Figure This Rights Issue Out? Too Confusing for Me
July 28, 2022
I spotted a post at this Reddit location. I want to believe everything I read on the Internet because the information superhighway is so darned safe, well marked, and a clean, well lighted place. (Thanks, Mr. Hemingway.)
The post about which my attention wobbled is from an entity/persona named Simon Longbottom. The individual says:
I work at Adobe Stock Premium and it has come to my attention that Picrights is using this photo image and we have no record of their license to use this picture.
The picture is referenced in the Reddit post.
Simon says:
I am authorizing everyone reading this to act as an agent of Adobe Stock Premium to get fair compensation for their infringement. You should all be familiar with how to request this payment. I suggest sending them an email demand letter telling them to to take down the photo immediately and pay our standard licensing fee of $1786 for this image to settle our claim. My boss says that you can keep 85% of everything you get from this terrible company that has committed such terrible infraction. They need to learn a real lesson – please help me teach it to them.
Picrights is a professional services firm which collects use fees for rights holders. I am not too familiar with the outfit, and I don’t know if Simon works for Adobe.
The question is, “What’s going on in this post?”
The matter is complicated by the inclusion in the thread of emails for professionals working at Picrights. Those emails might be used by bad actors I suppose.
I like to think of Reddit personas and outfits which walk close to possibly improper behavior as outliers. My assumption may be incorrect.
In my upcoming lecture for a Federal law enforcement group, I am going to comment about what I call “soft fraud.” This single Reddit post raises some interesting questions, and there seems to be little recourse for those caught in a Web of digital fluffery. Reddit seems unwilling or unable to clear up the “entity” issue. The references to Adobe are in need of verification. There may be the ancillary question about the Picrights’ activities.
Perhaps a better question is, “Does anyone care?” Reddit? Adobe? Simon? Picrights? Anyone?
Stephen E Arnold, July 28, 2022
Meta: Trying Not to Zuck Up
July 20, 2022
Meta is the umbrella company for Facebook and Instagram. The company created the Oversight board to monitor appeals for content moderation on the platforms. The BBC examines the Meta and the banned content in: “Meta Board Hears Over A Million Appeals Over Removed Posts.” The majority of the disputed posts were from Canada, Europe, and the United States. They contained violent, hate speech, or bullying content.
The Oversight Board published twenty cases of appealed content and ruled against Meta in fourteen of them. Some of the cases were: photos of female breasts in a breast cancer post, a photo of a dead child with text about whether it was right to retaliate against China for how it treats Uighur Muslims, and the decision to ban Donald Trump after the January 6 rots. The board overturned banning the breast and dead child images, but supported the Trump decision.
The Oversight Board was originally going to review 130 cases, but Meta agreed that it was wrong removing content on fifty-one of them.
“Board director Thomas Hughes said it looked for “emblematic” cases with “problematic elements” to take on. He added that the categories of hate speech, violence and bullying were “difficult-to-judge issues” – especially for automated systems. ‘Also in many of those cases, context is extremely important,’ he said.”
The Oversight Board released its first annual report covering October 2020-December 2121. Anyone can appeal a decision about removed content. During the first period, 1.1 million cases were received, 2,600 cases are reported a day, and 47 of them came to the board. Most of the complaints came from western countries. Ninety-four percent of the requests were to restore content mostly a user’s posts.
The Oversight Board is compared to a supreme court for Meta and Mark Zuckerberg formed it. Meta pays for its costs, but it operates separately. Its members include human rights activists, lawyers, academics, and journalists. During the appeals session, the board made 86 more recommendations, including translating policies into more languages and being more specific about what constitutes hate speech.
Whitney Grace, July 20, 2022
Microsoft and the Next Fix Problem
July 11, 2022
I spotted a now routine story about a bug in Microsoft’s software. The story “Windows 11’s ‘Resolved’ Outlook Search Bug Resurfaces: When’s the Next Fix?” reveals a key insight into the software giant’s technical method.
I noted this statement in the article about an issue with search functionality in the Outlook email program, one of the original landscape apps which are pretty much orthogonal to the mobile phone’s display:
When doing a search in Outlook on Windows 11 PCs, the email program sometimes fails to provide results relevant to recent messages…
Yep, search. Microsoft. Not working.
