Need a Human for Special Work? Just Buy One Maybe?
December 29, 2022
Is it possible to purchase a person? Judging from the rumors I have heard in rural Romania, outside the airport in Khartoum, and in a tavern in Tirana — I would suggest that the answer is “possibly.” The Times of London is not into possibilities if the information in “Maids Trafficked and Sold to Wealthy Saudis on Black Market” is accurate. Keep in mind that I am mindful of what I call open source information blindspots. Shaped, faked, and weaponized information is now rampant.
The article focuses on an ecommerce site called Haraj.sa. The article explains:
[The site] Saudi Arabia’s largest online marketplace, through which a Times investigation shows that hundreds of domestic workers are being illegally trafficked and sold to the highest bidders.
Furthermore, the Times adds:
The app, which had 2.5 million visits last year — more than Amazon or AliExpress within the kingdom — is still available on the Apple and Google Play stores despite being criticised by the UN’s Special Rapporteurs in 2020 for facilitating modern slavery.
If true, the article is likely to make for some uncomfortable days as the world swings into 2023; specifically:
- The Saudi government
- Apple
- Assorted law enforcement professionals.
If the information in the write up is accurate, several of the newspaper’s solicitors will be engaged in conversations with other parties’ solicitors. I assume that there will be some conversations in Mayfair and Riyadh about the article. Will Interpol become curious? Probably.
Let’s step back and ask some different questions. I am assuming that some of the information in the article is “correct”; that is, one can verify screenshots or chase down the source of the information. Maybe the lead journalist will consent to an interview on a true crime podcast. Whatever.
Consider these questions:
- Why release the story at the peak of some countries’ holiday season? Is the timing designed to minimize or emphasize the sensitive topic of alleged slavery, the Kingdom’s conventions, or the apparent slipshod app review process at controversial US high technology companies?
- What exactly did or does Apple and Google know about the app for the Haraj marketplace? If the Times’ story is accurate, what management issue exists at each of these large, but essential to some, companies?
- Is the ecommerce site operating within the Kingdom’s cultural norms or is the site itself breaking outside legal guidelines? What does Saudi Arabia say about this site?
To sum up, human trafficking is a concern for many individuals, government entities, and non-governmental organizations. I keep coming back to the question “Why now?” The article states:
Apple said: “We strictly prohibit the solicitation or promotion of illegal behaviour, including human trafficking and child exploitation, in the App Store and across every part of our business. We take any accusations or claims around this behaviour very seriously.” Google declined to comment. Haraj, Saudi Arabia’s human rights commission and the government have been contacted for a response.
Perhaps taking more time to obtain comments would have been useful? What’s the political backstory for the disclosure of the allegedly accurate information during the holiday season? Note that the story is behind a paywall which further limits its diffusion.
Net net: Many questions have I.
Stephen E Arnold, December 29, 2022
Are Facebook and Google Monopolies: Nope, Shrinking Share of Online Ads. Proof!
December 29, 2022
I read an interesting article, but I have my doubts about the numbers. The story is from one of the “last person standing” in the Silicon Valley real news datasphere. In the last month or so, the tone of write ups about two of America’s most lovable and well managed companies has turned south, well, maybe south by southwest.
“Share of US Digital Ad Spend, by Company Type” reports:
Google and Meta will together capture 48.4% of all U.S. digital ad revenue this year (28.8% for Google and 19.6% for Meta), down from 54.7% at their peak in 2017 (34.7% for Google and 20.0% for Meta), per data from Insider Intelligence.
And what about the lovable Bezos bulldozer driven pedal to the metal by Andy Jassy? The article states:
- By far, the biggest threat to their collective ad dominance is Amazon, which has grown its ad business to over $30 billion dollars annually.
- By 2024, Amazon is expected to capture 12.7% of all U.S. digital ad dollars, while Meta is expected to capture 17.9%.
TikTok is no big whoop. I suppose that’s why the tech giants are becoming pretzels in their effort create short form content.
Several observations:
- I am not sure how these data were gathered nor the methods used to present such remarkable precision as 54.7 percent in a prediction is an indication that someone did not pay attention in Statistics 101
- Amazon’s ad data are more interesting when the slope between the firm’s ad revenue in 2018 is plotted against Amazon’s ad revenue in 2021. That a slope!
- Blowing off TikTok is problematic. Does the data consider influencers who accept some type of compensation in return for merchandise, trips, or some other fungible asset like a super duper hair curling device?
To sum up: I am not prepared to label those wonderful wizards at Facebook and Google as crew on a doomed steamship named MY Failure.
