• Home
• About
• Writers
• Landscape
• Wizards Index
• Fraud
• Wanna Be Like Larry?

FOGINT: Telegram Changes Its Tune

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Editor note: The term Fogint is a way for us to identify information about online services which obfuscate or mask in some way some online activities. The idea is that end-to-end encryption, devices modified to disguise Internet identifiers, and specialized “tunnels” like those associated with the US MILNET methods lay down “fog”. A third-party is denied lawful intercept, access, or monitoring of obfuscated messages when properly authorized by a governmental entity. Here’s a Fogint story with the poster boy for specialized messaging, Pavel Durov.

Coindesk’s September 23, 2024, artice “Telegram to Provide More User Data to Governments After CEO’s Arrest” reports:

Messaging app Telegram made significant changes to its terms of service, chief executive officer Pavel Durov said in a post on the app on Monday. The app’s privacy conditions now state that Telegram will now share a user’s IP address and phone number with judicial authorities in cases where criminal conduct is being investigated.

Usually described as a messaging application, Telegram is linked to a crypto coin called TON or TONcoin. Furthermore, Telegram — if one looks at the entity from 30,000 feet — consists of a distributed organization engaged in messaging, a foundation, and a recent “society” or “social” service. Among the more interesting precepts of Telegram and its founder is a commitment to free speech and a desire to avoid being told what to do.

Art generated by the MSFT Copilot service. Good enough, MSFT.

After being detained in France, Mr. Durov has made several changes in the way in which he talks about Telegram and its precepts. In a striking shift, Mr. Durov, according to Coindesk:

said that “establishing the right balance between privacy and security is not easy,” in a post on the app. Earlier this month, Telegram blocked users from uploading new media in an effort to stop bots and scammers.

Telegram had a feature which allowed a user of the application to locate users nearby. This feature has been disabled. One use of this feature was its ability to locate a person offering personal services on Telegram via one of its functions. A person interested in the service could use the “nearby” function and pinpoint when the individual offering the service was located. Creative Telegram users could put this feature to a number of interesting uses; for example, purchasing an illegal substance.

Why is Mr. Durov abandoning his policy of ignoring some or most requests from law enforcement seeking to identify a suspect? Why is Mr. Durov eliminating the nearby function? Why is Mr. Durov expressing a new desire to cooperate with investigators and other government authority?

The answer is simple. Once in the custody of the French authorities, Mr. Durov learned of the penalties for breaking French law. Mr. Durov’s upscale Parisian lawyer converted the French legal talk into some easy to understand concepts. Now Mr. Durov has evaluated his position and is taking steps to avoid further difficulties with the French authorities. Mr. Durov’s advisors probably characterized the incarceration options available to the French government; for example, even though Devil’s Island is no longer operational, the Centre Pénitentiaire de Rémire-Montjoly, near Cayenne in French Guiana, moves Mr. Durov further from his operational comfort zone in the Russian Federation and the United Arab Emirates.

The Fogint team does not believe Mr. Durov has changed his core values. He is being rational and using cooperation as a tactic to avoid creating additional friction with the French authorities.

Stephen E Arnold, October 1, 2024

Google Rear Ends Microsoft on an EU Information Highway

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

A couple of high-technology dinosaurs with big teeth and even bigger wallets are squabbling in a rather clever way. If the dispute escalates some of the smaller vehicles on the EU’s Information Superhighway are going to be affected by a remarkable collision. The orange newspaper published “Google Files Brussels Complaint against Microsoft Cloud Business.” On the surface, the story explains that “Google accuses Microsoft of locking customers into its Azure services, preventing them from easily switching to alternatives.”

Two very large and easily provoked dinosaurs are engaged in a contest in a court of law. Which will prevail, or will both end up with broken arms? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. I think you are the prettier dinosaur.

To put some bite into the allegation, Google aka Googzilla has:

filed an antitrust complaint in Brussels against Microsoft, alleging its Big Tech rival engages in unfair cloud computing practices that has led to a reduction in choice and an increase in prices… Google said Microsoft is “exploiting” its customers’ reliance on products such as its Windows software by imposing “steep penalties” on using rival cloud providers.

