Palantir Technologies: Will the Company Prevail in DCGS?
June 3, 2016
I read “Army Eyes DCGS Reforms on Capitol Hill.” Not long ago, I described a decision which struck me as putting Palantir in a checkmate position. This write up explains that Palantir does have a deus ex machina to help it prevail in its DCGS travails. You can review my earlier write up and the GAO’s decision in “GAO DCGS Letter B-412746.”
If the “Army Eyes DCGS Reform” write up is spot on, there is some procurement excitement ahead. Those activities will not be in the “FAR” future. (FAR is a US government acronym for a collection of procurement guidelines.)
I learned:
Palantir is considering suing the Army over the DCGS-A 2 solicitation, according to a Politico report. The Army has said it expects to award a $206 million contract for DCGS-A 2 later this year.
Here’s the snippet I located of the “report”:
Politico said:
“The secretive Silicon Valley firm Palantir is considering suing the Army to block a planned $206 million contract to build a next-generation battlefield intelligence network, an industry lobbyist with knowledge of the issue told POLITICO. It’s the latest sign that commercial technology companies are becoming increasingly aggressive in seeking to wrestle big-dollar contracts from the Pentagon’s traditional suppliers.
How much money is at stake? Think in terms of $2.5 to $3.5 billion over the new two or three years. That’s without scope changes and the impedimenta government contracts entail. (If you are curious, you can find the RFP summary at this link.)
How does a commercial company go about derailing the Department of Defense. I used to work at an outfit which provided to President Theodore Roosevelt an advisor. That advisor helped design the Department of Navy. Think it is easy dislodging my former employer from its government contracts?
This is not Monty Hall time. Palantir Technologies has an opportunity to disrupt US government procurement procedures. Can the Hobbits prevail? I know that Tolkien fiction works out in fantasy worlds, but the procurement process might be a bridge too FAR.
If you want to read the regulations, start here.
Stephen E Arnold, June 3, 2016
Google Has Much at Stake in Intel Tax Case
June 3, 2016
In the exciting department of tax activities, 9to5Google reports, “Google Could Effectively Recoup All the Tax it Paid Last Year if Intel Wins Test Case.” Why is Google so invested in a dispute between Intel and the IRS? Writer Ben Lovejoy explains:
“In essence, the case hinges on share compensation packages paid by overseas subsidiaries. The IRS says that the cost of these should be offset against the expenses of the overseas companies; Intel says no, the cost should be deducted by the U.S. parent company – reducing its tax liabilities in its home country. The IRS introduced the rule in 2003. Companies like Google have abided by the rule but reserved the right to reallocate costs if a court ruling went against the IRS, giving them a huge potential windfall.”
This windfall could amount to $3.5 billion for Alphabet, now technically Google’s “parent” company (but really just a reorganized Google). Apparently, according to the Wall Street Journal, at least 20 tech companies, including Microsoft and eBay, are watching this case very closely.
Google is known for paying the fewest taxes it thinks it can get away with, a practice very unpopular with some. We’re reminded:
“Google has recently come under fire for its tax arrangements in Europe, a $185M back-tax deal in the UK being described as ‘disproportionately small’ and possibly illegal. France is currently seeking to claim $1.76B from the company in back taxes.”
So, how much will the world’s tax collectors be able to carve out of the Google revenue pie? I suspect it will vary from year to year, and will keep courts and lawyers around the world very busy.
Cynthia Murrell, June 3, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
In a Two Class Society: Which Is the Target?
June 2, 2016
I read two articles this morning. The first was, I thought, a bit of factoid candy. Your view may be different. Navigate to “Apple, Microsoft and Google Hold 23% of All U.S. Corporate Cash, As Tech Sector Accumulates Wealth.” The meaning of “all” and “wealth” are not defined. Who worries about the definition of terms? Ted Cruz maybe? Another member of a high school debate team? Interesting. Money in quantity is bad. Interesting.
The main point of the write up is, in my opinion:
For the first time, the top five companies on the Moody’s cash ranking are tech companies, with Cisco and Oracle following Apple, Microsoft and Google. Technology companies overall held $777 billion in cash, or 46 percent of the total cash across all non-financial industries.
So what? I worked for Halliburton years ago, and my recollection is that it had cash then. No once seemed too concerned, even Halliburton knowledge workers.