Stephen E Arnold, December 2022
Loving Tablets and Chromebooks: Sure, Like Going to the Dentist
December 29, 2022
Might smartphones make some devices irrelevant? We learn from The Register that “Tablet, Chromebook Shipments Come Crashing Down.” The article examines IDC’s report of third-quarter shipments. It states a mere 38.6 million tablets were shipped between July 01 and September 30, a decline of almost 9% since the previous year. Only Huawei grew its sales as demand escalated in China and Russia, where sanctions barred the way for Western tech. Writer Paul Kunert reports:
“Apple saw sales decline 1.1 percent to 14.5 million, according to IDC estimates. Samsung was down 4 percent to 7.1 million, Amazon fell 8.1 percent to 4.3 million, Lenovo shipments dropped 36.6 percent to 2.7 million, and Huawei grew 2 percent to 2.4 million. In its results filed late last week, Apple said iPad sales to end users were up 21 percent to $8.3 billion in Q4 of its fiscal ’22 ended 30 September despite supply constraints. IDC tracks sales into the channel, hence the difference in the figures. Chromebook shipments fell at a far faster rate, down 34.4 percent year-on-year to 4.3 million devices. This was the fifth straight decline for this sector of the PC industry. The downward trajectory began in the US, which accounted for 70 percent of global shipments. … IDC placed Acer as market leader with shipments of 1 million, albeit down 23.8 percent on a year ago. Dell shrank 19.9 percent to 900,000 units, HP was down 26.8 percent to 800,000, Lenovo plunged 54.8 percent to 700,000, and Samsung was down 37 percent to 300,000.”
Researchers point out Chromebook sales spiked during the pandemic as students connected from home, so its decline is simply a return to normal levels. As for the rest, a tough economy was likely at play. Apparently one can endure a slightly smaller small screen when fuel and groceries are difficult to afford.
The Arnold IT team has a different set of conclusions:
- Tablets and Chromebooks are like wearing clothing two sizes to small. Think discomfort.
- The promoters of tablets and Chromebooks are likely to use laptops to do “real” work.
- Tablets and Chromebooks make routine tasks difficult; for example, keeping an Internet connection in Buenos Aires during the World Cup Parade and finding a dongle in Hermanus.
Money and power allow some outfits to sell unusual stuff. Why not advertise these products on cable at 3 am?
Cynthia Murrell, December 29, 2022
How Regulation Works: Irritate Taylor Swift and Find Out
December 29, 2022
Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation have been scamming consumers for decades. There was a lawsuit in the 2010s about inflated service fees that Ticketmaster lost. Plaintiffs were awarded gift certificates with minuscule amounts that could not be combined and had expiration dates. The bigger question, Engadget asks, is why did it take a poster to force the federal government into action: “Ticketmaster’s Taylor Swift Fiasco Sparks Senate Antitrust Hearing.”
Ticketmaster screwed up tickets for Taylor Swift’s first tour in five years. The ticket seller’s systems were overwhelmed by fourteen million people, including bots, when tickers went up for sale. Ticketmaster’s Web site was hit with 3.5 million system requests.
Ticketmaster informed Swift they could handle the mass of fans, but she was “pissed off” when they failed.
“Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mike Lee (R-UT), the chair and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust and Consumer Rights, have announced a hearing to gather evidence on competition in the ticketing industry. They have yet to confirm when the hearing will take place or the witnesses that the committee will call upon.”
New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated Live Nation should be broken up. The US government has been investigating Live Nation’s monopoly for several months, but the Swift fiasco has garnered the issue more public attention.
Ticketmaster was sued in the past for similar issues and the company lost. Why is Live Nation allowed to continue its poor business practices?
Whitney Grace, December 29, 2022
Cyber Security: Is It Time for a Brazen Bull?
December 28, 2022
The cyber security industry has weathered Covid, mergers, acquisitions, system failures, and — excuse the lousy pun — solar winds. The flow of exploits with increasingly poetic names continues; for example, Azov, Zerobot, Killnet, etc. However, the cyber defense systems suffer from what one might call a slight misalignment. Bad actors find ways to compromise [a] humans to get user names and passwords, [b] exploit what is now the industry standard for excellence (MVP or minimal viable product, good enough engineering, and close-enough-for-horseshows technology), any gizmo or process connected to something connected to a public-facing network. The list of “bad” actors is a lengthy one. It includes bird-owning individuals in the UK, assorted government agencies hostile to the US, students in computer science class or hanging out in a coffee shop, and double agents with computing know how.
