Original Research: Not-So-Original Assertions about Content Appropriation
April 2, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby sharing an observation about younger managers and their innocence.
The Social Science Research Council published the 30-plus page report “Beyond Public Access in LLM Pre-Training Data.” The subtitle reveals the principal finding: “Non-Public Non-Public Book Content in OpenAI’s Models.”
The write up states:
Using a legally obtained dataset of 34 copyrighted O’Reilly Media books, we apply the DE-COP membership inference attack method to investigate whether OpenAI’s large language models were trained on copyrighted content without consent. Our AUROC scores show that GPT-4o, OpenAI’s more recent and capable model, demonstrates strong recognition of paywalled O’Reilly book content (AUROC = 82%), compared to OpenAI’s earlier model GPT-3.5 Turbo. In contrast, GPT-3.5 Turbo shows greater relative recognition of publicly accessible O’Reilly book samples. GPT-4o Mini, as a much smaller model, shows no knowledge of public or non-public O’Reilly Media content when tested (AUROC ? 50%). Testing multiple models, with the same cutoff date, helps us account for potential language shifts over time that might bias our findings. These results highlight the urgent need for increased corporate transparency regarding pre-training data sources as a means to develop formal licensing frameworks for AI content training.
I want to mention that the DE-COP method provide one way to determine whether a specific data record was part of the training dataset for a machine learning model. The result of the SSRC’s research suggests that as OpenAI enhanced its models, the OpenAI organization appears to have used non-public content. Smaller (less capable OpenAI) models seemed to know less about the test set; the bigger models knew more.
The write up concludes that developers of smart software are sucking down data without obtaining permission or entering into licensing deals with publishers, copyright holders, or entities working on content not yet available as public content like this dinobaby blog post.
To sum up: A not-to-original assertion that certain organizations just take content and ignore rights is apparently accurate in this set of research. OpenAI accelerates. Speed is a positive. Breaking speed limits is believed to be no big deal.
A bit of a flashback: Over 40 years ago, I participated in a series of meetings to license the right to create abstracts of original articles from more than 1000 different publications. Our efforts were successful. Most publishers of academic business and management publications knew zero about online information services. The idea of summarizing an eight page article about executive compensation was unfamiliar to most of the people with whom our organization interacted over a period of years. Nevertheless, the owner of the database unit of the Courier Journal & Louisville Times Company insisted that we get signed agreements. The process was time consuming and expensive. Some outfits had representatives. So a negotiation went through layers of bureaucracy. Other publishers wanted a sit down meeting and a dog-and-pony show to explain why we wanted to boil down a 600 word article to about 150 words. There were worries about the impact of online access. There were worries about control of editorial content. There were worries about signing away rights. We couldn’t assuage worries, but we chugged along. The reputations of the Courier Journal and Barry Bingham Jr. helped but our small database operation had to follow the rules.
If the data in the cited document are accurate, the attitude of Barry Bingham Jr. would not have gained much traction at OpenAI. Instead of my getting a pat on the head for setting up the licensing deals with the able help of other Courier Journal professionals, I would have gotten kicked on the shin or worse.
Several observations:
- Observing content ownership remains important despite the acceleration toward illegal behaviors in the online sector
- Using show-and-tells and explaining the benefits of participating in digital innovations remains important. Knowledge minimizes anger and other negative reactions to pre-emptive behavior
- Managing the process is as important as demonstrating an unwillingness to conform to industry, social, and legal norms.
Let’s assume that the findings in the SSRC are off by 50 percent. Does that change what appears to be a strong possibility of some fancy dancing at the OpenAI disco?
My conclusion is that taking short cuts is part of the Silicon Valley approach of doing whatever and just saying, “Wow, I am sorry.”
I asked ChatGPT 4 via You.com this question:
Should I create an online product and just use content from the Harvard Business Review without permission?
Here’s the response:
No, you should not create an online product using content from the Harvard Business Review (HBR) without permission. Doing so would likely violate copyright laws and HBR’s usage policies. Here’s why:
HBR’s Copyright and Usage Policies
- HBR Material is Copyrighted: Harvard Business Review explicitly states that its content is protected by copyright, and no part of its publications may be reproduced without permission.
