Google: Rock Solid Arguments or Fanciful Confections?
November 17, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I read some “real” news from a “real” newspaper. My belief is that a “real journalist”, an editor, and probably some supervisory body reviewed the write up. Therefore, by golly, the article is objective, clear, and actual factual. What’s “What Google Argued to Defend Itself in Landmark Antitrust Trial” say?
“I say that my worthy opponent’s assertions are — ahem, harrumph — totally incorrect. I do, I say, I do offer that comment with the greatest respect. My competitors are intellectual giants compared to the regulators who struggle to use Google Maps on an iPhone,” opines a legal eagle who supports Google. Thanks, Microsoft Bing. You have the “chubby attorney” concept firmly in your digital grasp.
First, the write up says zero about the secrecy in which the case is wrapped. Second, it does not offer any comment about the amount the Google paid to be the default search engine other than offering the allegedly consumer-sensitive, routine, and completely logical fees Google paid. Hey, buying traffic is important, particularly for outfits accused of operating in a way that requires a US government action. Third, the support structure for the Google arguments is not evident. I could not discern the logical threat that linked the components presented in such lucid prose.
The pillars of the logical structure are:
- Appropriate payments for traffic; that is, the Google became the default search engine. Do users change defaults? Well, sure they do? If true, then why be the default in the first place. What are the choices? A Russian search engine, a Chinese search engine, a shadow of Google (Bing, I think), or a metasearch engine (little or no original indexing, just Vivisimo-inspired mash up results)? But pay the “appropriate” amount Google did.
- Google is not the only game in town. Nice terse statement of questionable accuracy. That’s my opinion which I articulated in the three monographs I wrote about Google.
- Google fosters competition. Okay, it sure does. Look at the many choices one has: Swisscows.com, Qwant.com, and the estimable Mojeek, among others.
- Google spends lots of money on helping people research to make “its product great.”
- Google’s innovations have helped people around the world?
- Google’s actions have been anticompetitive, but not too anticompetitive.
Well, I believe each of these assertions. Would a high school debater buy into the arguments? I know for a fact that my debate partner and I would not.
Stephen E Arnold, November 17, 2023
Buy Google Traffic: Nah, Paying May Not Work
November 16, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Tucked into a write up about the less than public trial of the Google was an interesting factoid. The source of the item was “More from the US v Google Trial: Vertical Search, Pre-Installs and the Case of Firefox / Yahoo.” Here’s the snippet:
Expedia execs also testified about the cost of ads and how increases had no impact on search results. On October 19, Expedia’s former chief operating officer, Jeff Hurst, told the court the company’s ad fees increased tenfold from $21 million in 2015 to $290 million in 2019. And yet, Expedia’s traffic from Google did not increase. The implication was that this was due to direct competition from Google itself. Hurst pointed out that Google began sharing its own flight and hotel data in search results in that period, according to the Seattle Times.
“Yes, sir, you can buy a ticket and enjoy a ticket to our entertainment,” says the theater owner. The customer asks, “Is the theater in good repair?” The ticket seller replies, “Of course, you get your money’s worth at our establishment. Next.” Thanks, Microsoft Bing. It took several tries before I gave up.
I am a dinobaby, and I am, by definition, hopelessly out of it. However, I interpret this passage in this way:
- Despite protestations about the Google algorithm’s objectivity, Google has knobs and dials it can use to cause the “objective” algorithm to be just a teenie weenie less objective. Is this a surprise? Not to me. Who builds a system without a mechanism for controlling what it does. My favorite example of this steering involves the original FirstGov.gov search system circa 2000. After Mr. Clinton lost the election, the new administration, a former Halliburton executive wanted a certain Web page result to appear when certain terms were searched. No problemo. Why? Who builds a system one cannot control? Not me. My hunch is that Google may have a similar affection for knobs and dials.
- Expedia learned that buying advertising from a competitor (Google) was expensive and then got more expensive. The jump from $21 million to $290 million is modest from the point of view of some technology feudalists. To others the increase is stunning.