To add to the pain of cyber security, there are organizations which do great marketing but less great systems. “What’s in a PR Statement: LastPass Breach Explained” discusses a serious problem which underscores a number of issues.
LastPass is a product with a past reaching backwards more than a decade. The software made it easier for a user to keep track of what user name and password was whipped up to log into an online service or software. Over the years, PC Magazine found the password manager excellent. (Software can be excellent? Who knew?) Wikipedia has a list of “issues” the security software faced over the years. You can find that information here. More amusing is security expert Steve Gibson’s positive review of LastPass. Should you have the time, you can read about that expert’s conclusions in 2010 here.
But what does the PR statement article say? Here are a couple of snippets from the cited December 26, 2022, essay:
Snippet 1: Right before the holiday season, LastPass published an update on their breach. As people have speculated, this timing was likely not coincidental but rather intentional to keep the news coverage low. …Their statement is also full of omissions, half-truths and outright lies.
Harsh.
Snippet 2: Again, it seems that LastPass attempts to minimize the risk of litigation (hence alerting businesses) while also trying to prevent a public outcry (so not notifying the general public). Priorities…
My take on LastPass is that the company is doing what other cyber security firms do: Manage information about problems.
Let’s talk about cyber security on a larger stage. How does a global scale sound?
First, security is defined by [a] what bad actors have been discovered to do and [b] marketing. A breach occurs. A fix — ideally one enabled by artificial intelligence and chock full of predictive analytics — is created and marketed. Does the fix work? How about those Exchange Server exploits or those 24×7 phishing attacks? The point for me is that cyber security seems to be reactive; that is, dictated by what bad actors do.
Second, the “fix” is verified by whom and what? In the US there are Federal cyber groups. There are state cyber groups. There are cyber associations. There are specialty labs in fun places like Quantico. For a LastPass incident, which cowpoke moves the cow along? The point: Bureaucracy, friction, artificial barriers, time, expertise, money, and more.
Third, technical layoffs and time mean that cyber crime may be an attractive business opportunity for some.
Considering these three points, I want to hazard several observations:
- Cyber security may be an oxymoron
- Bad actors have the advantages granted by good enough software and systems, tools, talent, and time
- Users and customers who purchase security may be faced with a continual flow of surprises
What’s the fix? May I suggest that we consider bringing back the Bull of Phalaris aka the brazen bull.
The “bull” is fabricated of a suitable metal; for example, bronze. The inside of the bull is hollow. A trapdoor allows access to the interior space. When the trapdoor is closed, there is an opening from the interior to the bull’s nose. The malefactor — let’s say a venture firm’s managing director who is rolling up cyber security companies with flawed software — is placed inside the bull. A fire is built beneath the bull and the shouts and possible other noises are emitted from the opening in the bull’s head.
The use of the brazen bull for software developers pumping out “good enough” cyber security solutions can be an option as well. Once law enforcement snags the head of a notorious hacking gang, the bull will be pressed into duty. Keep in mind that Microsoft blamed 1,000 cyber warriors working in a country hostile to the US for the SolarWinds’ misstep. This would necessitate more bulls which would provide meaningful work to some.
I would advocate that marketer types who sell cyber security systems which don’t work be included in the list of individuals who can experience the thrill of the brazen bull.
My thought is that the use of the brazen bull with clips released as short videos would capture some attention.
What’s is going on now is not getting through? More robust measures are necessary. No bull.
Stephen E Arnold, December 28, 2022
Surprise: TikTok Reveals Its Employees Can View European User Data
December 28, 2022
What a surprise. The Tech Times reports, “TikTok Says Chinese Employees Can Access Data from European Users.” This includes workers not just within China, but also in Brazil, Canada, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States. According to The Guardian, TikTok revealed the detail in an update to its privacy policy. We are to believe it is all in the interest of improving the users’ experience. Writer Joseph Henry states:
“According to ByteDance, TikTok’s parent firm, accessing the user data can help in improving the algorithm performance on the platform. This would mean that it could help the app to detect bots and malicious accounts. Additionally, this could also give recommendations for content that users want to consume online. Back in July, Shou Zi Chew, a TikTok chief executive clarified via a letter that the data being accessed by foreign staff is a ‘narrow set of non-sensitive’ user data. In short, if the TikTok security team in the US gives a green light for data access, then there’s no problem viewing the data coming from American users. Chew added that the Chinese government officials do not have access to these data so it won’t be a big deal to every consumer.”
Sure they don’t. Despite assurances, some are skeptical. For example, we learn:
“US FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr told Reuters that TikTok should be immediately banned in the US. He added that he was suspicious as to how ByteDance handles all of the US-based data on the app.”
