YouTube and Click Fraud: A Warning Light Flashing?
September 13, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I spotted a link to a 16 minute YouTube long form, old-fashioned video from Lon.TV titled YouTube Invalid Traffic. The person who does Lon.TV usually reviews gadgets, but this video identifies a demonetization procedure apparently used by the non-monopoly Google. (Of course, I believe Google’s assertion that almost everyone uses Google because it is just better.)
The creator reads an explanation of an administrative action and says, “What does this mean?” Would a non-monopoly provide a non explanation? Probably a non not. Thanks, MidJourney, the quality continues to slip. Great work.
Lon.TV explains that the channel received a notice of fraudulent clicks. The “fix”, which YouTube seems to implement unilaterally and without warning, decreases a YouTuber’s income. The normal Google “help” process results in words which do not explain the details of the Google-identified problem.
Click fraud has been a tricky issue for ad-supported Google for many years. About a decade ago, a conference organizer wanted me to do a talk about click fraud, a topic I did not address in my three Google monographs. The reports for a commercial company footing the bill for my research did get information about click fraud. My attorney at the time (may he rest in peace) advised me to omit that information from the monographs published by a now defunct publisher in the UK. I am no legal eagle, but I do listen to them, particularly when it costs me several hundred dollars an hour.
Click fraud is pretty simple. One can have a human click on a link.l If one is serious, one can enlist a bunch of humans using an ad in Craigslist.com. A more enterprising click fraud player would write a script and blast through a target’s ad budget, rack up lots of popularity points, or make a so-so video into the hottest sauce pan on the camp fire.
Lon.TV’s point is that most of his site’s traffic originates from Google searches. A person looking for a camera review runs a query on Google. The Google results point to a Lon.TV video. The person clicks on the Google generated link, and the video plays. The non-monopoly explains, as I understand it, that the fraudulent clicks are the fault of the YouTuber. So, the bad actor is the gadget guy at Lon.TV.
I think there is some useful information or signals in this video. I shall share my observations:
- Click fraud, based on my research a decade ago, was indeed a problem for the non-monopoly. In fact, the estimable company was trying to figure out how to identify fraudulent clicks and block them. The work was not a path to glory, so turnover often plagued those charged with stamping out click fraud. Plus, the problem was “hard.” Simple fixes like identifying lots of clicks in a short time were easily circumvented. More sophisticated ones like figuring out blocks of IP addresses responsible for lots of time spaced clicks were okay until the fraudsters figured out another approach. Thus, cat-and-mouse games began.
- The entire point of YouTube.com is to attract traffic. Therefore, it is important to recognize what is a valid new trend like videos of females wearing transparent clothing is recognized and clicks on dull stuff like streaming videos of a view of an erupting volcano are less magnetic. With more clicks, many algorithmic beavers jump in the river. More clicks means more ads pushed. The more ads pushed means more clicks on those ads and, hence, more money. It does not take much thought to figure out that a tension exists between lots of clicks Googlers and block those clicks Googlers. In short, progress is slow and money generation wins.
- TikTok has caused Google to undermine its long form videos to deal with the threat of the China-linked competitor. The result has been an erosion of clicks because one cannot inject as many ads into short videos as big boy videos. Oh, oh. Revenue gradient decline. Bad. Quick fix. Legitimize keeping more ad revenue? Would a non monopoly do that?
- The signals emitted by Lon.TV indicate that Google’s policy identified by the gadget guy is to blame the creator. Like many of Google’s psycho-cognitive methods used to shift blame, the hapless creator is punished for the alleged false clicks. The tactic works well because what’s the creator supposed to do? Explain the problem in a video which is not pushed?
Net net: Click fraud is a perfect cover to demonetized certain videos. What happens to the ad money? Does Google return it to the advertiser? Does Google keep it? Does Google credit the money back to the advertiser’s account and add a modest “handling fee”? I don’t know, and I am pretty sure the Lon.TV fellow does not either. Furthermore, I am not sure Google “knows” what its different units are doing about click fraud. What’s a non-monopoly supposed to do? I think the answer is, “Make money.” More of these methods are likely to surface in the future.
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2023
Apple and Microsoft: Gatekeeping Is Not for Us. We Are Too Small. That Is Correct. Small.
