Is Copyright Shifting Direction?
March 15, 2012
It is tough to search when content is not there. We have been alerted to the threat of censorship from lawmakers by conflicts over legislation such as SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and TPP. We must not ignore a more insidious threat: that of direct dealings between copyright industries and Internet service providers at the behest of government; so warns TechDirt in “UK Government Pressuring Search Engines to Censor Results in Favor of Copyright Industries.”
Rather than laws that would have to be enforced through legal channels, the back-door “notification” system described in the article would submit blacklists to search engines. These lists would name sites accused of infringement, which would then be barred from search results. Any accusation could doom an entire site to obscurity, possibly without recourse. Whitelists of approved media services would also be provided and those sites artificially promoted within search results. Writer Glyn Moody asserts:
Absolute power over search engines’ results in these areas would be handed to industries that hardly have a good track record for adopting a proportionate approach to tackling unauthorized downloads. In particular, they are unlikely to lose much sleep over all the legitimate content that will become invisible when sites of borderline legality are removed from search engines’ results ‘just to be on the safe side.’ And there are no indications that there would be any oversight as to who goes on the lists, or any right of appeal — making it a purely extra-judicial punishment.
It seems that most search engines are balking at the proposed arrangement, for now at least. Moody notes that complying with white lists could be considered anti-competitive and get sites in trouble with the European Commission. Yes, that would be important. Perhaps it is a sign that the whole scheme is a bad idea? How will the legal spat between India, Google, and Facebook work out? Our view: not well.
Cynthia Murrell, March 15, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
More NASA Technical Excitement: Hackers in the Entity
March 13, 2012
One hopes that some good will come of this.
At one point last year, “Hackers Had ‘Full Functional Control’ of NASA Computers,” reports BBC News. NASA had 5,408 computer security incidents in 2010 and 2011. Furthermore, from April 2009 and April 2011, the agency lost track of 48 its own mobile computing devices through loss or theft. On top of that, this incident; the article reports:
“[NASA Inspector General Paul K.] said that the attackers had ‘full system access’ and would have been able to ‘modify, copy, or delete sensitive files’ or ‘upload hacking tools to steal user credentials and compromise other NASA systems’. . . . Mr. Martin said NASA was a ‘target-rich environment for cyber attacks’. He said that the motivation of the hackers ranged from ‘individuals testing their skill to break into NASA systems, to well-organized criminal enterprises hacking for profit, to intrusions that may have been sponsored by foreign intelligence services’”.
Graduated degrees of bad news for the agency. NASA has since claimed “significant progress to protect the agency’s IT systems.” Note they don’t claim it’s locked down tight.
Officials do insist that “at no point in time have operations of the International Space Station been in jeopardy due to a data breach.” That’s good to know.
NASA has been licensing nifty technology to help the agency “manage knowledge.” Let’s hope NASA gets its knowledge under control or there will be more unfortunate incidents at an agency which is supposed to be darned good at technology. I am beginning for formulate some doubts about NASA’s technical capabilities.
Cynthia Murrell, March 13, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Is NASA Technically Savvy?
March 6, 2012
I don’t know about you, but I would think twice about any technology NASA selects. This applies to Windows SharePoint, taxonomy systems, search, and maybe hand sanitizer. Why? I read “NASA Admits to Being Hacked 13 Times Last Year.” If true, not good. How about this passage’s allegation:
The space agency reported to Congress this week that it had been hacked a total of 13 times last year, including one China-based attack that gained complete access and control of mission critical systems as well as employee accounts.
If you want to go into space, NASA is out of the game. Probably a good idea. If I want to search for NASA data, should I use Jike.com?
Stephen E Arnold, March 6, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Cloud Good, Cloud Bad for Your Data?
February 29, 2012
InfoWorld’s David Linthicum–cloud consultant, “real” expert, and podcaster–recently reported on cloud computing in the article, “Big Data and the Cloud: a Far From Perfect Fit.”
According to the article, while big data and cloud computing have some similarities you shouldn’t think that any old enterprise search startup with cloud offerings, generally in the public cloud, will solve your data management issues.
Organizations that try to consolidate their data into public cloud databases are most likely going to run into two primary technical difficulties — bandwidth limitations and higher cost for security.
When discussing the issues with bandwidth, Linthucum states:
“…Big data means big integration challenges. Thus, the ability to get the data from the enterprise to the public cloud may be problematic. Although you can certainly ship up a couple hundred thousand data records each day over the open Internet, in many cases we’re talking millions of data records that must be transformed, translated, and synced from existing enterprise systems.”