From my vantage point this looks like a rear ender; that is, Google — itself under considerable scrutiny by assorted governmental entities — has smacked into Microsoft, a veteran of EU regulatory penalties. Google explained to the monopoly officer that Microsoft was using discriminatory practices to prevent Google, AWS, and Alibaba from closing cloud computing deals.

In a conversation with some of my research team, several observations surfaced from what I would describe as a jaded group. Let me share several of these:

1. Locking up business is precisely the “game” for US high-technology dinosaurs with big teeth and some China-affiliated outfit too. I believe the jargon for this business tactic is “lock in.” IBM allegedly found the play helpful when mainframes were the next big thing. Just try and move some government agencies or large financial institutions from their Big Iron to Chromebooks and see how the suggestion is greeted.,
2. Google has called attention to the alleged illegal actions of Microsoft, bringing the Softies into the EU litigation gladiatorial arena.
3. Information provided by Google may illustrate the alleged business practices so that when compared to the Google’s approach, Googzilla looks like the ideal golfing partner.
4. Any question that US outfits like Google and Microsoft are just mom-and-pop businesses is definitively resolved.

My personal opinion is that Google wants to make certain that Microsoft is dragged into what will be expensive, slow, and probably business trajectory altering legal processes. Perhaps Satya and Sundar will testify as their mercenaries explain that both companies are not monopolies, not hindering competition, and love whales, small start ups, ethical behavior, and the rule of law.

Stephen E Arnold, September 25, 2024

Consistency Manifested by Mr. Musk and the Delightfully Named X.com

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

You know how to build credibility: Be consistent, be sort of nice, be organized. I found a great example of what might be called anti-credibility in “Elon Rehires lawyers in Brazil, Removes Accounts He Insisted He Wouldn’t Remove.” The write up says:

Elon Musk fought the Brazilian law, and it looks like the Brazilian law won. After making a big show of how he was supposedly standing up for free speech, Elon caved yet again.

The article interprets the show of inconsistency and the abrupt about face this way:

So, all of this sounds like Elon potentially realizing that he did his “oh, look at me, I’m a free speech absolutist” schtick, it caused ExTwitter to lose a large chunk of its userbase, and now he’s back to playing ball again. Because, like so much that he’s done since taking over Twitter, he had no actual plan to deal with these kinds of demands from countries.

I agree, but I think the action illustrates a very significant point about Mr. Musk and possibly sheds light on how other US tech giants who get in regulatory trouble and lose customers will behave. Specifically, they knock off the master of the universe attitude and adopt the “scratch my belly” demeanor of a French bulldog wanting to be liked.

The failure to apply sanctions on companies which willfully violate a nation state’s laws has been one key to the rise of the alleged monopolies spawned in the US. Once a country takes action, the trilling from the French bulldog signals a behavioral change.

Now flip this around. Why do some regulators have an active dislike for some US high technology firms? The lack of respect for the law and the attitude of US super moguls might help answer the question.

I am certain many government officials find the delightfully named X.com and the mercurial Mr. Musk a topic of conversation. No wonder some folks love X.com so darned much. The approach used in Brazil and France hopefully signals consequences for those outfits who believe no mere nation state can do anything significant.

Stephen E Arnold, September 25, 2024

Losing Knowledge: Yep and No One Does Much Except Sue to Prevent Archiving

Archives are bastions of history. What’s great about archives is that they physically store items for historical perseveration and researchers can visit them. When the Internet popped up, there wasn’t a digital archive to persevere everything on the World Wide Web. True, there’s the Internet Archive and other independent organizations, but according to the BBC there’s trouble brewing: “We’re Losing Our Digital History. Can The Internet Archive Save It?”