September 13, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “Apple and Microsoft Say Flagship Services Not Popular Enough to Be Gatekeepers.” Pretty amazing. Apple wanted to be a gatekeeper and mobile phone image cop and Microsoft Edge Bing thing routinely polices what its smart software outputs.
The American high school homecoming king and queen, both members of the science club, insist they are not popular. How, one may ask, did you get elected king and queen. The beaming royals said, “We are just small. You know, little itty bitty things. Do you like our outfits?” Thanks, MidJourney. Stay true to the gradient descent thing, please.
Both outfits have draconian procedures to prevent a person from doing much of anything unless one of the den mothers working for these companies gives a nod of approval.
The weird orange newspaper states:
Apple and Microsoft, the most valuable companies in the US, have argued some of their flagship services are insufficiently popular to be designated “gatekeepers” under landmark new EU legislation designed to curb the power of Big Tech. Brussels’ battle with Apple over its iMessage chat app and Microsoft’s search engine Bing comes ahead of Wednesday’s [September 6, 2023] publication of the first list of services that will be regulated by the Digital Markets Act.
The idea is a bit deeper in my opinion. Obviously neither of these outfits wants to pay fines; both want to collect money. But the real point is that this “aw, shucks” attitude is one facet of US high tech outfits’ ability to anger regulators in other countries. I have heard the words “arrogant,” “selfish,” “greedy,” and worse used to describe the smiling acolytes who represent these two firms in their different legal battles in Europe.
I want to look at this somewhat short-sighted effort by Apple and Microsoft from a different point of view. Google, in my opinion, is likely become the gatekeeper, the enforcer, the toll road collector, and the arbiter of framing “truth.” Why? Google is ready, willing, and able to fill the void.
One would assume that Apple and Microsoft would have a sit down with the Zuckbook to discuss the growing desire for content control and dissemination. Nope. The companies are sufficiently involved in their own alleged monopolistic ideas to think about a world in which Google becomes the decider.
Some countries view the US and its techno-business policies and procedures with some skepticism. What happens if the skepticism morphs into another notion? Will Teams and iPhones be enough to make these folks happy?
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2023
AI: Juicing Change
September 13, 2023
Do we need to worry about how generative AI will change the world? Yes, but no more than we had to fear automation, the printing press, horseless carriages, and the Internet. The current technology revolution is analogous to the Industrial Revolutions and technology advancements of past centuries. University of Chicago history professor Ada Palmer is aware of humanity’s cyclical relationship with technology and she discusses it in her Microsoft Unlocked piece: “We Are An Information Revolution Species.”
Palmer explains that the human species has been living in an information revolution for twenty generations. She provides historical examples and how people bemoan changes. The changes arguably remove the “art” from tasks. These tasks, however, are simplified and allow humans to create more. It also frees up humanity’s time to conquer harder problems. Changes in technology spur a democratization of information. They also mean that jobs change, so humans need to adapt their skills for continual survival.
Palmer says that AI is just another tool as humanity progresses. She asserts that the bigger problems are outdated systems that no longer serve the current society. While technology has evolved so has humanity:
“This revolution will be faster, but we have something the Gutenberg generations lacked: we understand social safety nets. We know we need them, how to make them. We have centuries of examples of how to handle information revolutions well or badly. We know the cup is already leaking, the actor and the artist already struggling as the megacorp grows rich. Policy is everything. We know we can do this well or badly. The only sure road to real life dystopia is if we convince ourselves dystopia is unavoidable, and fail to try for something better.”
AI does need a social safety net so it does not transform into a sentient computer hellbent on world domination. Palmer should point out that humans learn from their imaginations too. Star Trek or 2001: A Space Odyssey anyone? Nah, too difficult. Just generate content and sell ads.
Whitney Grace, September 13, 2023
Trust in an Online World: Very Heisenbergian Issue
September 12, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Digital information works a bit like a sandblaster. The idea is that a single grain of sand has little impact. But use a gizmo that pumps out a stream of sand grains at speed, and you have a different type of tool. The flow of online information is similar. No one gets too excited about one email or one short video. But pump out lots of these and the results is different.
The sales person says, “You can this this red sofa for no money down.” The pitch is compelling. The sales person says, “You can read about our products on Facebook and see them in TikToks.” The husband and wife don’t like red sofas. But Facebook and TikTok? Thanks, MidJourney, continue your slide down the gradient descent.
