Digital Fire hoses: Destructive and Must Be Controlled by Gatekeepers
July 16, 2020
Let’s see how many individualistic thinkers I have offended with my headline. I apologize, but I am thinking about the blast of stories about the most recent Twitter “glitch”: “Apple, Biden, Musk and Other High-Profile Twitter Accounts Hacked in Crypto Scam.”
Are you among the individuals whom I am offending in this essay?
First, we have the individuals who did not believe my observations made in my ASIS Eagleton Lecture 40 years ago. Flows of digital information are destructive. The flows erode structures like societal norms, logical constructs, and organizational systems. Yep, these are things. Unfettered flows of information cut them down, efficiently and steadily. In some cases, the datum can set up something like this:
Those nuclear reactions are energetic in some cases.
Second, individuals who want to do any darn thing they want. These individuals form a cohort—either real or virtual—and have at it. I have characterized this behavior in my metaphor of the high school science club. The idea is that anyone “smart” thinks that his or her approach to a problem is an intelligent one. Sufficiently intelligent individuals will recognize the wisdom of the idea and jump aboard. High school science clubs can be a useful metaphor for understanding the cute and orthogonal behavior of some high technology firms. It also describes the behavior of a group of high school students who use social media to poke fun or “frame” a target. Some nation states direct their energies at buttons which will ignite social unrest or create confusion. Thus, successful small science clubs can grow larger and be governed — if that’s the right word — by high school science club management methods. That’s why students at MIT put weird objects on buildings or perform cool pranks. Really cool, right?
Third, individuals who do not want gatekeepers. I use the phrase “adulting” to refer to individuals able to act in an informed, responsible, and ethical manner when deciding what content becomes widely available and what does not. I used to work for an outfit which published newspapers, ran TV stations, and built commercial databases. The company at that time had the “adulting” approach well in hand. Individuals who decry informed human controls. It is time to put thumbs in digital dikes.
Once Again: NSO Group Becomes a Magnet for Real Journalists
July 16, 2020
We spotted one of those “We don’t have or can’t tell you where we got this information” write ups. The article is “Source: Spain Is a Customer of NSO Group.” The main idea of the article is that a government licensed software developed for … wait for it … governments. According to the “source” with some inputs from other real news outfits like The Guardian and El Pais, the NSO Group’s specialized software was used to obtain information about … wait for it … politicians in Spain.
The write up states:
The cell phones of several politicians in Spain, including that of the president of one of the countries’ autonomous regional parliaments, were targeted with spyware made by NSO Group, an Israeli company that sells surveillance and hacking tools to governments around the world, according to The Guardian and El Pais . Motherboard confirmed the specifics with security researchers who investigated the attempted hack and a Facebook employee who has knowledge of the case.
Interesting. But a couple of questions come to mind:
- Was the alleged use of the software a complement to an investigation; for example, inciting civil unrest?
- Was the alleged use of the software gathering data on matter one and obtained information on a collateral or unrelated matter two?
- Why aren’t the sources identified? Policy or some special rules of “real” journalism that elude me?
The disclaimer “We cannot confirm whether these specific attempted hacks” does nothing to alter my perception of the article; to wit: The article wants to draw attention to a particular specialized software developer and connect that company to the alleged use of the software by a licensee of the software. How’s that work? Consider the manufacturer of a knife. The purchaser of the knife uses it to kill an intruder. Is the knife manufacturer responsible? What applies to companies which are in the business of developing specialized software tools is different from the knife manufacturer.
I want to point out the Bank Info Security reported that an Israeli court dismissed a complaint against the NSO Group. Amnesty International accused the NSO group of violating human rights. On the surface, it seems that the allegations of Amnesty International were found to be without much heft.
The real question is, “Why are outfits like Vice and Amnesty International chasing NSO Group?”
DarkCyber has some hunches about the “why”? For example:
- Companies which develop specialized services and operate in a classified or community environment populated by government customers are somehow offensive to the “real” journalists. Is this a factor? Sensibilities are activated.
