India: A New Front in the War Against Obfuscation
February 19, 2020
DarkCyber noted “Indian Police Open Case against Hundreds in Kashmir for Using VPN.” VPNs are perceived as a secure way to access certain Internet content. VPNs sit in the middle, and many vendors insist that their approach deletes logs of user activity. Be that as it may, under specific condition, the VPN transfer point can be monitored. For some enforcement agencies, getting customer data and other information is a hassle.
A short cut is sometimes discussed. India may have found a shortcut appropriate for its needs in contentious Kashmir. The write up reports:
Local authorities in India-controlled Kashmir have opened a case against hundreds of people who used virtual private networks (VPNs) to circumvent a social media ban in the disputed Himalayan region in a move that has been denounced by human rights and privacy activists.
Arresting VPN users complements other tools in the Indian government’s kit; for example, blocking Internet service and capping access speeds.
DarkCyber believes that other governments may examine India’s approach. If these countries’ assessment is positive, the “Indian method” may be used by other countries struggling to deal with online information and services.
The flow of digital content often erodes existing processes. Bits, like some rivers, become more tractable when blocked by a dam in order to reduce the destructive power of floods. India’s action block data streams in an effort to prevent a torrent of bits that will erode institutions and other artifacts of a social construct.
Stephen E Arnold, February 19, 2020
LucidWorks: Mom, Do My Three Cs Add Up to an A?
February 19, 2020
Search firm Lucidworks has put out a white paper explaining their new 3 C’s of enterprise search, we learn from the write-up, “Understanding Intention: Using Content, Context, and the Crowd to Build Better Search Applications” from InsideBigData. Registration is required to download and read the paper, but they have also put out a PDF called more simply, “Understanding Intention” that gives us their perspective.
In the 3 Cs section of that document, they note that enterprise search pretty much has content wrapped up. With tools like Hadoop, Solr, and NoSQL, we can now access unstructured as well as structured data. Context means, in part, understanding how different pieces of content relate to each other. It also means analyzing which pieces of information will be relevant to each searcher—and this is the exciting part for Lucidworks. The document explains:
“When a search app knows more about you, it can create a relevant search experience that helps you get personal, actionable search results on a consistent basis. Search apps have solved that problem with signal processing. A signal is any bit of information that tells the app more about who you are. Signals can include your job title, business unit, location, device, and search history, as well as past actions within the search app like clickstream, purchasing behavior, direct reports, upcoming meetings or events, and more.”
Interesting. As for the crowd portion, it has to do with matching searchers with content found by similar entities that have searched before. We’re told:
“When a search app uses the crowd, it goes beyond documents and data, past your specific user profile and relationship, and examines how other users are interacting with the data and information. A search app knows the behavioral information of thousands — sometimes millions — of other users. By keeping track of every user, search apps can bubble up what you will find important and relevant and what other users like you will want, too. The tech uses its knowledge of your office, role, and demographic to match to the same in other users and make intelligent judgments about what will help you the most.”
But how good is the tech, really, at identifying what information one truly needs, and how would we know? Do three Cs add up to an A in search? Not yet, Willy.
Cynthia Murrell, February 19, 2020s
A Fanciful Explanation of the Expensive Failure of IBM Watson
February 19, 2020
I love the idea of revisionist history. I associate the method with an individual named Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili.
Alleged Stalin quote: It is not heroes that make history, but history that makes heroes.
You may know this allegedly competent leader as Joseph Stalin. Changing history is one way to make sure the present comes out in a way that is more satisfying — at least to some people.
I read “IBM Watson And The Value Of Open.” I thought of Jughashvili in the terms my former history professor (Dr. Philip Miller Crane) explained the revisionist thing.
My analysis of IBM Watson included information I obtained when I was researching my various and sundry books about search and retrieval. I did not include IBM as a “recommended” solution for three reasons:
- Watson was a marketing confection which conflated a range of technologies: Some developed by IBM and others obtained via an open source download or by paying money for technology; for example, Vivisimo, a metasearch and clustering system
- Training “Watson” required programmers to interview subject matter experts, create specific content domains, test, do more interviews, retrain, and test. Once the content domain was in hand, Watson would crunch away to locate an answer. Many companies do a similar expensive process. IBM was unique in making Watson seem something other than what other vendors offered. By sweeping the time and cost of training under the digital rug, Watson was cut loose from reality.
