Is Fresh Thinking about ISPs and Network Providers Needed?
September 14, 2022
Today (September 14, 2022) I reviewed some of our research related to what I call the “new” Dark Web. Specifically, I called attention to Internet Service Providers and Network Providers who operate mostly as background services. What gets the attention are the amazing failures of high profile systems like Microsoft and Google Cloud, among others. When I hear talk about “service providers”, the comments fall into two categories:
- The giant regulated outfits some of which are government controlled and owned and others which are commercial enterprises with stakeholders and high profiles. The question, “Does cloud provider X allow its platform to deliver CSAM or phishing attacks?” is not top of mind.
- Local Internet operations which resell connectivity provided by outfits in Category 1 above or who operate servers or lease “virtual” servers on Category 1’s equipment. Most of these outfits have visibility in a specific geographic area; for example, Louisville, not far from my hovel in a hollow.
Are these two categories sufficient? Do bad actors actually do bad things on systems owned, operated and managed by Category 1 companies? Is that local company really hosting CSAM or delivering malware for a client in Hazard County, Kentucky?
The answer to these questions is, “Yes.” However, technology is available, often as open source or purpose built by some ISP/network providers to make it difficult to determine who is operating a specific “service” on third party equipment. Encryption is only part of the challenge. Basic security methods play a role. Plus, there are some specialized open source software designed to make it difficult for government authorities to track down bad actors. (I identified some of these tools in my lecture today, but I will not include that information in this free blog post. Hey, life is cruel sometimes.)
I mention the ISP/Network Provider issue because the stakes are rising and the likelihood of speeding up some investigative processes is decreasing. In this post, I want to point you to one article, which I think is important to read and think about.
Navigate to “Naver Z Teams Up with Thai Telecom Giant to Build Global Metaverse Hub.” Naver is in South Korea. True is in Thailand. South Korea has some interesting approaches to law enforcement. Thailand is one of the countries with a bureaucratic method that can make French procedures look like an SR 71 flying over a Cessna 172. (Yes, this actually happened when the SR 71 was moving at about three times the speed of sound and the Cessna 172 was zipping along at a more leisurely 120 knots.)
The write up states:
Naver Z, the metaverse unit of South Korean internet giant Naver, has partnered with Thai telecom conglomerate True to build a global metaverse hub for creators.
The new service will build on the Zepeto metaverse platform. Never heard of it? The service has 20 million monthly active users.
Here’s a key point:
The platform is particularly attractive for K-pop fans. Zepeto recently collaborated with Lisa, a member of the popular South Korean girl group Blackpink, to host a virtual event where her fans could take selfies with her avatar on Zepeto.
So what?
What if a CSAM vendor uses the platform to distribute objectionable materials? What if the bad actor operates from the US?
What type of training and expertise are required to identify the offending content, track the source of the data, and pursue the bad actor?
Keep in mind that these are two big outfits. The metaverse is a digital datasphere. Much of that environment will be virtualized and make use of distributed services. Obfuscation adds some friction to the investigative processes.
For those charged with enforcing the law, the ISPs/and Network Providers — whether large or small — will become more important factors in some types of investigations.
Is CSAM going to find its way into the “metaverse”?
I think you know the answer to the question. Now do you know what information is needed to investigate an allegation about possibly illegal behavior in Zepeto or another metaverse?
Think about your answer, please.
Stephen E Arnold, September 14, 2022
Tech Boomers: Is the Motivation Data or Power?
September 14, 2022
I read an essay by the high profile writer / analyst / technologist Douglas Rushkoff. People love his approach. In “Douglas Rushkoff: Silicon Valley’s Elite Prize Data Over Reality, and It’s Hurting Us All,” the argument runs along this path:
- Use innovation to pop up a level or what gamers call “level up”
- Get data: Overt, covert, whatever and use math art history majors don’t know about
- Use analytic outputs to generate clever stuff
- Make or get money or more money
- Get big, bigger, and biggest whatever.