Now just why might he doubt ByteDance’s sincerity? What about consequences? As some Sillycon Valley experts say, “No big deal. Move on.” Dismissive naïveté is helpful, even charming.
Cynthia Murrell, December 28, 2022
Ah, Emergent Behavior: Tough to Predict, Right?
December 28, 2022
Super manager Jeff (I manage people well) Dean and a gam of Googlers published “Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models.” The idea is that those smart software systems informed by ingesting large volumes of content demonstrate behaviors the developers did not expect. Surprise!
Also, Google published a slightly less turgid discussion of the paper which has 16 authors. in a blog post called “Characterizing Emergent Phenomena in Large Language Models.” This post went live in November 2022, but the time required to grind through the 30 page “technical” excursion was not available to me until this weekend. (Hey, being retired and working on my new lectures for 2023 is time-consuming. Plus, disentangling Google’s techy content marketing from the often tough to figure out text and tiny graphs is not easy for my 78 year old eyes.
Helpful, right? Source: https://openreview.net/pdf?id=yzkSU5zdwD
In a nutshell, the smart software does things the wizards had not anticipated. According to the blog post:
The existence of emergent abilities has a range of implications. For example, because emergent few-shot prompted abilities and strategies are not explicitly encoded in pre-training, researchers may not know the full scope of few-shot prompted abilities of current language models. Moreover, the emergence of new abilities as a function of model scale raises the question of whether further scaling will potentially endow even larger models with new emergent abilities. Identifying emergent abilities in large language models is a first step in understanding such phenomena and their potential impact on future model capabilities. Why does scaling unlock emergent abilities? Because computational resources are expensive, can emergent abilities be unlocked via other methods without increased scaling (e.g., better model architectures or training techniques)? Will new real-world applications of language models become unlocked when certain abilities emerge? Analyzing and understanding the behaviors of language models, including emergent behaviors that arise from scaling, is an important research question as the field of NLP continues to grow.
The write up emulates other Googlers’ technical write ups. I noted several facets of the topic not included in the paper on OpenReview.net’s version of the paper. (Note: Snag this document now because many Google papers, particularly research papers, have a tendency to become unfindable for the casual online search expert.)
First, emergent behavior means humans were able to observe unexpected outputs or actions. The question is, “What less obvious emergent behaviors are operating within the code edifice?” Is it possible the wizards are blind to more substantive but subtle processes. Could some of these processes be negative? If so, which are and how does the observer identify those before an undesirable or harmful outcome is discovered?
Second, emergent behavior, in my view of bio-emulating systems, evokes the metaphor of cancer. If we assume the emergent behavior is cancerous, what’s the mechanism for communicating these behaviors to others working in the field in a responsible way? Writing a 30 page technical paper takes time, even for super duper Googlers. Perhaps the “emergent” angle requires a bit more pedal to the metal?
Third, how does the emergent behavior fit into the Google plan to make its approach to smart software the de facto standard? There is big money at stake because more and more organizations will want smart software. But will these outfits sign up with a system that demonstrates what might be called “off the reservation” behavior? One example is the use of Google methods for war fighting? Will smart software write a sympathy note to those affected by an emergent behavior or just a plain incorrect answer buried in a subsystem?
Net net: I discuss emergent behavior in my lecture about shadow online services. I cover what the software does and what use humans make of these little understood yet rapidly diffusing methods.
Stephen E Arnold, December 28, 2022
Online and Brick Crime Ecosystem: Not Just Surviving, It Is Thriving
December 28, 2022
For some US cities, looting has become a daily occurrence. Retailers in San Francisco are left helpless as their merchandise is stolen. Looting happens when things become violent during protests centered on ethnicity or politics. It appears looting is a victimless crime, because thieves are hitting up large retail chains and luxury stores. Yahoo! Finance details how Target is facing a huge profit loss because of shoplifting and it is the same for other stores too: “Target: ‘Organized Retail Crime’ Has Driven $400 Million In Extra Profit Loss This Year.”
Target has lost $400 million in gross profit in compared to last year’s third-quarter results and the CEO projects a $600 million loss for all of 2022. Target attributes profit shrinkage to “organized retail crime.” Why are more people stealing these days than before? The Yahoo Finance Editor-In-Chief Andy Serwer summed it up as a zeitgeist issue:
“”Why are people stealing these days? That’s a tough one. To some degree it’s a reflection of our times. Simply put, America’s social contract is straining. Until recently we’ve been able to lay out goods—often in mammoth, big box stores with only a handful of employees. When our social contract is strong—i.e people are getting a fair shake—it’s a model that works. Now it seems more people are stealing instead. (BTW, our stressed social contract may be capping how far we can push this people-light, technology-heavy model. Last month Wegman’s ended its scan-and-go shopping app. Why? Shrinkage, of course.)”