While the article is not saying that big data is never a good fit for public clouds, it does bring up some good points that should be considered when deciding what solution is the best fit for your company. We find it interesting to watch the trajectory of advice from experts. Cloud good, cloud bad? One never knows does one?
Jasmine Ashton, February 29, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Trust Google with Your Money? Not So Fast.
February 26, 2012
Maybe this is a typical minor error, but it sure seems important to us. PCWorld reveals that, because of a security flaw, “Google Wallet Suspends Prepaid Credit Card Functions.” Reporter John P. Mello Jr. explains:
The security flaw was revealed last Thursday by a blogger, identified only as ‘The Smartphone Champ,’ who explained that by opening up the settings section on an Android phone and blanking all the settings for a Google Wallet, an unauthorized user could access any balances on a prepaid card previously linked to the wallet.
Oops. This is actually the second security flaw that has recently been discovered. The hack-ability revealed just the day before by the security firm Zvelo involves cracking the Wallet’s PIN. However, that one calls for more techie skills and could only be performed on phones that had been rooted. Still. . . .
Maybe Google’s fast-cycle method needs a traditional “does this work?” test when credit cards and money are involved. A common sense best practice, really.
Cynthia Murrell, February 26, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Exogenous Complexity 3: Being Clever
February 24, 2012
I just submitted my March 2012 column to Enterprise Technology Management, published in London by IMI Publishing. In that column I explored the impact of Google’s privacy stance on the firm’s enterprise software business. I am not letting any tiny cat out of a big bag when I suggested that the blow back might be a thorn in Googzilla’s extra large foot.
In this essay, I want to consider exogenous complexity in the context of the consumerization of information technology and, by extension, on information access in an organization. The spark for my thinking was the write up “Google, Safari and Our Final Privacy Wake-Up Call.”
Here’s a clever action. MIT students put a red truck on top of the dome. For more see http://radioboston.wbur.org/2011/04/06/mit-hacks.
If you do not have an iPad or an iPhone or an Android device, you will want to stop reading. Consumerization of information technology boils down to employees and contract workers who show up with mobile devices (yes, including laptops) at work. In the brave new world, the nanny instincts of traditional information technology managers are little more than annoying nags from a corporate mom.
The reality is that when consumer devices enter the workplace, three externalality happen in my experience.
First, security is mostly ineffective. Clever folks then exploit vulnerable systems. I think this is why clever people say that the customer is to blame. So clever exploits cluelessness. Clever is exogenous for the non clever. There are some actions an employer can take; for example, confiscating personal devices before the employee enters the work area. This works in certain law enforcement, intelligence, and a handful of other environments; for example, fabrication facilities in electronics or pharmaceuticals. Mobile devices have cameras and can “do” video. “Secret” processes can become un-secret in a nonce. In the free flowing, disorganized craziness of most organizations, personal devices are ignored or overlooked. In short, in a monitored financial trading environment, a professional can send messages outside the firm and the bank’s security and monitoring systems are happily ignorant. The cost of dropping a truly secure box around a work place is expensive and beyond the core competency of most information technology professionals.
Second, employees blur information which is “for work” with information which is “for friends, lovers, or acquaintances.” The exogenous factor is political. To fix the problem, rules are framed. The more rule applied to a flawed system, the greater the likelihood is that clever people will exploit systems which ignore the rules. Clever actions, therefore, increase. In short, this is a variation of the Facebook phenomena when a posting can reach many people quickly or lie dormant until the data load explodes like long forgotten Fourth of July fire cracker. As people chase the fire, clever folks exploit the fire. Information time bombs are not thought about by most senior managers, but they are on the radar of those involved in a legal matter and in the minds of some disgruntled programmers. The half life of information is less well understood by most professionals than the difference between a uranium based reactor and a thorium based reactor. Work and life information are blended, and in my opinion, the compound is a dangerous one.
Third, vendors focusing on consumerizing information technology spur adoption of devices and practices which cannot be easily controlled. The data-Hoovering processes, therefore, can suck up information which is proprietary, of high value, and potentially damaging to the information owner. Information is not “like sand grains.” Some information is valueless; other information commands a high price. In fact, modern content processing and data analytic systems can take fragments of information and “fuse” them. To most people these amalgams are of little interest. But to someone with specialized knowledge, the fused data are not god nuggets, the fused data are a chunky rosy diamond, maybe a Pink Panther. As a result, an exogenous factor increases the flow of high value data through uncontrolled channels.
