• Home
• About
• Writers
• Landscape
• Wizards Index
• Fraud
• Wanna Be Like Larry?

News Flash: Google Does Not Care about Publishers

No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.

I read another Google is bad story. This one is titled “Google Might Not Believe It, But Its AI Summaries Are Bad News for Publishers.” The “news” service reports that a publishing industry group spokesperson said:

“We must ensure that the same AI ‘answers’ users see at the top of Google Search don’t become a free substitute for the original work they’re based on.”

When this sentence was spoken was the industry representative’s voice trembling? Were there tears in his or her eyes? Did the person sniff to avoid the embarrassment of a runny nose?

No idea.

The issue is that Google looks at its metrics, fiddles with its knobs and dials on its ad sales system, and launches AI summaries. Those clicks that used to go to individual sites now provide the “summary space” which is a great place for more expensive, big advertising accounts to slap their message. Yep, it is the return to the go-go days of television. Google is the only channel and one of the few places to offer a deal.

What does Google say? Here’s a snip from the “news” story:

"Overall, total organic click volume from Google Search to websites has been relatively stable year-over-year," Liz Reid, VP and Head of Google Search, said earlier this month. "Additionally, average click quality has increased, and we’re actually sending slightly more quality clicks to websites than a year ago (by quality clicks, we mean those where users don’t quickly click back — typically a signal that a user is interested in the website). Reid suggested that reports like the ones from Pew and DCN are "often based on flawed methodologies, isolated examples, or traffic changes that occurred prior to the rollout of AI features in Search."

Translation: Haven’t you yokels figured out after 20 years of responding to us, we are in control now. We don’t care about you. If we need content, we can [a] pay people to create it, [b] use our smart software to write it, and [c] offer inducements to non profits, government agencies, and outfits with lots of writers desperate for recognition a deal. TikTok has changed video, but TikTok just inspired us to do our own TikTok. Now publishers can either get with the program or get out.

PC News apparently does not know how to translate Googlese.

It’s been 20 plus years and Google has not changed. It is doing more of the game plan. Adapt or end up prowling LinkedIn for work.

Stephen E Arnold, August 21, 2025

Inc. Magazine May Find that Its MSFT Software No Longer Works

No AI. Just a dinobaby and a steam-powered computer in rural Kentucky.

I am not sure if anyone else has noticed that one must be very careful about making comments. A Canadian technology dude found himself embroiled with another Canadian technology dude. To be frank, I did not understand why the Canadian tech dudes were squabbling, but the dust up underscores the importance of the language, tone, rhetoric, and spin one puts on information.

An example of a sharp-toothed article which may bite Inc. Magazine on the ankle is the story “Welcome to the Weird New Empty World of LinkedIn: Just When Exactly Did the World’s Largest Business Platform Turn into an Endless Feed of AI-Generated Slop?” My teeny tiny experience as a rental at the world’s largest software firm taught me three lessons:

1. Intelligence is defined many ways. I asked a group of about 75 listening to one of my lectures, “Who is familiar with Kolmogorov?” The answer was for that particular sampling of Softies was exactly zero. Subjective impression: Rocket scientists? Not too many.
2. Feistiness. The fellow who shall remain nameless dragged me to a weird mixer thing in one of the buildings on the “campus.” One person (whose name and honorifics I do not remember) said, “Let me introduce you  to Mr. X. He is driving the Word project.” I replied with a smile. We walked to the fellow, were introduced, and I asked, “Will Word fix up its autonumbering?” The Word Softie turned red, asked the fellow who introduced me to him, “Who is this guy?” The Word Softie stomped away and shot deadly sniper eyes at me until we left after about 45 minutes of frivolity. Subjective impression: Thin skin. Very thin skin.
3. Insecurity. At a lunch with a person whom I had met when I was a contractor at Bell Labs and several other Softies, the subject of enterprise search came up. I had written the Enterprise Search Report, and Microsoft had purchased copies. Furthermore, I wrote with Susan Rosen “Managing Electronic Information Projects.” Ms. Rosen was one of the senior librarians at Microsoft. While waiting for the rubber chicken, a Softie asked me about Fast Search & Transfer, which Microsoft had just purchased. The question posed to me was, “What do you think about Fast Search as a technology for SharePoint?” I said, “Fast Search was designed to index Web sites. The enterprise search functions were add ons. My hunch is that getting the software to handle the data in SharePoint will be quite difficult?” The response was, “We can do it.” I said, “I think that BA Insight, Coveo, and a couple of other outfits in my Enterprise Search Report will be targeting SharePoint search quickly.” The person looked at me and said, “What do these companies do? How quickly do they move?” Subjective impression: Fire up ChatGPT and get some positive mental health support.