I think the idea threads through Mr. Rushkoff’s new book and is a component of his metaphor, “The Mindset.”
I am confident he is correct, well, mostly correct.
I think there are other, possibly more potent chemicals fueling the thinking of the tech boomers.
One of these is a desire to demonstrate that one can do whatever one wants. Whether it is the hoo haa or the “chaos monkeys,” the antics of programmers playing Foosball during the work day, or dying with a hooker after taking an opiate, one has to accept the thought process of really smart, very clever people. I call this the high school science club idea of how the world should and will work.
The second is more fundamental. The other chemical chugging through the tech boomer is a desire for power. The type of power that leads the big dog at Facebook Meta Whatever to be a leader who cannot be removed from office. A parallel exists at a certain online ad vendor which talks equality and diversity and then terminates those who are manifestations of diversity for thinking different thoughts. And there is a certain online bookstore which allows certain types of products flow from source to consumer without worrying too much about provenance. Then when a best seller pops up that online retailer dupes the products, cuts the price, and sallies forth.
What role does innovation play in these two digital chemicals addictive characteristic? I think it plays second or third violin. Innovation is not well understood. What people who are smart and clever grasp is the idea of doing what one wants and finding a way to gain power.
Does my view suggest a dark side to the tech boomers’ success? It depends upon whom one asks.
Stephen E Arnold, September 14, 2022
AI Humorously Trolls With Fake LinkedIn Profiles
September 14, 2022
Does anyone take anything on LinkedIn seriously anymore? Beyond cringy posts, scammers use bots to make fake profiles. Bad actors are not the only ones who enjoy poking fun at LinkedIn. Business Insider explains how an AI was designed to create the best sh*ts and giggles to share on the platform: “The Internet Is Having A Field Day With This AI Tool That Pokes Fun At LinkedIn By Making Cringy, Aspirational Posts Celebrating Even The Most Mundane Tasks.”
The Viral Post Generator is an AI tool that creates genius, cringe worthy inspirational advice with buzzwords, jargon, and all the spicy goodness of a wordsmith who can write a beautiful description of rotting trash. The Viral Post Generator works by typing in an activity, then it pops out a less than savory, but inspirational post.
Tom Orbach is a growth marketing manager at the Israeli privacy tech startup Mine. He scraped over 10,000 of LinkedIn’s popular posts and discovered they were mostly self-centered, even a tad narcissistic. He made the Viral Post Generator to make fun of LinkedIn, but Orbach loves LinkedIn:
“’It’s my favorite social network, and I like how positive it is, but it’s just too cringy from time to time,’ Orbach said. ‘I just think that people should be more real and authentic and think of themselves less as thought leaders and more as colleagues. He continued: ‘The posts that go viral are usually narcissistic ones, but it doesn’t have to be that way.’”
Orbach wants people to be more authentic. Hopefully, Orbach will not lose that sense of wonder and trust in humanity, because the Internet kills that within seconds. And what about Microsoft’s smart software bird dogging LinkedIn? Yeah, really.
Whitney Grace, September 14, 2022
TikTok: Hours per Day Reveal an Intellectual Commitment to Shortened Attention Spans
September 13, 2022
I am in an interesting location. Sorry. No details, no local color. I did spot a citation to the estimable Murdochian Wall Street Journal. The citation I saw was in this Slashdot post: “Instagram Stumbles in Push to Mimic TikTok Internal Documents Show.” I am not too keen on information once private finding its way into the wild, but there is one sentence which I found darned interesting; to wit:
Instagram users cumulatively are spending 17.6 million hours a day watching Reels, less than one-tenth of the 197.8 million hours TikTok users spend each day on that platform…
From my point of view these data reveal an intense, intellectual commitment to creating shortened attention spans. What about reading a — oh, what are those artifacts called? — books.
Wow. A formula for critical thinking and learning complex subjects for sure.
Oh, one detail about my location in the US. My colleague and I watched two young people struggle to read printed instructions for closing out a cash register. Words. Yeah. Words.