The Internet Archive has been around since 1996 and has done a phenomenal job archiving defunct Web sites, but external threats such as financial issues, technical challenges, legal battles with IP owners, and cyberattacks are big problems. There’s an even bigger problem for the Internet Archive. Most organizations and individuals keep their content in digital environments and those are fragile. WIth a single button or a solar flare, the can disappear forever.

The Internet should be archive so we understand its evolution and its also the most widely used resource in the world. Information on the Internet is a reflection of humanity like newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and movies. Despite all the backups and servers, its fragility is worse than past mediums. Persevering the Internet is an up hill battle and individuals are usually better at it than organizations:

“ ‘If you have to keep everything, it becomes very expensive,’ says Jackson of the Digital Preservation Coalition. ‘There’s often older content or less compelling content [that] gets lost by the wayside,’ he says. ‘We’re not capturing the non-Western world well,’ admits Jackson. ‘There are gaps now around incompleteness in different cultural domains.’ And while many of those organisations work to fight against their biases and prejudices, they’re often left to carry the weight of the task while governments and the companies that run the platforms and websites sit by. ‘Independent groups of people, who are just caring about it and are willing to spend their free time doing it, are better resourced and more highly skilled than the institutions which are formally responsible,’ says Jackson.”

Are they doomed? Maybe.

Who will the heroes be? The digital hoarders. They’re like physical hoarders who have OCD, except they keep digital records. I’m sensing the foundation of an Internet Archive Museum if lawyers permit such an activity.

Whitney Grace, September 23, 2024

The EU Has a Small Sense of Humor: X.com Is Under Endowed?

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Elon Musk has a big rocket. Elon Musk has a big car company. Elon Musk has a big hole making machine. But Elon Musk has a high-technology social media outfit which is too small.

I think European regulators have a sense of humor. Furthermore, calling attention to Mr. Musk’s fascination with “big,” the characterization is likely to evoke eye rolls and some nudges among those in the know. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough, a bit like a Tesla.

I read “Musk’s X Deemed Too Small for EU Crackdown on Big Tech Power.” Small, yes. The “real news” report says:

X will dodge the DMA’s raft of dos and don’ts because it isn’t a powerful enough service for business users and doesn’t meet certain revenue thresholds, according to the people, who spoke under condition of anonymity.

Okay, small and impotent.

Let’s look at the “too small” judgment compared to Brazil’s approach. The EU pushes the little bitty X thingy idea; Brazil kicked X.com out of the country. The Brazilian action reacted to X.com as if it were a big outfit with an outsized reach, from the beach in Rio to the sky above Cristo Redentor. Brazil relaxed its freeze on X.com’s bank account so the big X.com fine could be paid.

Observations:

1. X.com is too small. Ouch. Intentional or not, this has to remind someone of crude jokes in the high school boys’ locker room.
2. The EU wants to make it crystal clear that its actions will be directed at the really big US high-technology outfits which violate assorted EU rules and regulations, write checks for fines, and keep on doing what the companies choose to do.
3. Slapping a label on a company which presents itself as a global blockbuster illustrates some disdain.

Net net: Brazil went big. The EU goes small. Very small, X.com, tinier than a Telegram.

Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2024

A Moment to Remember: Google Explains Its Competitive Posture

This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.

What happens when those with insight into the Google talk in a bar to friends? Answer: Complete indifference. Question: What happens when a former Google employee’s comments are captured in a form which can be discovered by the prosecution in a trial? Answer: A peak inside Googzilla’s kimono.

An observer is horrified by the site revealed when an ex-Google professional talks about what’s inside the Googzilla kimono. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.

“Ex-Google Exec Said Goal Was to Crush Competition, Trial Evidence Shows” reports that Google wanted to “crush” the competition. Google wanted a “monopoly.” Here’s what the Reuters’ article reports via its “trust” filter:

“We’ll be able to crush the other networks and that’s our goal,” David Rosenblatt, Google’s former president of display advertising, said of the company’s strategy in late 2008 or early 2009, according to notes shown in court…. “We’re both Goldman and NYSE,” he said, he said, according to the notes, referring to one of the world’s biggest stock exchanges at the time and one of its biggest market makers. “Google has created what’s comparable to the NYSE or London Stock Exchange; in other words, we’ll do to display what Google did to search,” Rosenblatt said.