- The “real” journalists are just now realizing that those charged with enforcing the laws of countries are using specialized tools for investigations or addressing challenges which in the opinion of the government customers threaten civil order. This “sudden discovery” is like a child’s getting a new toy for her birthday. By golly, that toy is going to get some attention because it is novel to the childish mind.
- The “real” journalists are trying to come up with “news” which is stale, routine, and institutionalized in government entities throughout the world. The focus, however, is one the producer of specialized software, not on the specific government entity licensing the software.
DarkCyber believes the truth is closer to the child’s fascination with what the child with its immature perception sees as mesmerizing.
News flash for the “real” journalists: Chasing vendors of specialized software may not be the revenue and attention magnet for which the publications hunger. Plus, there may be some unintended consequences of speculative writing about topics presented without context.
Stick with facts and identified sources. Could the NSO Group articles be converted into a Quibi program? Advance the “real” agenda with short video. Worth a shot? Sources may not be needed for a short form Quibi thing.
Stephen E Arnold, July 16, 2020
IHS Markit Data Lake “Catalog”
July 14, 2020
One of the DarkCyber research team spotted this product announcement from IHS, a diversified information company: “IHS Markit’s New Data Lake Delivers Over 1,000 Datsets in an Integrated Catalogued Platform.” The article states:
The cloud-based platform stores, catalogues, and governs access to structured and unstructured data. Data Lake solutions include access to over 1,000 proprietary data assets, which will be expanded over time, as well as a technology platform allowing clients to manage their own data. The IHS Markit Data Lake Catalogue offers robust search and exploration capabilities, accessed via a standardized taxonomy, across datasets from the financial services, transportation and energy sectors.
The idea is consistently organized information. Queries can run across the content to which the customer has access.
Similar services are available from other companies; for example, Oracle BlueKai.
One question which comes up is, “What exactly are the data on offer?” Another is, “How much does it cost to use the service?”
Let’s tackle the first question: Scope.
None of the aggregators make it easy to scan a list of datasets, click on an item, and get a useful synopsis of the content, content elements, number of items in the dataset, update frequency (annual, monthly, weekly, near real time), and the cost method applicable to a particular “standard” query.
A search of Bing and Google reveals the name of particular sets of data; for example, Carfax. However, getting answers to the scope question can require direct interaction with the company. Some aggregators operate in a similar manner.
The second question: Cost?
The answer to the cost question is a tricky one. The data aggregators have adopted a set or a cluster of pricing scenarios. It is up to the customer to look at the disclosed data and do some figuring. In DarkCyber’s experience, the data aggregators know much more about what content process, functions or operations generate the maximum profit for the vendor. The customer does not have this insight. Only through use of the system, analyzing the invoices, and paying them is it possible to get a grip on costs.
DarkCyber’s view is that data marketplaces are vulnerable to disruption. With a growing demand for a wide range of information some potential customers want answers before signing a contract and outputting big bucks.
Aggregators are a participant in what DarkCyber calls “professional publishing.” The key to this sector is mystery and a reluctance to spell out exact answers to important questions.
What company is poised to disrupt the data aggregation business? Is it the small scale specialist like the firms pursued relentlessly by “real” journalists seeking a story about violations of privacy? Is it a giant company casting about for a new source of revenue and, therefore, is easily overlooked. Aggregation is not exactly exciting for many people.
DarkCyber does not know. One thing seems highly likely: Professional publishing data aggregation sector is likely to face competitive pressure in the months ahead.
Some customers may be fed up with the secrecy and lack of clarity and entrepreneurs will spot the opportunity and move forward. Rich innovators will just buy the vendors and move in new directions.
Stephen E Arnold, July 14, 2020
Another Dust Up: A Consequence of Swisherism?
July 3, 2020
I associate Silicon Valley journalism with the dynamic duo of Swisher and Mossberg. The Walt has retired from the field of battle—almost. Kara Swisher sallies forth. The analytic approach taken by the “I” journalist has had a significant impact on others who want to reveal the gears, levers, and machine oil keeping the Silicon Valley factories running the way their owners and bankers intended.