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2022
Tech Torture: Email Clients
September 13, 2022
I read an amusing article called “A Microsoft User Raged against Outlook. Microsoft Lovers Fought Back.” The main idea for the article is that new go to source for real news — TikTok. The video in question presents one user of Microsoft’s Outlook email client. I vaguely recall using Outlook which would self destruct when a file exceeded the software’s mental capacity. Abandon ship! Yep, no more Outlook.
Here’s the article’s killer sentence for me:
The most poignant — and surely important — commentary came with these simple words: “Google is no better. I don’t know why none of them can work after this many years.”
The author of the write up asks an interesting question:
Could it be, in fact, that there’s a desperate need for a radical rethinking of our simplest, most important enterprise software, so that we can’t be twisting toward the Department of Doolally on a daily basis?
Why is some modern software almost impossible to use? I sat down this morning (September 11, 2022) and jotted down some reasons. You may not find my musing helpful, but — hey — that’s okay. IDC which is dinobaby speak for “I don’t care.” Here goes:
- As staff turnover, quiet quits, whatever, the replacements have to justify their “value” by changing one of more things.
- Mobile software development people have little or no appreciation for the value of interfaces which do not state change, respond to arbitrary gestures, or use incomprehensible icons rarely seen in the history of man, including cuneiform writing.
- Teams which really don’t care much about a product because the big bonuses come from the hot new thing keenly desired by management. As a result, spectacularly inept and just plain stupid ideas are implemented. The managers don’t use the product. The team members don’t use the product. The software developers don’t use the product or care much about managers or team members.
- Regression to the norm. Over time smart companies become stupid. Examples range from anti union actions in order to keep employees who believe that no one cares about them to a company yapping about racial diversity terminating a high profile minority female.
Why do people care about email clients? Maybe these individuals cannot function without digital crutches. My reaction to those who love or hate a piece of software: “Oh, poor baby.”
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2022
The Cloud and Points of Failure: Really?
September 13, 2022
A professional affiliated with Syntropy points out one of my “laws” of online; namely, that centralization is inevitable. What’s interesting about “The Internet is Now So Centralized That One Company Can Break It” is that it does not explain much about Syntropy. In my opinion, there is zero information about the c9ompany. The firm’s Web site explains:
Unlocking the power of the world’s scientific data requires more than a new tool or method – it requires a catalyst for change and collaboration across industries.
The Web site continues:
We are committed to inspiring others around our vision — a world in which the immense power of a single source of truth in biomedical data propels us towards discoveries, breakthroughs and cures faster than ever before.
The company is apparently involved with Merck KGaA, which as I recall from my Pharmaceutical News Index days, is not too keen on sharing its intellectual property, trial data, or staff biographies. Also, the company has some (maybe organic, maybe more diaphanous) connection with Palantir Technologies. Palantir, an interesting search and retrieval company morphing into search based applications and consulting, is a fairly secretive outfit despite its being a publicly traded company. (The firm’s string of quarterly disappointments and its share price send a signal to some astute observers I think.)
But what’s in the article by individual identified at the foot of the essay as Domas Povilauskas, the top dog at Syntropy. Note that the byline for the article is Benzinga Contributor which is not particularly helpful.
Hmmm. What’s up?
The write up recycles the online leads to centralization notion. Okay. But centralization is a general feature of online information, and that’s not a particularly new idea either.
The author continues:
The problem with the modern Internet is that it is essentially a set of private networks run by individual internet service providers. Each has a network, and most connections occur between these networks…. Networks are only managed locally. Routing decisions are made locally by the providers via the BGP protocol. There’s no shared knowledge, and nobody controls the entire route of the connection. Using these public ISPs is like using public transport. You have no control over where it goes. Providers own the cables and everything else. In this system, there are no incentives for ISPs to provide a good service.