The cited write up stomps into a topic that will probably catch some Softies’ attention. I noted this passage:

The stark fact is that reach, impressions and engagement have dropped off a cliff for the majority of people posting dry (read business-focused) content as opposed to, say, influencer or lifestyle-type content.

The write up adds some data about usage of LinkedIn:

average platform reach had fallen by no less than 50 percent, while follower growth was down 60 percent. Engagement was, on average, down an eye-popping 75 percent.

The main point of the article in my opinion is that LinkedIn does filter AI content. The use of AI content produces a positive for the emitter of the AI content. The effect is to convert a shameless marketing channel into a conduit for search engine optimized sales information.

The question “Why?” is easy to figure out:

1. Clicks if the content is hot
2. Engagement if the other LinkedIn users and bots become engaged or coupled
3. More zip in what is essentially a one dimension, Web 1 service.

How will this write up play out? Again the answers strike me as obvious:

1. LinkedIn may have some Softies who will carry a grudge toward Inc. Magazine
2. Microsoft may be distracted with its Herculean efforts to make its AI “plays” sustainable as outfits like Amazon say, “Hey, use our cloud services. They are pretty much free.”
3. Inc. may take a different approach to publishing stories with some barbs.

Will any of this matter? Nope. Weird and slop do that.

Stephen E Arnold, August 20, 2025

What Killed Newspapers? Speed and User Preference Did

No AI. Just a dinobaby being a dinobaby.

I read “Did Craigslist Decimate Newspapers? Legend Meets Reality?” I liked the essay. I wanted to capture a few thoughts on this newspaper versus electronic shift.

I left Booz, Allen to join the Courier Journal & Louisville Times Co. I had a short hiatus because I was going to become an officer. I couldn’t officially start work until the CJ’s board voted. The question I was asked by my colleagues at the blue chip consulting firm before I headed to Louisville, Kentucky, from the real world of Washington, DC, Manhattan, and other major cities was, “Why?” One asked, “Where’s Louisville?”

I had a hunch that electronic information access was going to become a very big deal. In 1982, I was dumping the big time for what looked like a definite backwater, go-nowhere-fast place. Louisville made liquor, had a horse race, and a reputation for racial disharmony.

But electronic information was important to Barry Bingham, Junior, the top dog at the CJ. When I showed up, my office was next to a massage parlor on Fifth Street. I wasn’t in the main building. In fact, the office was not much more than a semi-slum. An abandoned house was visible from my office window. I left my nifty office overlooking Bethesda High School for a facility that did not meet GSA standards for storage space.

But here I was. My work focused on databases owned by the CJ, but these were actually described by a hardened newspaper person as “Barry’s crazy hobby.” The databases were ABI / INFORM, a bunch of technical indexes, and Pharmaceutical News Index. Nevertheless, the idea of using a computer, a dial up modem, and a database provided something of great value: A way to get smart really fast.

I had dabbled in indexing content, a fluke that got me a job at Halliburton Nuclear. And now I was leaving the land of forced retirement at 55, juicy bonuses, and the prospect of managing MBA drones on thrilling projects. In the early 1980s, not too many people knew about databases.

A relatively modest number of companies used online databases. Most of ABI / INFORM’s online customers were from the Fortune 1000, big time consulting firms, and research-type outfits around the world. The engineering databases did not have that magnetic appeal, so we sold these as a lot to an outfit called Cambridge Scientific Abstracts. I have no idea what happened to the databases nor to CSA. The PNI product was a keeper because it generated money online and from a print reference book. But ABI / INFORM was the keeper. It was only online. Shortly before I departed the CJ to join Ziff Communications in Manhattan, we cooperated with a publisher to bring out topical collections of content based on the abstracts in the ABI / INFORM database.

