Social Networks and Security
August 25, 2009
I got roasted at a conference last year when I pointed out that controlling security and privacy in social networks was a challenge. One 20 something told me that I was an addled goose. No push back from me. I stuck to my assertion and endured the smarmy remarks and head shaking. I thought of this young person when I read “Social Networks Leak Personal Information”. Sure, it is one write up in a trade magazine, but it contains a statement I find instructive:
The researchers say that social networks leak information through a combination of HTTP header information — the Referrer header and the Request-URI — and cookies sent to third-party aggregators such as Google (NSDQ: GOOG)’s DoubleClick, Google Analytics, and Omniture, among others. As a consequence of this leakage, third-party aggregators can potentially link social network identifiers to past and future Web site visits, thereby identifying a person and his or her online activities.
Right? Wrong? With the young-at-heart going social, old geese like me want to move forward with some caution.
Stephen Arnold, August 25, 2009
The Microsoft Plan to Beat Google in Search
August 22, 2009
That’s a much better title than a “how to” about Microsoft’s plan to beat Google. You can find a by-the-book description of Microsoft’s “kill Google” strategy in the August 16, 2009, Mashable story “Search Showdown: Microsoft’s Plan to Win the Search War.” I want to be upfront. I think Google has won the Web search war and it is now threatening in other “wars” as well. Nevertheless, Ben Parr runs through the Microsoft game plan. My observation about this write up is that it omits two key points of Microsoft’s approach:
First, Microsoft is in “pay for traffic” mode. Cash back is one of the ways Bing is getting traffic. Not a problem for me, but it is an important point when thinking about how Google operates—getting users addicted to the Google search service.
Second, Microsoft is focusing on “user experience” or UX. The idea is that Google is often a plain if not dowdy looking system. Microsoft wants to deliver eye candy. This “look” is what sets Bing apart. Unfortunately, the results have yet to match Google’s for my test queries. I think this UX push is a big part of the Fast ESP system as well. In my opinion, Google is about plumbing; Microsoft is about decoration.
Read the Mashable story. Make up your own mind.
Stephen Arnold, August 22, 2009
Security Gaps Permit Intercepts
August 12, 2009
Short honk: If you are not up to speed on ways to intercept information, navigate to “10 Ways Your Voice and Data Can Be Spied Upon”. Useful list.
Stephen Arnold, August 12, 2009
Google Marketing to the Enterprise
August 10, 2009
I usually find Larry Dignan’s view of information technology spot. I was not too surprised with the argument in his “Google’s Campaign for Apps Doesn’t Address the IT Data Elephant in the Room.” The key passage in the article for me was:
In fact, nothing in Google’s marketing toolbox—the viral emails, the YouTube videos and the posters you can plaster near the water cooler—are going to change fact that your corporate data is hosted by Google. If Google really wants to entice the enterprise it should have skipped the YouTube videos and allowed companies to store some of their own data.
I agree that Google has not done a good job of addressing the “Google has your data” argument.
Google has some patent documents that describe clever ways to have some data processed by Google’s systems and other data on a client’s servers with the client retaining control over the data. I am sitting in an airport at 4 50 am Eastern and don’t have access to my Google files. My recollection is that Google has been beavering away with systems and methods to provide different control methods.
The problem with Google is the loose coupling between the engineering and marketing at Google. The push to the enterprise strikes me as a way to capitalize on several market trends for which Google has data. Keep in mind that Google does not take actions in a cavalier way. Data drive most decisions, based on my research. Then group think takes over. In that process, the result is a way to harvest low hanging fruit.
After some time passes, engineering methods follow along that add features, functions, and some robustness. A good example is the Google Search Appliance. In its first version security was lax. The present version provides a number of security features. Microsoft uses the same approach which has caused me to wait until version 3 of a Microsoft product before I jump on board. For Google, the process of change is incremental and much less visible.
My hunch is that once Google’s “go Google” program responds to the pent up demand for more hands on support for the appliance, Apps, and maps—then the Google will add additional features. The timeline may well be measured in years.
If a company wants to use Google technology to reduce costs now and reduce to some degree the hurdles that traditional information technology approaches put in the way of senior management, the “go Google” program will do its job.
Over time, Google will baby step forward. Those looking for traditional approaches to enterprise software will have a field day criticizing Google and its approach. My thought is that Google seems to be moving forward with serious intent.
I think there will be even louder and more aggressive criticism of Google’s new enterprise push. In my opinion, that criticism will not have much of an impact on the Google. The company seems to be making money, growing, and finding traction despite its unorthodox methods.