- Paying more money did not result in an increase in clicks or traffic. Again I was not surprised. What caught my attention is that it has taken decades for others to figure out how the digital highway men came riding like a wolf on the fold. Instead of being bedecked with silver and gold, these actors wore those cheerful kindergarten colors. Oh, those colors are childish but those wearing them carried away the silver and gold it seems.
Net net: Why is this US v Google trial not more public? Why so many documents withheld? Why is redaction the best billing tactic of 2023? So many questions that this dinobaby cannot answer. I want to go for a ride in the Brin-A-Loon too. I am a simple dinobaby.
Stephen E Arnold, November 16, 2023
Cyberwar Crimes? Yep and Prosecutions Coming Down the Pike
November 15, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Existing international law has appeared hamstrung in the face of cyber-attacks for years, with advocates calling for new laws to address the growing danger. It appears, however, that step will no longer be necessary. Wired reports, “The International Criminal Court Will Now Prosecute Cyberwar Crimes.” The Court’s lead prosecutor, Karim Khan, acknowledged in an article published by Foreign Policy Analytics that cyber warfare perpetuates serious harm in the real world. Attacks on critical infrastructure like medical facilities and power grids may now be considered “war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and/or the crime of aggression” as defined in the 1998 Rome Statute. That is great news, but why now? Writer Andy Greenberg tells us:
“Neither Khan’s article nor his office’s statement to WIRED mention Russia or Ukraine. But the new statement of the ICC prosecutor’s intent to investigate and prosecute hacking crimes comes in the midst of growing international focus on Russia’s cyberattacks targeting Ukraine both before and after its full-blown invasion of its neighbor in early 2022. In March of last year, the Human Rights Center at UC
Berkeley’s School of Law sent a formal request to the ICC prosecutor’s office urging it to consider war crime prosecutions of Russian hackers for their cyberattacks in Ukraine—even as the prosecutors continued to gather evidence of more traditional, physical war crimes that Russia has carried out in its invasion. In the Berkeley Human Rights Center’s request, formally known as an Article 15 document, the Human Rights Center focused on cyberattacks carried out by a Russian group known as Sandworm, a unit within Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency. Since 2014, the GRU and Sandworm, in particular, have carried out a series of cyberwar attacks against civilian critical infrastructure in Ukraine beyond anything seen in the history of the internet.”
See the article for more details of Sandworm’s attacks. Greenberg consulted Lindsay Freeman, the Human Rights Center’s director of technology, law, and policy, who expects the ICC is ready to apply these standards well beyond the war in Ukraine. She notes the 123 countries that signed the Rome Statute are obligated to detain and extradite convicted war criminals. Another expert, Strauss Center director Bobby Chesney, points out Khan paints disinformation as a separate, “gray zone.” Applying the Rome Statute to that tactic may prove tricky, but he might make it happen. Khan seems determined to hold international bad actors to account as far as the law will possibly allow.
Cynthia Murrell, November 15, 2023
Copyright Trolls: An Explanation Which Identifies Some Creatures
November 14, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
If you are not familiar with firms which pursue those who intentionally or unintentionally use another person’s work in their writings, you may not know what a “copyright troll” is. I want to point you to an interesting post from IntoTheMinds.com. The write up “PicRights + AFP: Une Opération de Copyright Trolling Bien Rodée.” appeared in 2021, and it was updated in June 2023. The original essay is in French, but you may want to give Google Translate a whirl if your high school French is but a memoire dou dou.
A copyright troll is looking in the window of a blog writer. The troll is waiting for the writer to use content covered by copyright and for which a fee must be paid. The troll is patient. The blog writer is clueless. Thanks, Microsoft Bing. Nice troll. Do you perhaps know one?
The write up does a good job of explaining trollism with particular reference to an estimable outfit called PicRights and the even more estimable Agence France-Presse. It also does a bit of critical review of the PicRights’ operation, including the use of language to alleged copyright violators about how their lives will take a nosedive if money is not paid promptly for the alleged transgression. There are some thoughts about what to do if and when a copyright troll like the one pictured courtesy of Microsoft Bing’s art generator. Some comments about the rules and regulations regarding trollism. The author includes a few observations about the rights of creators. And a few suggested readings are included. Of particular note is the discussion of an estimable legal eagle outfit doing business as Higbee and Associates. You can find that document at this link.
