Speculation About Beyond Search
June 2, 2016
If you are curious to learn more about the purveyor of the Beyond Search blog, you should check out Singularity’s interview with “Stephen E Arnold On Search Engine And Intelligence Gathering.” A little bit of background about Arnold is that he is an expert specialist in content processing, indexing, online search as well as the author of seven books and monographs. His past employment record includes Booz, Allen, & Hamilton (Edward Snowden was a contractor for this company), Courier Journal & Louisville Times, and Halliburton Nuclear. He worked on the US government’s Threat Open Source Intelligence Service and developed a cost analysis, technical infrastructure, and security for the FirstGov.gov.
Singualrity’s interview covers a variety of topics and, of course, includes Arnold’s direct sense of humor:
“During our 90 min discussion with Stephen E. Arnold we cover a variety of interesting topics such as: why he calls himself lucky; how he got interested in computers in general and search engines in particular; his path from college to Halliburton Nuclear and Booze, Allen & Hamilton; content and web indexing; his who’s who list of clients; Beyond Search and the core of intelligence; his Google Trilogy – The Google Legacy (2005), Google Version 2.0 (2007), and Google: The Digital Gutenberg (2009); CyberOSINT and the Dark Web Notebook; the less-known but major players in search such as Recorded Future and Palantir; Big Brother and surveillance; personal ethics and Edward Snowden.”
When you listen to the experts in certain fields, you always get a different perspective than what the popular news outlets gives. Arnold offers a unique take on search as well as the future of Internet security, especially the future of the Dark Web.
Whitney Grace, June 2, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
GAO DCGS Letter B-412746
June 1, 2016
A few days ago, I stumbled upon a copy of a letter from the GAO concerning Palantir Technologies dated May 18, 2016. The letter became available to me a few days after the 18th, and the US holiday probably limited circulation of the document. The letter is from the US Government Accountability Office and signed by Susan A. Poling, general counsel. There are eight recipients, some from Palantir, some from the US Army, and two in the GAO.
Has the US Army put Palantir in an untenable spot? Is there a deus ex machina about to resolve the apparent checkmate?
The letter tells Palantir Technologies that its protest of the DCGS Increment 2 award to another contractor is denied. I don’t want to revisit the history or the details as I understand them of the DCGS project. (DCGS, pronounced “dsigs”, is a US government information fusion project associated with the US Army but seemingly applicable to other Department of Defense entities like the Air Force and the Navy.)
The passage in the letter I found interesting was:
While the market research revealed that commercial items were available to meet some of the DCGS-A2 requirements, the agency concluded that there was no commercial solution that could meet all the requirements of DCGS-A2. As the agency explained in its report, the DCGS-A2 contractor will need to do a great deal of development and integration work, which will include importing capabilities from DCGS-A1 and designing mature interfaces for them. Because the agency concluded that significant portions of the anticipated DCSG-A2 scope of work were not available as a commercial product, the agency determined that the DCGS-A2 development effort could not be procured as a commercial product under FAR part 12 procedures. The protester has failed to show that the agency’s determination in this regard was unreasonable.
The “importing” point is a big deal. I find it difficult to imagine that IBM i2 engineers will be eager to permit the Palantir Gotham system to work like one happy family. The importation and manipulation of i2 data in a third party system is more difficult than opening an RTF file in Word in my experience. My recollection is that the unfortunate i2-Palantir legal matter was, in part, related to figuring out how to deal with ANB files. (ANB is i2 shorthand for Analysts Notebook’s file format, a somewhat complex and closely-held construct.)
Net net: Palantir Technologies will not be the dog wagging the tail of IBM i2 and a number of other major US government integrators. The good news is that there will be quite a bit of work available for firms able to support the prime contractors and the vendors eligible and selected to provide for-fee products and services.
Was this a shoot-from-the-hip decision to deny Palantir’s objection to the award? No. I believe the FAR procurement guidelines and the content of the statement of work provided the framework for the decision. However, context is important as are past experiences and perceptions of vendors in the running for substantive US government programs.
Quote to Note: What Silicon Valley Hates
June 1, 2016
I read the Gray Lady’s write up about the shoot out between some high profile people and outfits. You can get the details in “Tech Titans Raise Their Guard, Pushing Back Against News Media.” The addled goose is interested in the behavior of real journalists and the folks with money, influence, and legal eagles. Eagles have been known to snack on geese.
Here’s the quote I noted:
“The possibility that Gawker may have to post a bond for $50 million or more just to be able to pursue its right to appeal the jury’s verdict raises serious concerns about press freedom,” Lynn Oberlander, general counsel for First Look, said in a statement.
The Constitution thing again. Troublesome for sure. Paying for placement may be the answer. That’s journalism too I surmise.