- Question answering systems work when certain conditions are met; for example, content, response expected, handcrafted rules that mostly work. Toss the system questions based on new content, and the responses are going to be interesting if not off base a certain percentage of the time.
To sum up, the cost and unreliability of Watson were wildly out of step with the marketing of cognitive computing. IBM’s billions made it possible for search and retrieval carpetbaggers to describe their systems as “cognitive”; that is, infused with artificial intelligence, predictive linguistics, and my favorite bit of jargon natural language processing.
The article’s explanation of the failure of IBM’s billion dollar bet, the office near NYU, and the absolutely bonkers ad in the New York Times for Watson as a collection of digital molecules is at odds with my assessment.
That’s okay. Let’s look at a couple of the “revelations” in this Forbes’ article.
The Texas Fold
The write up explains the outright failure of Watson as a useful medical tool for cancer doctors says:
But with the passage of more time, it must be said that IBM Watson has not delivered the results that IBM expected. One particular moment was the decision of MD Anderson’s Cancer Center to withdraw from its partnership with IBM in 2017. An internal audit by the University of Texas found that the university had spent over $62 million dollars (not counting internal staff time) and did not meet its goals.[i] Other health partners soon followed.
Yep, to summarize. Watson did not work. In fact, I heard from a reliable source that cancer doctors in New York City refused to answer endless programmer questions. The message for me was, “Cancer doctors don’t want to teach programmers how to be cancer doctors.” Hasta la vista to Texas.
The Wrong Explanation: Vertical Integration
Why did IBM Watson succumb to its self generated cancer. Here’s what the Forbes’ write up asserts:
Being vertically integrated gave IBM complete end-to-end control over Watson. But it condemned Watson to being applied in only a few areas. IBM essentially had to guess where this powerful technology could best be applied. Even within health care, some likely areas for Watson like radiology were not pursued in its early years. Because of the limited number of areas IBM was able to explore for using Watson, we will never know whether there were other areas where Watson might have performed beautifully.
Okay, this means in my opinion that IBM engineers and scientists wanted to run the show. There was, therefore, one throat to choke. That throat was IBM Watson’s. The fall out continues. A new CEO, hoots of laughter when I tell people about IBM’s Watson ads, and the loss of shareholder value. I would roll in the weird layoffs as a somewhat desperate way to slash costs too.
Alleged Stalin quote: Death is the solution to all problems. No man – no problem.
Forget vertical integration. The reason for failure was that the system and method did not work.
The Reality
Mr. Jughashvili would be proud of this analysis. It rewrites history. But like Mr. Jughashvili’s, Watson’s actions live on. Changing the words does not alter the reality.
Don’t believe me? Just ask IBM Watson. Is IBM “open”?
Stephen E Arnold, February 19, 2020
Want Facebook Statistics?
February 19, 2020
If you want a round up of Facebook statistics, take a look at “Facebook Statistics You Need to Know.” The data come from secondary sources. You may want to verify the factoids before you head to a job interview at Facebook. If you are applying for work at a social media company or a mid tier consulting firm, go with the numbers. Here are three which DarkCyber noted:
An okay, boomer number: People aged 65 and over are the fastest-growing demographic on Facebook
An Amazon wake up call: In the U.S., 15% of social media users use Facebook to shop
TV executive, are you in touch with viewer preferences? Square Facebook videos get 35% more views than landscape videos
No data are presented about the percentage of Mr. Zuckerberg’s neighbors in Palo Alto who dislike him, however.
Stephen E Arnold, February 19, 2020
Amazon Revealed by the BBC: Analysis and News about the Bezos Bulldozer
February 18, 2020
The BBC is a subsidized news outfit. As a person who lives in America, I don’t understand the approach taken to either obtaining money or to programming. I do miss the Lilliburlero tune. Also, wouldn’t it be helpful to be able to locate BBC audio programs? Well, maybe not.
DarkCyber noted “Why Amazon Knows So Much about You.” The write up is notable for several reasons. First, it uses one of those Web layouts that are popular: Sliding windows, white text on black backgrounds, and graphics like this one of Mr. Bezos, zeros and ones, and a headline designed to make the reader uncomfortable:
Second, the article is labeled as news, but it is more of a chatty essay about Amazon, its Great Leader, and the data the company gathers via the front scoop of the Bezos bulldozer. But news? Maybe one of those chatty podcasts which purport to reveal the secrets of some companies’ success.