I then read “We Need to Challenge the Myth That the Rich Are Specially-Talented Wealth Creators.” Hold those horses. The idea that Thomas Edison types a “specially talented” seems at odds with what I have learned with my close encounters of the third kind with the individuals who have oodles of money—at least on paper.
There is the arrogance thing. There is the confidence that trivial problems like death and mass transit visionaries are going to solve. There is the spending for parties like a Yahoo Christmas, a Google off site, Palantir warm up jackets, and other high technology “investments.”
The write up states:
We need a finance sector that is fit for purpose as a servant to the economy instead of a master. Currently, most of what it funds is not productive industry but lending against existing assets: in the UK lending by the financial sector to productive businesses declined from 30 per cent in 1996 to 10 per cent in 2008, and has stayed low since, while lending to other financial institutions and the property market grew. But then, to the financial sector, £1 million profit from useless speculation is no different from £1 million from any other source. Yet the difference matters to the economy as a whole and hence to us.
There is a shift to a somewhat parental attitude:
There are other reasons why we can’t afford the rich: their undemocratic and indeed antidemocratic influence in politics (witness Davos and TTIP), their excessive and wasteful consumption, their bloated carbon footprints and the fact that many are in effect betting on unsustainable economic growth in the rich countries and have interests in continued fossil fuel use. I deal with all these in my book, but above all, we need to challenge the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators; it is time to halt the flood of unearned income that goes to the top and reassert democracy in facing the challenge of organizing economies that stop rather than accelerate global warming.
When I think about the big outfits with cash and the sentiment about those with cash harboring “undemocratic” and “antidemocratic Influence”, I have a question:
What’s the fix?
I recall that in the Dark Ages, unruly peasants could make life unpleasant for the dukes, earls, and barons.
Today I assume the “fix” is to stop using online devices, flip open manifestos about social and technology policies that eliminate that rich poor gap, and get some folks in office who can pass more effective regulations.
I am okay with my computers, smartphone, and muddling along with my Palantir and Dark Web notebook projects. It seems evident that some folks have a different orientation. Maybe “dad” will curtail online access, implement filters, and put an end to the big outfits’ success? I am delighted I have a manual typewriter.
Stephen E Arnold, June 2, 2016
LinkedIn: The Thought Leader Misfire
June 2, 2016
I read “News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2016.” No big surprises, just confirmation of what our research has pegged. Almost two thirds in the Pew sample get their “news” from Facebook. You can read the summary and get a sense of the angst trigger the data make available to those in “real” news outfits.
What I noted is a different point. In the write up, LinkedIn users do not get their news from LinkedIn. On an upside note, the number of LinkedIn users who use the social networking service for news rose to 19 percent from 13 percent in 2013. That growth suggests that the effort to make LinkedIn a go to system for high value information is have modest impact.
Compared with Reddit and Facebook, LinkedIn ranks near YouTube and Vine in the must have information about compelling events.
LinkedIn seems to have trimmed back the volume of spam sent to me. I asked LinkedIn’s help desk this question:
What do I need to do to be notified of new posts to the groups I follow?
After several days of waiting, I still don’t know the answer. My hunch is that LinkedIn’s interface twiddling and workflow massaging is more interested in upselling me. Too bad. Every once in a while, the groups I follow produce “real news.”
From my vantage point in Harrod’s Creek, I thought LinkedIn had a chance to become more important in the must have information business. Right now, LinkedIn which operates Slideshare, has flailed. Perhaps the effort will pay off. Right now, I see a missed easy lay up or even an own goal.
Stephen E Arnold, June 2, 2016
European Companies Help Egypt Spy on Citizens
June 2, 2016
It seems that, as Egypt was brutally repressing citizens during the massive protests of 2010 and 2011, European companies were selling citizen-surveillance tech to that country’s secret spy agency. Hammerhead Combat Systems shares the article, “Espionage Files: European Companies Sold Spy Tech to a Secret Egyptian Intelligence Unit Amid Brutal Repression.” The article cites a report from Privacy International; writer Namir Shabibi tells us:
“The investigation, entitled ‘The President’s Men? Inside the Technical Research Department, the secret player in Egypt’s intelligence infrastructure,’ is the first to shed light on the growth of the TRD intelligence unit, its pivotal role in Egyptian intelligence apparatus and its links to European companies.