- Usage Restrictions: HBR has strict policies regarding how its content can be used. For example, even in academic settings, HBR articles cannot be freely distributed unless done through specific channels like creating course packs via "Harvard Business Publishing for Educators"
Permission is Required: If you want to use HBR content, you must obtain explicit permission. This includes reproducing, distributing, or using their material in any form.
Legal and Ethical Implications
- Copyright Infringement: Using HBR content without permission would likely constitute copyright infringement, which can result in legal action, fines, or other penalties.
- Ethical Concerns: Beyond legal issues, using someone else’s intellectual property without authorization is unethical and could harm your reputation or business.
What You Should Do Instead
- Seek Permission: Contact Harvard Business Review to request permission to use their content. They may have licensing options available for your intended use.
- Create Original Content: Instead of using HBR’s material, consider creating your own original content inspired by their ideas (but without copying their text or proprietary materials).
- Use Public Domain or Licensed Content: Look for content that is in the public domain or available under a license (e.g., Creative Commons) that allows commercial use.
Conclusion
Using HBR content without permission is not only illegal but also against their explicit policies. To avoid legal and ethical issues, either seek proper licensing or create your own original material.
In this case, the OpenAI’s AI may be more intelligent that some people engaged in content acquisition at the firm. But I am a dinobaby. I try to follow the social, legal, and ethical rules as my parents who had only high school educations taught me. I am a dinobaby. A sad dinobaby.
Stephen E Arnold, April 2, 2025
Dog Whistle Only Law Firm Partners Can Hear: More Profits, Bigger Bonuses!
March 21, 2025
Dinobaby, here. No smart software involved unlike some outfits. I did use Sam AI-Man’s art system to produce the illustration in the blog post.
Truth be told, we don’t do news. The write ups in my “placeholder” blog are my way to keep track of interesting items. Some of these I never include in my lectures. Some find their way into my monographs. The FOGINT stuff: Notes for my forthcoming monograph about Telegram, the Messenger mini app, and that lovable marketing outfit, the Open Network Foundation. If you want to know more, write benkent2020 at yahoo dot com. Some slacker will respond whilst scrolling Telegram Groups and Channels for interesting items.
Thanks, Sam AI-Man.
But this write up is an exception. This is a post about an article in the capitalist tool. (I have always like the ring of the slogan. I must admit when I worked in the Big Apple, I got a kick out of Malcolm Forbes revving his Harley at the genteel biker bar. But the slogan and the sound of the Hog? Unforgettable.)
What is causing me to stop my actual work to craft a blog post at 7 am on March 21, 2025? This article in Forbes Magazine. You know, the capitalist tool. Like a vice grip for Peruvian prison guards I think.
“Risk Or Revolution: Will AI Replace Lawyers?” sort of misses the main point of smart software and law firms. I will address the objective of big time law firms in a moment, but I want to look at what Hessie Jones, the strategist or stratagiste maybe, has to say:
Over the past few years, a growing number of legal professionals have embraced AI tools to boost efficiency and reduce costs. According to recent figures, nearly 73% of legal experts now plan to incorporate AI into their daily operations. 65% of law firms agree that "effective use of generative AI will separate the successful and unsuccessful law firms in the next five years."
Talk about leading the witness. “Who is your attorney?” The person in leg cuffs and an old fashioned straight jacket says, “Mr. Gradient Descent, your honor.”
The judge, a savvy fellow who has avoid social media criticism says, “Approach the bench.”
Silence.
The write up says:
Afolabi [a probate lawyer, a graduate of Osgoode Law School, York University in Canada] who holds a master’s from the London School of Economics, describes the evolution of legal processes over the past five years, highlighting the shift from paper-based systems to automated ones. He explains that the initial client interaction, where they tell a story and paint a picture remains crucial. However, the method of capturing and analyzing this information has changed significantly. "Five years ago, that would have been done via paper. You’re taking notes," Afolabi states, "now, there’s automation for that." He emphasizes that while the core process of asking questions remains, it’s now "the machine asking the questions." Automation extends to the initial risk analysis, where the system can contextualize the kind of issues and how to best proceed. Afolabi stresses that this automation doesn’t replace the lawyer entirely: "There’s still a lawyer there with the clients, of course."