A happy quack to Gunaxin. You can see how clever, computer situations, and real life blend in this “pranking” poster. I would have described the wrapping of equipment in plastic “clever.” But I am the fume hood guy, Woodruff High School, 1958 to 1962. Image source: http://humor.gunaxin.com/five-funny-prank-fails/48387
Now, let’s think about being clever. When I was in high school, I was one of a group of 25 students who were placed in an “advanced” program. Part of the program included attending universities for additional course work. I ended up at the University of Illinois at age 15. I went back to regular high school, did some other Fancy Dan learning programs, and eventually graduated. My specialty was tricking students in “regular” chemistry into modifying their experiments to produce interesting results. One of these suggestions resulted in a fume hood catching fire. Another dispersed carbon strands through the school’s ventilation system. I thought I was clever, but eventually Mr. Shepherd, the chemistry teach, found out that I was the “clever” one. I sat in the hall for the balance of the semester. I adapted quickly, got an A, and became semi-famous. I was already sitting in the hall for writing essays filled with double entendres. Sigh. Clever has its burdens. Some clever folks just retreat into a private world. The Internet is ideal for providing an environment in which isolated clever people can find a “friend.” Once a couple of clever folks hook up, the result is lots of clever activity. Most of the clever activity is not appreciated by the non clever. There is the social angle and the understanding angle. In order to explain a clever action, one has to be somewhat clever. The non clever have no clue what has been done, why, when, or how. There is a general annoyance factor associated with any clever action. So, clever usually gets masked or shrouded in something along the lines, “Gee, I am sorry” or “Goodness gracious, I did not think you would be annoyed.” Apologies usually work because the non clever believe the person saying “I’m sorry” really means it. Nah. I never meant it. I did not pay for the fume hood or the air filter replacement. Clever, right?
What happens when folks from the type of academic experience I had go to work in big companies. Well, it is sink or swim. I have been fortunate because my “real” work experiences began at Halliburton Nuclear Services and continued at Booz, Allen & Hamilton when it was a solid blue chip firm, not the azure chip outfit it is today. The fact that I was surrounded by nuclear engineers whose idea of socializing was arguing about Monte Carlo code and nuclear fuel degradation at the local exercise club. At Booz, Allen the environment was not as erudite as the nuclear outfit, but there were lots of bright people who were actually able to conduct a normal conversation. Nevertheless, the Type As made life interesting for one another, senior managers, clients, and family. Ooops. At the Booz, Allen I knew, one’s family was one’s colleagues. Most spouses had no idea about the odd ball world of big time consulting. There were exceptions. Some folks married a secretary or colleague. That way the spouse knew what work was like. Others just married the firm, converting “quality time” into two days with the dependents at a posh resort.
So clever usually causes one to seek out other clever people or find a circle of friends who appreciate the heat generated by aluminum powder in an oxygen rich environment. When a company employs clever people, it is possible to generalize:
Clever people do clever things.
What’s this mean in search and information access? You probably already know that clever people often have a healthy sense of self worth. There is also arrogance, a most charming quality among other clever people. The non-clever find the arrogance “thing” less appealing.
Let’s talk about information access.
Let’s assume that a clever person wants to know where a particular group of users navigate via a mobile device or a traditional browser. Clever folks know about persistent cookies, workarounds for default privacy settings, spoofing built in browser functions, or installation of rogue code which resets certain user selected settings on a heartbeat or restart. Now those in my advanced class would get a kick out these types of actions. Clever people appreciate the work of clever people. When the work leaves the “non advanced” in a clueless state, the fun curve does the hockey stick schtick. So clever enthuses those who are clever. The unclever are, by definition, clueless and not impressed. For really nifty clever actions, the unclever get annoyed, maybe mad. I was threatened by one student when the Friday afternoon fume hood event took place. Fortunately my debate coach intervened. Hey, I was winning and a broken nose would have imperiled my chances at the tournament on Saturday.
Now more exogenous complexity. Those who are clever often ignore unintended consequences. I could have been expelled, but I figured my getting into big trouble would have created problems with far reaching implications. I won a State Championship in the year of the fume hood. I won some silly scholarship. I published a story in the St Louis Post Dispatch called “Burger Boat Drive In.” I had a poem in a national anthology. So, I concluded that a little sport in regular chemistry class would not have any significant impact. I was correct.