On the surface, Mr. Rosenblatt is articulating what some folks have been asserting for years. Several observations:

1. Google has been running free for a long time. Why?
2. If true, the statement makes the outcome of EU litigation almost certain. Google will have to pay and change in ways which may be resisted by the nation-state of Google
3. The comment reflects the machismo of the high tech US company and its hubris. Pride and vanity are believed by some to be a fundamental sin.

So what?

1. Deconstructing what Google has built over the years may be quite difficult, maybe impossible. Well, that ends one line of retribution.
2. If one breaks up Google and severs advertising, who can afford to buy it. Maybe the US should punt and nationalize the outfit. Why not let GSA run it? That would be exciting in my opinion.
3. Google apologizes and keeps on doing what it has been doing for the last 25 years by filing appeals,  lobbying, and waiting out government lawyers who often come and go as Google says, “I was neither / Living nor dead, and I knew nothing.”

Net net: The Google is gonna Google no matter what.

Stephen E Arnold, September 18, 2024

Pay Up Time for Low Glow Apple

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Who noticed the flip side of Apple’s big AI event? CNBC did. “Apple Loses EU Court Battle over 13 Billion Euro Tax Bill in Ireland” makes clear that the EU regulators were not awed by snappy colors, “to be” AI, and Apple’s push to be the big noise in hearing aids. Nope. The write up reported:

Europe’s top court on Tuesday ruled against Apple in the tech giant’s 10-year court battle over its tax affairs in Ireland. The pronouncement from the European Court of Justice comes hours after Apple unveiled a swathe of new product offerings, looking to revitalize its iPhone, Apple Watch and Air Pod line-ups.

Those new products will need to generate some additional revenue. The monetary penalty ascends to $14 billion. Packaged as illegal tax benefits, Apple will go through the appeal drill, the PR drill, and the apology drill. The drills may not stop the EU’s desire to scrutinize the behaviors of US high technology companies. It seems that the EU is on a crusade to hold the Big Dogs by their collars, slip on choke chains, and bring the beasts to heel.

An EU official hits a big rock and finds money inside. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.

I have worked in a couple of EU countries. I recall numerous comments from my clients and colleagues in Europe who suggested US companies were operating as if they were countries. From these individuals’ points of view, their observations about US high technology outfits were understandable. The US, according to some, refused to hold these firms accountable for what some perceived as ignoring user privacy and outright illegal behavior of one sort or another.

What does the decision suggest?

1. Big fines, recoveries, and judgments are likely to become more common
2. Regulations to create market space for European start ups and technologies are likely to be forthcoming
3. The Wild West behavior, tolerated by US regulators, will not be tolerated.

There is one other possible consequence of this $14 billion number. The penalty is big, even for a high tech money machine like Apple. The size of the number may encourage other countries’ regulators to think big as well. It is conceivable that after years of inaction, even US regulators may be tempted to jump into the big money when judgments go against the high technology outfits.

With Google on the spot for alleged monopolistic activities in the online advertising market, those YouTube ads are going to become more plentiful. Some Googlers may have an opportunity to find their future elsewhere as Xooglers (former Google employees). Freebies may be further curtailed in the Great Chain of Being hierarchy which guides Google’s organizational set up.

I found the timing of the news about the $14 billion number interesting. As the US quivered from the excitement of more AI in candy bar devices in rainbow colors, the EU was looking under the rock. The EU found nerve and a possible pile of money.

Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2024

The UK Says, “Okay, Google, Get Out Your Checkbook”

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I read “British Competition Regulator Objects to Google’s Ad Tech Practices.” The UK is expressing some direct discontent with the Google. The country is making clear that it is not thrilled with the “let ‘em do what they want, pardner” approach of US regulatory agencies. Not surprisingly, like the Netherlands, the government officials are putting the pedal to the metal. The write up reports:

In a statement, the Competition and Markets Authority alleged that the U.S. internet search titan “has harmed competition by using its dominance in online display advertising to favor its own ad tech services.”