Hence, Swisherism which I define as:
A critical look at Silicon Valley as a metaphor for the foibles of individuals who perceive themselves as smarter than anyone else, including those not in the room.
A good example of Swisherism’s consequences appears in “Silicon Valley Elite Discuss Journalists Having Too Much Power in Private App.” The write up is like a techno anime fueled with Jolt Cola.
For example:
During a conversation held Wednesday night on the invite-only Clubhouse app—an audio social network popular with venture capitalists and celebrities—entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan, several Andreessen Horowitz venture capitalists, and, for some reason, television personality Roland Martin spent at least an hour talking about how journalists have too much power to “cancel” people and wondering what they, the titans of Silicon Valley, could do about it.
This is inside baseball given a dramatic twist. Big names (for some I suppose). A country-club app for insiders. An us versus them plot line worthy of Homer. The specter of retribution.
Yikes.
Even more interesting is that the article references a “recording” of what may have been perceived as a private conversation.
There’s nothing to inspire confidence like leaked recordings, right?
There is a sprinkling of foul language. A journalist becomes the target of interest. There is loaded language like “has been harassed and impersonated” to make sure that the reader understands that badness of the situation.
Swisherisms? Sort of, but the spirit is there. The under dog needs some support. Pitch in. Let’s make attitudes “better.” Rah rah.
I particularly like the use of Twitter as a weapon of myth destruction:
Lorenz’s tweet was immediately tweeted about by several Silicon Valley venture capitalists, most notably Srinivasan, who eventually made a seven-tweet thread in which he suggested Lorenz, and journalists like her, are “sociopaths.” That same day, a self-described Taylor Lorenz “parody” Twitter account started retweeting Srinivasan and other tech investors and executives critical of her work. The account’s bio also links to a website, also self-described as parody, which is dedicated to harassing Lorenz. (Twitter told Motherboard it deleted another account for impersonating Lorenz.)
“Lorenz” is the journalist who became the windmill toward which the Silicon Valley elite turned their digital lances.
Net net: Darned exciting. New type of “real” journalism. That’s the Swisherism in bright regalia. Snarkiness, insults, crude talk, and the other oddments of Silicon Valley excitement. No one like constructive criticism it seems. Politics, invective, overt and latent hostility, and a “you should do better” leitmotif. Sturm und drang to follow? Absolutely.
Stephen E Arnold, July 3, 2020
Google on the Hot Spot: Ad Pancakes One Way and That Is Our Way
July 1, 2020
Google is so darned lovable. How could anyone interpret the company’s actions as overbearing. Take for instance the article “Google Stymies Media Companies from Chipping Away at Its Data Dominance.
The write up reports as “real” news and information:
Publishers had expected to use data privacy measures going into effect Aug. 15 to bar Google from storing insights about readers, sapping the data advantage that has enabled it to dominate a market filled with advertisers hungry for information to target potential customers. But Google said it will cut off publishers from a lucrative flow of ads if they follow through with curbing its data collection. Negotiations continue, but Google holds greater leverage because it dominates in both advertising tools and access to advertisers within the $100 billion annual global banner ads market.
There must be a misunderstanding.
Google is a partner. The write up points out:
Media companies must share revenue with Google to access the unparalleled number of advertiser clients it attracts with its data. Globally, publishers’ share of Google ad revenue has fallen in half to 16% over the last decade, according to a paper released this month by Yale University antitrust fellow Dina Srinivasan, who also consults for News Corp.
The tension would not exist if publishers accepted the fact that there were not Googley. Wishing it so will not make alter the reality of online traffic and clicks.
Stephen E Arnold, July 1, 2020
Policeware: Fascinating Real Journalists Again
June 27, 2020
Imagine writing about policeware — software and specialized services tailored to the needs of enforcement authorities — this way.
