The EU Has a Small Sense of Humor: X.com Is Under Endowed?
September 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Elon Musk has a big rocket. Elon Musk has a big car company. Elon Musk has a big hole making machine. But Elon Musk has a high-technology social media outfit which is too small.
I think European regulators have a sense of humor. Furthermore, calling attention to Mr. Musk’s fascination with “big,” the characterization is likely to evoke eye rolls and some nudges among those in the know. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough, a bit like a Tesla.
I read “Musk’s X Deemed Too Small for EU Crackdown on Big Tech Power.” Small, yes. The “real news” report says:
X will dodge the DMA’s raft of dos and don’ts because it isn’t a powerful enough service for business users and doesn’t meet certain revenue thresholds, according to the people, who spoke under condition of anonymity.
Okay, small and impotent.
Let’s look at the “too small” judgment compared to Brazil’s approach. The EU pushes the little bitty X thingy idea; Brazil kicked X.com out of the country. The Brazilian action reacted to X.com as if it were a big outfit with an outsized reach, from the beach in Rio to the sky above Cristo Redentor. Brazil relaxed its freeze on X.com’s bank account so the big X.com fine could be paid.
Observations:
- X.com is too small. Ouch. Intentional or not, this has to remind someone of crude jokes in the high school boys’ locker room.
- The EU wants to make it crystal clear that its actions will be directed at the really big US high-technology outfits which violate assorted EU rules and regulations, write checks for fines, and keep on doing what the companies choose to do.
- Slapping a label on a company which presents itself as a global blockbuster illustrates some disdain.
Net net: Brazil went big. The EU goes small. Very small, X.com, tinier than a Telegram.
Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2024
A Moment to Remember: Google Explains Its Competitive Posture
September 16, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
What happens when those with insight into the Google talk in a bar to friends? Answer: Complete indifference. Question: What happens when a former Google employee’s comments are captured in a form which can be discovered by the prosecution in a trial? Answer: A peak inside Googzilla’s kimono.
An observer is horrified by the site revealed when an ex-Google professional talks about what’s inside the Googzilla kimono. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
“Ex-Google Exec Said Goal Was to Crush Competition, Trial Evidence Shows” reports that Google wanted to “crush” the competition. Google wanted a “monopoly.” Here’s what the Reuters’ article reports via its “trust” filter:
“We’ll be able to crush the other networks and that’s our goal,” David Rosenblatt, Google’s former president of display advertising, said of the company’s strategy in late 2008 or early 2009, according to notes shown in court…. “We’re both Goldman and NYSE,” he said, he said, according to the notes, referring to one of the world’s biggest stock exchanges at the time and one of its biggest market makers. “Google has created what’s comparable to the NYSE or London Stock Exchange; in other words, we’ll do to display what Google did to search,” Rosenblatt said.
On the surface, Mr. Rosenblatt is articulating what some folks have been asserting for years. Several observations:
- Google has been running free for a long time. Why?
- If true, the statement makes the outcome of EU litigation almost certain. Google will have to pay and change in ways which may be resisted by the nation-state of Google
- The comment reflects the machismo of the high tech US company and its hubris. Pride and vanity are believed by some to be a fundamental sin.
So what?
- Deconstructing what Google has built over the years may be quite difficult, maybe impossible. Well, that ends one line of retribution.
- If one breaks up Google and severs advertising, who can afford to buy it. Maybe the US should punt and nationalize the outfit. Why not let GSA run it? That would be exciting in my opinion.
- Google apologizes and keeps on doing what it has been doing for the last 25 years by filing appeals, lobbying, and waiting out government lawyers who often come and go as Google says, “I was neither / Living nor dead, and I knew nothing.”
Net net: The Google is gonna Google no matter what.
Stephen E Arnold, September 18, 2024
Pay Up Time for Low Glow Apple
September 16, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Who noticed the flip side of Apple’s big AI event? CNBC did. “Apple Loses EU Court Battle over 13 Billion Euro Tax Bill in Ireland” makes clear that the EU regulators were not awed by snappy colors, “to be” AI, and Apple’s push to be the big noise in hearing aids. Nope. The write up reported:
Europe’s top court on Tuesday ruled against Apple in the tech giant’s 10-year court battle over its tax affairs in Ireland. The pronouncement from the European Court of Justice comes hours after Apple unveiled a swathe of new product offerings, looking to revitalize its iPhone, Apple Watch and Air Pod line-ups.