Will Google “win” in the enterprise sector? I don’t know. I do know that Google is disruptive, and that the effects of the disruption create opportunities. Traditional enterprise software companies may want to look at those opportunities, not argue that the ways of the past are the ways of the future. The future will be different from what most of us have spent years learning to love. Google’s approach is based on the fact that customers * want * Google solutions, particularly applications that require search and access to information. That is not what traditional information technology professional want.
Stephen Arnold, August 10, 2009
E Mail that Deletes Itself
August 8, 2009
Short honk: Want to make your email self destruct? Navigate to the Vanish page. A unit of i2 in the UK was exploring this function but the company moved resources elsewhere. Useful for some; not so useful for others.
Stephen Arnold, August 8, 2009
Open Source XML Flaws
August 6, 2009
I want to stay out of the squabble between commercial software vendors (Microsoft, Computer Associates, and others) and the open source crowd (Lucene, Drupal, and Eclipse, among others). I do want to call your attention to the story in ITWorld “XML Flaw Threatens Apps Built with Sun, Apache, Python Libraries”. Microsoft, no tyro in the world of online security, has suggested that it fears Linux and maybe other open source software as well. If this security story by Ellen Messmer is spot on, the open source crowd may have some explaining to do. If there are flaws, are there backdoors? What other surprises for commercial and governmental entities will open source spring on the unaware. What are the implications for XML and its wide use? Will venture firms become more cautious about funding open source plays with consulting as the main engine of financial growth? Worth a read for sure.
Stephen Arnold, August 6, 2009
Online Trail
August 6, 2009
Short honk: Here is an example of the type of online trail that one leaves. Note that the Google search history was obtained by fiddling with user name and password. The link may be removed. I verified it at 10 pm Eastern on August 6, 2009.
Stephen Arnold, August 6,2009
Bing and Censorship
July 20, 2009
Short honk: A reader alerted me to the Bing.com filter that chops out certain content and creates a collection of a mini vertical search engine for segmented content. The filter is now applied to X rated content. You can read about the filter in Network World’s story “Bing Gets Porn domain to Filter Out Explicit Images and Videos”. There are a number of complicated issues in play. The present solution creates an interesting revenue generating opportunity for Bing.com. Will Microsoft exploit it? I wonder how different this type of filtering from the Amazon filtering of certain content?
Stephen Arnold, July 20, 2009
Profit in Data Theft
July 8, 2009
I read Dancho Danchev’s “Microsoft Study Debunks Profitability of the Underground Economy” here. I have not read the Microsoft study, but I want to recommend both documents to my addled geese and you, gentle reader. The arguments strike me as germane to online information and data. Mr. Danchev’s view is that there is money is underground endeavors. Check out the article. My question is, “If there weren’t money in underground plays, why are there so many efforts?”
Stephen Arnold, June 7, 2009
Performance Fireworks: Microsoft Fast Fizzles, Google Explodes
July 4, 2009
I was sitting in an airport, and I clicked on a link for Microsoft Fast ESP. A video ran and presented me with a couple of professional fellows talking about Microsoft Fast search. The video was interesting, but I went back and snagged one screen frame from the presentation because it struck me as a way to explain the distance between the performance of Microsoft Fast and the performance of Google’s system. Now performance data for search systems is a murky area. I don’t want to get into a squabble about something being five times faster. The difference here makes a point, and I will leave it to Googlers and Microsofties to post corrected performance data in the Comments section of this Web log, assuming those companies’ professionals have time to read the thoughts of the addled goose.
First, the Microsoft data. Here’s the screenshot, and I want you to notice that the performance that is presented is five to 20 queries per second. That is pretty modest for a performance threshold even for a Microsoft team in Charlotte, North Carolina, where I have heard the pace of life is on par with Harrod’s Creek.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=kTbcCNby8xE
I ask you to click here to look at the performance data I calculated for Google. The key point is that if the Google data are reasonably accurate, the Google is cranking along about about 1,700 queries per second. Even Yahoo appears to perform better than Microsoft Fast. See my write up here.
That’s a big gap. Assume the Google data are off by a factor of four. The Google is handling 400 queries per second. If we boost the Microsoft Fast performance by a factor of four to 20 queries per second to 80 queries per second, the Google appears to be the speed demon.
If you want performance fireworks, my thought is that the Google is the fire cracker if the data are correct.
Stephen Arnold, July 4, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