Okay, the human lawyer, not the Musk envisioned Grok 3 android robot, will approach the bench. Well, someday.
Now the article’s author delivers the payoff:
While concerns about AI’s limitations persist, the consensus is clear: AI-driven services like Capita can make legal services more affordable and accessible without replacing human oversight.
After finishing this content marketing write up, I had several observations:
- The capitalist tool does not point out the entire purpose of the original Forbes, knock out Fortune Magazine and deliver information that will make a reader money.
- The article ignores the reality that smart software fiddling with word probabilities makes errors. Whether it was made up cases like Michael Cohen’s brush with AI or telling me that a Telegram-linked did not host a conference in Dubai, those mistakes might add some friction to smart speeding down the information highway.
- Lawyers will use AI to cut costs and speed billing cycles. In my opinion, lawyers don’t go to jail. Their clients do.
Let’s imagine the hog-riding Malcolm at his desk pondering great thoughts like this:
“It’s so much easier to suggest solutions when you don’t know too much about the problem.”
The problem for law firms will be solved by smart software; that is, reducing costs. Keep in mind, lawyers don’t go to jail that often. The AI hype train has already pulled into the legal profession. Will the result be better lawyering? I am not sure because once a judge or jury makes a decision the survey pool is split 50 50.
But those bonuses? Now that’s what AI can deliver. (Imagine the sound of a dog whistle with an AI logo, please.)
PS. If you are an observer of blue chip consulting firms. The same payoff logic applies. Both species have evolved to hear the more-money frequency.
Stephen E Arnold, March 21, 2025
A NewPlay for Google and Huawei: A Give and Go?
March 14, 2025
Time for Google to get smarmy in court. We learn from TorrentFreak, "Google Must Testify as LaLiga Demands Criminal Liability for ‘Piracy Profits’." Writer Andy Maxwell summarizes:
"A court in Murcia, Spain, has ordered Google to testify in a criminal case concerning IPTV app, NewPlay. Football league LaLiga, whose matches were allegedly offered illegally through the app, previously called for the directors of Google, Apple, and Huawei to face criminal charges. LaLiga criticized the companies for failing to disable copies of NewPlay already installed on users’ devices. Google and Huawei must now testify as ‘profit-making participants’ in an alleged piracy scheme."
See the write-up for the twists and turns of the case thus far. The key point: Removing NewPlay from app stores was not enough for LaLiga. The league demands they reach in and remove the player from devices it already inhabits. The court agrees. We learn:
"The court order required Google, Apple, and Huawei to disable or delete NewPlay to prevent future use on users’ mobile devices. That apparently didn’t happen. Unhappy with the lack of compliance, in 2024 LaLiga called on the investigating judge to punish the tech companies’ directors. LaLiga says that the installed NewPlay apps still haven’t been remotely disabled but given the precedent that may set, LaLiga seems unlikely to let the matter go without a fight. With support from Telefónica, Mediapro and rights group EGEDA, LaLiga wants to hold Google and Huawei responsible for pirated content reportedly made available via the NewPlay app."
So now the court is requiring reps from Google and Huawei to appear and address this partial compliance. Why not Apple, too? That is a mystery, reports Maxwell. He also wonders about the bigger picture. The Newplay website is still up, he notes, though both its internal and external links are currently disabled. Besides, at least one other app exists that appears to do the same thing. Will the court become embroiled in a long-term game of IPTV whack-a-mole? Google is a magnet for the courts it seems.
Cynthia Murrell, March 14, 2025
FOGINT: France Gears Up for More Encrypted Message Access
March 12, 2025
Yep, another dinobaby original.
Buoyed with the success of the Pavel Durov litigation, France appears to be getting ready to pursue Signal, the Zuck WhatsApp, and the Switzerland-based Proton Mail. The actions seem to lie in the future. But those familiar with the mechanisms of French investigators may predict that information gathering began years ago. With ample documentation, the French legislators with communication links to the French government seem to be ready to require Pavel-ovian responses to requests for user data.
