Google and Pirate Sites
June 16, 2020
DarkCyber is preparing for the National Cyber Crime Conference lectures: Two live and one on pre-recorded video. We noted in our feed this article: “Popular Pirate Sites Slowly ‘Disappear’ From Google’s Top Search Results.” The write up states:
Over the past few months, it has become harder and harder to find the homepages of some popular pirate sites. Instead, Google points people to Wikipedia pages or entirely different – sometimes scammy – sites that use the same name. We’ll address a few examples here, contrasting our findings with Bing and DuckDuckGo.
Interesting.
Some DarkCyber readers may want to note that pointers to stolen software are findable in Google’s YouTube service. Here’s a results page for illegal and cracks of Photoshop CC6:
Why are these results appearing? There are other examples of content protected by copyright and other regulations. Try queries for other popular software.
The videos are either tutorials with links in comments, download locations within the videos as static text, or often amusing videos of the steps one must follow to get the software up and running, often with malware along for the ride.
How does one find this information? Just type the name of the software and the secret word “crack” or a synonym.
If the information in the cited article is correct, whatever Google is doing to filter search results, the story may be incomplete.
Doesn’t Google have a list of stops words which allow certain content to be blocked? Doesn’t Google have supreme domination of smart software? Doesn’t Google have its eye on the legal ball?
DarkCyber sure doesn’t know the answer. Now what about partners who recycle Google search results for their metasearch systems? There is another story there, but DarkCyber is not a “real news” outfit like Fox News which altered via Photoshop some images. Who owns Fox News? Isn’t it Mr. Murdoch, who also owns the Wall Street Journal?
Are there any similarities in corporate gyroscopes between some of these large, globe spanning companies? Nah.
Stephen E Arnold, June 16, 2020
Springer Free Computer Science Books
June 16, 2020
The list of free Springer computer science books is at this link. More than 40 books are available. Our faves include The Algorithm Design Manual and Introduction to Evolutionary Computing. DarkCyber did not ask, “Why?”
Stephen E Arnold, June 16, 2020
MIT Takes a Stand: No, Not about the Jeffrey Epstein Matter, about Subscription Fees
June 12, 2020
The write up appears on an MIT Web page that states:
MIT has long been a leader in sharing its research, teaching, and scholarship openly with the world.
I asked myself, “Is that because MIT accepts funding from individuals of interesting character like Jeffrey Epstein?”
I don’t know, but could this be an example of “selective institutional ethicality”?
Putting the deceased Mr. Epstein aside, the write up reports with MIT-ness in full flower:
Standing by its commitment to provide equitable and open access to scholarship, MIT has ended negotiations with Elsevier for a new journals contract. Elsevier was not able to present a proposal that aligned with the principles of the MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts. Developed by the MIT Libraries in collaboration with the Ad Hoc Task Force on Open Access to MIT’s Research and the Committee on the Library System in October 2019, the MIT Framework is grounded in the conviction that openly sharing research and educational materials is key to the Institute’s mission of advancing knowledge and bringing that knowledge to bear on the world’s greatest challenges. It affirms the overarching principle that control of scholarship and its dissemination should reside with scholars and their institutions, and aims to ensure that scholarly research outputs are openly and equitably available to the broadest possible audience, while also providing valued services to the MIT community.
My goodness, Elsevier, a commercial enterprise, and MIT a really-good outfit dedicated to very, very high standards cannot reach an agreement.
The relationship between tenure track institutions and the publishers surfing the peculiar idea that once a person has the support of peers, that individual is good to go for decades.
That sounds, errr, like a symbiotic relationship. Well, that symbiosis is apparently at an end. The sucker fish is chewed off the fish by bean counters with green eyeshades.
Observations:
- Will students access Elsevier journals from another institution using a borrowed user name and password? Heck, could that happen? Does MIT accept money from interesting people and then look at the latest prank on a roof?
- Will the libraries’ directors have a meeting and figure out how to get access to some of those Elsevier, often tough to replicate articles based on tenure track crazed researchers? I can hear statements like these: “We can cut our cleaning services?” and “We can boost the price of soda in the vending machines?”
- Will Elsevier rethink how it is doing business? Should commercial database publishers be allowed to index the prized Elsevier journals? Should Elsevier become a foundation and scrape funds in ways close to the heart of some non-profit outfits? Should Elsevier try to work out a deal which shifts more of the costs of producing a journal consulted by as few as 100 people a year to the authors? “Hey, if these people want lifetime employment, pay up” makes sense to some.