Stephen E Arnold, June 1, 2016
Next-Generation Business Intelligence Already Used by Risk Analysis Teams
June 1, 2016
Ideas about business intelligence have certainly evolved with emerging technologies. Addressing this, an article, Why machine learning is the new BI from CIO, speaks to this transformation of the concept. The author describes how reactive analytics based on historical data do not optimally assist business decisions. Questions about customer satisfaction are best oriented toward proactive future-proofing, according to the article. The author writes,
“Advanced, predictive analytics are about calculating trends and future possibilities, predicting potential outcomes and making recommendations. That goes beyond the queries and reports in familiar BI tools like SQL Server Reporting Services, Business Objects and Tableau, to more sophisticated methods like statistics, descriptive and predictive data mining, machine learning, simulation and optimization that look for trends and patterns in the data, which is often a mix of structured and unstructured. They’re the kind of tools that are currently used by marketing or risk analysis teams for understanding churn, customer lifetimes, cross-selling opportunities, likelihood of buying, credit scoring and fraud detection.”
Does this mean that traditional business intelligence after much hype and millions in funding is a flop? Or will predictive analytics be a case of polishing up existing technology and presenting it in new packaging? After time — and for some after much money has been spent — we should have a better idea of the true value.
Megan Feil, June 1, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Everyone Rejoice! We Now Have Emoji Search
June 1, 2016
It was only a matter of time after image search actually became a viable and useful tool that someone would develop a GIF search. Someone thought it would be a keen idea to also design an emoji search and now, ladies and gentlemen, we have it! Tech Viral reports that “Now You Can Search Images On Google Using Emoji.”
Using the Google search engine is a very easy process, type in a few keywords or a question, click search, and then delve into the search results. The Internet, though, is a place where people develop content and apps just for “the heck of it”. Google decided to design an emoji search option, probably for that very reason. Users can type in an emoji, instead of words to conduct an Internet search.
The new emoji search is based on the same recognition skills as the Google image search, but the biggest question is how many emojis will Google support with the new function?
“Google has taken searching algorithm to the next level, as it is now allowing users to search using any emoji icon. Google stated ‘An emoji is worth a thousand words’. This feature may be highly appreciated by lazy Google users, as they now they don’t need to type a complete line instead you just need to use an emoji for searching images.”
It really sounds like a search for lazy people and do not be surprised to get a variety of results that do not have any relation to the emoji or your intended information need. An emoji might be worth a thousand words, but that is a lot of words with various interpretations.
Whitney Grace, June 1, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Alphabet Google Factoid: Media Spend Control
May 31, 2016
I noted “Google Now Controls 12 Percent of All Global Media Spend.” My immediate reaction was, “Just 12 percent.” I assumed that the Alphabet Google thing had cornered much more of the media spend. I learned:
Alphabet controls 12 percent of all global media spend, which primarily comes from Google and YouTube’s ad sales. The company collects $60 billion in U.S. ad spend—a figure 166 percent larger than No. 2 ranking The Walt Disney Company. To compare, Google’s ad revenue was 136 percent larger than Walt Disney last year. Alphabet’s overall ad revenue is up 17 percent year-over-year.
Google is not without competition. I love “competition” in the online digital world. The write up points out:
Facebook in particular continues to become an advertising juggernaut. The social network jumped from No. 10 in 2015 to No. 5 this year, making it the fastest-growing company on Zenith’s list with 65 percent year-over-year growth. Chinese Internet company Baidu is the second fastest-growing company, with ad revenues up 52 percent.
I am not an ad expert. I certainly don’t know anything about media spend. After 15 years of slogging, the 12 percent figure strikes me as interesting. It seems that in a shorter time period, Facebook has been the hot item. Search or social media? Which is the “winner”? Both? Who are the losers?
Traditional media. Another surprise?
Stephen E Arnold, May 31, 2016
What Is Hot? Search Does Not Make the Cut
May 31, 2016
I came across an infographic; that is, chart. You may want to take a look at “What’s Hot (And Not) In Early Stage Tech.” If the information is spot on you could make some real money or not. You won’t be able to read this due to the sizing conventions of this fine blogging software and the very hip colors in which the data are presented.
The winners are the words which crop up in news releases; for example, artificial intelligence, drones, the Internet of Things, etc. The hottest of these hot categories is Slack. There’s your tip. Ad, maybe?
The losers, quite surprisingly, do not include search or content processing. The doggies range from water (bummer) to bitcoin (bummer bummer).
What about semantic search, natural language processing, enterprise search, open source, and my personal favorite cognitive computing. There are in neither list. Yikes.
