FOGINT: Pavel Durov Responds to His Problems without Crisis PR Inputs
April 22, 2025
Before the US National Cyber Crime Conference, possibly significant news emerged about Telegram.
In my Telegram lecture at the NCCC 2025, I don’t talk about the psychological and financial impact Pavel Durov experienced as a result of his interaction with the French government. He was greeted at a Paris airport and detained. He talked with French officials. He hired Kaminski and his associates to represent him in the legal matter. Within a few weeks of his being confined to France, although not in St. Denis or Maison d’arrêt de Fleury-Mérogis, he seemed to be showing interest in providing some government authorities with Telegram “user names” or made-up handles and phone numbers (some real and some obtained through services providing temporary phone numbers). Mr. Durov, via indirect communication methods, seemed to indicate that he was doing what he had always done: Followed the rules of the jurisdictions in which Telegram operated. Then, without going to the French equivalent of a trial, Mr. Durov was allowed to return to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, one of the countries which has granted him citizenship.
Upon his return, he took some interesting actions:
- He began fiddling with some knobs and dials in order to get the TONcoin out of its doldrums
- He ramped up the marketing activities of the TON Foundation. (Please, keep in mind that Telegram and its proxy say they do not do marketing. The Telegram entities also do not do personnel or content control either.) Telegram and the Open Network Foundation (aka TON Foundation or ONF) are “there is no there there” or virtual outifts making do with coffee shop meetings, Telegram Messenger interactions, and maybe some face-to-face activity in a rented temporary space.)
- He started talking on CNN, for example.
From one of my team, I learned a couple of new “facts” this morning (April 22, 2025, 6 am US Eastern time). This individual reported:
Telegram has never shared private messages. The source is https://news.az/news/t-elegram-has-never-shared-private-messages-durov-says. Now there are two types of messages on Telegram Messenger. First, there are the default messages. These are encrypted from sender to the Telegram command-and-control system. There the messages are decrypted and processed. Then the messages are re-encrypted and forwarded to the recipient who opens them. The second type of message is the “secret” message which requires that the recipient be on Telegram when the sender creates and sends the message. That message is forwarded by the command-and-control system to the recipient. These “secret” messages remain encrypted for their digital journey. What Telegram shares with law enforcement is the IP address and the phone number of the sender. I will leave it to you to consider the “value” to Telegram’s command-and-control center of logging the metadata for messages and what happens when an investigator receives a bogus or temporary mobile number.,
A second item he shared with me this morning is that Pavel Durov continues to find himself at the edge of chaos with Russia. According to Meduza.io:
Russia slaps Telegram with another multi-million-ruble fine for refusing to take down ‘prohibited content’.
Several observations may be warranted:
- For a company that does not “do” marketing, Pavel Durov has been a busy and willing marketer on behalf of the Telegram operation. In fact, he seems to be sending out the message, “We cooperate with law enforcement.” Then he tries to make clear that he doesn’t reveal too much when Telegram cooperates with investigators.
- As a Russian citizen, Mr. Durov may want to [a] work with certain Russian officials to create the appearance of a problem with Russia in order to reduce the pressure from France or [b] Russia is acting independently to let Mr. Durov know he is a person of interest to the Kremlin. In short, which is it? Is Mr. Durov an asset for a certain country or is he a problem for a certain country in which some of his family and possibly some of his “core developers” reside? Uncomfortable either way I think.
- Telegram and its crypto play are not enjoying significant TONcoin upsides. The TONcoin is not the would-be high flier, Hamster Kombat home run it was prior to Mr. Durov’s arrest.
What’s clear is that Mr. Durov’s legal problems in France have been resolved. What is Mr. Durov’s relationship with the Russia’s government? Fuzzy stuff.
Net net: Mr. Durov’s recent actions appear to be signals that suggest Telegram is going to have to pull a rabbit from someone’s hoodie.
Stephen E Arnold, April 22, 2025
Smart Software Exploits Direct Tuition Payment. Sure, the Fraud Is Automated
April 22, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby himself.