Net net: Changes are coming down the commercial professional publishing pike and to the tenure track system through which “real” research based articles run. It will be entertaining to watch two outstanding institutions muddle through. That Epstein smile may surface again.
Stephen E Arnold, June 12, 2020
The Good Old Internet Archive Attracts Some Legal Eagle Action
June 2, 2020
Who really owns the Internet Archive? Does the Internet Archive still bundle up tweets and provide them to the august Library of Congress? Is that the caterpillar tracks of the Bezos bulldozer in the roadway near the Internet Archives headquarters? DarkCyber does not know the answers to these questions.
What is clear is that the Association of American Publishers (yes, there are still American publishers) is not happy with the Internet Archive. “Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive for Systematic Mass Scanning and Distribution of Literary Works. Ask Court to Enjoin and Deter Willful Infringement” is reasonably well written, probably because there is a Vassar literature major in the PR chain. The write up states:
… member companies of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Internet Archive (“IA”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit asks the Court to enjoin IA’s mass scanning, public display, and distribution of entire literary works, which it offers to the public at large through global-facing businesses coined “Open Library” and “National Emergency Library,” accessible at both openlibrary.org and archive.org. IA has brazenly reproduced some 1.3 million bootleg scans of print books, including recent works, commercial fiction and non-fiction, thrillers, and children’s books.
The AAP, like DarkCyber, finds the self aggrandizing, virtue signaling about pandemics, unemployment, and other contentious social issues tiresome. Amazon and Google are busy waving their hands after recent social turmoil. That helps if one is seeking clicks and some positive corporate CxO stroking.
The AAP’s statement continues:
Despite the self-serving library branding of its operations, IA’s conduct bears little resemblance to the trusted role that thousands of American libraries play within their communities and as participants in the lawful copyright marketplace. IA scans books from cover to cover, posts complete digital files to its website, and solicits users to access them for free by signing up for Internet Archive Accounts. The sheer scale of IA’s infringement described in the complaint—and its stated objective to enlarge its illegal trove with abandon—appear to make it one of the largest known book pirate sites in the world. IA publicly reports millions of dollars in revenue each year, including financial schemes that support its infringement design.
You can read the AAP statement via the link above.
At a time when civility is in short supply, the AAP approaches its legal foe this way:
The lawsuit reflects widespread anger among publishers, authors, and the entire creative community regarding IA’s actions and its response to objections. In an open letter to IA and its Board of Directors, the Authors Guild observed, “You cloak your illegal scanning and distribution of books behind the pretense of magnanimously giving people access to them. But giving away what is not yours is simply stealing, and there is nothing magnanimous about that. Authors and publishers—the rights owners who legally can give their books away—are already working to provide electronic access to books to libraries and the people who need them. We do not need Internet Archive to give our works away for us.”
Yikes. The news release should have carried a trigger warning. Where is that Vassar-powered red pencil when one needs it? After the Google-centric headline, why not add “This content may be disturbing.”
Will publishers succeed in this effort? The flapping of the legal eagles over the Google Books’ project is less noisy than it was. (When will those angry with Google realize that projects die at Google because staff lose interest?)
Internet Archive may be different. One bright spot: The search and retrieval mechanism for Internet Archive content is darned interesting. Try to find a content object. Great stuff. When a content object cannot be found, does it exist?
The lawsuit is unlikely to consider this question.
Stephen E Arnold, June 2, 2020
Thomson Reuters: More Tax Services Are Better Maybe?
May 28, 2020
Once upon a time, Thomson Reuters was a news outfit. There was Lord Thomson, the much loved Lord Thomson of Fleet to be exact. There was Reuters, the nemesis to the once proud entities of AP and UP. The now bundled firm has branched out and now calls itself “the answer company.” The revamped Reuters already offers these tax services: CS Professional Suite, Checkpoint, OneSource, Aumentum, Onvio, and let’s not forget about Carswell. Who knows what each of these means or does? Not DarkCyber. Nevertheless, the company needed to find something to new make itself more technologically chic. BobsGuide announces its recent move in, “Thomson Reuters Enhances Strategic Partnership with Path Solutions for ONESOURCE Centralized Tax Solution.”