Those new products will need to generate some additional revenue. The monetary penalty ascends to $14 billion. Packaged as illegal tax benefits, Apple will go through the appeal drill, the PR drill, and the apology drill. The drills may not stop the EU’s desire to scrutinize the behaviors of US high technology companies. It seems that the EU is on a crusade to hold the Big Dogs by their collars, slip on choke chains, and bring the beasts to heel.
An EU official hits a big rock and finds money inside. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
I have worked in a couple of EU countries. I recall numerous comments from my clients and colleagues in Europe who suggested US companies were operating as if they were countries. From these individuals’ points of view, their observations about US high technology outfits were understandable. The US, according to some, refused to hold these firms accountable for what some perceived as ignoring user privacy and outright illegal behavior of one sort or another.
What does the decision suggest?
- Big fines, recoveries, and judgments are likely to become more common
- Regulations to create market space for European start ups and technologies are likely to be forthcoming
- The Wild West behavior, tolerated by US regulators, will not be tolerated.
There is one other possible consequence of this $14 billion number. The penalty is big, even for a high tech money machine like Apple. The size of the number may encourage other countries’ regulators to think big as well. It is conceivable that after years of inaction, even US regulators may be tempted to jump into the big money when judgments go against the high technology outfits.
With Google on the spot for alleged monopolistic activities in the online advertising market, those YouTube ads are going to become more plentiful. Some Googlers may have an opportunity to find their future elsewhere as Xooglers (former Google employees). Freebies may be further curtailed in the Great Chain of Being hierarchy which guides Google’s organizational set up.
I found the timing of the news about the $14 billion number interesting. As the US quivered from the excitement of more AI in candy bar devices in rainbow colors, the EU was looking under the rock. The EU found nerve and a possible pile of money.
Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2024
The UK Says, “Okay, Google, Get Out Your Checkbook”
September 13, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “British Competition Regulator Objects to Google’s Ad Tech Practices.” The UK is expressing some direct discontent with the Google. The country is making clear that it is not thrilled with the “let ‘em do what they want, pardner” approach of US regulatory agencies. Not surprisingly, like the Netherlands, the government officials are putting the pedal to the metal. The write up reports:
In a statement, the Competition and Markets Authority alleged that the U.S. internet search titan “has harmed competition by using its dominance in online display advertising to favor its own ad tech services.”
I suppose to some the assertion that Google favors itself is not exactly a surprise. The write up continues:
Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of Google Ads, said that the company disagreed with the CMA’s view and “will respond accordingly.” “Our advertising technology tools help websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers,” Taylor said in an emailed statement. “Google remains committed to creating value for our publisher and advertiser partners in this highly competitive sector. The core of this case rests on flawed interpretations of the ad tech sector.”
Good enough illustration, MSFT Copilot.
The explanation from a Googler sounds familiar. Will the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority be convinced? My hunch is that the CMA will not be satisfied with Google’s posture on this hard metal chair. (Does that chair have electrodes attached to its frame and arm rests?)
The write up offers this statement:
In the CMA’s decision Friday, the watchdog said that, since 2015, Google has abused its dominant position as the operator of both ad buying tools “Google Ads” and “DV360,” and of a publisher ad server known as “DoubleClick For Publishers,” in order to strengthen the market position of its advertising exchange, AdX.
Oh, not quite a decade.
Why are European entities ramping up their legal actions? My opinions are:
- Google can produce cash. Ka-ching.
- The recent ruling that Google is a monopoly is essentially interpreted as a green light for other nation states to give the Google a go.
- Non-US regulators are fed up with Google’s largely unchecked behavior and have mustered up courage to try and stop a rolling underground car by standing in front of the massive conveyance and pushing with their bare hands to stop the momentum. (Good luck, folks.)
Net net: More Google pushback may be needed once the bold defiers of mass time velocity are pushed aside.