However, when clever people do clever things in a larger arena, then the assumptions have to be recalibrated. Clever people may not look beyond their cube or outside their computer’s display. That’s when the exogenous complexity thing kicks in.
So Google’s clever folks allegedly did some work arounds. But the work around allowed Microsoft to launch an attack on Google. Then the media picked up on the work around and the Microsoft push back. The event allowed me to raise the question, “So workers bring their own consumerized device to work. What’s being tracked? Do you know? Answer: Nope.” What’s Google do? Apologize. Hey, this worked for me with the fume hood event, but on a global stage when organizations are pretty much lost in space when it comes to control of information, effective security, and managing crazed 20 somethings—wow.
In short, the datasphere encourages and rewards exogenous behavior by clever people. Those who are unclever take actions which sets off a flood of actions which benefit the clever.
Clever. Good sometimes. Other times. Not so good. But it is better to be clever than unclever. Exogenous factors reward the clever and brutalize the unclever.
Stephen E Arnold, February 24, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
MegaSearch: Looking for Excitement?
January 19, 2012
Short honk: Search systems for underground or dark net content such as credit card numbers come and go. If you are interested in this particular type of search excitement, you will want to read “‘MegaSearch’ Aims to Index Fraud Site Wares.” The service points and does not store certain information such as credit card information. We learned:
MegaSearch said that when his site first launched at the end of 2011 and began indexing the five card shops he’s now tracking, those shops had some 360,000 compromised accounts for sale, collectively. Since then, those shops have moved more than 200,000 cards. The search engine currently has indexed 352,000 stolen account numbers that are for sale right now in the underground.
For more information, see “Underground Credit Card Store Operators Aggregate Their Stolen Data.” The link, which may be blocked by certain systems, is MegaSearch.cc. Explore but understand the risks.
Stephen E Arnold, January 19, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Big Data in 2012: Reliable Open-Source Software Required
January 11, 2012
Enthusiasm and optimism that Big Data as a concept is the next big thing. We are almost ready to board the Big Data bull dozer. The hoopla surrounding Big Data has not died down in 2012. Instead, the concept demonstrates the continuing environment of processing and analysis.
As businesses become aware that the Big Data trend is here to stay, publishers are looking for reliable support. The Apache Hadoop project develops open-source software for reliable, scalable, distributed computing. The company offers much in the way of dealing with unstructured data and is setting the pace for consolidation as well as personalization. I came across an interesting article, “State of the World IT: Big Data, An Offer That is Formed” (The original article is in French, but http://translate.google.com works well for this gosling). We learn:
As a recognition of the market in 2011, Hadoop has also attracted the top names in the IT industry who put this framework in the heart of their range of data processing volume. One reason: the cost mainly reminded us James Markarian, executive vice president and technical director of Informatica confirming that the framework ‘helped to change the economic model of the Big Data.’ Adding that flexibility… was as a criterion for adoption.
It is clear that the excess of data will only continue to grow by the minute. Generations of search, publishing, and consolidation will continue to emerge. I recommend staying informed of the products and the specific capabilities of each. However, Big Data which is filtered may pose some interesting problems; for example, will the outputs match the pre-filtered reality? Will predictive methods work when some data are no longer in the stream? So far the cheerleading is using chants from an older, pre-filtering era. Is this a good thing or a no-thing?
Andrea Hayden, January 11, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Search Engines May Take Action Against Pirate Web Sites
January 3, 2012
From the Sooner or Later Department:
Google has been in the news a lot lately for being biased when it comes to search result ranking. According to a the recent Telegraph article “Google May Give Pirate Sites Lower Ranking,” that bias may be leading to positive results. A new code will force Search engines to automatically rank pirate websites lower than official ones and give priority to those that were certified under a recognized scheme.
The article states:
According to research by the Publisher’s Association, Google searches for the 50 best-selling books in one week in March returned an average of four illegal links in the top 10 listings. The previous year that figure was closer to two.
Under the code, Google as well as other search engines would stop allowing illegal sites to advertise and would step up their efforts in delisting pirate websites as soon as they are flagged by legitimate rights holders.
While the search engines have yet to respond to the proposal, we believe that if this is policy goes into effect, there may be some unforeseen consequences. Exciting to be the one to define “pirate”.
Jasmine Ashton, January 3, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Protected: SharePoint Provides the Product, but ISVs Make the Money
December 7, 2011
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