Third, the write up seems long. There are plenty of snappy graphics, dialog which reads a bit like the script for the video program Silicon Valley, and embedded video; for example, Margreth Vestager:
Note that this image is in close proximity to this image of Mr. Bezos and his friend. Happenstance? Sure.
The write up goes deep into Amazon history with details about a snowy, cold, and dark night. The stage setting is worthy of Edward Bulwer Lytton, the fellow who allegedly coined the phrase “the pen is mightier than the sword.” Is the BBC’s pen mightier than an Amazon sword, available in the US for $23.70 with free shipping for Prime members:
With that in mind, what is “Why Amazon Knows So Much about You?”
The most straightforward way to respond to this question is to look at what the write up covers. Here’s the general layout of the almost 5,000 word “semi news” story:
Introduction with the author’s personal take on Amazon
The early days (the meeting in the mountains) of “planning to suck data”
Amazon’s approach to business: Slippery, clever, and maybe some Google-style deflection
The Ring moment when the Shark Tank people proved they were not qualified to work for Mr. Bezos
Amazon is just like those other American monopolies and the sky is falling because staff are complaining about many things
Amazon’s big ideas for making even more money.
Venntel: Some Details
February 18, 2020
Venntel in Virginia has the unwanted attention of journalists. The company provides mobile location data and services. Like many of the firms providing specialized services to the US government, Venntel makes an effort to communicate with potential government customers via trade shows, informal gatherings, and referrals.
Venntel’s secret sauce is cleaner mobile data. The company says:
Over 50% of location data is flawed. Venntel’s proprietary platform efficiently distinguishes between erroneous data and data of value. The platform delivers 100% validated data, allowing your team to focus on results – not data quality.
NextGov reported in “Senator Questions DHS’ Use of Cellphone Location Data for Immigration Enforcement” some information about the company; for example:
- Customers include DHS and CBP
- Mobile and other sources of location data are available from the company
- The firm offers software
- Venntel, like Oracle and other data aggregators, obtains information from third-party sources; for example, marketing companies brokering mobile phone app data
Senator. Ed Markey, a democrat from Massachusetts, has posed questions to the low profile company and has requested answers by March 3, 2020.
A similar issued surfaced for other mobile data specialists. Other geo-analytic specialists work overtime to have zero public facing profile. Example, you ask. Try to chase down information about Geogence. (Bing and Google try their darnedest to change “Geogence” to “geofence.” This is a tribute to the name choice the stakeholders of Geogence have selected, and a clever exploitation of Bing’s and Google’s inept attempts to “help” its users find information.
If you want to get a sense of what can be done with location data, check out this video which provides information about the capabilities of Maltego, a go-to system to analyze cell phone records and geolocate actions. The video is two years old, but it is representative of the basic functions. Some specialist companies wrap more user friendly interfaces and point-and-click templates for analysts and investigators to use. There are hybrid systems which combine Analyst Notebook type functions with access to email and mobile phone data. Unlike the Watson marketing, IBM keeps these important services in the background because the company wants to focus on the needs of its customers, not on the needs of “real” journalists chasing “real news.”
DarkCyber laments the fact that special services companies which try to maintain a low profile and serve a narrow range of customers is in the news.
Stephen E Arnold, February 18, 2020
UK Authorities: A Stiff Upper Lip
February 18, 2020
They were not going to tell anyone what had happened. A confidential report reveals the United Nations fell victim to a massive data breach last year, we learn from The New Humanitarian’s report, “Exclusive: The Cyber Attack the UN Tried to Keep Under Wraps.” Why the organization felt justified keeping this information secret even from those it affected is a mystery, but the cover up does emphasize the power of diplomatic immunity. TNH senior editor Ben Parker describes what his team learned about the extent of the damage:
“Although it is unclear what documents and data the hackers obtained in the 2019 incident, the report seen by TNH implies that internal documents, databases, emails, commercial information, and personal data may have been available to the intruders – sensitive data that could have far-reaching repercussions for staff, individuals, and organizations communicating with and doing business with the UN. The compromised servers included 33 in the UN Office at Geneva, three at OHCHR in Geneva, and at least four in the Vienna office. According to the report, the breach also grabbed ‘active directories’, with each likely to list hundreds of users as well as human resources and health insurance systems, other databases, and network resources. The three affected offices have in total about 4,000 staff. The report, prepared by the UN Office at Geneva in the midst of containment efforts, suggests the cyber attack most seriously affected their office, which houses 1,600 staff working in a range of political and development units, including Syria peace talks, the humanitarian coordination office (OCHA), and the Economic Commission for Europe.”