I suppose to some the assertion that Google favors itself is not exactly a surprise. The write up continues:

Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of Google Ads, said that the company disagreed with the CMA’s view and “will respond accordingly.” “Our advertising technology tools help websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers,” Taylor said in an emailed statement. “Google remains committed to creating value for our publisher and advertiser partners in this highly competitive sector. The core of this case rests on flawed interpretations of the ad tech sector.”

Good enough illustration, MSFT Copilot.

The explanation from a Googler sounds familiar. Will the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority be convinced? My hunch is that the CMA will not be satisfied with Google’s posture on this hard metal chair. (Does that chair have electrodes attached to its frame and arm rests?)

The write up offers this statement:

In the CMA’s decision Friday, the watchdog said that, since 2015, Google has abused its dominant position as the operator of both ad buying tools “Google Ads” and “DV360,” and of a publisher ad server known as “DoubleClick For Publishers,” in order to strengthen the market position of its advertising exchange, AdX.

Oh, not quite a decade.

Why are European entities ramping up their legal actions? My opinions are:

1. Google can produce cash. Ka-ching.
2. The recent ruling that Google is a monopoly is essentially interpreted as a green light for other nation states to give the Google a go.
3. Non-US regulators are fed up with Google’s largely unchecked behavior and have mustered up courage to try and stop a rolling underground car by standing in front of the massive conveyance and pushing with their bare hands to stop the momentum. (Good luck, folks.)

Net net: More Google pushback may be needed once the bold defiers of mass time velocity are pushed aside.

Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2024

US Government Procurement: Long Live Silos

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I read “Defense AI Models A Risk to Life Alleges Spurned Tech Firm.” Frankly , the headline made little sense to me so I worked through what is a story about a contractor who believes it was shafted by a large consulting firm. In my experience, the situation is neither unusual nor particularly newsworthy. The write up does a reasonable job of presenting a story which could have been titled “Naive Start Up Smoked by Big Consulting Firm.” A small high technology contractor with smart software hooks up with a project in the Department of Defense. The high tech outfit is not able to meet the requirements to get the job. The little AI high tech outfit scouts around and brings a big consulting firm to get the deal done. After some bureaucratic cycles, the small high tech outfit is benched. If you are not familiar with how US government contracting works, the write up provides some insight.

The work product of AI projects will be digital silos. That is the key message of this procurement story. I don’t feel sorry for the smaller company. It did not prepare itself to deal with the big time government contractor. Outfits are big for a reason. They exploit opportunities and rarely emulate Mother Theresa-type behavior. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough illustration although the robots look stupid.

For me, the article is a stellar example of how information or or AI silos are created within the US government. Smart software is hot right now. Each agency, each department, and each unit wants to deploy an AI enabled service. Then that AI infused service becomes (one hopes) an afterburner for more money with which one can add headcount and more AI technology. AI is a rare opportunity to become recognized as a high-performance operator.

As a result, each AI service is constructed within a silo. Think about a structure designed to hold that specific service. The design is purpose built to keep rats and other vermin from benefiting from the goodies within the AI silo. Despite the talk about breaking down information silos, silos in a high profile, high potential technical are like artificial intelligence are the principal product of each agency, each department, and each unit. The payoff could be a promotion which might result in a cushy job in the commercial AI sector or a golden ring; that is, the senior executive service.

I understand the frustration of the small, high tech AI outfit. It knows it has been played by the big consulting firm and the procurement process. But, hey, there is a reason the big consulting firm generates billions of dollars in government contracts. The smaller outfit failed to lock down its role, retain the key to the know how it developed, and allowed its “must have cachè” to slip away.