If you are interested in copyright trolling in general and PicRights in particular, I suggest you download the document. I am not sure how long it will remain online.
Stephen E Arnold, November 14, 2023
Google Solves Fake Information with the Tom Sawyer Method
November 14, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
How does one deliver “responsible AI”? Easy. Shift the work to those who use a system built on smart software. I call the approach the “Tom Sawyer Method.” The idea is that the fictional character (Tom) convinced lesser lights to paint the fence for him. Sammy Clemmons (the guy who invested in the typewriter) said:
“Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do. Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.”
Thus the information in “Our Approach to Responsible AI Innovation” is play. The work is for those who cooperate to do the real work. The moral is, “We learn more about Google than we do about responsible AI innovation.”
The young entrepreneur says, “You fellows chop the wood. I will go and sell it to one of the neighbors. Do a good job. Once you finish you can deliver the wood and I will give you your share of the money. How’s that sound?” The friends are eager to assist their pal. Thanks Microsoft Bing. I was surprised that you provided people of color when I asked for “young people chopping wood.” Interesting? I think so.
The Google write up from a trio of wizard vice presidents at the online advertising company says:
…we’ll require creators to disclose when they’ve created altered or synthetic content that is realistic, including using AI tools. When creators upload content, we will have new options for them to select to indicate that it contains realistic altered or synthetic material.
Yep, “require.” But what I want to do is to translate Google speak into something dinobabies understand. Here’s my translation:
- Google cannot determine what content is synthetic and what is not; therefore, the person using our smart software has to tell us, “Hey, Google, this is fake.”
- Google does not want to increase headcount and costs related to synthetic content detection and removal. Therefore, the work is moved via the Tom Sawyer Method to YouTube “creators” or fence painters. Google gets the benefit of reduced costs, hopefully reduced liability, and “play” like Foosball.
- Google can look at user provided metadata and possibly other data in the firm’s modest repository and determine with acceptable probability that a content object and a creator should be removed, penalized, or otherwise punished by a suitable action; for example, not allowing a violator to buy Google merchandise. (Buying Google AdWords is okay, however.)
The write up concludes with this bold statement: “The AI transformation is at our doorstep.” Inspiring. Now wood choppers, you can carry the firewood into the den and stack it buy the fireplace in which we burn the commission checks the offenders were to receive prior to their violating the “requirements.”
Ah, Google, such a brilliant source of management inspiration: A novel written in 1876. I did not know that such old information was in the Google index. I mean DejaVu is consigned to the dust bin. Why not Mark Twain’s writings?
Stephen E Arnold, November 14, 2023
test
Google Apple: These Folks Like Geniuses and Numbers in the 30s
November 13, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The New York Post published a story which may or may not be one the money. I would suggest that the odds of it being accurate are in the 30 percent range. In fact, 30 percent is emerging as a favorite number. Apple, for instance, imposes what some have called a 30 percent “Apple tax.” Don’t get me wrong. Apple is just trying to squeak by in a tough economy. I love the connector on the MacBook Air which is unlike any Apple connector in my collection. And the $130 USB cable? Brilliant.
The poor Widow Apple is pleading with the Bank of Googzilla for a more favorable commission. The friendly bean counter is not willing to pay more than one third of the cash take. “I want to pay you more, but hard times are upon us, Widow Apple. Might we agree on a slightly higher number?” The poor Widow Apple sniffs and nods her head in agreement as the frail child Mac Air the Third whimpers.
The write up which has me tangled in 30s is “Google Witness Accidentally Reveals Company Pays Apple 36% of Search Ad Revenue.” I was enthralled with the idea that a Google witness could do something by accident. I assumed Google witnesses were in sync with the giant, user centric online advertising outfit.
