Google: Do Small Sites Need Anti Terrorism Help or Is the Issue Better Addressed Elsewhere?
January 3, 2023
Are “little sites” really in need of Google’s anti-terrorism tool? Oh, let me be clear. Google is — according to “Google Develops Free Terrorism-Moderation Tool for Smaller Websites” — in the process of creating Googley software. This software will be:
a free moderation tool that smaller websites can use to identify and remove terrorist material, as new legislation in the UK and the EU compels Internet companies to do more to tackle illegal content.
And what institutions are working with Google on this future software? The article reports:
The software is being developed in partnership with the search giant’s research and development unit Jigsaw and Tech Against Terrorism, a UN-backed initiative that helps tech companies police online terrorism.
What’s interesting to me is that the motivation for this to-be software or filtering system is in development. The software, it seems, does not exist.
Why would Google issue statements about vaporware?
The article provides a clue:
The move comes as Internet companies will be forced to remove extremist content from their platforms or face fines and other penalties under laws such as the Digital Services Act in the EU, which came into force in November, and the UK’s Online Safety bill, which is expected to become law this year.
I understand. Google’s management understands that regulation and fines are not going away in 2023. It is logical, therefore, to get in front of the problem. How does Google propose to do this?
Yep, vaporware. (I have a hunch there is a demonstration available.) Nevertheless, the genuine article is not available to small Web sites, who need help in coping with terrorism-related content.
How will the tool work? The article states:
Jigsaw’s tool aims to tackle the next step of the process and help human moderators make decisions on content flagged as dangerous and illegal. It will begin testing with two unnamed sites at the beginning of this year.
Everything sounds good when viewed the top of Mount Public Relations, where the vistas are clear and the horizons are unlimited.
I want to make one modest observation: Small Web sites run on hosting services. These hosting services are, in my opinion, more suitable locations for filtering software. The problem is that hosting providers comprise a complex and diverse group of enterprises. In fact, I have yet to receive from my research team a count of service providers that is accurate and comprehensive.
Pushing the responsibility to the operator of a single Web site strikes me as a non-functional approach. Would it make sense for Google’s tool to be implemented in service providers. The content residing on the service providers equipment or co-located hardware and in the stream of data for virtual private systems or virtual private servers. The terrorism related content would be easier to block.
Let’s take a reasonable hosting service; for example, Hertzner in Germany or OVHCloud in France. The European Union could focus on these enabling nodes and implement either the Google system if and when it becomes available and actually works or an alternative filtering method devised by a European team. (I would suggest that Europol or similar entities can develop the needed filters, test them, and maintain them.) Google has a tendency to create or talk about solutions and then walk away after a period of time. Remember Google’s Web Accelerator?)
Based on our research for an upcoming presentation to a group of investigators focused on cyber crime, service providers (what I call enablers) should be the point of attention in an anti-terrorism action. Furthermore, these enablers are also pivotal in facilitating certain types of online crime. Examples abound. These range from right-wing climate activists using services in Romania to child pornography hosted on what we call “shadow ISPs.” These shadow enablers operate specialized services specifically to facilitate illegal activities within specialized software like The Onion Router and other obfuscation methods.
For 2023, I advocate ignoring PR motivated “to be” software. I think the efforts of national and international law enforcement should be directed at the largely unregulated and often reluctant “enablers.” I agree that some small Web site operators could do more. But I think it is time to take a closer look at enablers operating from vacant lots in the Seychelles or service providers running cyber fraud operations to be held responsible.
Fixing the Internet requires consequences. Putting the focus on small Web sites is a useful idea. But turning up the enforcement and regulatory heat on the big outfits will deliver more heat where being “chill” has allowed criminal activity to flourish. I have not mentioned the US and Canada. I have not forgotten that there are enablers operating in plain sight in such places as Detroit and Québec City. Google’s PR play is a way to avoid further legal and financial hassles.