The Voice of San Diego published “As Bot Students Continue to Flood In, Community Colleges Struggle to Respond.” The write up is one of those recipes that “real” news outfits provide to inform their readers about a crime. When I worked through the article, my reaction was, “The process California follows for community college student assistance is a big juicy sandwich on a picnic table in the park on a warm summer day.”
Will the insects flock to the sandwich?
Absolutely. Plus, telling the insects where the sandwich is and the basics of getting their mandibles on that sandwich does one thing: Provide an easy-to-follow set of instructions for a bad actor to follow.
The write up says:
Kevin Alston, a business professor who has taught at Southwestern for nearly 20 years, has stumbled across even more troubling incidents. During a prior semester, he actually called some of the students who were enrolled in his classes but had not submitted any classwork. “One student said ‘I’m not in your class. I’m not even in the state of California anymore’” Alston recalled. The student told him they had been enrolled in his class two years ago but had since moved on to a four-year university out of state. “I said, ‘Oh, then the robots have grabbed your student ID and your name and re-enrolled you at Southwestern College. Now they’re collecting financial aid under your name,’” Alston said.
The opportunity for fraud is a result of certain rules and regulations that require that financial aid be paid directly to the “student.” Enroll as a fake student and get a chunk of money. The more fake students that apply and receive aid, the more money the fake students receive.
California appears to be taking steps to reduce the fraud.
Several observations:
- A basket of rules and regulations appear to create this fraud opportunity
- Smart software in the hands of clever individuals allows the bad actors to collect money. (I am not sure how one cashes multiple checks made out to a fake person, but obviously there are ways around this problem. Are those nifty automatic teller machine deposits an issue?)
- The problem, according to the write up, has been known and getting larger since 2021.
I must admit that I think about online fraud in the hands of pig butchering outfits in the Golden Triangle. The fake student scam sounds like a smaller scale operation. Making a teacher the one who must identify the fake student does not seem to be working.
Okay, let’s see what the great state of California does to resolve this problem. Perhaps the instructors need to attend online classes in fraud detection, apply for financial aid, and get an extra benefit for this non-teaching work? Will community college teachers make good cyber investigators? Sure, especially those teaching history, social science, and literature classes.
Stephen E Arnold, April 22, 2025
JudyRecords: Is It Back or Did It Never Go Away?
April 22, 2025
Believe it or not, no smart software. Just a dumb and skeptical dinobaby.
I was delighted to see that JudyRecords is back online. Here’s what the service says as of April 19, 2025:
Judyrecords is a 100% free nationwide search engine that lets you instantly search hundreds of millions of United States court cases and lawsuits.judyrecords has over 100x more cases than Google Scholar and 10x more cases than PACER, the official case management system of the United States federal judiciary.As of Jul 2022, judyrecords now features free full-text search of all United States patents from 1/1/1976 to 07/01/2022 — over 8.1 million patents in total.
My thought is that lawyers, law students, and dinobabies like me will find the service quite useful.
The JudyRecords’ Web site adds:
The first 500K results are displayed instead of just the first 2K.
- murder – 926K cases
- fraud – 2.1 million cases
- burglary – 3.7 million cases
- assault – 8.2 million cases
Most people don’t realize that the other “free” search engines limit the number of hits shown to the user. The old-fashioned ideas of precision and recall are not operative with most of the people whom I encounter. At the Googleplex, precision and recall are treated like a snappy joke when the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show appears in a major venue like courtrooms.
If you want to control the results, JudyRecords provides old-fashioned and definitely unpopular methods such as Boolean logic. I can visualize the GenZs rolling their eyes and mouthing, “Are you crazy, old man?”
Please, check out JudyRecords because the outstanding management visionaries at LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters, and other “professional” publishers will be taking a look themselves.
Stephen E Arnold, April 22, 2025
Kiddie Loving Google and Data Hoovering
April 22, 2025
If you do not have kids or grandkids in school, you may have missed Google’s very successful foray into K-12 education. Google’s “Workspace for Education” tools are free to schools, but is the company providing them purely from a sense of civic duty? Of course not. Bloomberg Law reports, “Google Hit with Lawsuit over Data Collection on School Kids.” Apparently, US schools did not learn from Denmark’s 2022 ban on Google Workspace in its schools. Or they decided savings and convenience trumped student privacy and parental consent. Writer Isaiah Poritz tells us:
“Google LLC is unlawfully using its products—ubiquitous in K-12 education—to secretly gather information about school age children, substituting the consent of the school for that of parents, a proposed class action filed in California federal court said Monday. The tech giant collects not only traditional education records ‘but thousands of data points that span a child’s life,’ and ‘neither students nor their parents have agreed to this arrangement, according to the US District Court for the Northern District of California complaint.”