The write up states:
Google pays Apple a 36% share of search advertising revenue generated through its Safari browser, one of the tech giant’s witnesses accidentally revealed in a bombshell moment during the Justice Department’s landmark antitrust trial on Monday. The flub was made by Ken Murphy, a University of Chicago economist and the final witness expected to be called by Google’s defense team.
Okay, a 36 percent share: Sounds fair. True, it is a six percent premium on the so-called “Apple tax.” But Google has the incentive to pay more for traffic. That “pay to play” business model is indeed popular it seems.
The write up “Usury in Historical Perspective” includes an interesting passage; to wit:
Mews and Abraham write that 5,000 years ago Sumer (the earliest known human civilization) had its own issues with excessive interest. Evidence suggests that wealthy landowners loaned out silver and barley at rates of 20 percent or more, with non-payment resulting in bondage. In response, the Babylonian monarch occasionally stepped in to free the debtors.
A measly 20 percent? Flash forward to the present. At 36 percent inflation has not had much of an impact on the Apple Google deal.
Who is University of Chicago economist who allegedly revealed a super secret number? According to the always-begging Wikipedia, he is a person who has written more than 50 articles. He is a recipient of the MacArthur Fellowship sometimes known as a “genius grant.” Ergo a genius.
I noted this passage in the allegedly accurate write up:
Google had argued as recently as last week that the details of the agreement were sensitive company information – and that revealing the info “would unreasonably undermine Google’s competitive standing in relation to both competitors and other counterparties.” Schmidtlein [Google’s robust legal eagle] and other Google attorneys have pushed back on DOJ’s assertions regarding the default search engine deals. The company argues that its payments to Apple, AT&T and other firms are fair compensation.
I like the phrase “fair compensation.” It matches nicely with the 36 percent commission on top of the $25 billion Google paid Apple to make the wonderful Google search system the default in Apple’s Safari browser. The money, in my opinion, illustrates the depth of love users have for the Google search system. Presumably Google wants to spare the Safari user the hassle required to specify another Web search system like Bing.com or Yandex.com.
Goodness, Google cares about its users so darned much, I conclude.
Despite the heroic efforts of Big Tech on Trial, I find that getting information about a trial between the US and everyone’s favorite search system difficult. Why the secrecy? Why the redactions? Why the cringing when the genius revealed the 36 percent commission?
I think I know why. Here are three reasons for the cringe:
- Google is thin skinned. Criticism is not part of the game plan, particularly with high school reunions coming up.
- Google understands that those not smart enough (like the genius Ken Murphy) would not understand the logic of the number. Those who are not Googley won’t get it, so why bother to reveal the number?
- Google hires geniuses. Geniuses don’t make mistakes. Therefore, the 36 percent reveal is numeric proof of the sophistication of Google’s analytic expertise. Apple could have gotten more money; Google is the winner.
Net net: My hunch is that the cloud of unknowing wrapped around the evidence in this trial makes clear that the Google is just doing what anyone smart enough to work at Google would do. Cleverness is good. Being a genius is good. Appearing to be dumb is not Googley. Oh, oh. I am not smart enough to see the sheer brilliance of the number, its revelation, and how it makes Google even more adorable with its super special deals.
Stephen E Arnold, November 13, 2023
Mommy, Mommy, He Will Not Share the Toys (The Rat!)
November 8, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
In your past, did someone take your toy dump truck or walk up to you in the lunch room in full view of the other nine year olds and take your chocolate chip cookie? What an inappropriate action. What does the aggrieved nine year old do if he or she comes from an upper economic class? Call the family lawyer? Of course. That is a logical action. The cookie is not a cookie; it is a principle.
“That’s right, mommy. The big kid at school took my lunch and won’t let me play on the teeter totter. Please, help me, mommy. That big kid is not behaving right,” says the petulant child. The mommy is sympathetic. An injustice has been wrought upon her flesh and blood. Thanks, MidJourney. I learned that “nasty” is a forbidden word. It is a “nasty blow” that you dealt me.