The effects of more than 20 years of unlimited data flow, one can observe the effects in many places. I have described some of these effects in my articles which appeared in specialist publications, my monographs, and in my lectures. I want to focus on one result of the flow of electronic information; that is, the erosion of social structures. Online is not the only culprit, but for this short essay, it will serve my purpose.
The old chestnut is that information is power is correct. Another truism is that the more information, the more transparency is created. That’s not a spot on statement.
“Poll: Americans Believe AI Will Hurt Elections” explains how flows of information have allegedly eroded trust in the American democratic process. The write up states:
Half of Americans expect misinformation spread by AI to impact who wins the 2024 election — and one-third say they’ll be less trusting of the results because of artificial intelligence…
The allegedly accurate factoid can be interpreted in several ways. First, the statement about lack of trust may be disinformation. The idea is that process of voting will be manipulated. Second, a person can interpret the factoid as the truth about how information erodes a social concept. Third, the statement can be viewed as an error, like those which make peer reviewed articles suspect or non reproducible.
The power of information in this case is to view the statement as one of the grains of sand shot from the body shop’s sand blaster. If one pumps out enough “data” about a bad process, why wouldn’t a person just accept the statements as accurate. Propaganda, weaponized information, and online advertising work this way.
Each reader has to figure out how to interpret the statement. As the body of accessible online information expands, think of those items as sand grains. Now let’s allow smart software to “learn” from the sand grains.
At what point is the dividing line between what’s accurate and what’s not disappear.
Net net: Online information erodes. But it is not just trust which is affected. It is the thought process required to determine what is synthetic and what is “real.” Reality consists of flows of online information. Well, that’s an issue, isn’t it?
Net net: The new reality is uncertainty. The act of looking changes things. Very quantum and quite impactful on the social fabric in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2023
New Wave Management or Is It Leaderment?
September 12, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Here’s one of my biases, and I am rather proud of it. I like to word “manager.” According to my linguistics professor Lev Soudek, the word “manage” used to mean trickery and deceit. When I was working at a blue chip consulting firm, the word meant using tactics to achieve a goal. I think of management as applied trickery. The people whom one pays will go along with the program, but not 24×7. In a company which expects 60 hours of work a week the minimum for survival of a Spanish inquisition inspired personnel approach, mental effort had to be expended.
I read “I’m a Senior Leader at Amazon and Have Seen Many Bad Managers. Here Are 3 Reasons Why There Are So Few Great Ones.” The intense, clear-eyed young person explains that he has worked at some outfits which are not among my list of the Top 10 high-technology outfits. His résumé includes eBay (a digital yard sale), a game retailer, and the somewhat capricious Amazon (are we a retail outfit, are we a cloud outfit, are we a government services company, are we a data broker, are we a streaming company, etc.).
A modern practitioner of leaderment is having trouble getting the employees to fall in, throw their shoulders back, and mark in step to the cadence of Am-a-zon, Am-a-zon like a squad of French Foreign Legion troops on Bastille Day. Thanks, MidJourney. The illustration did not warrant a red alert, but it is also disappointing.
I assume that these credentials are sufficient to qualify for a management guru. Here are the three reasons managers are less than outstanding.
First, managers just sort of happen. Few people decide to be a manager. Ah, serendipity or just luck.
Second, managers don’t lead. (Huh, the word is “management”, not “leaderment.”)
Third, pressure for results means some managers are “sacrificing employee growth.” (I am not sure what this statement means. If one does not achieve results, then that individual and maybe his direct reports, the staff he leaderments, and his boss will be given an opportunity to find their future elsewhere. Translation for the GenZ reader: You are fired.
Let’s step back and think about these insights. My initial reaction is that a significant re-languaging has taken place in the write up. A good manager does not have to be a leader. In fact, when I was a guest lecturer at the Kansai Institute of Technology, I met a number of respected Japanese managers. I suppose some were leaders, but a number made it clear that results were number one or ichiban.