It is time to move from “to be” software to “taking purposeful, intentional action.”
Stephen E Arnold, January 3, 2023
Google Results Are Relevant… to Google and the Googley
January 3, 2023
We know that NoNeedforGPS will not be joining Prabhakar Raghavan (Google’s alleged head of search) and the many Googlers repurposed to deal with a threat, a real threat. That existential demon is ChatGPT. Dr. Raghavan (formerly of the estimable Verity which was absorbed into the even more estimable Autonomy which is a terra incognita unto itself) is getting quite a bit of Google guidance, help, support, and New Year cheer from those Googlers thrown into a Soviet style project to make that existential threat go away.
NoNeedforGPS questioned on Reddit.com the relevance of Google’s ad-supported sort of Web search engine. The plaintive cry in the post is an image, which is essentially impossible to read, says:
Why does Google show results that have nothing to do with what is searched?
You silly goose, NoNeedforGPS. You fail to understand the purpose of Google search, and you obviously are not privy to discussions by search wizards who embrace a noble concept: It is better to return a result than a null result. A footnote to this brilliant insight is that a null result — that is, a search results page which says, “Sorry, no matches for your query” — make it tough to match ads and convince the lucky advertiser on a blank page that a null result conveys information.
What? A null result conveys information! Are you crazy there in rural Kentucky with snow piled to a height of four French bulldogs standing atop one another?
No, I don’t think I am crazy, which is a negative word, according to some experts at Stanford University.
When I run a query like “Flokinet climate activist”, I really want to see a null result set. My hunch is that some folks in Eastern Europe want me to see an empty set as well.
Let me put the display of irrelevant “hits” in response to a query in context:
- With a result set — relevant or irrelevant is irrelevant — Google’s super duper ad matcher can do its magic. Once an ad is displayed (even in a list of irrelevant results to the user), some users click on the ads. In fact, some users cannot tell the difference between a relevant hit and an ad. Whatever the reason for the click, Google gets money.
- Many users who run a query don’t know what they are looking for. Here’s an example: A person searches Google for a Greek restaurant. Google knows that there is no Greek restaurant anywhere near the location of the Google user. Therefore, the system displays results for restaurants close to the user. Google may toss in ads for Greek groceries, sponges from Greece, or a Greek history museum near Dunedin, Florida. Google figures one of these “hits” might solve the user’s problem and result in a click that is related to an ad. Thus, there are no irrelevant results when viewed from Google’s UX (user experience) viewpoint via the crystal lenses of Ad Words, SEO partner teams, or a Googler who has his/her/its finger on the scale of Google objectivity.
- The quaint notions of precision and recall have been lost in the mists of time. My hunch is that those who remember that a user often enters a word or phrase in the hopes of getting relevant information related to that which was typed into the query processor are not interested in old fashioned lists of relevant content. The basic reason is that Google gave up on relevance around 2006, and the company has been pursuing money, high school science projects like solving death, and trying to manage the chaos resulting from a management approach best described as anti-suit and pro fun. The fact that Google sort of works is amazing to me.
The sad reality is that Google handles more than 90 percent of the online searches in North America. Years ago I learned that in Denmark, Google handles 100 percent of the online search traffic. Dr. Raghavan can lash hundreds of Googlers to the ChatGPT response meetings, but change may be difficult. Google believes that its approach to smart software is just better. Google has technology that is smarter, more adept at creating college admission essays, and blog posts like this one. Google can do biology, quantum computing, and write marketing copy while wearing a Snorkel and letting code do deep dives.
Net net: NoNeedforGPS does express a viewpoint which is causing people who think they are “expert searchers” to try out DuckDuckGo, You.com, and even the Russian service Yandex.com, among others. Thus, Google is scared. Those looking for information may find a system using ChatGPT returns results that are useful. Once users mired in irrelevant results realizes that they have been operating in the dark, a new dawn may emerge. That’s Dr. Raghavan’s problem, and it may prove to be easier to impress those at a high school reunion than advertisers.