This is a significant breach, if true, considering almost 70% of K-12 schools in the US use these tools. We also learn:
“The company doesn’t disclose that it embeds hidden tracking technology in its Chrome browser that creates a child’s unique digital ‘fingerprint,’ the plaintiffs said. The fingerprint allows Google to ‘to track a child even when she or her school administrator has disabled cookies or is using technologies designed to block third-party cookies.’ The suit said Google has failed to obtain parental consent to take school childrens’ personal data. ‘Instead, Google relies on the consent of school personnel alone,’ the complaint said. ‘But school personnel do not have authority to provide consent in lieu of parents.’”
No, they do not. Or they shouldn’t. It seems like parents’ rights groups should have something to say about this. Perhaps they are too busy policing library shelves. The suit alleges Google is both selling students’ data to third parties and using it for its own targeted advertising. We note it would also be very easy, if the firm is so inclined, to build up a profile of a student who later creates a Google account which is then mapped onto that childhood data.
Naturally, Google denies the suit’s allegations. Of course, our favorite company does.
Cynthia Murrell, April 22, 2025
ArXiv: Will Other Smart Software Systems Get “Free” Access? Yeah, Sure
April 21, 2025
Believe it or not, no smart software. Just a dumb and skeptical dinobaby.
Before commenting on Cornell University’s apparent shift of the ArXiv service to the Google Cloud, let me point you to this page:
The page was updated 15 years ago. Now check out the access to
NCSTRL, the Networked Computer Science Technical Reference Library.
CoRR, the Computing Research Repository.
The Open Archives Initiative.
ETRDL, the ERCIM Technical Reference Digital Library.
Cornell University Library Historical Math Book Collection
Cornell University Library Making of America Collection
Hein online Retrospective Law Journals
Yep, 404s, some content behind paywalls, and other data just disappeared because Bing, Google, and Yandex don’t index certain information no matter what people believe or the marketers say.
This orphaned Cornell University Dienst service has “gorged out”; that is, jumped off a bridge to the rocks below. The act is something students know about but the admissions department seems to not be aware of the bound phrase.
I read “Careers at ArXiv.” The post seems to say to me, “We are moving the ArXiv “gray” papers to Google Cloud. Here’s a snippet of the “career” advertisement / news announcement:
We are already underway on the arXiv CE ("Cloud Edition") project. This is a project to re-home all arXiv services from VMs at Cornell to a cloud provider (Google Cloud). There are a number of reasons for this transition, including improving arXiv’s scalability while modernizing our infrastructure. This will not be a simple port of the existing arXiv code base because this project will:
- replace the portion of our backends still written in perl and PHP
- re-architect our article processing to be fully asynchronous, and provide better insight into the processing workflows
- containerize all, or nearly all arXiv services so we can deploy via Kubernetes or services like Google Cloud Run
- improve our monitoring and logging facilities so we can more quickly identify and manage production issues with arxiv.org
- create a robust CI/CD pipeline to give us more confidence that changes we deploy will not cause services to regress
The cloud transition is a pre-requisite to modernizing arXiv as a service. The modernization will enable: – arXiv to expand the subject areas that we cover – improve the metadata we collect and make available for articles, adding fields that the research community has requested such as funder identification – deal with the problem of ambiguous author identities – improve accessibility to support users with impairments, particularly visual impairments – improve usability for the entire arXiv community.
I know Google is into “free.” The company is giving college students its quantumly supreme smart software for absolutely nothing. Maybe a Google account will be required? Maybe the Chrome browser may be needed to give those knowledge hungry college students the best experience possible? Maybe Google’s beacons, bugs, and cookies will be the students’ constant companions? Yeah, maybe.
But will ArXiv exist in the future? Will Google’s hungry knowledge munchers chew through the data and then pull a Dienst maneuver?