In my work career, confusing to manage with to lead would create some confusion. I recall when I was working in the US Congress with a retired admiral who was elected to represent an upscale LA district, the way life worked was simple: The retired admiral issued orders. Lesser entities like myself figured out how to execute, tapped appropriate resources, and got the job done. There was not much leadership required of me. I organized; I paid people money; and I hassled everyone until the retired admiral grunted in a happy way. There was no leaderment for me. The retired admiral said, “I want this in two days.” There was not much time for leaderment.
I listened to a podcast called GeekWire. The September 2, 2023, program made it clear that the current big dog at Amazon wants people to work in the office. If not, these folks are going to go away. What makes this interesting is that the GeekWire pundits pointed out that the Big Dog had changed his story, guidelines, and procedures for this work from home and work from office approach multiple times.
Therefore, I am not sure if there is management or leaderment at the world’s largest digital mall. I do know that modern leaderment is not for me. The old-fashioned meaning of manage seems okay to me.
Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2023
Will the Cloud Energize Google or Just Generate Marketing Material?
September 12, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read an article in Forbes (once the capitalist tool and now a tool for capitalists I think) titled “How Google Cloud Is Leveraging Generative AI To Outsmart Competition.” The competition? Does this mean AI entities in China, quasi-monopolies like Facebook (aka Meta) and Microsoft, or tiny start ups with piles of venture funding?
A decider in the publishing sector learns how to make it rain money. Is the method similar to that of the era of Yellow Journalism? Nope. The approach is squarely in line with Madison Avenue’s traditional approach. Thanks, Mother MidJourney. No red alert. Try to scramble up the gradient descent today, please.
The article’s title signals content marketing to me. As I read through the essay, it struck me as product placement.
Let me cite a couple of examples:
First, consider this passage:
Compared to Cloud TPU v4, the new Google Cloud TPU v5e has up to 2x higher training performance per dollar and up to 2.5x higher inference performance per dollar for LLMs and generative AI models. … Google is introducing Multislice technology in preview to make it easier to scale up training jobs, allowing users to quickly scale AI models beyond the boundaries of physical TPU pods—up to tens of thousands of Cloud TPU v5e or TPU v4 chips.
The “information” seems to come from a technical source proud of the advanced developments at the beloved Google. I would suggest that the information payload of the passage is zero for a person working in a Fortune 1000 company engaged in retail or financial services. In my opinion, the information is not even useful for marketing. Forbes is writing for the people not in the Google AI parade.
What about this passage?
Having its own foundation models enables Google to iterate faster based on usage patterns and customer feedback. Since the announcement of PaLM2 at Google I/O in April 2023, the company has enhanced the foundation model to support 32,000 token context windows and 38 new languages. Similarly, Codey, the foundation model for code completion, offers up to a 25% quality improvement in major supported languages for code generation and code chat. The primary benefit of owning the foundation model is the ability to customize it for specific industries and use cases.
Let’s set aside the tokens thing and the assertion about “25 percent quality improvement” and get to the point: “The primary benefit of owning the foundation model is the ability to customize it for specific industries and use cases.” To me, I think that Google wants control: The foundation, the tools for building, and the use cases. Since these are software, Google benefits because it furthers its alleged monopoly grip on information. Furthermore, Google as a super user can easily inject for fee, weaponized, or shaped content into the workflows to achieve its objective: Money. I suppose some of the people in the parade will get a payoff like a drink of Google-Ade. But the winner is Google.
My view of this “real” news write up is a recycling of comments I have offered in my essays since the days of Backrub:
- Google’s technology is designed to allow control of information
- The methods are those of other alleged monopolies: Control and distribution to generate money and toll booths
- The executives are unable to break out of the high school science club bubble in which they think, explain, and operate.
I wonder if Malcolm Forbes would be happy with this “real” news about Google, the number three cloud provider making a play to mash up infrastructure, information processing, and monetization in an objective news story?
My hunch is that he would want to ride his Harley up Broadway to get away from those who have confused product placement with hard reporting.
Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2023
Good New and Bad News: Smart Software Is More Clever Than Humanoids
September 11, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
After a quick trip to Europe, I will be giving a lecture about fake data. One of the case examples concerns the alleged shortcuts taken by Frank Financial in its efforts to obtain about $175 million from JPMorgan Chase. I like to think of JPMC as “the smartest guys in the room” when it comes to numbers related to money. I suppose wizards at Goldman or McKinsey would disagree. But the interesting swizzle on the JPMC story is that alleged fraudster was a graduate of Wharton.