Stephen E Arnold, January 3, 2023
The AI Copyright Wars Are Underway
January 3, 2023
Adobe develops great software for a high price tag. It really stinks when Adobe slaps the SaaS sticker on software and demands a yearly licensing fee. Adobe is making a smart, yet controversial business move says Axios: “Adobe Will Sell AI-Made Stock Images.”
Adobe decided to open its stock image service to AI-generated images. Adobe sees it as a smart business move, because the company believes AI-generated images will complement human artists. Humans will not be replaced by programs.
Adobe will accept these images as long as they are properly labeled. Getty Images, another stock photo supplier, says differently because they do not want to deal with the legal risks. Adobe is happily proceeding forward, because it means more money in their pockets:
“Adobe, by contrast, seems comfortable with the legal risk. Although it is requiring creators to affirm they have proper rights to the works they submit, it will indemnify buyers of stock images should there be any legal challenges.”
There are also the questions:
“That’s significant given that there are a number of unanswered questions around generative AI, including whether people whose works have been part of training the AI systems have any legal claim to the systems or the works they produce.”
It is a future fact that copyright trolls will legally go after people who use AI software to create substantially similar images. We cannot wait to see that litigation.
Whitney Grace, January 3, 2022
Search and Retrieval: A Sub Sub Assembly
January 2, 2023
What’s happening with search and retrieval? Google’s results irritate some; others are happy with Google’s shaping of information. Web competitors exist; for example, Kagi.com and Neva.com. Both are subscription services. Others provide search results “for free”; examples include Swisscows.com and Yandex.com. You can find metasearch systems (minimal original spidering, just recycling results from other services like Bing.com); for instance, StartPage.com (formerly Ixquick.com) and DuckDuckGo.com. Then there are open source search options. The flagship or flagships are Solr and Lucene. Proprietary systems exist too. These include the ageing X1.com and the even age-ier Coveo system. Remnants of long-gone systems are kicking around too; to wit, BRS and Fulcrum from OpenText, Fast Search now a Microsoft property, and Endeca, owned by Oracle. But let’s look at search as it appears to a younger person today.
A decayed foundation created via smart software on the Mage.space system. A flawed search and retrieval system can make the structure built on the foundation crumble like Southwest Airlines’ reservation system.
First, the primary means of access is via a mobile device. Surprisingly, the source of information for many is video content delivered by the China-linked TikTok or the advertising remora YouTube.com. In some parts of the world, the go-to information system is Telegram, developed by Russian brothers. This is a centralized service, not a New Wave Web 3 confection. One can use the service and obtain information via a query or a group. If one is “special,” an invitation to a private group allows access to individuals providing information about open source intelligence methods or the Russian special operation, including allegedly accurate video snips of real-life war or disinformation.
The challenge is that search is everywhere. Yet in the real world, finding certain types of information is extremely difficult. Obtaining that information may be impossible without informed contacts, programming expertise, or money to pay what would have been called “special librarian research professionals” in the 1980s. (Today, it seems, everyone is a search expert.)
Here’s an example of the type of information which is difficult if not impossible to obtain:
- The ownership of a domain
- The ownership of a Tor-accessible domain
- The date at which a content object was created, the date the content object was indexed, and the date or dates referenced in the content object
- Certain government documents; for example, unsealed court documents, US government contracts for third-party enforcement services, authorship information for a specific Congressional bill draft, etc.
- A copy of a presentation made by a corporate executive at a public conference.
I can provide other examples, but I wanted to highlight the flaws in today’s findability.
Another Lilting French Cash Register Chime
January 2, 2023
An outfit call SC Magazine reported that the French cash registers — you know the quaint one with brass letters and the cheery red enamel — has chimed again. “Microsoft Fined $64 Million by France over Cookies Used in Bing Searches” reports:
France’s privacy watchdog fined Microsoft €60 million ($64 million) for not offering clear enough instruction for users to reject cookies used for online ads, as part of the move to enforce Europe’s tightening data protection law.