My arrival disrupted the database unit, and miraculously it became profitable within six months of my arrival. Barry credited me with the win, but I did nothing but do what I had learned at Booz, Allen. We then created Business Dateline, the first online database that included publisher corrections. As far as I know, Business Dateline held that distinction for many years. (That’s why I don’t trust online content. It  is often incorrect, outdated, or a fabrication of a crazed “expert.)

But what about the CJ? I can tell you that only Barry Bingham wanted to put the text, the images, and the obituaries online in electronic form. The board of directors thought that move was stupid. The newsroom knew it was stupid. The printers thought the idea was the dumbest thought ever.

But there were three factors Barry understood and I knew were rock solid:

1. Online access delivered benefits that would make 100 percent sense to people who needed to find high value, third-party information. (ABI / INFORM abstracted and indexed important articles from more than 1,200 business and management journals, and it was ideal for people in the consulting game)
2. Print was a problem because of [a] waste, [b] cost of paper, and [c] the general and administrative expenses required to “do” print newspapers and magazine
3. Electronic information was faster. For those to whom rapid access to current information was important, online was the future. Calling someone, like the newspaper reporters liked to do, was time consuming, expensive, and subject to delays.

Now Craigslist.org shows up. What happens? People who want to sell stuff can plug the ad into the Craigslist interface, click a button, and wait for a buyer. Contrast that with the process of placing a print ad. At the CJ, and employment ad could not use the abbreviation “cv.” I asked. No one knew. That’s the way it was. Traditional publishing outfits have a lot of the “that’s the way it was.”

Did Craigslist cause the newspaper sector to implode. No. The way technology works is that it chugs along, confined to a few narrow spaces. Then, when no one is looking, boom. It is the only way to go. To seize the advantage, traditional publishing outfits had to move fast.

That’s like telling a turtle to run in the Kentucky Debry. Why couldn’t newspapers and magazines adapt? Easy. The smell of ink, the tangible deliverable, and the role of gatekeeper combine to create a variant of fentanyl. Addled people cannot easily see what is obvious to those not on the drug.

Read the “Decimate” article. It’s interesting but in my opinion, making Mr. Newmark associate with the death of newspapers is colorful writing. Not the reality I witnessed in the go-go period from 1980 to 2006 for online information.

Stephen E Arnold, August 13, 2025

Paywalls. Users Do Not Want Them. Wow. Who Knew?

Sometimes research simply confirms the obvious. The Pew Research Center declares, “Few Americans Pay for News when they Encounter Paywalls.” Anyone still hoping the death of journalism could be forestalled with paywalls should reconsider. Writers Emily Tomasik and Michael Lipka cite a March Pew survey that found 83% of Americans have not paid for news in the past year. What do readers do when they hit a paywall? A mere 1% of those surveyed have forked over the dough to continue. However, 53% say they seek the same information elsewhere and 32% just give up on accessing it. Why? The write-up summarizes:

“Among the 83% of U.S. adults who have not paid for news in the past year, the most common reason they cite is that they can find plenty of other news articles for free. About half of those who don’t pay for news (49%) say this is the main reason. Indeed, many news websites do not have paywalls. Others have recently loosened paywalls or removed them for certain content like public emergencies or public interest stories. Another common reason people don’t pay for news is that they are not interested enough (32%). Smaller shares of Americans who don’t pay for news say the main reason is that it’s too expensive (10%) or that the news provided isn’t good enough to pay for (8%).”

The study did find some trends around who does pay for journalism. We learn:

“Overall, 17% of U.S. adults pay for news. However, highly educated adults, Democrats and older Americans – among other demographic groups – are more likely to have paid for news.

For example, 27% of college graduates say they have directly paid a news source by subscribing, donating or becoming a member in the last year – triple the share of those with a high school diploma or less formal education who have done so.”

So, those who paid to acquire knowledge are willing to pay to acquire knowledge. Who could have guessed? The survey also found senior citizens, wealthy folks, and white Americans more often pay up. Anyone curious about the survey’s methodology can read about it here.

The rule of thumb I use is that if one has 100 “readers”, two will pay if the content is really good. Must-have content bumps up the number a bit, but online publishers have to spend big on marketing to move the needle. Stick with ads and sponsored content.

Cynthia Murrell, August 12, 2025

Again Footnotes. Hello, AI.

No smart software involved with this blog post. (An anomaly I know.)