As a dinobaby, I liked the ArXiv service, but I also liked the Dienst math repository before it became unfindable.
It seems to me that Cornell University is:
- Saving money at the library and maybe the Theory Center
- Avoiding future legal dust ups about access to content which to some government professionals may reveal information to America’s adversaries
- Intentionally or inadvertently giving the Google control over knowledge flow related to matters of technical and competitive interest to everyone’s favorite online advertising company
- Running a variation of its Dienst game plan.
But I am a dinobaby, and I know zero about Cornell other than the “gorging out” approach to termination. I know even less about the blue chip consulting type thinking in which the Google engages. I don’t even know if I agree that Google’s recent court loss is really a “win” for the Google.
But the future of the ArXiv? Hey, where is that bridge? Do some students jump, fall, or get pushed to their death on the rocks below?
PS. In case your German is rusty “dienst” means duty and possibly “a position of authority” like a leader at Google.
Stephen E Arnold, April xx, 2025
AI and Movies: Better and Cheaper!
April 21, 2025
Believe it or not, no smart software. Just a dumb and skeptical dinobaby.
I am not a movie oriented dinobaby. I do see occasional stories about the motion picture industry. My knowledge is shallow, but several things seem to be stuck in my mind:
- Today’s movies are not too good
- Today’s big budget films are recycles of sequels, pre-quels, and less than equals
- Today’s blockbusters are expensive.
I did a project for a little-time B movie fellow. I have even been to an LA party held in a mansion in La Jolla. I sat in the corner in my brown suit and waited until I could make my escape.
End of Hollywood knowledge.
I read “Ted Sarandos Responds To James Cameron’s Vision Of AI Making Movies Cheaper: “There’s An Even Bigger Opportunity To Make Movies 10% Better.” No, I really did red the article. I cam away confused. Most of my pre-retirement work involved projects whose goal was to make a lot of money. The idea was be clever, do a minimum of “real” work, and then fix up the problems when people complained. The magic formula for some Silicon Valley and high-technology outfits located outside of the Plastic Fantastic World.
This article pits better versus cheaper. I learned:
Citing recent comments by James Cameron, Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos said he hopes AI can make films “10% better,” not just “50% cheaper.”
Well, there you go. Better and cheaper. Is that the winning formula for creative work? The write up quotes Ted Sarandos (a movie expert, I assume) as saying:
Today, you can use these AI-powered tools to enable smaller-budget projects to have access to big VFX on screen.
From my point of view “better” means more VFX which is, I assume, movie talk for visual effects. These are the everyday things I see at my local grocery store. There are super heroes stopping crimes in progress. There are giant alien creatures shooting energy beams at military personnel. There are machines that have a great voice that some AI experts found particularly enchanting.
The cheaper means that the individuals who sit in front of computer screens fooling around with Blackmagic’s Fusion and the super-wonderful Adobe software will be able to let smart software do some of the work. If 100 people work on a big budget film’s VFX and smart software can do the work cheaper, the question arises, “Do we need these 100 people?” Based on my training, the answer is, “Nope. Let them find their future elsewhere.”
The article sidesteps two important questions: Question 1. What does better mean? Question 2. What does cheaper mean?
Better is subjective. Cheaper is a victim of scope creep. Big jobs don’t get cheaper. Big jobs get more expensive.
What smart software will do the motion picture industry is hasten its “re-invention.”
The new video stars are those who attract eyeballs on TikTok- and YouTube-type platforms. The traditional motion picture industry which created yesterday’s stars or “influencers” is long gone. AI is going to do three things:
- Replace skilled technicians with software
- Allow today’s “influencers” to become the next Clark Gabel and Marilyn Monroe (How did she die?)
- Reduce the barrier for innovations that do not come from recycling Superman-type pre-quels, sequels, and less than equals.
To sum up, both of these movie experts are right and wrong. I suppose both can be reskilled. Does Mr. Beast offer a for fee class on video innovation which includes cheaper production and better outputs?