“France Pushes for Law Enforcement to Signal, WhatsApp, and Encrypted Email” reports:
An amendment to France’s proposed “Narcotraffic” bill, which is passing through the National Assembly in the French Parliament, will require tech companies to hand over decrypted chat messages of suspected criminals within 72 hours. The law, which aims to provide French law enforcement with stronger powers to combat drug trafficking, has raised concerns among tech companies and civil society groups that it will lead to the creation of “backdoors” in encrypted services that will be exploited by cyber criminals and hostile nation-states. Individuals that fail to comply face fines of €1.5m while companies risk fines of up 2% of their annual world turnover if they fail to hand over encrypted communications demanded by French law enforcement.
The practical implications of these proposals is two-fold. First, the proposed legislation provides an alert to the identified firms that France is going to take action. The idea is that the services know what’s coming. The French investigators delight at recalcitrant companies proactively cooperating will probably be beneficial for the companies. Mr. Durov has learned that cooperation makes it possible for him to environ a future that does not include a stay at the overcrowded and dangerous prison just 16 kilometers from his hotel in Paris. The second is to keep up the momentum. Other countries have been indifferent to or unwilling to take on certain firms which have blown off legitimate requests for information about alleged bad actors. The French can be quite stubborn and have a bureaucracy that almost guarantees a less than amusing for the American outfits. The Swiss have experience in dealing with France, and I anticipate a quieter approach to Proton Mail.
The write up includes this statement:
opponents of the French law argue that breaking an encryption application that is allegedly designed for use by criminals is very different from breaking the encryption of chat apps, such as WhatsApp and Signal, and encrypted emails used by billions of people for non-criminal communications. “We do not see any evidence that the French proposal is necessary or proportional. To the contrary, any backdoor will sooner or later be exploited…
I think the statement is accurate. Information has a tendency to leak. But consider the impact on Telegram. That entity is in danger of becoming irrelevant because of France’s direct action against the Teflon-coated Russian Pavel Durov. Cooperation is not enough. The French action seems to put Telegram into a credibility hole, and it is not clear if the organization’s overblown crypto push can stave off user defection and slowing user growth.
Will the French law conflict with European Union and other EU states’ laws? Probably. My view is that the French will adopt the position, “C’est dommage en effet.” The Telegram “problem” is not completely resolved, but France is willing to do what other countries won’t. Is the French Foreign Legion operating in Ukraine? The French won’t say, but some of those Telegram messages are interesting. Oui, c’est dommage. Tip: Don’t fool around with a group of French Foreign Legion fellows whether you are wearing and EU flag T shirt and carrying a volume of EU laws, rules, regulations, and policies.
How will this play out? How would I know? I work in an underground office in rural Kentucky. I don’t think our local grocery store carries French cheese. However, I can offer a few tips to executives of the firms identified in the article:
- Do not go to France
- If you do go to France, avoid interactions with government officials
- If you must interact with government officials, make sure you have a French avocat or avocate lined up.
France seems so wonderful; it has great food; it has roads without billboards; and it has a penchant for direct action. Examples range from French Guiana to Western Africa. No, the “real” news doesn’t cover these activities. And executives of Signal and the Zuckbook may want to consider their travel plans. Avoid the issues Pavel Durov faces and may have resolved this calendar year. Note the word “may.”
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2025
Patents, AI, and Lawyers: Litigators, Start Your Engines
March 7, 2025
Patents can be a useful source of insights, a fact startup Patlytics is banking on. TechCrunch reports, "Patlytics Raises $14M for its Patent Analytics Platform." The firm turbo-charges intellectual property research with bespoke AI. We learn:
"Patlytics’ large language models (LLMs) and generative AI-powered engine are custom-built for IP-related research and other work such as patent application drafting, invention disclosures, invalidity analysis, infringement detection/analysis, Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) analysis, and IP assets portfolio management."
