration assignments from nifty places like Estonia and Romania, among others. There are disaffected employees who want to leave their former employers a digital hickey. There are developers, hired via a respected gig matcher, who will do whatever an anonymous customer requires for hard cash or a crypto payment. Most companies have no idea how or where the problem originates.
- Think about insider threats, particularly when insiders include contractors, interns, employees who are unloved, or consulting firm with a sketchy wizard gathering data inside of a commercial operation.
Sure, cyber security just works. Yeah, right. Maybe this alleged action toward a security professional will create some discomfort and a few troubled dreams. Will there be immediate and direct change? Nope. But the PowerPoint decks will be edited. The software will not be fixed up as quickly. That’s expensive and may not be possible with a cyber security firm’s current technical staff and financial resources.
Stephen E Arnold, November 1, 2023
How Does One Impede US AI Progress? Have a Government Meeting?
November 1, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The Washington Post may be sparking a litigation hoedown. How can a newspaper give legal eagles an opportunity to buy a private island and not worry about the cost of LexisNexis searches? The answer may be in “AI Researchers Uncover Ethical, Legal Risks to Using Popular Data Sets.” The UK’s efforts to get a group to corral smart software are interesting. Lawyers may be the foot that slows AI traffic on the new Information Superhighway.
The Washington Post reports:
The advent of chatbots that can answer questions and mimic human speech has kicked off a race to build bigger and better generative AI models. It has also triggered questions around copyright and fair use of text taken off the internet, a key component of the massive corpus of data required to train large AI systems. But without proper licensing, developers are in the dark about potential copyright restrictions, limitations on commercial use or requirements to credit a data set’s creators.
There is nothing like jumping in a lake with the local Polar Bears Club to spark investor concern about paying big fines. The chills and thrills of the cold water create a heightened state of awareness.
The article continues:
But without proper licensing, developers are in the dark about potential copyright restrictions, limitations on commercial use or requirements to credit a data set’s creators.
How’s the water this morning?
Several observations:
- A collision between the compunction to innovate in AI and the risk of legal liability seems likely
- Innovators will forge ahead and investors will have to figure out the risks by looking for legal eagles and big sharks lurking below the surface
- Whatever happens in North America and Western Europe will not slow the pace of investment into AI in the Middle East and China.
- Are there unpopular data sets perhaps generated by biased smart software?
Uncertainty and risk. Thanks, AI innovators.
Stephen E Arnold, November 1, 2023
Google Pays Apple to Be More Secure? Petulant, Parental, or Indifferent?
October 31, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I am fascinated by the allegedly “real” information in this Fortune Magazine write up: “Google CEO Sundar Pichai Swears Under Oath That $26 Billion Payment to Device Makers Was Partly to Nudge Them to Make Security Upgrades and Other Improvements.”
As I read the article, this passage pokes me in the nose:
Pichai, the star witness in Google’s defense, testified Monday that Google’s payments to phone manufacturers and wireless phone companies were partly meant to nudge them into making costly security upgrades and other improvements to their devices, not just to ensure Google was the first search engine users encounter when they open their smartphones or computers. Google makes money when users click on advertisements that pop up in its searches and shares the revenue with Apple and other companies that make Google their default search engine.
First, I like the “star witness” characterization. It is good to know where the buck stops at the Alphabet Google YouTube et al enterprise fruit basket.
The driver and passengers shout to the kids, “Use this money to improve your security. If you need more, just call 1 800 P A Y O F F S. Thanks, MidJourney, you do money reasonably well. By the way, where did the cash come from?
Second, I like the notion of paying billions to nudge someone to do something. I know that getting action from DC lobbyists, hiring people from competitors, pushing out people who disagree with Google management, and buying clicks costs less than billions. In some cases, the fees are considerably lower. Some non US law enforcement entities collection several thousand dollars from wives who want to have their husbands killed by an Albanian or Mexican hit man. Billions does more than nudge. Billions means business.
Third, I liked the reminder that no ruling will result in 2023. Then once a ruling is revealed, “another trial will determine how to rein in its [the Google construct’s] market power.”
Several questions popped into my mind:
- Is the “nudge” thing serious? My dinobaby mind interprets the statement as either a bit of insider humor, a disconnect between the Googley world and most people’s everyday reality, or a bit dismissive. I can hear one of my high school science club member’s saying to a teacher perceived as dull normal, “You would not understand the real reason so I am pointing the finger at Plato’s philosophy.”
- The “billions” is the giveaway. That is more than the average pay-to-play shyster of Fiverr.com charges. Why such a premium For billions, I can think of several lobbying outfits who would do some pretty wild and crazy things for a couple of hundred million in cash.
- Why is the already glacier-like legal process moving slowly with the prospect of yet another trial to come? With a substantial footprint in search and online advertising, are some billions being used to create the world’s most effective brake on a legal process?
- Why is so much of the information redacted and otherwise difficult or almost impossible to review? I thought the idea of a public trial involving a publicly traded company in a democratic society was supposed to be done in the sunshine?