You learn about a quinoa farmer in rural Virginia. You look into the farmer’s activities and find that the farmer sells produce to locals heading toward North Carolina. You add flavor to your story the way a cook in Lima converts quinoa into a gourmet treat for travel weary tourists. The farmer is an interesting person. The farmer is struggling to survive. The farmer labels the quinoa as “world’s best” and “super healthy.” The farmer becomes famous because he tells you, “I sell more quinoa despite the local regulations and the Food Lion supermarket.” The problem is that the story’s author is unaware of Archer Daniels Midlands, an outfit with an interest in quinoa.
The story is a human interest write up particularized to a single quinoa farmer in a state known for a mall, traffic jams, and government contractors. Micro story gives the impression that Virginia is a great place for quinoa. Accurate? A reflection of the business environment? A clear reflection of local ordinances?
Nah.
I thought about the difference between a quinoa farmer’s story and a general lack of awareness about Archer Daniel Midlands when I read “Firm That Tracked Protesters Targeted Evangelicals During 2016 Election.” The outfit providing data may have more in common with the hypothetical quinoa story that meets the eye. Coverage of the policeware or intelware market sector invites micro examples used to support large scale generalizations about the use of data from mobile phones or open source information like public posts on a social media site.
Furthermore, small companies like the one described in Vice Motherboard article exist in every business sector. Focusing on a single firm — whether a quinoa farmer or a commercial data provider — may not provide a representative description of the market.
News flash: Data are available to companies, government agencies, and not for profit organizations from hundreds of companies. Some of these are tiny like Mobilewalla. Others are beefy; for example, Oracle BlueKai. Still others occupy a middle ground like Dataminr. Others are loosely affiliated with other countries’ government entities; possibly Innity.
The fixation on policeware appears to be a desire on the part of “real” journalists to tell mobile phone users that the essential device is gathering data about the user.
News flash: Mobile devices which seek cell towers and WiFi connections emit data as part of their normal functioning. Individuals who use mobile devices to look at ads on ManyVids, surf the Dark Web from a mobile device, and use the gizmos to buy contraband and pay with Bitcoin are skywriting. Big messages are available to those with access to different sets of data.
Some of the data flows into the stellar giants of the online world; for instance, Facebook and Google. Other data gathers in the telcos. Quite useful data floods from online mobile game enthusiasts. Granny in the retirement home happily provides companies like Amazon with a flow of information about what’s hot from her quite particular point of view.
My thought is that chasing quinoa farmer stories is a new and exciting angle for some “real” journalists. But is there a different story to be researched, understood, and communicated.
“Real” journalists might begin by asking and answering with facts, not anecdotes, these questions:
What organizations are the equivalent of the agribusiness giants just in the commercial database sector? How are these data gathered, verified, and made available? What people, companies, and organizations license these data? Why does a commercial database business exist? When did data morph into mechanism for dealing with certain types of events? How many government agencies integrate these types of data into their “feet on the street” activities? What’s the upside to these data and their use? What are the downsides to these data and their use?
The stories about the quinoa farmer are okay. Moving beyond the anecdote to the foundation of commercial data licensing is more meaningful and more interesting.
The problem may be that moving beyond the quinoa approach takes work, time, and understanding. Hey, “real” journalists have to log into Slack and then jump on a Zoom call. This “go beyond quinoa” is just too much like “real work.”
That’s a problem I assert for individuals uninterested in what happened when trans-Atlantic telegraph messages began to flow. Why not look into that type of history?
Stephen E Arnold, June 27, 2020
Policeware: Making Headlines
June 26, 2020
DarkCyber noted “Machines with Brains.” The article includes a category or “pre title” with the phrase “From Our Obsession.” The “our” is ambiguous. Is it the “our” of the Silicon Valley real news team members or is it the “our” of the zip zip technology craving social milieu?
The point of the write up is that policeware using pattern recognition and other assorted technologies are not ready for prime time. The article identifies several companies as providing solutions that create problems, not ones that solve them. These entities are:
- Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft, deeply suspect companies but ones that had the common sense to drop out of the facial recognition marathon. “Yes, quitters can be winners” in the “From Our Obsession” point of view.