Stephen E Arnold, April 21, 2025
When
Bugs, Debugs, and Rebugs: AI Does Great Work
April 21, 2025
AI algorithms have already been assimilated into everyday technology, but AI still has problems or you could say there’s a bug in their code. TechCrunch tells us that, “AI Models Still Struggle To Debug Software, Microsoft Study Shows.” Large AI Models such as Anthropic, OpenAI, and more are used for programming. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook plans to deploy AI coding models at his company, while Sundar Pichai, the Google CEO, said that 25% of code is AI generated.
AI algorithms are great at automating tasks, but they shouldn’t be relied on 100% for all programming projects. Microsoft Research released a new study that discovered AI models like Cause 3.7 Sonnet and 03-mini fail to debug problems in SWE-bench Lite, a software development benchmark. Humans still beat technology when it comes to coding. Here’s what the study did and found:
“The study’s co-authors tested nine different models as the backbone for a “single prompt-based agent” that had access to a number of debugging tools, including a Python debugger. They tasked this agent with solving a curated set of 300 software debugging tasks from SWE-bench Lite. According to the co-authors, even when equipped with stronger and more recent models, their agent rarely completed more than half of the debugging tasks successfully. Claude 3.7 Sonnet had the highest average success rate (48.4%), followed by OpenAI’s o1 (30.2%), and o3-mini (22.1%).”
What is the problem? It’s one that AI has faced since it was first programmed: lack of data for training.
More studies show that AI generated code creates security vulnerabilities too. Is anyone surprised? (Just the AI marketers who do not understand why their assertions don’t match reality.)
Whitney Grace, April 21, 2025
Google Is Just Like Santa with Free Goodies: Get “High” Grades, of Course
April 18, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby himself.
Google wants to be [a] viewed as the smartest quantumly supreme outfit in the world and [b] like Santa. The “smart” part is part of the company’s culture. The CLEVER approach worked in Web search. Now the company faces what might charitably be called headwinds. There are those pesky legal hassles in the US and some gaining strength in other countries. Also, the competitive world of smart software continues to bedevil the very company that “invented” the transformer. Google gave away some technology, and now everyone from the update champs in Redmond, Washington, to Sam AI-Man is blowing smoke about Google’s systems and methods.
What a state of affairs?
The fix is to give away access to Google’s most advanced smart software to college students. How Santa like. According to “Google Is Gifting a Year of Gemini advanced to Every College Student in the US” reports:
Google has announced today that it’s giving all US college students free access to Gemini Advanced, and not just for a month or two—the offer is good for a full year of service. With Gemini Advanced, you get access to the more capable Pro models, as well as unlimited use of the Deep Research tool based on it. Subscribers also get a smattering of other AI tools, like the Veo 2 video generator, NotebookLM, and Gemini Live. The offer is for the Google One AI Premium plan, so it includes more than premium AI models, like Gemini features in Google Drive and 2TB of Drive storage.
The approach is not new. LexisNexis was one of the first online services to make online legal research available to law school students. It worked. Lawyers are among the savviest of the work fast, bill more professionals. When did Lexis Nexis move this forward? I recall speaking to a LexisNexis professional named Don Wilson in 1980, and he was eager to tell me about this “new” approach.
I asked Mr. Wilson (who as I recall was a big wheel at LexisNexis then), “That’s a bit like drug dealers giving the curious a ‘taste’?”
He smiled and said, “Exactly.”
In the last 45 years, lawyers have embraced new technology with a passion. I am not going to go through the litany of search, analysis, summarization, and other tools that heralded the success of smart software for the legal folks. I recall the early days of LegalTech when the most common question was, “How?” My few conversations with the professionals laboring in the jungle of law, rules, and regulations have shifted to “which system” and “how much.”
The marketing professionals at Google have “invented” their own approach to hook college students on smart software. My instinct is that Google does not know much about Don Wilson’s big idea. (As an aside, I remember one of Mr. Wilson’s technical colleague sometimes sported a silver jumpsuit which anticipated some of the fashion choices of Googlers by half a century.)
The write up says:
Google’s intention is to give students an entire school year of Gemini Advanced from now through finals next year. At the end of the term, you can bet Google will try to convert students to paying subscribers.
I am not sure I agree with this. If the program gets traction, Sam AI-Man and others will be standing by with special offers, deals, and free samples. The chemical structure of certain substances is similar to today’s many variants of smart software. Hey, whatever works, right? Whatever is free, right?