That’s good news for getting an education in moral probity at a prestigious university.
A big, impressive university’s smart software beats smart students at Tic Tac Toe. Imagine what these wizards will be able to accomplish when smart software innovates and assists the students with financial fancy dancing. Thanks, Mother MJ. Deep on the gradient descent, please.
Flash forward to the Murdoch real news story “M.B.A. Students vs. ChatGPT: Who Comes Up With More Innovative Ideas?” [The Rupert toll booth is operating.] The main idea of the write up is that humanoid Wharton students were less “creative,” “innovative,” and “inventive” than smart software. What’s this say for the future of financial fraud. Mere humanoids like those now in the spotlight at the Southern District of New York show may become more formidable with the assistance of smart software. The humanoids were caught, granted it took JPMC a few months after the $175 million check was cashed, but JPMC did figure it out via a marketing text.
Imagine. Wharton grads with smart software. How great will that be for the targets of financial friskiness? Let’s hope JPMC gets its own cyber fraud detecting software working. In late 2022, the “smartest guys in the room” were not smart enough to spot synthetic and faked data. Will smart software be able to spot smart software scams?
That’s the bad new. No.
Stephen E Arnold, September 11, 2023
AI and the Legal Eagles
September 11, 2023
Lawyers and other legal professionals know that AI algorithms, NLP, machine learning, and robotic process automation can leverage their practices. They will increase their profits, process cases faster, and increase efficiency. The possibilities for AI in legal practice appear to be win-win situation, ReadWrite discusses how different AI processes can assist law firms and the hurdles for implementation in: “Artificial Intelligence In Legal Practice: A Comprehensive Guide.”
AI will benefit law firms in streamlining research and analytics processes. Machine learning and NLP can consume large datasets faster and more efficiently than humans. Contract management and review processes will greatly be improved, because AI offers more comprehensive analysis, detects discrepancies, and decreases repetitive tasks.
AI will also lighten legal firms workloads with document automation and case management. Legal documents, such as leases, deeds, wills, loan agreements, etc., will decrease errors and reduce review time. AI will lowers costs for due diligence procedures and e-discovery through automation and data analytics. These will benefit clients who want speedy results and low legal bills.
Law firms will benefit the most from NLP applications, predictive analytics, machine learning algorithms, and robotic process automation. Virtual assistants and chatbots also have their place in law firms as customer service representatives.
Despite all the potential improvements from AI, legal professionals need to adhere to data privacy and security procedures. They must also develop technology management plans that include, authentication protocols, backups, and identity management strategies. AI biases, such as diversity and sexism issues, must be evaluated and avoided in legal practices. Transparency and ethical concerns must also be addressed to be compliant with governmental regulations.
The biggest barriers, however, will be overcoming reluctant staff, costs, anticipating ROI, and compliancy with privacy and other regulations.
“With a shift from viewing AI as an expenditure to a strategic advantage across cutting-edge legal firm practices, embracing the power of artificial intelligence demonstrates significant potential for intense transformation within the industry itself.”
These challenges are not any different from past technology implementations, except AI could make lawyers more reliant on technology than their own knowledge. Cue the Jaws theme music.
Whitney Grace, September 11, 2023
Disney Alleges Some Cast Are Not Decorous
September 11, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I spotted a story which may not be 100 percent on the money. If I were not 78, I would scour online resources to determine the veracity of “Furious Disney Bosses Call in Investigators after Disgruntled Employee Shares Shocking Clips of Beloved Characters.” For the purposes of this brief essay, let’s assume that the estimable Sun is writing the Truth According to Walt, who is allegedly frozen in a cryogenic chamber with machine generated images of Minnie Mouse doing interesting things at Disneyland.
A mutant character finds its way to a football game in Orlando. The egg shaped mascot shouts, “Everybody now. Twerk twerk twerk.” The Orlando Pride faithful takes off their Orlando Solar Bear’s hats and puts on official Mickey Mouse ears. Twerk twerk twerk. Walt and Roy Disney look alikes joined the fund. Thanks, MidJourney. No red alerts on my prompt. Too bad reversing the gradient descent is going to be difficult. Twerk twerk twerk.