“The TRD’s growth is consistent with claims by human rights defenders that the Egyptian security service was in reality untouched by the revolution. Instead, it quietly went about strengthening itself under the cover of political turmoil.
“The report implicates two European companies in the sale of surveillance technology to TRD. At the time of mass protests in Egypt between 2010-11, it claims Nokia Siemens Networks provided the TRD mass surveillance capabilities including an interception management system and a monitoring center.
“Moreover, according to Privacy International, leaked emails from Italian surveillance equipment seller Hacking Team dated from last year show that it expected to earn a million euros from the sale of intrusive surveillance technologies to the unit. The technology would allow TRD complete access to the computers and smartphones of targeted individuals.”
Note that Nokia Siemens owns Trovicor, which does real-time surveillance and intercepts. The article states that former President Hosni Mubarak used the TRD to fight his political opponents and that the system may date back as far as Anwar Sadat’s rule. Seemingly unabashed, Hacking Team asserts they are in compliance with Italian regulations. On the other hand, European Member of Parliament Marietje Schaake suspects these two companies have violated existing EU rules and, if not, insists new rules must be created immediately. See the piece (originally published at Vice News), or navigate to the Privacy International report itself, for more details.
Cynthia Murrell, June 3, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Speculation About Beyond Search
June 2, 2016
If you are curious to learn more about the purveyor of the Beyond Search blog, you should check out Singularity’s interview with “Stephen E Arnold On Search Engine And Intelligence Gathering.” A little bit of background about Arnold is that he is an expert specialist in content processing, indexing, online search as well as the author of seven books and monographs. His past employment record includes Booz, Allen, & Hamilton (Edward Snowden was a contractor for this company), Courier Journal & Louisville Times, and Halliburton Nuclear. He worked on the US government’s Threat Open Source Intelligence Service and developed a cost analysis, technical infrastructure, and security for the FirstGov.gov.
Singualrity’s interview covers a variety of topics and, of course, includes Arnold’s direct sense of humor:
“During our 90 min discussion with Stephen E. Arnold we cover a variety of interesting topics such as: why he calls himself lucky; how he got interested in computers in general and search engines in particular; his path from college to Halliburton Nuclear and Booze, Allen & Hamilton; content and web indexing; his who’s who list of clients; Beyond Search and the core of intelligence; his Google Trilogy – The Google Legacy (2005), Google Version 2.0 (2007), and Google: The Digital Gutenberg (2009); CyberOSINT and the Dark Web Notebook; the less-known but major players in search such as Recorded Future and Palantir; Big Brother and surveillance; personal ethics and Edward Snowden.”
When you listen to the experts in certain fields, you always get a different perspective than what the popular news outlets gives. Arnold offers a unique take on search as well as the future of Internet security, especially the future of the Dark Web.
Whitney Grace, June 2, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
GAO DCGS Letter B-412746
June 1, 2016
A few days ago, I stumbled upon a copy of a letter from the GAO concerning Palantir Technologies dated May 18, 2016. The letter became available to me a few days after the 18th, and the US holiday probably limited circulation of the document. The letter is from the US Government Accountability Office and signed by Susan A. Poling, general counsel. There are eight recipients, some from Palantir, some from the US Army, and two in the GAO.
Has the US Army put Palantir in an untenable spot? Is there a deus ex machina about to resolve the apparent checkmate?
The letter tells Palantir Technologies that its protest of the DCGS Increment 2 award to another contractor is denied. I don’t want to revisit the history or the details as I understand them of the DCGS project. (DCGS, pronounced “dsigs”, is a US government information fusion project associated with the US Army but seemingly applicable to other Department of Defense entities like the Air Force and the Navy.)
The passage in the letter I found interesting was:
While the market research revealed that commercial items were available to meet some of the DCGS-A2 requirements, the agency concluded that there was no commercial solution that could meet all the requirements of DCGS-A2. As the agency explained in its report, the DCGS-A2 contractor will need to do a great deal of development and integration work, which will include importing capabilities from DCGS-A1 and designing mature interfaces for them. Because the agency concluded that significant portions of the anticipated DCSG-A2 scope of work were not available as a commercial product, the agency determined that the DCGS-A2 development effort could not be procured as a commercial product under FAR part 12 procedures. The protester has failed to show that the agency’s determination in this regard was unreasonable.