Several observations:
- Google’s originality is quantumly supreme
- Some people at the Google dress like Mr. Wilson’s technical wizard, jumpsuit and all
- The competition is going to do their own version of this “original” marketing idea; for example, didn’t Bing offer to pay people to use that outstanding Web search-and-retrieval system?
Net net: Hey, want a taste? It won’t hurt anything. Try it. You will be mentally sharper. You will be more informed. You will have more time to watch YouTube. Trust the Google.
Stephen E Arnold, April 18, 2025
Google Gemini 2.5: A Somewhat Interesting Content Marketing Write Up
April 18, 2025
Just a still alive dinobaby . No smart software involved.
How about this headline: “Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro Is the Smartest Model You’re Not Using – and 4 Reasons It Matters for Enterprise AI”?
OpenAI scroogled the Google again. First, it was the January 2023 starting gun for AI hype. Now it was the release of a Japanese cartoon style for ChatGPT. Who knew that Japanese cartoons could have blasted the Google Gemini 2.5 Pro launch more effectively than a detonation of a failed SpaceX rocket?
The write up pants:
Gemini 2.5 Pro marks a significant leap forward for Google in the foundational model race – not just in benchmarks, but in usability. Based on early experiments, benchmark data, and hands-on developer reactions, it’s a model worth serious attention from enterprise technical decision-makers, particularly those who’ve historically defaulted to OpenAI or Claude for production-grade reasoning.
Yeah, whatever.
Announcements about Google AI are about as satisfying as pizza with glued-on cheese or Apple’s AI fantasy PR about “intelligence.”
But I like this statement:
Bonus: It’s Just Useful
The headline and this “just useful” make it clear none of Google’s previous AI efforts are winning the social media buzz game. Plus, the author points out that billions of Google dollars have not made the smart software speedy. And if you want to have smart software write that history paper about Germany after WW 2, stick with other models which feature “conversational smoothness.”
Quite an advertisement. A headline that says, “No one is using this” and” it is sluggish and writes in a way that a student will get flagged for cheating.
Stick to ads maybe?
And what about “why it matters to for enterprise AI.” Yeah, nice omission.
Stephen E Arnold, April 18, 2025
YouTube Click Count Floors Creators
April 18, 2025
Content creators are not thrilled about a change in how YouTube counts views for short-form videos. The Google-owned site now tallies a view any time the short starts, regardless of how long it plays before the user scrolls on past. Digiday reports, “YouTube Shorts View Count Update Wins Over Brands—But Creators Aren’t Sold.” Though view counts have spiked since the change, that number has nothing to do with creators’ compensation. Any bragging rights from high view counts will surely be negated as word spreads on how their calculation changed. Besides, say seasoned creators, there could be a real downside for newbies. Reporter Ivy Liu writes:
Other creators said that they were worried the change could encourage YouTubers to focus on the inflated view metric displayed beneath Shorts, rather than the engaged view metric that contributes more meaningfully to creators’ income. For example, the creator BnG Refining — who goes by the name ‘Scrooge’ to his audience and asked not to be quoted by his real name — said that he was afraid less experienced creators might ‘flood the platform with content that they think is wanted, and not until hours, days, weeks later realizing that those were only fake views.’”
We are sure Google does not mind, though. Creators were not the real audience for the change. We learn:
“Brands and marketers are far more welcoming of the update, saying it brings order to the chaos of influencer marketing. Now, YouTube Shorts, TikTok videos and Instagram Reels all measure their views in the same way, making it easier for marketers to compare creators’ and videos’ performance across platforms. ‘It makes it easier, if you’re a brand, to say, “here’s how performance is across the board,” vs. looking at impressions and then trying to judge an impression as a view,’ said Krishna Subramanian, CEO of the influencer marketing company Captiv8.”
Of course. Because it is all about making it easier for brands to calculate their ROI. Creators’ perspectives, information, and artistic expression are secondary. As usual, creators are at the mercy of Google. Google likes everyone to be at its mercy. No meaningful regulation is the best regulation. Self regulation works wonders in the financial services sector too.
Cynthia Murrell, April 18, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