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2024
US Government Procurement: Long Live Silos
September 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Defense AI Models A Risk to Life Alleges Spurned Tech Firm.” Frankly , the headline made little sense to me so I worked through what is a story about a contractor who believes it was shafted by a large consulting firm. In my experience, the situation is neither unusual nor particularly newsworthy. The write up does a reasonable job of presenting a story which could have been titled “Naive Start Up Smoked by Big Consulting Firm.” A small high technology contractor with smart software hooks up with a project in the Department of Defense. The high tech outfit is not able to meet the requirements to get the job. The little AI high tech outfit scouts around and brings a big consulting firm to get the deal done. After some bureaucratic cycles, the small high tech outfit is benched. If you are not familiar with how US government contracting works, the write up provides some insight.
The work product of AI projects will be digital silos. That is the key message of this procurement story. I don’t feel sorry for the smaller company. It did not prepare itself to deal with the big time government contractor. Outfits are big for a reason. They exploit opportunities and rarely emulate Mother Theresa-type behavior. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough illustration although the robots look stupid.
For me, the article is a stellar example of how information or or AI silos are created within the US government. Smart software is hot right now. Each agency, each department, and each unit wants to deploy an AI enabled service. Then that AI infused service becomes (one hopes) an afterburner for more money with which one can add headcount and more AI technology. AI is a rare opportunity to become recognized as a high-performance operator.
As a result, each AI service is constructed within a silo. Think about a structure designed to hold that specific service. The design is purpose built to keep rats and other vermin from benefiting from the goodies within the AI silo. Despite the talk about breaking down information silos, silos in a high profile, high potential technical are like artificial intelligence are the principal product of each agency, each department, and each unit. The payoff could be a promotion which might result in a cushy job in the commercial AI sector or a golden ring; that is, the senior executive service.
I understand the frustration of the small, high tech AI outfit. It knows it has been played by the big consulting firm and the procurement process. But, hey, there is a reason the big consulting firm generates billions of dollars in government contracts. The smaller outfit failed to lock down its role, retain the key to the know how it developed, and allowed its “must have cachè” to slip away.
Welcome, AI company, to the world of the big time Beltway Bandit. Were you expecting the big time consulting firm to do what you wanted? Did you enter the deal with a lack of knowledge, management sophistication, and a couple of false assumptions? And what about the notion of “algorithmic warfare”? Yeah, autonomous weapons systems are the future. Furthermore, when autonomous systems are deployed, the only way they can be neutralized is to use more capable autonomous weapons. Does this sound like a reply of the logic of Cold War thinking and everyone’s favorite bedtime read On Thermonuclear War still available on Amazon and as of September 6, 2024, on the Internet Archive at this link.
Several observations are warranted:
- Small outfits need to be informed about how big consulting companies with billions in government contracts work the system before exchanging substantive information
- The US government procurement processes are slow to change, and the Federal Acquisition Regulations and related government documents provide the rules of the road. Learn them before getting too excited about a request for a proposal or Federal Register announcement
- In a fight with a big time government contractor make sure you bring money, not a chip on your shoulder, to the meeting with attorneys. The entity with the most money typically wins because legal fees are more likely to kill a smaller firm than any judicial or tribunal ruling.
Net net: Silos are inherent in the work process of any government even those run by different rules. But what about the small AI firm’s loss of the contract? Happens so often, I view it as a normal part of the success workflow. Winners and losers are inevitable. Be smarter to avoid losing.
Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2024
How Will Smart Cars Navigate Crowded Cityscapes When People Do Humanoid Things?
September 11, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Who collided in San Francisco on July 6, 2024? (No, not the February 2024 incident. Yes, I know it is easy to forget such trivial incidents) Did the Googley Waymo vehicle (self driving and smart, of course) bump into the cyclist? Did the cyclist decide to pull an European Union type stunt and run into the self driving car?
If the legal outcome of this San Francisco autonomous car – bicycle incident goes in favor of the bicyclist, autonomous vehicles will have to be smart enough to avoid situations like the one shown in the ChatGPT cartoon. Microsoft Copilot would not render the image. When I responded, “What?” the Copilot hung. Great stuff.