Footnotes. These are slippery fish in our online world. I am finishing work on my new monograph “The Telegram Labyrinth.” Due to the volatility of online citations, I am not using traditional footnotes, endnotes, or interlinear notes. Most of the information in the research comes from sources in the Russian Federation. We learned doing routine chapter updates each month that documents disappeared from the Web. Some were viewable if we used a virtual private network in a “friendly country” to the producer of the article. Others were just gone. Poof. We do capture images of pages when these puppies are first viewed.

My new monograph is intended for those who attend my lectures about Telegram Messenger-type platforms. My current approach is to just give it away to the law enforcement, cyber investigators, and lawyers who try to figure out money laundering and other digital scams. I will explain my approach in the accompany monograph. I will tell them, “It’s notes. You are on your own when probing the criminal world.” Good luck.

I read “Springer Nature Book on Machine Learning Is Full of Made-Up Citations.” Based on my recent writing effort, I think the problem of citing online resources is not just confined to my team’s experience. The flip side of online research is that some authors or content creation teams (to use today’s jargon) rely on smart software to help out.

The cited article says:

Based on a tip from a reader [of Mastering Machine Learning], we checked 18 of the 46 citations in the book. Two-thirds of them either did not exist or had substantial errors. And three researchers cited in the book confirmed the works they supposedly authored were fake or the citation contained substantial errors.

A version of this “problem” has appeared in the ethics department of Harvard University (where Jeffrey Epstein allegedly had an office), Stanford University, and assorted law firms. Just let smart software do the work and assume that its output is accurate.

It is not.

What’s the fix? Answer: There is none.

Publishers either lack the money to do their “work” or they have people who doom scroll in online meetings. Authors don’t care because one can “publish” anything as an Amazon book with mostly zero oversight. (This by the way is the approach and defense of the Pavel Durov-designed Telegram operation.) Motivated individuals can slap up a free post and publish a book in a series of standalone articles. Bear Blog, Substack, and similar outfits enable this approach. I think Yahoo has something similar, but, really, Yahoo?

I am going to stick with my approach. I will assume the reader knows everything we describe. I wonder what future researchers will think about the information voids appearing in unexpected places. If these researchers emulate what some authors are doing today, the future researchers will let AI do the work. No one will know the difference. If something online can’t be found it doesn’t exist.

Just make stuff up. Good enough.

Stephen E Arnold, July 17, 2025

Publishing for Cash: What Is Here Is Bad. What Is Coming May Be Worse

Smart software involved in the graphic, otherwise just an addled dinobaby.

Shocker. Pew Research discovers that most “Americans” do not pay for news. Amazing. Is it possible that the Pew professionals were unaware of the reason newspapers, radio, and television included comic strips, horoscopes, sports scores, and popular music in their “real” news content? I read in the middle of 2025 the research report “Few Americans Pay for News When They Encounter Paywalls.” For a number of years I worked for a large publishing company in Manhattan. I also worked at a privately owned publishing company in fly over country.

The sky looks threatening. Is it clouds, locusts, or the specter of the new Dark Ages? Thanks, you.com. Good enough.

I learned several things. Please, keep in mind that I am a dinobaby and I have zero in common with GenX, Y, Z, or the horrific GenAI. The learnings:

• Publishing companies spend time and money trying to figure out how to convert information into cash. This “problem” extended from the time I took my first real job in 1972 to yesterday when I received an email from a former publisher who is thinking about batteries as the future.
• Information loses its value as it diffuses; that is, if I know something, I can generate money IF I can find the one person who recognizes the value of that information. For anyone else, the information is worthless and probably nonsense because that individual does not have the context to understand the “value” of an item of information.
• Information has a tendency to diffuse. It is a bit like something with a very short half life. Time makes information even more tricky. If the context changes exogenously, the information I have may be rendered valueless without warning.