“Google and Prominent Telecom Groups Call on Brussels to Act Over Apple’s Imessage” strikes me as a similar situation. A bigger child has taken the cookies. The aggrieved children want those cookies back. They also want retribution. Taking the cookies. That’s unjust from the petulant kids’ point of view.
The Financial Times’s article takes a different approach, using more mature language. Here’s a snippet of what’s shakin’ in the kindergarten mind:
Currently, only Apple users are able to communicate via iMessage, making its signature “blue bubble” texts a key factor in retaining iPhone owners’ loyalty, especially among younger consumers. When customers using smartphones running Google’s Android software join an iMessage chat group all the messages change color, indicating it has defaulted to standard SMS.
So what’s up? The FT reports:
Rivals have long sought to break iMessage’s exclusivity to Apple’s hardware, in the hope that it might encourage customers to switch to its devices. In a letter sent to the commission and seen by the Financial Times, the signatories, which include a Google senior vice-president and the chief executives of Vodafone, Deutsche Telekom, Telefónica and Orange, claimed Apple’s service meets the qualitative thresholds of the act. It therefore should be captured by the rules to “benefit European consumers and businesses”, they wrote.
I wonder if these giant corporations realize that some perceive many of their business actions as somewhat similar; specifically, the fences constructed so that competitors cannot encroach on their products and services.
I read the FT’s article as the equivalent of the child who had his cookie taken away. The parent — in this case — is the legal system of the European Union.
Those blue and green bubbles are to be shared. What will mommy decide? In the US, some mommies call their attorneys and threaten or take legal action. That’s right and just. I want those darned cookies and my mommy is going to get them, get the wrongdoers put in jail, and do significant reputational damage.
“Take my cookies; you pay,” some say in a most Googley way.
Stephen E Arnold, November 8, 2023
The AI Bandwagon: A Hoped for Lawyer Billing Bonanza
November 8, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The AI bandwagon is picking up speed. A dark smudge appears in the sky. What is it? An unidentified aerial phenomenon? No, it is a dense cloud of legal eagles. I read “U.S. Regulation of Artificial Intelligence: Presidential Executive Order Paves the Way for Future Action in the Private Sector.”
A legal eagle — aka known as a lawyer or the segment of humanity one of Shakespeare’s characters wanted to drown — is thrilled to read an official version of the US government’s AI statement. Look at what is coming from above. It is money from fees. Thanks, Microsoft Bing, you do understand how the legal profession finds pots of gold.
In this essay, which is free advice and possibly marketing hoo hah, I noted this paragraph:
While the true measure of the Order’s impact has yet to be felt, clearly federal agencies and executive offices are now required to devote rigorous analysis and attention to AI within their own operations, and to embark on focused rulemaking and regulation for businesses in the private sector. For the present, businesses that have or are considering implementation of AI programs should seek the advice of qualified counsel to ensure that AI usage is tailored to business objectives, closely monitored, and sufficiently flexible to change as laws evolve.
Absolutely. I would wager a 25 cents coin that the advice, unlike the free essay, will incur a fee. Some of those legal fees make the pittance I charge look like the cost of chopped liver sandwich in a Manhattan deli.
Stephen E Arnold, November 8, 2023
Is Utah a Step Behind As Meta Threads Picks Up Steam?
November 3, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Now that TikTok has become firmly embedded in US culture, regulators are finally getting around to addressing its purported harms. Utah joins Arkansas and Indiana in suing parent company ByteDance even as the US Supreme Court considers whether social-media regulation violates the US Constitution. No, it is not the threat of Chinese spying that has Utah’s Division of Consumer Protection taking action this time. Rather, Digital Trends reports, “TikTok Sued by Utah Over Alleged Child Addiction Harm.” Yes, that’s a big concern too. Writer Treavor Mogg tells us:
“Utah’s filing focuses on the app’s alleged negative impact on children, claiming that TikTok ‘surreptitiously designed and deployed addictive features to hook young users into endlessly scrolling through the company’s app.’ It accused TikTok of wanting Utah citizens to ‘spend as much time on its app as possible so it can place advertisements in front of them more often,’ and alleges that the company ‘misled young users and their parents about the app’s dangers.’ In damning comments shared in a statement on Tuesday, Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes said: ‘I’m tired of TikTok lying to Utah parents. I’m tired of our kids losing their innocence and even their lives addicted to the dark side of social media. TikTok will only change if put at legal risk — and ‘at risk’ is where they have left our youth in exchange for profit and greed. Immediate and pervasive threats require swift and bold responses. We have a compelling case against TikTok. Our kids are worth the fight.’”