Other factors include a widening wealth gap, companies failing to pay workers a living wage, shoppers being violent toward employees, external thefts, and post-COVID mentalities. The article, however, failed to mention how easy it is to fence stolen products. Online commerce Web sites such as Amazon, eBay, Mercer, Swappa, the Real Real, and social media marketplaces are teaming with stolen goods. It is a little harder to drop luxury items, but everyday products like electronics, baby formula, diapers, toys, and alcohol go quickly. These Web sites do little to vet the sellers, although Amazon has some blocks and eBay scans for “counterfeit goods” and limits the sale of certain items.
These prevention measures do little to stop thieves from hawking their stolen
merchandise online.
Whitney Grace, December 28, 2022
Ah, Lawyers: What One Does Not See Others Will
December 27, 2022
I read “The Copyright Industry Is about to Discover That There Are Hundreds of Thousands of Songs Generated by AI Already Available, Already Popular.” The write does a typical lawyer thing: Presenting in cool tones a logical argument. Is there a problem with this? Nope; however, what one lawyer presents as a logical argument, there will be other legal eagles preparing more logical arguments backed by a business model, knowledge of litigation processes, and the money or clout to push a matter forward.
After you read the cited article, navigate to PicRights. Read the verbiage. Then run a query on Reddit for the business entity PicRights. Now form a mental picture of this type of firm equipped with a signed letter which says, “Protect my rights against IP thieves. We agree to split the money extracted from these scofflaws, thieves, cut-purses, and content recycles.”
Got the picture.
The wide diffusion of smart software which does human like things open the door to a major business opportunity for PicRights type companies. Plus, if you need a lawyer, I have heard that a Higbee & Associates-type of law firm is skilled in this facet of assorted laws, conventions, and regulations.
The opportunity to extract money from machine generated images, music, and other content is unlimited.
Stephen E Arnold, December 27, 2022
Are Bad Actors Working for Thrills?
December 27, 2022
Nope, some bad actors may be forced to participate in online criminal behavior. Threats, intimidation, a beating or two, or worse can focus some people to do what is required.
The person trying to swindle you online might be doing so under duress. “Cyber Criminals Hold Asian Tech Workers Captive in Scam Factories,” reports Context. The article begins with the story of Stephen Wesley, an Indian engineer who thought he was taking a graphic design job in Thailand. Instead he found himself carted off to Myanmar, relieved of his passport and phone, and forced to work up to 18 hours a day perpetuating crypto currency scams. This went on for 45 days, until he and about 130 others were rescued from such operations by Indian authorities. Reporters Anuradha Nagaraj and Nanchanok Wongsamuth reveal:
“Thousands of people, many with tech skills, have been lured by social media advertisements promising well-paid jobs in Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, only to find themselves forced to defraud strangers worldwide via the internet. … The cybercrime rings first emerged in Cambodia, but have since moved into other countries in the region and are targeting more tech-savvy workers, including from India and Malaysia. Authorities in these countries and United Nations officials have said they are run by Chinese gangsters who control gambling across southeast Asia and are making up for losses during the pandemic lockdowns. The experts say the trafficked captives are held in large compounds in converted casinos in Cambodia, and in special economic zones in Myanmar and Laos. ‘The gangs targeted skilled, tech-savvy workers who had lost jobs during the pandemic and were desperate, and fell for these bogus recruitment ads,’ said Phil Robertson, deputy director for Asia at Human Rights Watch. ‘Authorities have been slow to respond, and in many cases these people are not being treated as victims of trafficking, but as criminals because they were caught up in these scams.'”
A long-game tactic typically used by these outfits is eloquently named “pig butchering,” wherein the operator builds trust with each victim through fake profiles on social media, messaging apps, and dating apps. Once the mark is hooked, the involuntary con artist pressures them to invest in phony crypto or trading schemes. Beware virtual suitors bearing unique investment opportunities.
Sadly, recent tech layoffs are bound to accelerate this trend. Bad actors are not going to pass up a chance to get talent cheaply. Myanmar’s current government, which seized power in February 2021, declined to comment. After months of denying the problem existed, we are told, Cambodian officials are finally cracking down on these operations. The article states thousands of workers are still trapped.
Business is business as the saying goes.
Cynthia Murrell, December 27, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