But the important facet of the story appears in the story headline; specifically, “When’s the next fix?”
The Microsoft softies have experienced many issues with search and retrieval. Unlike Elizabeth Barrett Browning, I shall not count the ways. However, I will point out that there is now a fatalism about Microsoft. Stuff goes wrong. Microsoft attempts to fix the problem. Then the problem comes back
Whether it is the outstanding security systems or the brilliance of Word’s fascinating approach to automatic numbering, fixes beget more fixes.
So here we are: Unfixable code, persistent issues, and a giant theme park of opportunities for people to make bad decisions, waste time, and hunt for security flaws.
Yep, next fix. Working11ood. Which time is the charm? Third, fourth, nth? Is there a macro for excellence? Wait, let’s roll that macro thing back.
Stephen E Arnold, July 11, 2022
Xoogler Demonstrates Historical Revisionism
July 4, 2022
How did Google’s famous “solving death” project get funded? What about the “put wood behind” social networking initiative? What about those X moon shots?
The answers to these and other Google mysteries allegedly appear in “Former Google CEO Describes Brutal Review Process for New Projects.” The write up reveals:
Schmidt always stated Google took a bottom-up approach to managing the 20% project. Meaning it was a collaborative effort in deciding what steps to take with new product ideas. However, Schmidt says at Collision that company leaders were more involved than previously stated. It wasn’t a team decision that allowed projects to advance to the next level. The decision was determined through a “brutal” review process from management.
The questions asked, according to the article, were:
Are these ideas good enough?
Can we fund them?
Are they going to work?
Are they going to scale?
Are they legal?
One question I thought would be included was, “Is it possible to solve death?”
Obviously I am not officially Googley, but, take it from me, that is okay. Tony Bennett crooning in the cafeteria was sufficient for me. I also liked entering a building on Surfside because the door was propped open so those washing cars could traipse in and out without those silly key cards.
But death?
The write up includes this quote from the former leader of the online ad outfit:
To build a systemic innovation culture, which is what I think we’re talking about here, you need to have both bottoms up and tops down.
That’s logical. And logic rules at Google, right? Oh, I forgot to ask, “Is it possible arrogance plays a small part?”
Stephen E Arnold, July 4, 2022
Swedish Radio Tunes In to the Zuckbook Baloney
June 30, 2022
Sveriges Radio AB or Swedish Radio is a combo of the US National Public Radio and a “real” newspaper. In general, this approach to information is not the core competency of the Meat (sorry, Meta) Zuckbook thing. An interesting case example of the difference between Sveriges Radio and the estimable Silicon Valley super company is described in “Swedish Radio Created Fake Pharmacy – Reveals How Facebook Stored Sensitive Information.”
The main idea is that the Sveriges team did not listen to much disco or rap. Instead the canny outfit set up a honey pot in the form of a fake pharmacy. Then Sveriges analyzed what Facebook said it did with health-related information versus what the the Zuckster actually did.
Guess how that turned out? The write up explains:
After four days, 25 000 fake visits from customers had been registered with Facebook. But they had neither shut down nor warned the owners of the made-up pharmacy – Swedish Radio News’ reporters. When the reporters log into their account, they see that Facebook has stored the type of sensitive information that they say their filter is built to delete again and again. The question that the reporters then asked themselves was whether or not Facebook even has a filter that works in the Swedish language. One of the pharmacies that Swedish Radio reported on say that they cannot find any warnings from Facebook on data transfers that have taken place. The other has not wanted to answer the question. According to state investigators in the USA last year, Facebook only filtered in English.
Interesting? Yes, for three reasons:
- The radio outfit appears to have caught the Zuckers in a bit of a logical problem: Yes, there are filters? No, we just do marketing speak.
- Dismissing the method used to snap a mouse trap on Zuck’s big toe is probably a mistake. The “I’ll get back to you, Senator” works in the lobby-rich US. In Sweden, probably the method will swim like a plate of Surströmming.
- “Real” news — at least in Sweden — still has value. Perhaps some of the US “real” news people will give the approach a spin without the social justice and political sheen.
Net net: Will Facebook change its deep swimming in the information ocean? Has the Atlantic herring changed in the last two decades?