The scope of the UN’s operations makes such a breach particularly troubling, but it is not entirely unexpected. An audit in 2012 identified an “unacceptable level of risk” in the organization’s cybersecurity. Despite taking measures to address the concerns, a 2018 review found its security-assessment project to be severely lacking.
News of the breach is sure to concern anyone in sensitive regions working with the United Nations, particularly on human rights issues. In many countries, those who share information with the UN’s human rights office can be subject to surveillance, imprisonment, and even torture. Though it is not known who was behind the attack, it is said to look like the work of a “sophisticated threat actor”—a good description of nation states’ hacking programs. Failing to prevent the breach is bad enough. Refusing to notify everyone who might have been affected, notes Parker, is a dangerous breach of trust.
Cynthia Murrell, February 18, 2020
Who Said This? A One Question Test
February 18, 2020
Here’s a quote DarkCyber spotted in the Wall Street Journal (paywalled, of course) in the newspaper dated February 14, 2020, which is real time for a NICE company.
“She [name blanked] asked…if Mr. [name blanked] was annoyed by [the defendant’s] Nerf guns and would “take the Nerf darts and hide them.”
This is a Nerf gun and its projectiles:
Here are your answer options:
- A member of the local junior high school science club
- A professor at Harvard
- A Googler working on podcast search
- A CIA programmer
- None of the above.
The answer is Number 4, a CIA programmer.
Fascinating. Programmer. Child’s toy. Co-worker. Hiding foam balls.
Stephen E Arnold, February 14, 2020
Encrypted Chat: Important but Possibly a Threat to Some Interests
February 18, 2020
Here is some interesting, if blatantly slanted, information. The founder of Telegram Messenger, Pavel Durov, describes the reasons his company’s rival is trouble in the post, “Why Using WhatsApp Is Dangerous.” He writes:
“A few months ago I wrote about a WhatsApp backdoor that allowed hackers to access all data on any phone running WhatsApp [1]. Facebook, its parent company, claimed at the time that they had no proof the flaw had ever been used by attackers [2]. Last week it became clear that this backdoor had been exploited to extract private communications and photos of Jeff Bezos – the richest person on the planet – who unfortunately relied on WhatsApp [3]. Since the attack seemed to originate from a foreign government, it is likely that countless other business and government leaders have been targeted [4]. In my November post, I predicted this would happen [5]. The United Nations now recommends its officials remove WhatsApp from their devices [6], while people close to Donald Trump have been advised to change their phones [7]. Given the gravity of the situation, one would expect Facebook/WhatsApp to apologize and pledge not to plant backdoors in their apps going forward. Instead, they announced that Apple, not WhatsApp, was to blame. Facebook’s vice president claimed that iOS, rather than WhatsApp, had been hacked [8].”
(Yes, those numbers represent footnote citations. See the post for those, and many more, relevant links.)
The post explains why, exactly, the Bezos breach could not have been the fault of iOS. It also explains why WhatsApp’s promise of “end-to-end encryption” is not all it’s cracked up to be. For one thing, users tend to back their chats up to the cloud; we’re reminded, as an example, that the FBI got Apple to relinquish plans to encrypt its iCloud. Then there are the backdoors—enforcement agencies pressure app developers to secretly build vulnerabilities into their platforms. These are usually described as “accidental” security flaws when discovered, as 12 have been found in WhatsApp in the last year alone. Finally, it is impossible to know whether the encryption implemented on a messaging app uses the code the company claims it does. Except for Telegram, of course, which has been open source with fully documented encryption since 2013, Durov emphasizes.
The telegram founder cheerfully admits his bias, asserting that, of course, he believes Telegram Secret Chats is more secure than the competition. That is largely because, unlike other platforms, his company refuses to comply with enforcement agencies’ demands for backdoors. As a result, Telegram is banned in Russia and Iran, unlike the dodgy WhatsApp. To read more details of Durov’s/ Telegram’s perspective, check out the post for yourself.