The question is important for insurance, publicity, and other monetary reasons. A good offense is the best defense, someone said. “Waymo Cites Possible Intentional Contact by a Bicyclist to Robotaxi in S.F.” reports:
While the robotaxi was stopped, the cyclist passed in front of it and appeared to dismount, according to the documents. “The cyclist then reached out a hand and made contact with the front passenger side of the stationary Waymo AV (autonomous vehicle), backed the bicycle up slightly, dropped the bicycle, then fell to the ground,” the documents said. The cyclist received medical treatment at the scene and was transported to the hospital, according to the documents. The Waymo vehicle was not damaged during the incident.
In my view, this is the key phrase in the news report:
In the documents, Waymo said it was submitting the report because of the alleged crash and because the cyclist influenced the driving task of the AV and was transported to the hospital, even though the incident “may involve intentional contact by the bicyclist with the Waymo AV and the occurrence of actual impact between the Waymo AV and cycle is not clear.”
We have doubt, reasonable doubt obviously. Googley Waymo is definitely into reasoning. And we have the word pair “intentional contact.” Okay, to me this means, the smart Waymo vehicle did nothing wrong. A human — chock full of possibly malicious if not criminal intent — created a TikTok moment. It is too bad there is no video of the incident. Even my low ball Hyundai records what’s in front of it. Doesn’t the Googley Waymo do that with its array of Star Wars adornments, sensors, probes, and other accoutrements of Googley Waymo vehicles? Guess not.) But the autonomous vehicle had something that could act in an intelligent manner: A human test driver.
What was that person’s recollection of the incident? The news story reports that the Googley Waymo outfit “did not immediately respond to a request for further comment on the incident.”
Several observations:
- The bike riding human created the accident with a parked Waymo super intelligent vehicle and test driver in command
- The Waymo outfit did not want to talk to the San Francisco Chronicle reporter or editor. (I used to work at a newspaper, and I did not like to talk to the editors and news professionals either.)
- Autonomous cars are going to have to be equipped with sufficiently expert AI systems to avoid humans who are acting in a way to convert Googley Waymo services into a source of revenue. Failing that, I anticipate more kinetic interactions between Googley smart cars and humanoids not getting paid to ride shotgun on smart software.
Net net: How long have big time technology companies trying to get autonomous vehicles to produce cash, not liabilities?
Stephen E Arnold, September 11, 2024
Why Is the Telegram Übermensch Rolling Over Like a Good Dog?
September 10, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I have been following the story of Pavel Durov’s detainment in France, his hiring of a lawyer with an office on St Germaine de Pres, and his sudden cooperativeness. I want to offer come observations on this about face. To begin, let me quote from his public statement at t.me/durov/342:
… we [Pavel and Nikolai] hear voices saying that it’s not enough. Telegram’s abrupt increase in user count to 950M caused growing pains that made it easier for criminals to abuse our platform. That’s why I made it my personal goal to ensure we significantly improve things in this regard. We’ve already started that process internally, and I will share more details on our progress with you very soon.
The Telegram French bulldog flexes his muscles at a meeting with French government officials. Thanks, Microsoft. Good enough like Recall I think.
First, the key item of information is the statement “user count to 950M” [million] users. Telegram’s architecture makes it possible for the company to offer a range of advertising services to those with the Telegram “super app” installed. With the financial success of advertising revenue evidenced by the financial reports from Amazon, Facebook, and Google, the brothers Durov, some long-time collages, and a handful of alternative currency professionals do not want to leave money on the table. Ideals are one thing; huge piles of cash are quite another.
Second, Telegram’s leadership demonstrated Cirque de Soleil-grade flexibility when doing a flip flop on censorship. Regardless of the reason, Mr. Durov chatted up a US news personality. In an interview with a former Murdoch luminary, Mr. Durov complained about the US and sang the praises of free speech. Less than two weeks, Telegram blocked Ukrainian Telegram messages to Russians in Russia about Mr. Putin’s historical “special operation.” After 11 years of pumping free speech, Telegram changed direction. Why? One can speculate but the free speech era at least for Ukraine-to-Russia Messenger traffic ended.