- DataWorks, “one of the biggest resellers of facial recognition technology to US Police departments.” The company allegedly has “contracts with police in Detroit, Chicago, New York City, Santa Barbara, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.” DarkCyber admires alphabetization and mixing states and municipalities. Without context, how large are the contracts? What are the terms of the deal? Are these proofs of concept or full-blown integrated solutions humming 24×7 or some other type of installation.
- Cognitech
- NEC
- Rank One Computing
The policeware market is one which most “real” journalists struggle to understand. Yesterday, in a conversation with a “real” journalist employed by the one and only Rupert Murdoch organization, I chortled during the “interview/conversation” as the young “real journalist” struggled to understand why law enforcement and intelligence professionals try out new technologies.
My comments about the companies providing policeware did not compute for the sincere and apparently fascinated news hunter. The idea that vendors provide news technology, make modifications as technical problems arise, and alter systems as users – yes, real enforcement officials – struggle to apply technology to the challenges enforcement presents.
Several observations:
First, the policeware and intelware markets, companies, and technologies are unknown territories for most technology professionals and terra incognita for a large percentage of “real” journalists. This means the individuals do not know of what they news gather. Out of context is the principal method employed.
Second, the solutions developed for enforcement and intelligence officials are a surprise to the uninformed. No one likes surprises; for example, the idea that a cherished group of Facebook friends may harbor a child molester or a contraband dealer. How does one mitigate surprise? Easy? Sensationalism, finger pointing, and generalizations. Facial recognition sucks. Easy. Does the Amazon-powered Ripper technology suck? What’s that? Ignorance is bliss for some.
Third, exactly what bureaucratic solutions exist to deal with technology? (Oxymoron alert: Bureaucracies are subject to Parkinson’s Law and Augustine’s Laws.) Some “real” journalists enthusiastically embrace mobile devices, online hook up services pretending to be video dating services, and the Twitter lifestyle. Maybe the newly minted experts in policeware have some ideas other than “don’t use technology”? Wait. That won’t work because fairy land, in case one has been oblivious to the social construct, seems to be emulating the world of Road Warrior.
Net net: Information in context and perspective are useful when writing about a technology sector with which one is not familiar. Just a thought because the morphing of “Machines with Brains” into “humans with brains” is an interesting idea to contemplate.
Perhaps an “obsession” with perspective, context, knowledge, and less sensationalistic short cuts would be helpful?
Policeware is becoming a beat. Good. Let’s strive for context, not shouting “Fire” in a socially distanced movie theater.
Stephen E Arnold, June 26, 2020
About That Degree in Real Journalism?
June 26, 2020
Now that humans and algorithms share the job of curating online news, how do the two compare? Curious, Northwestern University’s Jack Bandy and Nicholas Diakopoulos examined one news service and did the math. Mac O’Clock shares Bandy’s summary, “What We Learned About Editors vs. Algorithms from 4,000 Stories in Apple News.”
In the case of Apple News, which boasts 125 million monthly users, human editors pick the “top stories” while AI chooses the “trending stories.” Bandy created a program to track the articles curated by each for two months. The researchers came to three conclusions. First, human editors chose pieces more evenly across news sources. Second, humans chose a wider range of sources. Interestingly, the narrower group of sources favored by the algorithms tended toward topics like celebrities and entertainment. This observation pointed the pair to their final conclusion—that human editors chose fewer “soft news” stories and more articles on serious topics. See the illustrated write-up for more on each of these points.
Bandy follows up:
“Our results highlight the trade-offs between human curation and algorithmic curation. While our study only looked at one platform, it shows that human editors were ‘much more subtly following the news cycle and what’s important,’ as Lauren Kern (editor in chief at Apple News) put it. For many readers and publishers, this is good news. The data shows that editors choose stories about important topics from a diverse set of sources, and choose those sources quite evenly. This is less true of the algorithmic Trending Stories, where readers will see more ‘soft news,’ and just a few major publishers tend to make the cut.”