This partnership targets Path Solutions’ Islamic audience; that company specializes in Sharia-based banking software and services and contracts with clients in 40 countries. The write-up reports:
“Thomson Reuters, provider of the industry’s most powerful tax and accounting technology for corporations, and Path Solutions, provider of intelligent software solutions to Islamic banks and financial institutions, have enhanced their existing partnership to provide the GCC’s [Gulf Cooperation Council’s] financial services sector with an opportunity to introduce automation, efficiency and accuracy into tax workflows and core banking operations. By combining the power of Thomson Reuters ONESOURCE’s best-in-class indirect tax solution certified by the UAE Federal Tax Authority, and Path Solutions’ Sharia-compliant iMAL Islamic Core Banking Platform, this strategic partnership—unique in the GCC market—offers banks and financial institutions the tools to provide innovative and frictionless financial services and achieve seamless VAT [Value Added Tax] management and compliance supported by globally-trusted tax content. iMAL gives its clients the technology to meet the soundest Sharia and regulatory requirements, and to scale their businesses while also delivering personalised customer experience.”
Spokespeople from both organizations expect the partnership to prepare clients for fast-changing needs while keeping costs down and core principles intact.
Cynthia Murrell, May 28, 2020
News Report from India Alleges Thomson Reuters Tap Dances with Trust
May 26, 2020
Who knows if Tecake in India is reporting “real news.” The report is interesting and thought provoking like its title: “Thomson Reuters Faces Pressure Over ICE Contracts.”
DarkCyber finds Thomson Reuters use of “trust” as a keyword interesting. My father once told me, “Anyone who tell you he or she is honest, may not be.”
The write up alleges:
A group of Thomson Reuters shareholders says the company’s technology databases are being used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to “track and arrest immigrants on a massive scale,” potentially causing reputational damage to the company.
The article then adds:
Jacinta Gonzalez of Mijente said in an interview with The Verge that the role of data brokers like CLEAR in the surveillance of immigrants has been unsettling.
“While Thomson Reuters has built a brand as a trusted news source, few people realize that the news operation is largely financed by the company’s role as a data broker for agencies like ICE,” Gonzalez said. She added that there are “enormous risks” associated with working with ICE, not the least of which are human rights concerns around the agency’s detention of immigrants and the separation of families trying to enter the US at its border with Mexico.
Thomson Reuters may find itself in an unusual position: Making news instead of reporting it.
Worth watching how a trusted outfit responds to shareholder and activist grousing. Money is the objective, isn’t it? Perhaps questioning trust is not in the notebook?
Stephen E Arnold, May 26, 2020
Amazon Promises an All Star Sub and Thomson 404s to Source
May 18, 2020
The news item was not a breath taker: “Amazon Says Appropriate Executive to Be Available, As U.S. Panel Calls on Bezos to Testify.”
On May 15, the Bezos bulldozer said no in a nice way to the US government. Mr. Bezos would be driving the bulldozer to a small town where one lone retail store front was operating. Apparently knocking down the building in Farmington, Illinois, required his attention. The US government would be able to speak with “the appropriate Amazon executive.” No surprise.
What was a surprise to some in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, was the dead link to the Amazon blog post pointing to the full text of Amazon’s response to the US government. This is particularly interesting since the article was written and checked by at least Ismail Shakil and Kanishka Singh in Bengaluru and Editing by Sonya Hepinstall and Gerry Doyle.
Ah, those trust principles appear to address issues other than verifying links to Amazon documents.
Stephen E Arnold, May 18, 2020
Apple Channels Amazon
May 13, 2020
DarkCyber noted this Digital Reader article: “Apple Launched a Publishing Portal for Book Authors – And You Don’t Need a Mac to Use It!” The article reports:
Apple still doesn’t care if you want to read an ebook you buy from them on non-Apple hardware, but they have finally launched a publishing portal that anyone can access using a web browser.
The question is, “Why?”
Many years ago, DarkCyber prepared a report for a large and now mostly forgotten electronic database company. The point of the report was that self published books and monographs were likely to increase, dwarfing the hard copy new titles. The curves in the PowerPoint looked like Covid19 cases in New York City.
At that time, the electronic publishing company thought books were not interesting. For years, Apple was happy with putting actual and would be authors on the Apple bus.
Now Apple has changed its corporate mind. Why?
DarkCyber opines that:
- Amazon is likely to slam the door on epublishing and use one of those allegedly unpickable electronic locks which talk to Alexa. That’s bad, so Apple is changing its policy.
- Apple wants more money and content. Although the take off was frightening, Apple’s non rich media content offerings are gaining altitude. Books are a useful passenger. Revenue is revenue.
- Apple is just pulling a Silicon Valley me too. The benefit is that Apple wants to be in the book game. As the hip Silicon Valley person would say, “Books because.”
Whatever the reason, authors have a new channel. What about regular book publishing companies? Yeah, because. Like the online outfit that ignored books, there will be less attractive consequences of not embracing electronic publishing and book-like artifacts.