Third, Mr. Durov’s digital empire extends far beyond messaging (whether basic or the incredibly misunderstood “secret” function). As I write this, Mr. Durov’s colleagues who work at arm’s length from Telegram, have rolled out a 2024 version of VKontakte or VK called TONsocial. The idea is to extend the ecosystem of The One Network and its TON alternative currency. (Some might use the word crypto, but I will stick with “alternative”.) Even though these entities and their staff operate at arm’s length, TON is integrated into the Telegram super app. Furthermore, clever alternative currency games are attracting millions of users. The TON alternative currency is complemented with Telegram STAR, another alternative currency available within the super app. In the last month, one of these “games”—technically a dApp or distributed application — has amassed over 35 million users and generates revenue with videos on YouTube. The TON Foundation — operating at arm’s length from Telegram — has set up a marketing program, a developer outreach program with hard currency incentives for certain types of work, and videos on YouTube which promote Telegram-based distributed applications, the alternative currency, and the benefits of the TON ecosystem.
So what’s causing Mr. Durov to shift from the snarling Sulimov to goofy French bulldog? Telegram wants to pull off at IPO or an initial public offering. In order to do that after the US Securities & Exchange Commission shut down his first TON alternative currency play, the brothers Durov and their colleagues cooked up a much less problematic approach to monetize the Telegram ecosystem. An IPO would produce money and fame. An IPO could legitimize a system which some have hypothesized retains strong technical and financial ties to some Russian interests.
The conversion from free speech protector with fangs and money to scratch-my-ears French bulldog may be little more than a desire for wealth and fame… maybe power or an IPO. Mr. Durov has an alleged 100 or more children. That’s a lot of college tuition to pay I imagine. Therefore, I am not surprised: Mr. Durov will:
- Cooperate with the French
- Be more careful with his travel operational security in the future
- Be the individual who can, should he choose, access the metadata and the messages or everyone of the 950 million Telegram users (with so darned few in the EU to boot)
- Sell advertising
- Cook up a new version of VKontakte
- Be a popular person among influential certain other countries’ government professionals.
But as long as he is rich, he will be okay. He watches what he eats, he exercises, and he has allegedly good cosmetic surgeons at his disposal. He is flexible obviously. I can hear the French bulldog emitting dulcet sounds now as it sticks out its chest and perks its ears.
Stephen E Arnold, September 10, 2024
Google and Search: A Fix or a Pipe Dream?
September 6, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Dawn of a New Era in Search: Balancing Innovation, Competition, and Public Good.”
Don’t get me wrong. I think multiple search systems are a good thing. The problem is that search (both enterprise and Web) are difficult problems, and these problems are expensive to solve. After working more than 50 years in electronic information, I have seen search systems come and go. I have watched systems morph from search into weird products that hide the search plumbing beneath fancy words like business intelligence and OSINT tools, among others. In 2006 or 2007, one of my financial clients published some of our research. The bank received an email from an “expert” (formerly and Verity) that his firm had better technology than Google. In that conversation, that “expert” said, “I can duplicate Google search for $300 million.” The person who said these incredibly uninformed words is now head of search at Google. Ed Zitron has characterized the individual as the person who killed Google search. Well, that fellow and Google search are still around. This suggests that baloney and high school reunions provide a career path for some people. But search is not understood particularly well at Google at this time. It is, therefore, that awareness of the problems of search is still unknown to judges, search engine marketing experts, developers of metasearch systems which recycle Bing results, and most of the poohbahs writing about search in blogs like Beyond Search.
The poor search kids see the rich guy with lots of money. The kids want it. The situation is not fair to those with little or nothing. Will the rich guy share the money? Thanks, Microsoft Copilot. Good enough. Aren’t you one of the poor Web search vendors?
After five decades of arm wrestling with finding on point information for myself, my clients, and for the search-related start ups with whom I have worked, I have an awareness of how much complexity the word “search” obfuscates. There is a general perception that Google indexes the Web. It doesn’t. No one indexes the Web. What’s indexed are publicly exposed Web pages which a crawler can access. If the response is slow (like many government and underfunded personal / commercial sites), spiders time out. The pages are not indexed. The crawlers have to deal in a successful way with the changes on how Web pages are presented. Upon encountering something for which the crawler is not configured, the Web page is skipped. Certain Web sites are dynamic. The crawler has to cope with these. Then there are Web pages which are not composed of text. The problems are compounded by the vagaries of intermediaries’ actions; for example, what’s being blocked or filtered today? The answer is the crawler skips them.