It is a good idea to frequent a site at which humans still choose the top stories, as one example illustrates. Bandy uses the Wayback Machine to see the Google News headlines from the end of February, and was grateful he had not relied on that AI-centric page for his news at the time. He writes:
“All of the stories mention two things: coronavirus and Donald Trump. If you read them, you may glimpse some information about the impending pandemic — a ‘severity warning’ from the CDC, for example. The headlines probably grab your attention, but they do not provide meaningful information. Apple’s editors had a different approach that day, featuring an article with the headline ‘Coronavirus’s spread in U.S. is “inevitable,” CDC warns.’ It was a formal, descriptive piece from the Washington Post that quoted several officials at the Center for Disease Control. … I remember one quote from the article that changed my expectations for the coming months: ‘Disruptions to everyday life may be severe, but people might want to start thinking about that now’.”
Perhaps one day algorithms will be able to learn that sort of discernment, but now is not that time. Who, or what, is curating your news? Cynthia Murrell, June 26, 2020
Professional Publishers: Is Institutional Racism a Thing?
June 24, 2020
DarkCyber found “AI Researchers Say Scientific Publishers Help Perpetuate Racist Algorithms” somewhat unusual. Blending decades old algorithms with professional publishing strikes me as a combo that will not knock peanut butter and jelly off its popular pairing perch. (Yes, alliteration. Next up, anthropomorphish behavior; that is, projecting human qualities to math.)
The main point is that a paper called “A Deep Neural Network Model to Predict Criminality Using Image Processing” has been left in the stop bath. The write up reports:
Citing the work of leading Black AI scholars, the letter debunks the scientific basis of the paper and asserts that crime-prediction technologies are racist. It also lists three demands: 1) for Springer Nature to rescind its offer to publish the study; 2) for it to issue a statement condemning the use of statistical techniques such as machine learning to predict criminality and acknowledging its role in incentivizing such research; and 3) for all scientific publishers to commit to not publishing similar papers in the future. The letter, which was sent to Springer Nature on Monday, was originally written by five researchers at MIT, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, McGill University, and the AI Now Institute. In a matter of days, it gained more than 600 signatures and counting across the AI ethics and academic communities, including from leading figures like Meredith Whittaker, cofounder of the AI Now Institute, and Ethan Zuckerman, former director of the Center for Civic Media at the MIT Media Lab.
Just to sharpen the pencil point. Humans select algorithms and data sets. Humans determine the order of calculation, specify recursions, and cook up thresholds. The algorithms themselves are not, by definition, racist.
Nevertheless, professional publishers now have to figure out a way to explain what’s what. The exercise will probably steal time from the firm’s efforts to get authors to pay for inclusions and corrections. Also, wheedling experts to perform “free” editorial reviews for the good of the community may lose some momentum as well.
Didn’t that bronze in that statue know it was formulating a statement about a certain historical event?
Bronze and professional publishers should know better.
Stephen E Arnold, June 24, 2020
Free Dissertation? Act Fast or You May Have to Pay Up and a Lot
June 20, 2020
DarkCyber spotted “Discovering Dennis Ritchie’s Lost Dissertation.” The main point of the write up is that a wizard failed to hand over a copy of his dissertation to the institution library. As a result, no PhD and no scanning, indexing, and selling of the good student’s work by University Microfilms. I have no clue what this outfit is called today, but in the 1960s, the outfit zoomed through Kodak film and helped animate environmental controls on photoprocessing chemicals. Silver and all that, of course.
The main point of the write up for me is the link to the aforementioned dissertation. Free and online as June 20, 2020, at Ritchie_dissertation.pdf. Miss this chance and you may have to pony up some hard cash for a professional publishing/database company’s honest work of making money by converting students’ fear and perspiration into an online charge.
Oh, what did the student cook up? The C language.
Stephen E Arnold, June 20, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