The write up noted:
Microsoft has been ordered to solve the issue within three months by implementing a simplified cookie refusal mechanism, or it could face additional fines of €60,000 a day…
It seems that some US companies do not take those French and EU regulations seriously. My suggestion to the Softies: France in not the US. Get on a couple of special lists and you may find some quality time in a glass room at CDG next time you visit. The good news is that US embassy personnel can visit you without too much red tape bedecking those gray suits.
Stephen E Arnold, January 2, 2023
Southwest Crash: What Has Been Happening to Search for Years Revealed
January 2, 2023
What’s the connection between the failure of Southwest Airlines’ technology infrastructure and search? Most people, including assorted content processing experts, would answer the question this way:
None. Finding information and making reservations are totally unrelated.
Fair enough.
“The Shameful Open Secret Behind Southwest’s Failure” does not reference finding information as the issue. We learn:
This problem — relying on older or deficient software that needs updating — is known as incurring “technical debt,” meaning there is a gap between what the software needs to be and what it is. While aging code is a common cause of technical debt in older companies — such as with airlines which started automating early — it can also be found in newer systems, because software can be written in a rapid and shoddy way, rather than in a more resilient manner that makes it more dependable and easier to fix or expand.
I think this is a reasonable statement. I suppose a reader with my interest in search and retrieval can interpret the comments as applicable to looking up who owns some of the domains hosted on Megahost.com or some similar service provider. With a little thought, the comment can be stretched to cover the failure some organizations have experienced when trying to index content within their organizations so that employees can find a PowerPoint used by a young sales professional at a presentation at a trade show several weeks in the past.
My view point is that the Southwest failure provides a number of useful insights into the fragility of the software which operates out of sight and out of mind until that software fails.
Here’s my list of observations:
- Failure is often a real life version of the adage “the straw that broke the camel’s back”. The idea is that good enough software chugs along until it simply does not work.
- Modern software cannot be quickly, easily, or economically fixed. Many senior managers believe that software wrappers and patches can get the camel back up and working.
- Patched systems may have hidden, technical or procedural issues. A system may be returned but it may harbor hidden gotchas; for example, the sales professionals PowerPoint. The software may not be in the “system” and, therefore, cannot be found. No problem until a lawyer comes knocking about a disconnect between an installed system and what the sales professional asserted. Findability is broken by procedures, lack of comprehensive data collection, or an error importing a file. Sharing blame is not popular in some circles.
What’s this mean?
My view is that many systems and software work as intended; that is, well enough. No user is aware of certain flaws or errors, particularly when these are shared. Everyone lives with the error, assuming the mistake is the way something is. In search, if one looks for data about Megahost.com and the data are not available, it is easy to say, “Nothing to learn. Move on.” A rounding error in Excel. Move on. An enterprise search system which cannot locate a document? Just move on or call the author and ask for a copy.
The Southwest meltdown is important. The failure of the system makes clear the state of mission critical software. The problem exists in other systems as well, including, tax systems, command and control systems, health care systems, and word processors which cannot reliably number items in a list, among others.
An interesting and exciting 2023 may reveal other Southwest case examples.
Stephen E Arnold, January 2, 2023
CNN Surfaces an Outstanding Quote from the Zuck
December 30, 2022
Tucked in “The Year That Brought Silicon Valley Back Down to Earth” was an outstanding quotation from the chief Meta professional, Mark (the Zucker) Zuckerberg. Here’s the quote:
“Unfortunately, this did not play out the way I expected.”
The CNN article revisits what are by now old tropes and saws.
When I spotted the title, I thought a handful of topics would be mentioned; for example:
- The medical testing fraud
- The crazy “value” of wild hair styles and digital currency, lawyer parents, and disappearing billions. Poof.