Stephen E Arnold, June 30, 2022
NSO Group: Is This a Baller Play to Regain Its PR Initiative or a Fumble?
June 15, 2022
Secrecy and confidentiality are often positive characteristics in certain specialized software endeavors. One might assume that firms engaged in providing technology, engineering support, and consulting services would operate with a low profile. I like to think of my first meeting with Admiral Craig Hosmer. We each arrived at the DC Army Navy Club at 2 30 pm Eastern time. The Admiral told me where to sit. He joined me about 15 minutes later. The Club was virtually empty; the room was small but comfortable; and the one staff member was behind the bar doing what bartenders do: Polishing glasses.
Looking back on that meeting in 1974, I am quite certain no one knew I was meeting the Admiral. I have no idea where the Admiral entered the building nor did I see who drove him to the 17th Street NW location. My thought is that this type of set up for a meeting was what I would call “low profile.”
“US Defence Contractor in Talks to Take Over NSO Group’s Hacking Technology” illustrates what happens when the type of every day precautions Admiral Hosmer took are ignored. A British newspaper reports:
The US defence contractor L3Harris is in talks to take over NSO Group’s surveillance technology, in a possible deal that would give an American company control over one of the world’s most sophisticated and controversial hacking tools. Multiple sources confirmed that discussions were centered on a sale of the Israeli company’s core technology – or code – as well as a possible transfer of NSO personnel to L3Harris.
Okay, so much for low profiling this type of deal.
I am not sure what “multiple sources” mean. If someone were writing about my meeting the Admiral, the only sources of information would have been me, the Admiral’s technical aide (a nuclear scientist from Argonne National Laboratory), and probably the bartender who did not approach the area in which the former chair of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy were sitting.
But what have we got?
- A major newspaper’s story about a company which has made specialized services as familiar as TikTok
- Multiple sources of information. What? Who is talking? Why?
- A White House “official” making a comment. Who? Why? To whom?
- A reference to a specialized news service called “Intelligence Online”. What was the source of this outfit’s information? Is that source high value? Why is a news service plunging into frog killing hot water?
- Ramblings about the need to involve government officials in at least two countries. Who are the “officials”? Why are these people identified without specifics?
- References to human rights advocates. Which advocates? Why?
Gentle reader, I am a dinobaby who was once a consultant to the company which made this term popular. Perhaps a return to the good old days of low-profiling certain activities is appropriate?
One thing is certain: Not even Google’s 10-thumb approach to information about its allegedly smart software can top this NSO Group PR milestone.
Stephen E Arnold, June 15, 2022
The Alleged Apple M1 Vulnerability: Just Like Microsoft?
June 15, 2022
I read “MIT Researchers Uncover Unpatchable Flaw in Apple M1 Chips.” I have no idea if the exploit is one that can be migrated to a Dark Web or Telegram Crime as a Service pitch. Let’s assume that there may be some truth to the clever MIT wizards’ discoveries.
First, note this statement from the cited article:
The researchers — which presented their findings to Apple — noted that the Pacman attack isn’t a “magic bypass” for all security on the M1 chip, and can only take an existing bug that pointer authentication protects against.
And this:
In May last year, a developer discovered an unfixable flaw in Apple’s M1 chip that creates a covert channel that two or more already-installed malicious apps could use to transmit information to each other. But the bug was ultimately deemed “harmless” as malware can’t use it to steal or interfere with data that’s on a Mac.
I may be somewhat jaded, but if these statements are accurate, the “unpatchable” adjective is a slide of today’s reality. Windows Defender may not defend. SolarWinds’ may burn with unexpected vigor. Cyber security software may be more compelling in a PowerPoint deck than installed on a licensee’s system wherever it resides.
The key point is that like many functions in modern life, there is no easy fix. Human error? Indifference? Clueless quality assurance and testing processes?
My hunch is that this is a culmination of the attitude of “good enough” and “close enough for horseshoes.”
One certainty: Bad actors are encouraged by assuming that whatever is produced by big outfits will have flaws, backdoors, loopholes, stupid mistakes, and other inducements to break laws.
Perhaps it is time for a rethink?