Without revealing information I am not permitted to share, I want to point out that crawlers have a list which contains bluebirds, canaries, and dead ducks. The bluebirds are indexed by crawlers on an aggressive schedule, maybe multiple times every hour. The canaries are the index-on-a-normal-cycle, maybe once every day or two. The dead ducks are crawled when time permits. Some US government Web sites may not be updated in six or nine months. The crawler visits the site once every six months or even less frequently. Then there are forbidden sites which the crawler won’t touch. These are on the open Web but urls are passed around via private messages. In terms of a Web search, these sites don’t exist.
How much does this cost? The answer is, “At scale, a lot. Indexing a small number of sites is really cheap.” The problem is that in order to pull lots of clicks, one has to have the money to scale or a niche no one else is occupying. Those are hard to find, and when one does, it makes sense to slap a subscription fee on them; for example, POISINDEX.
Why am I running though what strikes me as basic information about searching the Web? “Dawn of a New Era in Search: Balancing Innovation, Competition, and Public Good” is interesting and does a good job of expressing a specific view of Web search and Google’s content and information assets. I want to highlight the section of the write up titled “The Essential Facilities Doctrine.” The idea is that Google’s search index should be made available to everyone. The idea is interesting, and it might work after legal processes in the US were exhausted. The gating factor will be money and the political climate.
From a competitor’s point of view, the index blended with new ideas about how to answer a user’s query would level the playing field. From Google’s point of view it would loss of intellectual property.
Several observations:
- The hunger to punish Big Tech seems to demand being satisfied. Something will come from the judicial decision that Google is a monopoly. It took a couple of decades to arrive at what was obvious to some after the Yahoo ad technology settlement prior to the IPO, but most people didn’t and still don’t get “it.” So something will happen. What is not yet known.
- Wide access to the complete Google index could threaten the national security of the US. Please, think about this statement. I can’t provide any color, but it is a consideration among some professionals.
- An appeal could neutralize some of the “harms,” yet allow the indexing business to continue. Specific provisions might be applied to the decision of Judge Mehta. A modified landscape for search could be created, but online services tend to coalesce into efficient structures. Like the break up of AT&T, the seven Baby Bells and Bell Labs have become AT&T and Verizon. This could happen if “ads” were severed from Web search. But after a period of time, the break up is fighting one of the Arnold Laws of Online: A single monopoly is more efficient and emergent.
To sum up, the time for action came and like a train in Switzerland, left on time. Undoing Google is going to be more difficult than fiddling with Standard Oil or the railroad magnates.
Stephen E Arnold, September 6, 2024
Uber Leadership May Have to Spend Money to Protect Drivers. Wow.
September 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Senior managers — now called “leadership” — care about their employees. I added a wonderful example about corporate employee well being and co-worker sensitivity when I read “Wells Fargo Employee Found Dead in Her Cubicle 4 Days After She Clocked in for Work.” One of my team asked me, “Will leadership at that firm check her hours of work so she is not overpaid for the day she died?” I replied, “You will make a wonderful corporate leader one day.” Another analyst asked, “Didn’t the cleaning crew notice?” I replied, “Not when they come once every two weeks.”
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough given your filters.
A similar approach to employee care popped up this morning. My newsreader displayed this headline: “Ninth Circuit Rules Uber Had Duty to Protect Washington Driver Murdered by Passengers.” The write up reported:
The estate of Uber driver Cherno Ceesay sued the rideshare company for negligence and wrongful death in 2021, arguing that Uber knew drivers were at risk of violent assault from passengers but neglected to install any basic safety measures, such as barriers between the front and back seats of Uber vehicles or dash cameras. They also claimed Uber failed to employ basic identity-verification technology to screen out the two customers who murdered Ceesay — Olivia Breanna-Lennon Bebic and Devin Kekoa Wade — even though they opened the Uber account using a fake name and unverified form of payment just minutes before calling for the ride.