Reyes is not bluffing. The state has already passed laws to limit minors’ social media usage, with measures such as verified parental consent required for sign-ups and even making accounts and messages accessible to parents. Though many are concerned the latter is a violation of kids’ privacy, the laws are scheduled to go into effect next year.
But what about the other social media apps? Elon is not dragging his heels. And the Zuck? Always the Zuck.
Cynthia Murrell, November 3, 2023
Cyber Security Professionals May Need Worry Beads. Good Worry Beads
November 1, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I read “SEC Charges SolarWinds and Its CISO With Fraud and Cybersecurity Failures.” Let’s assume the write up is accurate or — to hit today’s target for excellence — the article is close enough for horseshoes. Armed with this assumption, will cyber security professionals find that their employers or customers will be taking a closer look at the actual efficacy of the digital fences and news flows that keep bad actors outside the barn?
A very happy bad actor laughs after penetrating a corporate security system cackles in a Starbucks: “Hey, that was easy. When will these people wake up that you should not have fired me.” Thanks, MidJourney, not exactly what I wanted but good enough, the new standard of excellence.
The write up suggests that the answer may be a less than quiet yes. I noted this statement in the write up:
According to the complaint filed by the SEC, Austin, Texas-based SolarWinds and Brown [top cyber dog at SolarWinds] are accused of deceiving investors by overstating the company’s cybersecurity practices while understating or failing to disclose known risks. The SEC alleges that SolarWinds misled investors by disclosing only vague and hypothetical risks while internally acknowledging specific cybersecurity deficiencies and escalating threats.
The shoe hit the floor, if the write up is on the money:
A key piece of evidence cited in the complaint is a 2018 internal presentation prepared by a SolarWinds engineer [an employee who stated something senior management does not enjoy knowing] that was shared internally, including with Brown. The presentation stated that SolarWinds’ remote access setup was “not very secure” and that exploiting the vulnerability could lead to “major reputation and financial loss” for the company. Similarly, presentations by Brown in 2018 and 2019 indicated concerns about the company’s cybersecurity posture.
From my point of view, there are several items to jot down on a 4×6 inch notecard and tape on the wall:
- The “truth” is often at odds with what senior managers want to believe, think they know, or want to learn. Ignorance is bliss, just not a good excuse after a modest misstep.
- There are more companies involved in the foul up than the news sources have identified. Far be it from me to suggest that highly regarded big-time software companies do a C minus job engineering their security. Keep in mind that most senior managers — even at high tech firms — are out of the technology loop no matter what the LinkedIn biography says or employees believe. Accountants and MBA are good at some things, bad at others. Cyber security is in the “bad” ledger.
- The marketing collateral for most cyber security, threat intelligence services, and predictive alerting services talks about a sci-fi world, not the here and now of computer science students given penetration assignments from nifty places like Estonia and Romania, among others. There are disaffected employees who want to leave their former employers a digital hickey. There are developers, hired via a respected gig matcher, who will do whatever an anonymous customer requires for hard cash or a crypto payment. Most companies have no idea how or where the problem originates.
- Think about insider threats, particularly when insiders include contractors, interns, employees who are unloved, or consulting firm with a sketchy wizard gathering data inside of a commercial operation.
Sure, cyber security just works. Yeah, right. Maybe this alleged action toward a security professional will create some discomfort and a few troubled dreams. Will there be immediate and direct change? Nope. But the PowerPoint decks will be edited. The software will not be fixed up as quickly. That’s expensive and may not be possible with a cyber security firm’s current technical staff and financial resources.
Stephen E Arnold, November 1, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