Apparently, the young firm is already meeting with success. We learn:
"The 1-year-old startup said it has seen a 20x increase in ARR and an 18x expansion in its customer base within six months, with a sustained 300% month-over-month growth rate. Patlytics did not disclose how many customers it has but said approximately 50% of its customer base are law firms, and the other half are corporate clients from industries like semiconductors, bio, pharmaceuticals, and more. Additionally, the company now serves customers in South Korea and Japan, and recently launched its first pilot product in London and Germany. Its clients include Abnormal Security, Google, Koch Disruptive Technologies, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Richardson Oliver, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg, Xerox, and Young Basile."
That is quite a client roster in such a short time. This round, combined with April’s seed round, brings the companies funding total to $21 million. The firm will put the funds to use hiring new engineers and expanding its products. Based in New York, Patlytics was launched in January, 2024.
Will AI increase patent litigation? Do Tesla Cybertrucks attract attention?
Cynthia Murrell, March 7, 2025
Lawyers and High School Students Cut Corners
March 6, 2025
Cost-cutting lawyers beware: using AI in your practice may make it tough to buy a new BMW this quarter. TechSpot reports, "Lawyer Faces $15,000 Fine for Using Fake AI-Generated Cases in Court Filing." Writer Rob Thubron tells us:
"When representing HooserVac LLC in a lawsuit over its retirement fund in October 2024, Indiana attorney Rafael Ramirez included case citations in three separate briefs. The court could not locate these cases as they had been fabricated by ChatGPT."
Yes, ChatGPT completely invented precedents to support Ramirez’ case. Unsurprisingly, the court took issue with this:
"In December, US Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Indiana Mark J. Dinsmore ordered Ramirez to appear in court and show cause as to why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for the errors. ‘Transposing numbers in a citation, getting the date wrong, or misspelling a party’s name is an error,’ the judge wrote. ‘Citing to a case that simply does not exist is something else altogether. Mr Ramirez offers no hint of an explanation for how a case citation made up out of whole cloth ended up in his brief. The most obvious explanation is that Mr Ramirez used an AI-generative tool to aid in drafting his brief and failed to check the citations therein before filing it.’ Ramirez admitted that he used generative AI, but insisted he did not realize the cases weren’t real as he was unaware that AI could generate fictitious cases and citations."
Unaware? Perhaps he had not heard about the similar case in 2023. Then again, maybe he had. Ramirez told the court he had tried to verify the cases were real—by asking ChatGPT itself (which replied in the affirmative). But that query falls woefully short of the due diligence required by the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Thubron notes. As the judge who ultimately did sanction the firm observed, Ramirez would have noticed the cases were fiction had his attempt to verify them ventured beyond the ChatGPT UI.
For his negligence, Ramirez may face disciplinary action beyond the $15,000 in fines. We are told he continues to use AI tools, but has taken courses on its responsible use in the practice of law. Perhaps he should have done that before building a case on a chatbot’s hallucinations.
Cynthia Murrell, March 6, 2025
Smart Software and Law Firms: Realities Collide
February 19, 2025
This blog post is the work of a real-live dinobaby. No smart software involved.
TechCrunch published “Legal Tech Startup Luminance, Backed by the Late Mike Lynch, Raises $75 Million.” Good news for Luminance. Now the company just needs to ring the bell for those putting up the money. The write up says:
Claiming to be capable of highly accurate interrogation of legal issues and contracts, Luminance has raised $75 million in a Series C funding round led by Point72 Private Investments. The round is notable because it’s one of the largest capital raises by a pure-play legal AI company in the U.K. and Europe. The company says it has raised over $115 million in the last 12 months, and $165 million in total. Luminance was originally developed by Cambridge-based academics Adam Guthrie (founder and chief technical architect) and Dr. Graham Sills (founder and director of AI).
Why is Luminance different? The method is similar to that used by Deepseek. With concerns about the cost of AI, a method which might be less expensive to get up and keep running seems like a good bet.
However, Eudia has raised $105 million with backing from people familiar with Relativity’s legal business. Law dot com suggests that Eudia will streamline legal business processes.