So what’s the solution? Here are the answers I have encountered in my professional life:

1. Convert the “information” into magic and the result of a secret process. This is popular in consulting, certain government entities, and banker types. Believe me, people love the incantations, the jargon talk, and the scent of spontaneous ozone creation.
2. Talk about “ideals,” and deliver lowest common denominator content. The idea that the comix and sports scores will “sell” and the revenue can be used to pursue ideals. (I worked at an outfit like this, and I liked its simple, direct approach to money.)
3. Make the information “exclusive” and charge a very few people a whole lot of money to access this “special” information. I am not going to explain how lobbying, insider talk, and trade show receptions facilitate this type of information wheeling and dealing. Just get a LexisNexis-type of account, run some queries, and check out the bill. The approach works for certain scientific and engineering information, financial data, and information people have no idea is available for big bucks.
4. Embrace the “if it bleeds, it leads” approach. Believe me this works. Look at YouTube thumbnails. The graphics and word choice make clear that sensationalism, titillation, and jazzification are the order of the day.

Now back to the Pew research. Here’s a passage I noted:

The survey also asked anyone who said they ever come across paywalls what they typically do first when that happens. Just 1% say they pay for access when they come across an article that requires payment. The most common reaction is that people seek the information somewhere else (53%). About a third (32%) say they typically give up on accessing the information.

Stop. That’s the key finding: one percent pay.

Let me suggest:

1. Humans will take the easiest path; that is, they will accept what is output or what they hear from their “sources”
2. Humans will take “facts” and glue they together to come up with more “facts”. Without context — that is, what used to be viewed as a traditional education and a commitment to lifelong learning, these people will lose the ability to think. Some like this result, of course.
3. Humans face a sharper divide between the information “haves” and the information “have nots.”

Net net: The new dark ages are on the horizon. How’s that for a speculative conclusion from the Pew research?

Stephen E Arnold, July 1, 2025

Publishers Are Not Googley about AI

“Google’s AI Mode Is the Definition of Theft, Publishers Say, Opt-Out Was Considered” reports that Google is a criminal and stealing content from its rightful owners. This is not a Googley statement. Criticism of the Google is likely to be filtered from search results because it is false statement and likely to cause harm. If this were not enough, the article states:

“The AI takeover of Search is in full swing, especially as Google’s new AI Mode is going live for all US users. But for publishers, this continues the existential crisis around how Google Search is changing, with a new statement calling AI Mode “the definition of theft” while legal documents reveal that Google did consider opt out controls that ultimately weren’t implemented.”

Quick question: Is this a surprise action by the Google? Answer: Yes, if one ignores Google’s approach to information. No, if one pays a modicum of attention to how the company has approached “publishing” in the last 20 years. Google is a publisher, probably the largest generator of outputs in history. It protects its information, and others should too. If those others are non-Googley, that information is to Google what Jurassic Park’s velociraptors were to soft, juicy humanoids — lunch.

The write up says:

“As it stands today, publishers are unable to opt out of Google’s AI tools without effectively opting out of Search as a whole.”

I am a dinobaby, old, dumb, but smart enough to understand the value of a de facto monopoly. Most of the open source intelligence industry is built on Google dorks. Publishers may be the original “dorks” when it comes to understanding what happens when one controls access, distribution, and monetization of online.

“Giving publishers the ability to opt out of AI products while still benefiting from Search would ultimately make Google’s flashy new tools useless if enough sites made the switch. It was very much a move in the interest of building a better product.”

I think this means that Google cares about the users and search quality. There is not hint of revenue, copyright issues, or raw power. Google just … cares.

The article and by extension the publisher “9 to 5 Google” gently suggests that Google is just being Google:

“Google’s tools continue to serve the company and its users (mostly) well, but as they continue to bleed publishers dry, those publishers are on the verge of vanishing or, arguably worse, turning to cheap and poorly produced content just to get enough views to survive. This is a problem Google needs to address, as it’s making the internet as a whole worse for everyone.”

Yep, continuing to serve the company, its users, and fresh double talk. Enjoy.

Stephen E Arnold, June 2, 2025

Traditional Publishers Hallucinate More Than AI Systems

Just the dinobaby operating without Copilot or its ilk.

I sincerely hope that the information presented in “Major Papers Publish AI-Hallucinated Summer Reading List Of Nonexistent Books.” The components of this “real” news story are:

1. A big time newspaper syndicator
2. A “real” journalist / writer allegedly named Marco Buscaglia
3. Smart software bubbling with the type of AI goodness output by Google-type outfits desperate to make their big bets on smart software pay off
4. Humans who check “facts”— real or hallucinated.