The write up reports as “real news”:
Disney chiefs are furious over leaked videos showing theme park characters twerking. Dancing staff are also seen provocatively removing their costumes in behind-the-scenes footage.
The well paid and really content “cast” members dancing in a suggestive manner and/or removing their clothes? Come on, Sunny. Disneyland is super clean. The trash is removed and carried away via underground service tunnels. I have heard that interesting activities have taken place in those service tunnels. But my source with a retired Orlando law enforcement officer who was not a fan of the Disney outfit. I assumed he had to watch Snow White too many times while raising his two children. Hi ho, hi ho, it’s off to jail we go or some similar refrain is lodged in my brain, and I saw Snow White only one time. That was sufficient, right, Dopey?
The write up adds:
They [the management team presiding over the smoking crater of Disney earnings] have called in a team of investigators in a bid to root out those involved in filming the footage and those posting it. A source said: “It looks silly, but for Disney protecting the integrity of those characters is absolutely paramount. “They’ve asked top investigators to shut down the feed and try to identify those responsible, who are in breach of their employment contracts. “The last thing Disney wants is decapitated Mickey and Minnie heads going viral online and, even worse, anything that looks at all risqué or adult.
I am not sure about the “last thing” assertion. I learned while preparing for an upcoming lecture about smart software generating interesting Disney clips for those who like their anime spicy. Smart software is merely a technological enabler. It takes a human to merge a Disney character with the mentality of a ComicCon Furry meet up.
And what about Disney’s streaming tactics? Charter Spectrum and some sports fans who leave ESPN on 24×7 are not happy with the Magic Kingdom.
Okay, cast, more training will be required. For those curious about the beloved characters antics, check out TikTok.
Stephen E Arnold, September 11, 2023
Malware: The NSO Group and a Timeline
September 8, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
A flurry of NSO Group news appeared in my newsfeeds this morning. Citizen Labs issued an advisory. You can find that short item in “BLASTPASSNSO Group iPhone Zero-Click, Zero-Day Exploit Captured in the Wild.” Recorded Future, a cyber security company, published “Apple Discloses Zero-Days Linked.” Variants of these stories are percolating, including British tabloid newspapers like The Metro. One message comes through: Update your iPhones.
The information makes clear that a vulnerability “path” appears to be blocked. That’s good news. The firm which allegedly discovered the way into user mobile devices is the NSO Group. The important fact, at least for me, is that this organization opened its doors for business in 2010. The origin story, if one believes the information once can find using a free Web search engine, is that the company evolved from a mobile phone repair business. After repairing and tinkering, the founder set up a company to assist government agencies in obtaining information from mobile devices believed to be used by bad actors. Agree or disagree, the origin story is interesting.
What’s important for me is that the time between the company’s start up and the “good news” about addressing a vulnerability in certain devices has been a decade, maybe more. I don’t have an opinion about whether the time window could have been closed more quickly. What’s important to me is that the information is diffusing quickly. On one hand, that’s beneficial to those concerned about the security of their devices. On the other hand, that’s the starter’s gun for bad actors to deploy another hard-to-spot exploit.
I have several observation about this vulnerability:
- The challenge to those who create hardware and software is to realize that security issues are likely to exist. Those who discover these and exploit them, blindside the company. The developers have to reverse engineer the exploit and then figure out what their colleagues missed. Obviously this is a time consuming and difficult process. Perhaps 10 years is speedy or slow. I don’t know. But an error made many years ago can persist and affect millions of device owners.
- The bad actor acts and the company responsible for chasing down the flaw reacts. This is a cat-and-mouse game. As a result, the hardware and software developers are playing defense. The idea that a good defense is better than a good offense may not be accurate. Those initial errors are, by definition, unknown. The gap between the error and the exploit allows bad actors to do what they want. Playing defense allows the offense time to gear up something new. The “good guys” are behind the curve in this situation.
- The fact that the digital ecosystem is large means that the opportunity for mischief increases. In my lectures, I like to point out that technology yields benefits, but it also is an enabler of those who want to do mischief.
Net net: The steady increase in cyber crime and the boundary between systems and methods which are positive and negative becomes blurred. Have we entered a stage in technical development in which the blurred space between good and bad has become so large that one cannot tell what is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate? Are we living in a “ghost Web” or a “shadow land?”
Stephen E Arnold, September 8, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