The article “Massive Law Firm Gets Caught Hallucinating Cases” offers an interesting anecdote about a large law firm’s facing sanctions. What did the big boys and girls at the law firm do? Those hard working Type A professionals cited nine cases to support an argument. There is just one trivial issue perplexing the senior partners. Eight of those cases were “nonexistent.” That means made up, invented, and spot out by a nifty black box of probabilities and their methods.
I am no lawyer. I did work as an expert witness and picked up some insight about the thought processes of big time lawyers. My observations may not apply to the esteemed organizations to which I linked in this short essay, but I will assume that I am close enough for horseshoes.
- Partners want big pay and juicy bonuses. If AI can help reduce costs and add protein powder to the compensation package, AI is definitely a go-to technology to use.
- Lawyers who are very busy all of the billable time and then some want to be more efficient. The hyperbole swirling around AI makes it clear that using an AI is a productivity booster. Do lawyers have time to check what the AI system did? Nope. Therefore, hallucination is going to be part of the transformer-based methodologies until something better becomes feasible. (Did someone say, “Quantum computers?)
- The marketers (both directly compensated and the social media remoras) identify a positive. Then that upside is gilded like Tzar Nicholas’ powder room and repeated until it sure seems true.
The reality for the investors is that AI could be a winner. Go for it. The reality is for the lawyers that time to figure out what’s in bounds and what’s out of bounds is unlikely to be available. Other professionals will discover what the cancer docs did when using the late, great IBM Watson. AI can do some things reasonably well. Other things can have severe consequences.
Stephen E Arnold, February 19, 2025
Google, the Modern Samurai, Becomes a Ronin. Banzai!
January 2, 2025
Written by a dinobaby, not an over-achieving, unexplainable AI system.
I read “Google to Fight Japan’s Claims That It Harms Rivals in Search.” This paywalled Bloomberg story explains that Google is going to fight Japan’s allegations about hampering its competitors. Would Google do that?
A brave online advertising samurai reduces arguments to tiny flakes of paper. Arguments don’t stand a chance when a modern samurai fights injustice. Thanks, ChatGPT. Good enough.
The write up reports:
Alphabet Inc. is preparing to counter Japanese government allegations that it engages in anticompetitive practices such as forcing smartphone makers to give priority to Google Search in default screen placement.
Google’s position is a blend of smarm and lawyer lingo. As reported by Bloomberg:
“We have continued to work closely with the Japanese government to demonstrate how we are supporting the Android ecosystem and expanding user choice in Japan,” Google said in a statement without providing details of the allegations. “We will present our arguments in the hearing process,” it said, adding it was “disappointed” and the FTC didn’t give enough consideration of the company’s proposed solution. The company didn’t elaborate.
With Google explaining how the US government should respond to the shocking decision that Google was a monopoly, the company seems to bounce from one legal matter to the next.
What’s interesting is that Bloomberg characterized Google’s approach as a “fight.” I don’t know too much about Japanese culture. I have watched a Akira Kurosawa film and I recall John Belushi’s interpretation of a modern samurai warrior. Google definitely can send throngs of legal warriors into court. For PR purposes, I think adopting Mr. Kurosawa’s use of color for different groups of brave fighters would contribute some high impact imagery to YouTube videos.
However, with some EU losses and the twist of Googzilla’s tail by the US legal system, the innocent-until-proven-guilty company is likely to become a Saturday Night Live skit. Maybe Joe Koy will slip the Belushi-type of samurai into a set about how Google helps everyone, 24×7, and embodies the quaint motto “Do no evil.”
Stephen E Arnold, January 2, 2024
Does Apple Thinks Google Is Inept?
December 25, 2024
At a pre-holiday get together, I heard Wilson say, “Don’t ever think you’re completely useless. You can always be used as a bad example.”
I read the trust outfit’s write up “Apple Seeks to Defend Google’s Billion Dollar Payments in Search Case.” I found the story cutting two ways.
Apple, a big outfit, believes that it can explain in a compelling way why Google should be paying Apple to make Google search the default search engine on Apple devices. Do you remember the Walt Disney film The Hunchback of Notre Dame? I love an argument with a twisted back story. Apple seems to be saying to Google: “Stupidity is far more dangerous than evil. Evil takes a break from time to time. Stupidity does not.”