Welcome, AI company, to the world of the big time Beltway Bandit. Were you expecting the big time consulting firm to do what you wanted? Did you enter the deal with a lack of knowledge, management sophistication, and a couple of false assumptions? And what about the notion of “algorithmic warfare”? Yeah, autonomous weapons systems are the future. Furthermore, when autonomous systems are deployed, the only way they can be neutralized is to use more capable autonomous weapons. Does this sound like a reply of the logic of Cold War thinking and everyone’s favorite bedtime read On Thermonuclear War still available on Amazon and as of September 6, 2024, on the Internet Archive at this link.

Several observations are warranted:

1. Small outfits need to be informed about how big consulting companies with billions in government contracts work the system before exchanging substantive information
2. The US government procurement processes are slow to change, and the Federal Acquisition Regulations and related government documents provide the rules of the road. Learn them before getting too excited about a request for a proposal or Federal Register announcement
3. In a fight with a big time government contractor make sure you bring money, not a chip on your shoulder, to the meeting with attorneys. The entity with the most money typically wins because legal fees are more likely to kill a smaller firm than any judicial or tribunal ruling.

Net net: Silos are inherent in the work process of any government even those run by different rules. But what about the small AI firm’s loss of the contract? Happens so often, I view it as a normal part of the success workflow. Winners and losers are inevitable. Be smarter to avoid losing.

Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2024

How Will Smart Cars Navigate Crowded Cityscapes When People Do Humanoid Things?

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Who collided in San Francisco on July 6, 2024? (No, not the February 2024 incident. Yes, I know it is easy to forget such trivial incidents) Did the Googley Waymo vehicle (self driving and smart, of course) bump into the cyclist? Did the cyclist decide to pull an European Union type stunt and run into the self driving car?

If the legal outcome of this San Francisco autonomous car – bicycle incident goes in favor of the bicyclist, autonomous vehicles will have to be smart enough to avoid situations like the one shown in the ChatGPT cartoon. Microsoft Copilot would not render the image. When I responded, “What?” the Copilot hung. Great stuff.

The question is important for insurance, publicity, and other monetary reasons. A good offense is the best defense, someone said. “Waymo Cites Possible Intentional Contact by a Bicyclist to Robotaxi in S.F.” reports:

While the robotaxi was stopped, the cyclist passed in front of it and appeared to dismount, according to the documents. “The cyclist then reached out a hand and made contact with the front passenger side of the stationary Waymo AV (autonomous vehicle), backed the bicycle up slightly, dropped the bicycle, then fell to the ground,” the documents said. The cyclist received medical treatment at the scene and was transported to the hospital, according to the documents. The Waymo vehicle was not damaged during the incident.

In my view, this is the key phrase in the news report:

In the documents, Waymo said it was submitting the report because of the alleged crash and because the cyclist influenced the driving task of the AV and was transported to the hospital, even though the incident “may involve intentional contact by the bicyclist with the Waymo AV and the occurrence of actual impact between the Waymo AV and cycle is not clear.”

We have doubt, reasonable doubt obviously. Googley Waymo is definitely into reasoning. And we have the word pair “intentional contact.” Okay, to me this means, the smart Waymo vehicle did nothing wrong. A human — chock full of possibly malicious if not criminal intent — created a TikTok moment. It is too bad there is no video of the incident. Even my low ball Hyundai records what’s in front of it. Doesn’t the Googley Waymo do that with its array of Star Wars adornments, sensors, probes, and other accoutrements of Googley Waymo vehicles? Guess not.) But the autonomous vehicle had something that could act in an intelligent manner: A human test driver.

What was that person’s recollection of the incident? The news story reports that the Googley Waymo outfit “did not immediately respond to a request for further comment on the incident.”

Several observations:

1. The bike riding human created the accident with a parked Waymo super intelligent vehicle and test driver in command
2. The Waymo outfit did not want to talk to the San Francisco Chronicle reporter or editor. (I used to work at a newspaper, and I did not like to talk to the editors and news professionals either.)
3. Autonomous cars are going to have to be equipped with sufficiently expert AI systems to avoid humans who are acting in a way to convert Googley Waymo services into a source of revenue. Failing that, I anticipate more kinetic interactions between Googley smart cars and humanoids not getting paid to ride shotgun on smart software.