Cynthia Murrell, February 18, 2020
A $600 Desktop Quantum Computer That Breaks Encryption. Wow or Woof?
February 17, 2020
DarkCyber spotted a remarkable claim. A fellow named Dan Gleason, created a portable quantum computer. The idea is that this computing system can hack passwords and maybe cyber security protocols.
The Assertion
The information appeared in an article in BetaNews. “The $600 Quantum Computer That Could Spell the End for Conventional Encryption” reports as actual factual:
Using easily available parts costing just $600…, QUBY runs recently open-sourced quantum algorithms capable of executing within a quantum emulator that can perform cryptographic cracking algorithms. Calculations that would have otherwise taken years on conventional computers are now performed in seconds on QUBY.
Sounds good, almost like a folding mobile phone from Motorola or Samsung, the marketing collateral from an enterprise search vendor like Coveo or LucidWorks, or the breathless assurances of Weaviate. (Dare I say Google or Watson?)
The Team
Greg Morrell, Founder and President, Active Cypher. Formerly president of Amtec Technologies, a management and capital placement limited liability company, and before that a vice president of development at LNR Property Corp. More information about the company appears in an ETS article.
“Dan Gleason is the chief architect and product developer of Active Cyper’s file level security solution. His special skills are in bring elegant solutions to complex problems.” Source: Active Cypher DarkCyber believes that a $600 portable quantum computer is a complex challenge but with many, many problems to solve. Mr. Gleason, according to Active Cypher’s Web site, possesses “special expertise.” This is “in all Microsoft products and programs.” The “all” is interesting.
Caspian Tavallali is the chief operating officer for Active Cypher. He worked in the office of the chairman at the Parman Capital Group. Previously he worked on an MBA at IE Business School in Madrid.
Mike Quinn, Chief Strategy Officer, Active Cypher. Mr. Quinn worked at Citadel Consulting and previously at Microsoft as “Partner” and General Manager of the Enterprise Cyber Security Group. He also worked at Cisco Systems in “services”.
The teams does not appear deeply steeped in the technology of quantum computing in use at Google, IBM, and other firms able to afford the research, demonstrations, and systems.
What’s the business model for the open source infused portable quantum computer? Here’s the answer according to Mr. Gleason:
In response to the threat, Active Cypher has developed advanced dynamic cyphering encryption that is built to be quantum resilient. Gleason explains that, “Our encryption is not based on solving a mathematical problem. It’s based on a very large, random key which is used in creating the obfuscated cyphertext, without any key information within the cyphertext, and is thus impossible to be derived through prime factorization — traditional brute force attempts which use the cyphertext to extract key information from patterns derived from the key material.”
Ah, ha. License the company’s dynamic ciphering encryption!
Additional Information
More detail about the company’s encryption innovations appears in “Maintaining a Zero-Trust Security Model.” That document references quantum in the context of “quantum resilient.” The idea is that the firm’s approach will not be breakable by quantum computer technology directed at decryption or similar functions. There’s no reference to a portable $600 quantum computer. DarkCyber finds this interesting since the white paper was updated in February 2020. (Amazon has a number of patents related to its zero trust systems and methods. Some of these are reviewed in our Amazon Blockchain white paper. You can request a free summary at this link.)
Who is buying into this concept? The write up suggests that Microsoft is curious and attendees at the RSA Conference (if it is held) will be able to check out the device. The algorithms will take more time to analyze unless one has access to Google’s or IBM’s quantum systems.
Observations
A few observations seem to be in order:
- What comprises a quantum computer? Hand crafted hardware from IBM or systems from DWave?
- Are there programming languages for the portable quantum computer?
- How are the “instabilities” associated with quantum demonstrations resolved?
- How was Mr. Gleason able to create a “$600” quantum computer when the cost of Google’s DWave gizmos such down money in seven figure gulps.
Net Net
If true the $600 quantum computer is “real,” Mr. Gleason will be the Marc Zukerberg – Sergey Brin – Steve Jobs of quantum computing. If not true, Mr. Gleason will be well positioned to work as a social media PR expert.
For now, DarkCyber will sit on the quantum fence. Why? The DWave quantum computer costs about $15 million. DarkCyber is not sure if this includes the cost of staff, refrigeration equipment, and maintenance.
But $600. Almost sci-fi made real in the actual factual world.
Stephen E Arnold, February 17, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