- Assorted security issues (Yes, I am thinking of Microsoft and poisoned open source libraries. Hey, isn’t GitHub part of the Softies’ empire?)
- Apple’s mystical interactions with China
- Taylor Swift’s impact on Congressional interest in online ticket excitement
- An annual update on Google’s progress in solving death
- Amazon’s interaction with trusted third party sellers (Yes, I am thinking of retail thefts)
- Tesla’s outer space thinking about self driving
- Palantir’s ads asserting that it is the leader in artificial intelligence.
None of these made the CNN story. However, that quote from the Zuck touches some of these fascinating 2022 developments.
Stephen E Arnold, December 30, 2022
Apple Think: Characteristics of Working in a Ring with Echoes
December 30, 2022
Have you been reminded to think in 360 degrees. The idea, as I recall, is to look at a problem, opportunity, or action from different angles. Instead of screwing up because a decider verifies a preconceived idea, the 360 method is supposed to avoid overlooking the obvious.
What about those Apple AirTags? Was 360 degree think in operation when the idea of finding a lost phone was hatched? In my opinion, an Apple AirTag is useful for many good news use cases. iPhone users will want several, maybe six, maybe a dozen. Just clip one on a key ring, and in theory one can locate those keys. Find your luggage. Keep an eye on the cat. The trick is to sign up for the assorted Apple services which make the AirTag function.
Many Apple employees work in a circular structure which looks like a hula hoop. Could the building be a concretization of the metaphor for 360 degree thinking? If so, I cannot understand why the AirTag application for stalking was not identified as a use case? What about tracking an expensive auto so a car thief can drive off after the owner leaves the vehicle at the mall? Could an assassin use the AirTag to verify the target was at a location without having to use other means to achieve the kind of future Mr. Putin envisions for Mr. Volodymyr Zelenskyy?
Did the Apple professionals doing 360 degree thinking in the circular building consider these applications of the AirTag? My hunch is that Apple does Ring Think. It makes money, but the unforeseen consequences appear to be mere downstream details.
What about iPhone’s ability to detect a user who is in a car crash. The idea is that an accident is detected by the iPhone. Authorities are notified. Help is dispatched. Perfect. Has something been overlooked by Ring Think via the 360 degree analysis.
You decide.
“Apple Watch and iPhone Crash Detection Software an Issue for Search and Rescue Crews” reports:
One of the new features on the iPhone and Apple Watch is crash detection. It is designed to detect car crashes and if needed, alert the local authorities.
Perfect. Car crash. Alert authorities. What did the Apple wizards overlook? Here’s a quote from the write up:
“It’s quite sophisticated,” Dwight Yochim, a senior manager with the B.C. Search and Rescue Association told Global News. “It [the crash detection in an iPhone] recognizes a sudden change in speed, sound of crunching metal and glass and even the airbag deploying. But for whatever reason, people in the backcountry and maybe it’s just our B.C. backcountry enthusiasts, they’re just hardcore, and the falling and the kind of crashing through the woods literally is setting it off.”
Apple allegedly has issued software to help address the accidental alert. These unintentional, accidental alerts have consequences. The write up reports that Mr. Yochim said:
“We do 2,000 calls a year now. And we did a report a couple of years ago that showed that we’re probably going to hit 3,000 in about 10 years. So the more of these false calls we have, the more time it takes away from our members,” Yochim said. “They’re putting in 400,000 hours now in training, administration and incidents. And so every one of these calls is four or five hours for a dozen people to respond. Then you find out there’s some puzzled subject at the end going, ‘I didn’t even realize I activated it’.”
I am not all that interested in AirTags and automatic alerts. The issue is that these are two specific examples of functionality that has a number of applications. Some good and some bad.
However, what less visible, more subtle examples of failed 360 analysis and Ring Think are in the Apple ecosystem? What if some of the flubs and ignored applications have far greater consequences. Instead of knowing a human trafficker will target an individual for abduction, the latent use case is invisible and will emerge without warning?