Net net: How long have big time technology companies trying to get autonomous vehicles to produce cash, not liabilities?

Stephen E Arnold, September 11, 2024

« Previous Page — Next Page »

• 

• Search the site

•  

  Subscribe to Beyond Search

  • 
  • 
   
  • 
   
  
  Feature archive
  News archive
   
  
  
  Stephen E. Arnold monitors search, content processing, text mining and related topics from his high-tech nerve center in rural Kentucky. He tries to winnow the goose feathers from the giblets. He works with colleagues worldwide to make this Web log useful to those who want to go "beyond search". Contact him at sa [at] arnoldit.com. His Web site with additional information about search is arnoldit.com.

• Categories

  • 3D-Printing
  • Acquisition
  • Advertising
  • Aggregation
  • AI
  • Alexa
  • algorithms
  • Amazon
  • Amazonia
  • Analytics
  • Appliance
  • Applications
  • Audio
  • Augmented Reality
  • Big data
  • Bing
  • Bitcoin
  • Bitext
  • Book review
  • Business intelligence
  • Business process
  • Business strategy
  • Censorship
  • Cloud computing
  • Company Profile
  • Conferences
  • Connectors
  • Consulting
  • Consumer
  • Content processing
  • Copyright
  • Corporate Concerns
  • Cost
  • Crawl
  • Crowdfunding
  • cryptocurrency
  • Customer support
  • Cyber OSINT
  • cybercrime
  • cybersecurity
  • Dark Web
  • DarkCyber
  • Data
  • Data mining
  • Database
  • Deepfakes
  • Digital Assistant
  • Digital Library
  • E2EE
  • ECommerce
  • EDiscovery
  • Editorial opinion
  • Education
  • Emoticons
  • Enterprise
  • Enterprise search
  • Entity extraction
  • Ethics
  • Facebook
  • Faceted search
  • Factualities
  • Feature
  • Federated search
  • Financial
  • Fogint
  • Google
  • Governance
  • Government
  • Hackers
  • healthcare
  • IBM Watson
  • Image search
  • Indexing
  • Infrastructure
  • Innovation
  • Integration
  • intelware
  • Interface
  • Internet
  • Interview
  • Investment
  • law enforcement
  • Legal matters
  • Library automation
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • Mathematics
  • Metadata
  • Microsoft
  • Mobile
  • Natural language processing
  • News
  • NGIA
  • Online (general)
  • Open Access
  • Open source
  • OSINT
  • Osint Radar
  • Overflight
  • Palantir
  • Patents
  • Personnel
  • Podcast
  • Policeware
  • Portals
  • Predictive coding
  • Privacy
  • Profile
  • Publishing
  • Quotation
  • Real time search
  • Reference tool
  • Rich media
  • Robot Writer
  • Search
  • Search enabled applications
  • search engine
  • Search quality
  • Security
  • Semantic
  • Sentiment analysis
  • SEO
  • SharePoint
  • Short Honks
  • Smart Technology
  • Social
  • Social Media
  • software
  • Statistics
  • Taxonomy
  • Technology
  • Text analytics
  • Text processing
  • Tools
  • Tor
  • Training
  • Translation
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized
  • Unstructured Data
  • User experience
  • User Interface
  • Vertical search
  • Video
  • visualization
  • Voice search
  • Voice technology
  • Web 3
  • Web Services
  • Webinar
  • Windows
  • Work flow
  • XML
  • Yahoo

• Archives

  Archives Select Month November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 5

• Recent Posts

  • The Golden Fleecer of the Year: Boeing
  • Directories Have Value
  • AI In Group Communications: The Good and the Bad
  • Creeping Crypto: Regulators Adapt to What People Have Been Doing
  • Group Work Can Be Problematic Even on Video

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org