The Thomson Reuters article offers:
Apple has asked to participate in Google’s upcoming U.S. antitrust trial over online search, saying it cannot rely on Google to defend revenue-sharing agreements that send the iPhone maker billions of dollars each year for making Google the default search engine on its Safari browser.
Apple wants that $20 billion a year and certainly seems to be sending a signal that Google will screw up the deal with a Googley argument. At the same holiday party, Wilson’s significant other observed, ““My people skills are just fine. It’s my tolerance to idiots that needs work.” I wonder if that person was talking about Apple?
Apple may be fearful that Google will lurch into Code Yellow, tell the jury that gluing cheese on pizza is logical, and explain that it is not a monopoly. Apple does not want to be in the court cafeteria and hear, “I heard Google ask the waiter, “How do you prepare chicken?” The waiter replied, “Nothing special. The cook just says, “You are going to die.”
The Thomson Reuters’ article offers this:
Apple wants to call witnesses to testify at an April trial. Prosecutors will seek to show Google must take several measures, including selling its Chrome web browser and potentially its Android operating system, to restore competition in online search. “Google can no longer adequately represent Apple’s interests: Google must now defend against a broad effort to break up its business units,” Apple said.
I had a professor from Oklahoma who told our class:
“If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?”
Apple and Google arguing in court. Google has a lousy track record in court. Apple is confident it can convince a court that taking Google’s money is okay.
Albert Eistein allegedly observed:
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
Yep, Apple and Google, quite a pair.
Stephen E Arnold, December 25, 2024
FOGINT: Intelware Tension Ticks Up
December 24, 2024
Observations from the FOGINT research team.
On Friday, December 20, 2024, NSO Group, the Pegasus specialized software outfit, found itself losing a court squabble with Facebook (Meta and WhatsApp). According to the Reuters’ news story pushed out at 915 pm Eastern time, “US Judge Finds Israel’s NSO Group Liable for Hacking in WhatsApp Lawsuit.” In case you don’t have the judgment at hand, you can find the United States District Court, Norther District of California document at this link.
The main idea behind the case is that the NSO Group’s specialized software pressed into duty for the purpose of obtaining information about WhatsApp users. The mechanism was to exploit “a bug in the messaging app to install spy software allowing unauthorized surveillance.” NSO Group’s fancy legal two step did not work.
The NSO Group has become the poster child for the “compromise the mobile” phone and obtain data. The Pegasus system exfiltrates data and, when properly configured, can capture information from a mobile device. Furthermore, the company’s hassles about its customers’ use of the Pegasus tool unwittingly created a surge in software and specialized services performing identical or similar tasks.
The FOGINT team has identified firms which have found different ways of compromising mobile devices. The company, therefore, has been an innovator and its approach to compromising devices has [a] focused attention on Israel’s technical competence in this specialized software niche and [b] rightly or wrongly illustrated that the technology can act with extreme prejudice when used by some clients to solve what they perceive as “problems.”
There are several larger consequences which the FOGINT team has identified:
- Specialized software is more prevalent because the revelations about Pegasus have encouraged entrepreneurs and technologists to develop more effective surveillance methods
- Unique delivery methods have been crafted. These range for in-app malware to more sophisticated multi-stage malware installed as a consequence of a user’s carelessness
- Making clear that powerful surveillance tools can be installed in a way that does not require the user to click, email, or interact. The malware simply dials up a mobile and bingo! the device is compromised.
How will this judgment affect the specialized software industry? In FOGINT’s view, the decision will further stimulate competition and the follow of novel surveillance techniques. One consequence also may be that law enforcement and intelligence professionals will encounter headwinds when similar specialized software is required for certain investigations. FOGINT’s view is that NSO Group’s go-go approach to sales created a problem for the company and for specialized software. Some technologies should remain “secret,” which is now becoming an old-fashioned viewpoint. Marketing is not always a benefit.
Stephen E Arnold, December 24, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