Fortune Magazine sees nothing amiss. I wonder if I am the only dinobaby wondering what’s beneath the surface of what seems to be a trial which is showing some indications of being quite Googley. I am not sure if that is a positive thing.
I also wonder why a large outfit like Apple needs to be nudged with Google billions? That strikes me as something worth thinking about. The fake Albanian and Mexican hitmen may learn something new by answering that question. Hey, Fortune Magazine, why not take another shot at covering this story?
Stephen E Arnold, October 31, 2023
Google Loves Up Search Engine Optimization
October 31, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Alphabet, Google, YouTube is definitely a believer in search engine optimization or SEO. How do I know? Consider the reports that relay this allegedly accurate number: $26 billion. Yep, $26 billion paid out to other companies to buy click love.
“Google Paid a Whopping $26.3 Billion in 2021 to Be the Default Search Engine Everywhere” asserts:
Google obviously agrees and has paid a staggering amount to make sure it is the default: testimony in the trial revealed that Google spent a total of $26.3 billion in 2021 to be the default search engine in multiple browsers, phones, and platforms.
The article shares some napkin math and says:
Just to put that $26.3 billion in context: Alphabet, Google’s parent company, announced in its recent earnings report that Google Search ad business brought in about $44 billion over the last three months and about $165 billion in the last year. Its entire ad business — which also includes YouTube ads — made a bit under $90 billion in profit. This is all back-of-the-napkin math, but essentially, Google is giving up about 16 percent of its search revenue and about 29 percent of its profit to those distribution deals.
It appears that Google does its own big money SEO. It pays to be the search system and, therefore, is artificially boosted to be the winner. Yes, SEO, but not the penny ante silliness of an art history major working at a Google optimization company. The billions deliver the big school of fish: Advertisers.
Is this good or bad? From my point of view, Google is doing what good optimization wizards do: Maximize return and reduce risk. Big money deals facilitated some important milestones in the American economy; for example, the steel monopoly, the railroad that made Stanford the exemplar of integrity, and everyone’s friend with the jingle Luckies taste better.
Maybe money can buy happiness or $150 billion in revenue for those offering free online search? Thanks, Microsoft Bing.
Google is little more than a clever construct. What’s fascinating is that the baloney about Google search being better has a shelf life of more than 25 years. What’s troubling is that it has taken Google, the US legal system, and users a long time to think about the company’s mechanisms of control.
Perhaps it is helpful to think about Google’s entanglement with certain government activities? Perhaps some thinking about the data collection, retention, and mining capabilities of the company? Perhaps some analysis abut the use of YouTube to shape thinking or distort thinking about certain issues?
I love the Google. I have a Christmas card from a long gone Googler. That shows something. Nevertheless, the gravitational “force” of an outfit like Google seems so right. The company is the environment of online.
But 25 years of Google love? That’s a bit much. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 showed more awareness than the governmental officials beavering away in Washington, DC, today. Oh, I forgot. Many of those tireless workers have Google mouse pads and a Google T shirt to wear to a frisbee session at the reflecting pool.
Stephen E Arnold, October 31, 2023
Does a UK Facial Recognition Case Spell Trouble for AI Regulation?
October 30, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I noted this Politico article in my feed today (October 30, 2023). I am a dinobaby and no legal eagle. Consequently I may be thinking incorrectly about the information in “An AI Firm Harvested Billions of Photos without Consent. Britain Is Powerless to Act.” The British government has been talking about smart software. French government officials seem to be less chatty. The US government has ideas as well. What’s the Politico write up say that has me thinking that AI regulation, AI industry cooperation, and AI investors will not be immediately productive?
“Where did my horse go?” asks the farmer. Thanks, Microsoft Bing. The image is not of a horse out of a barn, but it is good enough… just like most technology today. Good enough is excellence.
Here’s the statement which concerns the facial recognition company Clearview, and its harvesting of image data. Those data are used to assist enforcement agencies in their work. The passage I circled was:
The judgment, issued by the three-member tribunal at the First-tier Tribunal, agreed with Clearview’s assertion that the ICO lacked jurisdiction in the case because the data processing in question was carried out on behalf of foreign government agencies. The ICO failed “not because this isn’t monitoring and not because in other circumstances, this might not be in breach of U.K. GDPR, but because it’s foreign law enforcement. It’s outside of the scope of European Union law so it doesn’t apply,” said James Moss, privacy and data protection partner at the law firm Bird & Bird.
Could AI regulation in the EU find itself caught in the same thicket? Furthermore, efforts in the US to curb or slow down the pace of AI innovation may collide with the reality of other countries’ efforts to expand business and military use of AI. Common sense suggests that nation states like China are unlikely to inhibit their interests in AI. What will Britain and US do?
My thought is that much effort will be expended in meetings, writing drafts, discussing the ideas, and promulgating guidelines. The plain fact is that both commercial and investor interests will find a way to push forward. Innovations like AI and the downstream applications have considerable potential for law enforcement and military professionals.
Net net: AI, despite its flaws and boundary breaking, is now out of the barn. Time travel is an interesting idea, but the arrow of time is here and now like the lawyers and bureaucrats.
Stephen E Arnold, October 30, 2023
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
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