Stephen E Arnold, May 13, 2020
Once Proud, News Outfits Accept Handouts
May 8, 2020
News outlets have long refused government bailouts, because they are supposed to be free of government influence. News outlets are more COVID-19 victims and according to the Star Tribune’s article, “News Outlets, Long Resistant To Government Help, Take Loans” they are forced to take loans or fold their last paper newspaper.
During the crisis, news outlets, were forced to scale back as advertising and sales revenue were lost. Due to the profit loss, employees were furloughed and wages lowered. Government small business loans are acting like blood infusions for news outlets, because it allows them to pay employees and keep providing news. The conflicts of interest of taking the loans are concerning:
“Kelly McBride, ethics specialist at the Poynter journalism think tank, said she’s spoken to the heads of more than a dozen news organizations about applying for a loan.In each case, she advised them to go for it — a stance she could not have conceived advocating for at the beginning of the century. ‘On an industry level, we have crossed a threshold without putting a lot of thought into it,’ McBride said.
It’s clearly a conflict of interest, and not unreasonable for consumers to wonder if an organization receiving government money will aggressively report on what the government does, she said. It’s up to the news organizations to explain to consumers that they will still be closely watching how the stimulus package works.”
Despite taking government small business loans, news outlets are informing their readers/viewers that they are receiving the money but will remain steadfast to quality journalism. News outlets are not without their allies, because lobbyists have fought for news outlet relief in the next stimulus package. The government plans to spend $5 billion on health-related advertising with news outlets as part of the package.
Despite their ambivalence of journalists, politicians realize that local news outlets are important and want to keep them running.
Whitney Grace, May 7, 2020
Google Australia: Whose Head Is in What Logical Pouch?
May 6, 2020
I spotted this story in my UK news stream this morning (May 6, 2020 at 0600 am): “Google Is Like a Poster in the Newsagent’s Window for Publishers, Tech Giant Says.”
Is this argument reminiscent to those of the first year high school debaters offer?
The write up reports with truth and accuracy that Google Australia’s managing director said:
“Publishers provide posters with headlines for newsagents to display in their windows to help draw customers to buy papers. In contrast, Google Search sends readers from Australia and all over the world to the publishers’ sites for free [Silva’s italics] – helping them to generate advertising revenues from those audiences and convert them into paying subscribers.”
The original Google blog post is at this link for now.
The write up noted:
Guardian Australia revealed last week that negotiations for the voluntary code had stalled over three main factors: the media’s access to data and notice of ranking changes, and stonewalling by Google and Facebook on payment for content.
The issue is that old school publishers have watched their world change. Google wanted to index information and really was not keen on paying for that action.
Due to the regulatory environment which allowed Google to do what it wanted for the last 20 plus years, it is clear that Google has the upper hand.
Australia wants money to keep its “old school” news businesses alive. Google doesn’t want to pay; Google’s business model is predicated on giving indexed information away in order to attract advertisers who want their message displayed when a person searches for something.
The model has worked well. Maybe it is not the integrated, diversified money machine that the Bezos bulldozer has rolled out, but Google does produce revenue, certainly more than “real” news outfits.
Google, in an alternate reality, might license the right to index “real” news, display ads when those results are displayed, and share — yes, share on an equitable basis — the revenue the Google system generates from the content.
Sure, and pigs can fly.
Google is doing some word painting. But this time, maybe the company is putting its Googley head in its sticky marsupial pouch. There Google can tell itself and others that its indexing of news content is just like a poster in a store front’s window.
But Google, with some help from Amazon, has put most of the store fronts out of business. Facebook is keeping people occupied with its social service.
Google is just providing a service. For free too. Plus, Google doesn’t sell ads on the Google News service. Is the reason that Google could not figure out how to do this without igniting yet another firestorm over its approach which is reminiscent of the activity described in “The Destruction of Sennacherib.” Instead of wolves, Google is going after publishing wallabies, creatures ill equipped to deal with the digital war machine:
For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed;
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!
Will the legal eagles in Australia buy the Google argument? Will a regulator explain that consuming news wallabies is prohibited? Will Australia set a precedent for others in the Five Eyes’ group? Will Google’s lawyers prevail at a time when no one really seems to care about the business practices of de facto US monopolies?
DarkCyber is not certain. Google has been masterful is slipping away from problems. But the argument that Google is the digital equivalent of an A4 printed posted taped to a window of an increasingly rare newsstand is remarkable.
Does Google have its head in its pouch? This is indeed possible. Google does not want to recognize that the attitude toward the fun and cheerful company has changed.
Why not ask Amanda Rosenberg? She may have some insight into metaphorical arguments offered by the Google.
Stephen E Arnold, May 6, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