The set up of ISPs strikes me as a mix of centralization and whatever works. My working classification of ISPs and providers has three categories: Constrained services (Amazon-type outfits), Boundary Operators (the TOR relay type outfits), and Unconstrained ISPs and providers (CyberBunker-type organizations). My view is that this is the opposite of centralization. In each category there are big and small outfits, but 90 percent of the action follows Arnold’s Law of Centralization. What’s interesting is that in each category — for instance, boundary operators — the centralization repeats just on a smaller scale. AccessNow runs a conference. At this conference are many operators unknown by the general online user.
The author of the article says:
The only way to get a more reliable service is to pay ISPs a lot for high-speed private connections. That’s the only way big tech companies like Amazon run their data centers. But the biggest irony is that there is enough infrastructure to handle much more growth. 70% of Internet infrastructure isn’t utilized because nobody knows about these routes, and ISPs don’t have an excellent solution to monetize them on demand. They prefer to work based on fixed, predetermined contracts, which take a lot of time to negotiate and sign.
I think this is partially correct. As soon as one shifts from focusing on what appear to be legitimate online activities to more questionable and possibly illegal activities, evidence of persistent online services which are difficult for law enforcement to take down thrive. CyberBunker generated millions and required more than two years to knock offline and reign in the owners. There is more dimensionality in the ISP/provider sector than the author of the essay considers.
The knock-offline idea sounds good. One can point to the outages and the pain caused by Microsoft Azure/Microsoft Cloud, Google Cloud, Amazon, and others as points of weakness with as many vulnerabilities as a five-legged Achilles would have.
The reality is that the generalizations about centralization sound good, seem logical, and appear to follow the Arnold Law that says online services tend to centralization. Unfortunately new technologies exist which make it possible for more subtle approaches to put services online.
Plus, I am not sure how a company focused on a biomedical single source of truth fits into what is an emerging and diverse ecosystem of ISPs and service providers.
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2022
AI/ML Book: Free, Free, Free
September 13, 2022
Want to be like the Amazon, Facebook, and Google (nah, strike the Google) smart software whiz kids? Now you can. Just read, memorize, and recombine the methods revealed in Computational Cognitive Neuroscience, Fourth Edition. According the post explaining the book:
This is the 4th edition of the online, freely available textbook, providing a complete, self-contained introduction to the field of Computational Cognitive Neuroscience, where computer models of the brain are used to understand a wide range of cognitive functions, including perception, attention, motor control, learning, memory, language, and executive function. The first part of this textbook develops a coherent set of computational and neural principles that capture the behavior of networks of interconnected neurons, and the second part applies these principles to understand the above-listed cognitive functions.
Do the methods work? Absolutely. Now there may be some minor issues to address; for example, smart cars running over small people, false positives for certain cancers, and teachers scored as flops. (Wait. Isn’t there a shortage of teachers? Smart algorithms deal with contexts, don’t they.)
Regardless of your view of a small person smashed by a smart car, you can get the basics of “close enough for horse shoes analyses, biased datasets, and more. Imagine what one can do with a LinkedIn biography and work experience listing after absorbing this work.
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2022
Apple: Setting Up to Core Alphabet and Meta Ad Revenue
September 13, 2022
I read somewhere that in the land of the free and home of the brave, half of the mobile phone users tote around Apple iPhones. Why? I will leave answering that question to TikTok and YouTube gizmo experts. (I use a cheap and outdated Essential some times; other times I used an outdated One Plus device. Why? I am a cheap dinobaby.)
I thought about this iPhone market share when I picked up the weird orange newspaper and read “Apple Plans to Double Its Digital Advertising Business Workforce.” The main idea is:
The digital ads industry has been on edge about Apple’s advertising ambitions since it launched privacy rules last year that disrupted the $400bn digital ads market, making it difficult to tailor ads to Apple’s 1bn-plus iPhone users. Since the policy was introduced, Facebook parent Meta, Snap and Twitter have lost billions of dollars in revenue — and far more in market valuation, although there have been additional contributing factors.