Hold it right there. The reason behind the alleged “failure” may be the cost of barriers, dash cams, and identity verification technology. Uber is a Big Dog high technology company. Its software manages rides, maps, payments, and the outstanding Uber app. If you want to know where your driver is, text the professional. Want to know the percentage of requests matched to drivers from a specific geographic point, forget that, gentle reader. Request a ride and wait for a confirmation. Oh, what if a pick up is cancelled after a confirmation? Fire up Lyft, right?
The cost of providing “basic” safety for riders is what helps make old fashioned taxi rides slightly more “safe.” At one time, Uber was cheaper than a weirdly painted taxi with a snappy phone number like 666 6666 or 777 7777 painted on the side. Now that taxis have been stressed by Uber, the Uber rides have become more expensive. Thanks to surge pricing, Uber in some areas is more expensive than taxis and some black car services if one can find one.
Uber wants cash and profits. “Basic” safety may add the friction of additional costs for staff, software licenses, and tangibles like plastic barriers and dash cams. The write up explains by quoting the legalese of the court decision; to wit:
“Uber alone controlled the verification methods of drivers and riders, what information to make available to each respective party, and consistently represented to drivers that it took their safety into consideration Ceesay relied entirely on Uber to match him with riders, and he was not given any meaningful information about the rider other than their location,” the majority wrote.
Now what? I am no legal eagle. I think Uber “leadership” will have meetings. Appropriate consultants will be retained to provide action plan options. Then staff (possibly AI assisted) will figure out how to reduce the probability of a murder in or near an Uber contractor’s vehicle.
My hunch is that the process will take time. In the meantime, I wonder if the Uber app autofills the “tip” section and then intelligently closes out that specific ride? I am confident that universities offering business classes will incorporate one or both of these examples in a class about corporate “leadership” principles. Tip: The money matters. Period.
Stephen E Arnold, September 5, 2024
Indifference or Carelessness: The Security Wrecks from Georgia Tech
September 4, 2024
DOJ Sues Georgia Tech for DOD-Related Cybersecurity Violations
The Justice Department takes cybersecurity standards for our military very seriously. Just ask Georgia Tech University. Nextgov/FCW reports, “DOJ Suit Claims Georgia Tech ‘Knowingly Failed’ to Meet Cyber Standards for DOD Contracts.” The suit began in 2022 with a whistleblower lawsuit filed by two members of the university’s cybersecurity compliance team. They did so under the DOJ’s Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative. Now the DOJ has joined the fray. Reporter Edward Graham tells us:
“In a press release, DOJ alleged that the institutions committed numerous violations of the Department of Defense’s cybersecurity policy in the years prior to the whistleblower complaint. Among the most serious allegations was the claim that ‘Georgia Tech and [Georgia Tech Research Corporation] submitted a false cybersecurity assessment score to DOD for the Georgia Tech campus’ in December 2020. … The lawsuit also asserted that the Astrolavos Lab at Georgia Tech previously ‘failed to develop and implement a system security plan, which is required by DOD cybersecurity regulations.’ Once the security document was finally implemented in February 2020, the complaint said the university ‘failed to properly scope that plan to include all covered laptops, desktops and servers.’ Additionally, DOJ alleged that the Astrolavos Lab did not use any antivirus or antimalware programs on its devices until December 2021. The university reportedly allowed the lab to refuse the installation of the software ‘in violation of both federal cybersecurity requirements and Georgia Tech’s own policies’ at the request of its director.”
Georgia Tech disputes the charges. It claims there was no data breach or data leak, the information involved was not confidential anyway, and the government had stated this research did not require cybersecurity restrictions. Really? Then why the (allegedly) falsified cybersecurity score? The suit claims the glowing self-reported score for the Georgia Tech campus:
“… was for a ‘fictitious’ or ‘virtual’ environment and did not apply to any covered contracting system at Georgia Tech that could or would ever process, store or transmit covered defense information.”
That one will be hard to explain away. Other entities with DOD contractor will want to pay attention—Graham states the DOJ is cracking down on contractors that lie about their cyber protections.
Cynthia Murrell, September 4, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