Blend these together in an information process like that operated at the Sun-Times in the city with big shoulders and what do you get:

In an embarrassing episode that will help aggravate society’s uneasy relationship with artificial intelligence, the Chicago Sun-Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and other newspapers around the country published a summer-reading list where most of the books were entirely made up by ChatGPT. The article was licensed content provided by King Features Syndicate, a subsidiary of Hearst Newspapers. Initial reporting of the bogus list focused on the Sun-Times, which two months earlier announced that 20% of its staff had accepted buyouts as the paper staggers under a dying business model. However, several other newspapers also ran the syndicated article, which was part of a package of summer-themed content called "Heat Index." 

What happened? The editorial process and the “real” journalist did their work. The editorial process involved using smart software to create a list of must-read books. The real journalist converted the raw list into a formatted presentation of books you, gentle reader, must consume whilst reclining in a beach lounger or crunched into a customer-first airplane seat.

The cited write up explains the clip twixt cup and lip or lips:

As the scandal quickly made waves across traditional and social media, the Sun-Times — which not-so-accurately bills itself as "The Hardest-Working Paper in America" — raced to apologize while also trying to distance itself from the work. “This is licensed content that was not created by, or approved by, the Sun-Times newsroom, but it is unacceptable for any content we provide to our readers to be inaccurate,” a spokesperson said. In a separate post to its website, the paper said, "This should be a learning moment for all of journalism.” Meanwhile, the Inquirer’s CEO Lisa Hughes told The Atlantic, "Using artificial intelligence to produce content, as was apparently the case with some of the Heat Index material, is a violation of our own internal policies and a serious breach.” 

The kindergarten smush up inspires me to offer several observations:

1. Editorial processes require editors who pay attention, know or check facts, and think about how to serve their readers
2. Writers need to do old-fashioned work like read books, check with sources likely to be sort of correct, and invest time in their efforts
3. Readers need to recognize that this type of information baloney can be weaponized. Shaping will do far more harm than give me a good laugh.

Outstanding. My sources tell me that the “real” news about this hallucinating shirk off is mostly accurate.

Stephen E Arnold, May 28, 2025

Censorship Gains Traction at an Individual Point

No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zillennials.

I read a somewhat sad biographical essay titled “The Great Displacement Is Already Well Underway: It’s Not a Hypothetical, I’ve Already Lost My Job to AI For The Last Year.” The essay explains that a 40 something software engineer lost his job. Despite what strike me as heroic efforts, no offers ensued. I urge you to take a look at this essay because the push to remove humans from “work” is accelerating. I think with my 80 year old neuro-structures that the lack of “work” will create some tricky social problems.

I spotted one passage in the essay which struck me as significant. The idea of censorship is a popular topic in central Kentucky. Quite a few groups and individuals have quite specific ideas about what books should be available for students and others to read. Here is the quote about censorship from the cited “Great Displacement” essay:

I [the author of the essay] have gone back and deleted 95% of those articles and vlogs, because although many of the ideas they presented were very forward-thinking and insightful at the time, they may now be viewed as pedestrian to AI insiders merely months later due to the pace of AI progress. I don’t want the wrong person with a job lead to see a take like that as their first exposure to me and think that I’m behind the last 24 hours of advancements on my AI takes.

Self-censorship was used to create a more timely version of the author. I have been writing articles with titles like “The Red Light on the Green Board” for years. This particular gem points out that public school teachers sell themselves and their ideas out. The prostitution analogy was intentional. I caught a bit of criticism from an educator in the public high school in which I “taught” for 18 months. Now people just ignore what I write. Thankfully my lectures about online fraud evoke a tiny bit of praise because the law enforcement, crime analysts, and cyber attorneys don’t throw conference snacks at me when I offer one of my personal observations about bad actors.

The cited essay presents a person who is deleting content into to present an “improved” or “shaped” version of himself. I think it is important to have in original form essays, poems, technical reports, and fiction — indeed, any human-produced artifact — available. These materials I think will provide future students and researchers with useful material to mine for insights and knowledge.

Deletion means that information is lost. I am not sure that is a good thing. What’s notable is that censorship is taking place by the author for the express purpose of erasing the past and shaping an impression of the present individual. Will that work? Based on the information in the essay, it had not when I read the write up.

Censorship may be one facet of what the author calls a “displacement.” I am not too keen on censorship regardless of the decider or the rationalization. But I am a real dinobaby, not a 40-something dinobaby like the author of the essay.