The digital advertising market is big, and I am skeptical about the numbers bandied about by the 20 somethings. From my vantage point in a damp hollow in rural Kentucky, I have formulated some hypotheses:
- Apple will explain its move to suck in advertising revenue in gentle terms, including references to dignity, privacy, security, and meeting user needs. I think the truth is that the new revenue will meet Apple’s needs, but you will probably touch your iPhone and say, “Heresy. This dinobaby is from another era. Yep, I am.)
- Amazon, Facebook, and Google will have to adjust. My hunch is that Amazon has some wiggle room with the online store and digital content. If you want to be found when I search for mesh sneakers, you better buy Amazon preferred and sponsored slots. The Facebook has lots of users, but it is a bit like Milton’s Beelzebub. The Google has the search thing and lots of content and eyeballs, so it can offer bundles at a very attractive price no matter what the Tim Apple outfit does. Other outfits? Yeah, good luck.
- Regulators in the US will lag behind their EU counterparts. This means that a new Wild West is about to open up. Forget the metaverse. Think renting land in the Apple-verse.
Interesting play in a mostly unregulated service space.
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2022
IBM Power10 Rah Rah: One Concerning Statement
September 12, 2022
IBM is back in the marketing game. Everyone wants a Power10 computer in a mobile phone or a MacBook Air form factor. Am I right! Yes.
The article “IBM Power10 Shreds Ice Lake Xeons for Transaction Processing.” This is a big iron made less big. The article points out use cases for those AIX users. Plus there are references to notable big iron outfits like Oakridge and Lawrence Livermore Labs, both really common computing environments like those in the local Coca-Cola distributor’s office or the regional garbage outfit’s offices in three cities.
The charts are phenomenal. Here’s an example. Look at how the blue bar is lower than the gray bar. And the power savings and the thermal data? You know what air conditioners are for as well as those nifty Caterpillar generators in the parking lot are for, don’t you?
Very encouraging.
But…
I noticed one sentence which gave me pause; to wit:
IBM will, of course, make some competitive wins, mostly in emerging markets (and in some cases as Inspur sells iron in China), and it will also win some deals for new kinds of workloads like MongoDB, EnterpriseDB, or Redis.
With the export restrictions imposed by the US on China, will the Power10 find its way to the Middle Kingdom? The use cases for Power10 at US national laboratories may exist in a country wrestling with some real estate issues. Can the Power10 help with the land and construction challenges? What about Chinese academics-only, please research outfits?
In the midst of a PR type content marketing article, I found the reference to China interesting. Will anyone else?
Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2022
PR Blast for Premium YouTube
September 12, 2022
I find the rah rah articles about Google in the Medium updates I receive kneeslappers. The enthusiasm for Google’s advanced technology are obviously content marketing by either fan folk or individuals who are paid to write baloney.
But the cake taker is a Wired story called “YouTube Premium Has Its Perks. Here Are Some to Consider.” The write up, in my opinion, is a very obvious content marketing thing.
What are the benefits of a $900 dollar a year service provided by a company which sells ads everywhere?
The Wired article identified these payoffs:
- No ads
- Built in video download
- YouTube Music
- New features before the peasants
- Background listening
Here’s how I understand these “benefits.” First, no ads. Are you kidding? Even the ad free Netflix is getting with the program. Amazon is on board the ad train now. No ads means leaving money on the table. In an era of hard to control costs and the teeny thing TikTok, the Google bean counters will consider ads. Am I right?
A build in video download. Sorry. There’s software for that. From the outfit with some really interesting tag along software (Chris PC in the Midwest to the incredibly wonky WinCam). Some downloaders are free; some charge a few dollars. Most of the non-Google downloader mostly work. Why pay I ask?
YouTube Music is a me too of MTV. Am I right… again?
New features before the unwashed have them. Well, that sounds good. Exactly what does “new feature” mean? Google explains well in my opinion. Where did Web Accelerator and Google Plus go? Yeah.
Background listening seems to say, “Google has invented radio.” Insight!
Net net: Clumsy content marketing? In my opinion, yes.
Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