The “importing” point is a big deal. I find it difficult to imagine that IBM i2 engineers will be eager to permit the Palantir Gotham system to work like one happy family. The importation and manipulation of i2 data in a third party system is more difficult than opening an RTF file in Word in my experience. My recollection is that the unfortunate i2-Palantir legal matter was, in part, related to figuring out how to deal with ANB files. (ANB is i2 shorthand for Analysts Notebook’s file format, a somewhat complex and closely-held construct.)
Net net: Palantir Technologies will not be the dog wagging the tail of IBM i2 and a number of other major US government integrators. The good news is that there will be quite a bit of work available for firms able to support the prime contractors and the vendors eligible and selected to provide for-fee products and services.
Was this a shoot-from-the-hip decision to deny Palantir’s objection to the award? No. I believe the FAR procurement guidelines and the content of the statement of work provided the framework for the decision. However, context is important as are past experiences and perceptions of vendors in the running for substantive US government programs.
Quote to Note: What Silicon Valley Hates
June 1, 2016
I read the Gray Lady’s write up about the shoot out between some high profile people and outfits. You can get the details in “Tech Titans Raise Their Guard, Pushing Back Against News Media.” The addled goose is interested in the behavior of real journalists and the folks with money, influence, and legal eagles. Eagles have been known to snack on geese.
Here’s the quote I noted:
“The possibility that Gawker may have to post a bond for $50 million or more just to be able to pursue its right to appeal the jury’s verdict raises serious concerns about press freedom,” Lynn Oberlander, general counsel for First Look, said in a statement.
The Constitution thing again. Troublesome for sure. Paying for placement may be the answer. That’s journalism too I surmise.
Stephen E Arnold, June 1, 2016
Next-Generation Business Intelligence Already Used by Risk Analysis Teams
June 1, 2016
Ideas about business intelligence have certainly evolved with emerging technologies. Addressing this, an article, Why machine learning is the new BI from CIO, speaks to this transformation of the concept. The author describes how reactive analytics based on historical data do not optimally assist business decisions. Questions about customer satisfaction are best oriented toward proactive future-proofing, according to the article. The author writes,
“Advanced, predictive analytics are about calculating trends and future possibilities, predicting potential outcomes and making recommendations. That goes beyond the queries and reports in familiar BI tools like SQL Server Reporting Services, Business Objects and Tableau, to more sophisticated methods like statistics, descriptive and predictive data mining, machine learning, simulation and optimization that look for trends and patterns in the data, which is often a mix of structured and unstructured. They’re the kind of tools that are currently used by marketing or risk analysis teams for understanding churn, customer lifetimes, cross-selling opportunities, likelihood of buying, credit scoring and fraud detection.”
Does this mean that traditional business intelligence after much hype and millions in funding is a flop? Or will predictive analytics be a case of polishing up existing technology and presenting it in new packaging? After time — and for some after much money has been spent — we should have a better idea of the true value.
Megan Feil, June 1, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Everyone Rejoice! We Now Have Emoji Search
June 1, 2016
It was only a matter of time after image search actually became a viable and useful tool that someone would develop a GIF search. Someone thought it would be a keen idea to also design an emoji search and now, ladies and gentlemen, we have it! Tech Viral reports that “Now You Can Search Images On Google Using Emoji.”
Using the Google search engine is a very easy process, type in a few keywords or a question, click search, and then delve into the search results. The Internet, though, is a place where people develop content and apps just for “the heck of it”. Google decided to design an emoji search option, probably for that very reason. Users can type in an emoji, instead of words to conduct an Internet search.
The new emoji search is based on the same recognition skills as the Google image search, but the biggest question is how many emojis will Google support with the new function?
“Google has taken searching algorithm to the next level, as it is now allowing users to search using any emoji icon. Google stated ‘An emoji is worth a thousand words’. This feature may be highly appreciated by lazy Google users, as they now they don’t need to type a complete line instead you just need to use an emoji for searching images.”
It really sounds like a search for lazy people and do not be surprised to get a variety of results that do not have any relation to the emoji or your intended information need. An emoji might be worth a thousand words, but that is a lot of words with various interpretations.
Whitney Grace, June 1, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