What’s the responsibility of a company which relies on Ring Think to minimize the impact of their innovations?
Here’s a thought for the New Year: There is no remediation. Society has to live with technical activities. Therefore, why should an Apple type of organization leave its spaceship shaped structure and worry about a kidnapped child?
Why bother? Or, it’s not our problem because we are only human. And, my fave, we’re not able to predict the future. But the big reason is look at the good our work does.
Yep, I got it.
Stephen E Arnold, December 30, 2022
Apple Signals and Messages Telegram Its Intentions
December 30, 2022
Apple is losing its touch. Once the outfit was a religion with chips. Now it is a subscription machine with no right to repair.
Telegram is an encrypted message service that has avoided paying Apple fees, but according to TechRadar that has come to an end: “Telegram Forced To Crack Down On Paid Posts Because Apple Wasn’t Getting A Cut.”
Telegram used to allow users to set up paid content posts with third-party payment bots. This allowed content creators to avoid paying Apple’s fees and their fans paid them directly. Content creators received close to 100% of their fans’ donations without sending a chunk to Apple. Unfortunately, Apple wants its 30% and Telegram is forced to comply. If Telegram does not comply with Apple, then it will be removed from the App Store.
Apple has a monopoly in the app market and even other tech giants, like Elon Musk and Spotify, are saying 30% is too much. South Korea passed a law that allowed content creators to use third-party payment services other than Apple:
“You have the likes of Spotify calling the tech giant “anti-competitive” because of App Store rules that make buying an audiobook overly complicated. Newfound Twitter wrangler Elon Musk said back in May that 30 percent is “10 times higher than it should be” and South Korea thought so, too. Last year, the nation passed a law forcing Apple and Google to allow developers to use third-payment systems and not pay the hefty tax.”
Apple does not care that it charges 30%, because they have a monopoly and all its decisions are unilateral. That is what happens when they use an OS other than Windows. Will Apple compete with Telegram to capture more encrypted messaging traffic?
Absolutely.
Whitney Grace, December 30, 2022
Identity Theft Made Easy: Why?
December 30, 2022
Some automobiles are lemons aka money holes, because they have defects that keep breaking. Many services are like that as well, including rental car insurance, extended warranties on electronics, and identity theft protection. Life Hacker explains why identity theft protection services are a scam in the story: “Identity Theft Protection Is Mostly Bullshit.”
Most Americans receive emails or physical letters from their place of work, medical offices, insurance agencies, etc. that their personal information was involved in a data breach. As a token of atonement, victims are given free Identity Theft Protection (ITP) aka a useless service. These services promise to monitor the Internet and Dark Web for your personal information. This includes anything from your credit cards to social security number. Identity theft victims deal with ruined credit scores and possibly stolen funds. Identity Theft Protection services seem to be a good idea, until you realize that you can do the monitoring yourself for free.
ITP services monitor credit reports, social media accounts, the Dark Web, and personal financial accounts. Some of these services such as credit reports and your financial accounts will alert you when there is suspicious activity. You can do the following for free:
“You can access your credit reports for free once a year. And you should! It’s a fast and pretty straightforward operation, and at a glance you can see if someone has opened a credit card or taken out a loan in your name. In fact, the number one best way to stop folks from stealing your identity is to freeze your credit, which prevents anyone—even if they have your personal information—from getting a new credit card or loan. While this doesn’t protect you from every single kind of fraud out there, it removes the most common vectors that identity thieves use.”
The US government also maintains a Web site to assist identity theft victims. It is wise to remember that ITP services are different from identity theft insurance. The latter is the same as regular insurance, except it is meant to help when your information is stolen.
Practice good identity hygiene by monitoring your accounts and not posting too much personal information online.
Why is identity theft like a chicken wing left on a picnic table? Careless human or indifferent maintenance worker?
Whitney Grace, December 30, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