Stephen E Arnold, May 23, 2025

Stolen iPhone Building: Just One Building?

Just the dinobaby operating without Copilot or its ilk.

I am not too familiar with the outfits which make hardware and software to access mobile phones. I have heard that these gizmos exist and work. Years ago I learned that some companies — well, one company lo those many years ago — could send a text message to a mobile phone and gain access to the device. I have heard that accessing iPhones and some Androids is a tedious business. I have heard that some firms manufacture specialized data retention computers to support the work required to access certain actors’ devices.

So what?

Next Page »

• 

• Search the site

•  

  Subscribe to Beyond Search

  • 
  • 
   
  • 
   
  
  Feature archive
  News archive
   
  
  
  Stephen E. Arnold monitors search, content processing, text mining and related topics from his high-tech nerve center in rural Kentucky. He tries to winnow the goose feathers from the giblets. He works with colleagues worldwide to make this Web log useful to those who want to go "beyond search". Contact him at sa [at] arnoldit.com. His Web site with additional information about search is arnoldit.com.

• Categories

  • 3D-Printing
  • Acquisition
  • Advertising
  • Aggregation
  • AI
  • Alexa
  • algorithms
  • Amazon
  • Amazonia
  • Analytics
  • Appliance
  • Applications
  • Audio
  • Augmented Reality
  • Big data
  • Bing
  • Bitcoin
  • Bitext
  • Book review
  • Business intelligence
  • Business process
  • Business strategy
  • Censorship
  • Cloud computing
  • Company Profile
  • Conferences
  • Connectors
  • Consulting
  • Consumer
  • Content processing
  • Copyright
  • Corporate Concerns
  • Cost
  • Crawl
  • Crowdfunding
  • cryptocurrency
  • Customer support
  • Cyber OSINT
  • cybercrime
  • cybersecurity
  • Dark Web
  • DarkCyber
  • Data
  • Data mining
  • Database
  • Deepfakes
  • Digital Assistant
  • Digital Library
  • E2EE
  • ECommerce
  • EDiscovery
  • Editorial opinion
  • Education
  • Emoticons
  • Enterprise
  • Enterprise search
  • Entity extraction
  • Ethics
  • Facebook
  • Faceted search
  • Factualities
  • Feature
  • Federated search
  • Financial
  • Fogint
  • Google
  • Governance
  • Government
  • Hackers
  • healthcare
  • IBM Watson
  • Image search
  • Indexing
  • Infrastructure
  • Innovation
  • Integration
  • intelware
  • Interface
  • Internet
  • Interview
  • Investment
  • law enforcement
  • Legal matters
  • Library automation
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • Mathematics
  • Metadata
  • Microsoft
  • Mobile
  • Natural language processing
  • News
  • NGIA
  • Online (general)
  • Open Access
  • Open source
  • OSINT
  • Osint Radar
  • Overflight
  • Palantir
  • Patents
  • Personnel
  • Podcast
  • Policeware
  • Portals
  • Predictive coding
  • Privacy
  • Profile
  • Publishing
  • Quotation
  • Real time search
  • Reference tool
  • Rich media
  • Robot Writer
  • Search
  • Search enabled applications
  • search engine
  • Search quality
  • Security
  • Semantic
  • Sentiment analysis
  • SEO
  • SharePoint
  • Short Honks
  • Smart Technology
  • Social
  • Social Media
  • software
  • Statistics
  • Taxonomy
  • Technology
  • Text analytics
  • Text processing
  • Tools
  • Tor
  • Training
  • Translation
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized
  • Unstructured Data
  • User experience
  • User Interface
  • Vertical search
  • Video
  • visualization
  • Voice search
  • Voice technology
  • Web 3
  • Web Services
  • Webinar
  • Windows
  • Work flow
  • XML
  • Yahoo

• Archives

  Archives Select Month August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 5

• Recent Posts

  • News Flash: Google Does Not Care about Publishers
  • What Cyber Security Professionals “Fear”
  • Cyber Security: Evidence That Performance Is Different from Marketing
  • The Risks of Add-On AI: Apple, Telegram, Are You Paying Attention?
  • Inc. Magazine May Find that Its MSFT Software No Longer Works

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org