Stephen E Arnold, May 31, 2016
Considering an Epistemology of the Dark Web
May 31, 2016
The comparisons of Nucleus to Silk Road are rolling in. An article from Naked Security by Sophos recently published Dark Web marketplace “Nucleus” vanishes – and no one knows why. This piece echoes the questions those following this story have wondered. Was it attacked by ransomware? Maybe they were busted? The article also offers the low-down on how Tor works to explain why accurate investigations into the Dark Web are challenging. We learned,
“That’s why Tor also supports so-called hidden services, which have special URLs ending .onion, where your anonymised network requests are not only bounced around inside the Tor network, but also processed and answered from inside Tor. This makes it hard to find the servers behind a hidden service, which in turn makes it hard to block that service, even if it’s clearly breaking the law by selling firearms improperly or trafficking in illegal drugs. This, in turn, means it’s hard to measure what’s really going on in the Dark Web, and how many underground marketplaces exist to bring buyers and sellers together.”
We found it refreshing this piece reiterated how data about the Dark Web is not easy to pinpoint. From several tens of thousands of Dark Web sites to much lower counts, many cybersecurity groups and researchers seem certain they have the right number. But to continue on the endless hypotheses train related to the nucleus disappearance, we’ll weigh in. Maybe law enforcement outside the US operated the site? Just a thought.
Megan Feil, May 31, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
The Google Knowledge Vault Claimed to Be the Future
May 31, 2016
Back in 2014, I heard rumors that the Google Knowledge Vault was supposed to be the next wave of search. How many times do you hear a company or a product making the claim it is the next big thing? After I rolled my eyes, I decided to research what became of the Knowledge Vault and I found an old article from Search Engine Land: “Google ‘Knowledge Vault’ To Power Future Of Search.” Google Knowledge Graph was used to supply more information to search results, what we now recognize as the summarized information at the top of Google search results. The Knowledge Vault was supposedly the successor and would rely less on third party information providers.
“Sensationally characterized as ‘the largest store of knowledge in human history,’ Knowledge Vault is being assembled from content across the Internet without human editorial involvement. ‘Knowledge Vault autonomously gathers and merges information from across the web into a single base of facts about the world, and the people and objects in it,’ says New Scientist. Google has reportedly assembled 1.6 billion “facts” and scored them according to confidence in their accuracy. Roughly 16 percent of the information in the database qualifies as ‘confident facts.’”
Knowledge Vault was also supposed to give Google a one up in the mobile search market and even be the basis for artificial intelligence applications. It was a lot of hoopla, but I did a bit more research and learned from Wikipedia that Knowledge Vault was nothing more than a research paper.
Since 2014, Google, Apple, Facebook, and other tech companies have concentrated their efforts and resources on developing artificial intelligence and integrating it within their products. While Knowledge Vault was a red herring, the predictions about artificial intelligence were correct.
Whitney Grace, May 31, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Alphabet Google: An NHS Explainer
May 30, 2016
I read “Did Google’s NHS Patient Data Deal Need Ethical Approval?” As I thought about the headline, my reaction was typically Kentucky, “Is this mom talking or what?”
The write up states:
Now, a New Scientist investigation has found that Google DeepMind deployed a medical app called Streams for monitoring kidney conditions without first contacting the relevant regulatory authority. Our investigation also asks whether an ethical approval process that covers this kind of data transfer should have been obtained, and raises questions about the basis under which Royal Free is sharing data with Google DeepMind.
I hear, “Did you clean up your room, dear?”
The notion of mining data has some charm among some folks in the UK. The opportunity to get a leg up on other outfits has some appeal to the Alphabet Google crowd.
The issue is, “Now that the horse has left the barn, what do we do about it?” Good question if you are a mom type. Ask any teenager about Friday night. Guess what you are likely to learn.
The write up continues:
Minutes from the Royal Free’s board meeting on 6 April make the trust’s relationship with DeepMind explicit: “The board had agreed to enter into a memorandum of understanding with Google DeepMind to form a strategic partnership to develop transformational analytics and artificial intelligence healthcare products building on work currently underway on an acute kidney failure application.” When New Scientist asked for a copy of the memorandum of understanding on 9 May, Royal Free pushed the request into a Freedom of Information Act request.
I recall a statement made by a US official. It may be germane to this question about medical data. The statement: “What we say is secret is secret.” Perhaps this applies to the matter in question.
I circled this passage:
The HRA confirmed to New Scientist that DeepMind had not started the approval process as of 11 May. “Google is getting data from a hospital without consent or ethical approval,” claims Smith. “There are ethical processes around what data can be used for, and for a good reason.”
And Alphabet Google’s point of view? I highlighted this paragraph:
“Section 251 assent is not required in this case,” Google said in a statement to New Scientist. “All the identifiable data under this agreement can only ever be used to assist clinicians with direct patient care and can never be used for research.”
I don’t want to draw any comparisons between the thought processes in some Silicon Valley circles and the Silicon Fen. Some questions:
- Where is that horse?
- Who owns the horse?
- What secondary products have been created from the horse?
My inner voice is saying, “Hit the butcher specializing in horse meat maybe.”
Stephen E Arnold, May 30, 2016
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