Stephen E Arnold, June 15, 2022
Alphabet Google and the Caste Bias Cook Out
June 3, 2022
The headline in the Bezosish Washington Post caught my attention. Here it is: “Google’s Plan to Talk about Caste Bias Led to Division and Rancor.” First off, I had zero idea what caste bias means, connotes, denotes, whatever.
Why not check with the Delphic Oracle of Advertising aka Google? The Alphabet search system provides this page of results to the query “caste bias”:
Look no ads. Gee, I wonder why? Okay, not particularly helpful info.
I tried the query “caste bias Google” on Mr. Pichai’s answer machine and received this result:
Again no ads? What? Why? How?
Are there no airlines advertising flights to a premier vacation destination? What about hotels located in sunny Mumbai? No car rental agencies? (Yeah, renting a car in Delhi is probably not a good idea for someone from Tulsa, Oklahoma.) And the references to “casteist” baffled me. (I would have spelled casteist as castist, but what do I know?)
Let’s try Swisscows.com “caste bias Google”:
Nice results, but I still have zero idea about caste bias.
I knew about the International Dalit Solidarity Network. I navigated the IDSN site. Now we’re cooking with street trash and tree branches in the gutter next to a sidewalk where some unfortunate people sleep in Bengaluru:
“Caste discrimination” means if one is born to a high caste, that caste rank is inherited. If one is born to a low caste, well, someone has to sweep the train stations and clean the facilities, right? (I am paraphrasing, thank you.)
Now back to the Bezoish article cited above. I can now put this passage in the context of Discrimination World, an employment theme park, in my opinion:
Soundararajan [born low caste] appealed directly to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who comes from an upper-caste family in India, to allow her presentation to go forward. But the talk was canceled, leading some employees to conclude that Google was willfully ignoring caste bias. Tanuja Gupta, a senior manager at Google News who invited Soundararajan to speak, resigned over the incident, according to a copy of her goodbye email posted internally Wednesday [June 1, 2022] and viewed by The Washington Post. India’s engineers have thrived in Silicon Valley. So has its caste system. [Emphasis added.]
Does this strike you as slightly anti” Land of the Free and Home of the Brave””? The article makes it pretty clear that a low caste person appealing to a high caste person for permission to speak. That permission was denied. No revealing attire at Discrimination World. Then another person who judging by that entity’s name might be Indian, quits in protest.
Then the killer: Google hires Indian professionals and those professionals find themselves working in a version of India’s own Discrimination World theme park. And, it seems, that theme park has rules. Remember when Disney opened a theme park in France and would not serve wine? Yeah, that cultural export thing works really well. But Disney’s management wizards relented. Alphabet is spelling out confusion in my opinion.
Putting this in the context of Google’s approach to regulating what one can say and not say about Snorkel wearing smart software people, the company has a knack for sending signals about equality. Googlers are not sitting around the digital camp fire singing Joan Baez’s Kumbaya.
Googlers send signals about caste behavior described by the International Dalit Solidarity Network this way:
Untouchables’ – known in South Asia as Dalits – are often forcibly assigned the most dirty, menial and hazardous jobs, [emphasis added] and many are subjected to forced and bonded labour. Due to exclusion practiced by both state and non-state actors, they have limited access to resources, services and development, keeping most Dalits in severe poverty. They are often de facto excluded from decision making and meaningful participation in public and civil life.
Several observations:
- Is the alleged caste behavior crashing into some of the precepts of life in the US?
- Is Google’s management reacting like a cow stunned by a slaughter house’s captive bolt pistols?
- Should the bias allegations raised by Dr. Timnit Gebru be viewed in the context of management behaviors AND algorithmic functions focused on speed and efficiency for ad-related purposes be revisited? (Maybe academics without financial ties to Google, experts from the Netherlands, and maybe a couple of European Union lawyers? US regulators and Congressional representatives would be able to review the findings after the data are gathered?)
- In the alleged Google caste system, where do engineers from certain schools rank? What about females from “good” schools versus females from “less good” schools? What about other criteria designed to separate the herd into tidy buckets? None of this 60 percent threshold methodology. Let’s have nice tidy buckets, shall we? No Drs. Gebru and Mitchell gnawing at Dr. Jeff Dean’s snorkeling outfit.
I wonder what will be roasted in the Googley fire pit in celebration of Father’s Day? Goat pete and makka rotis? Zero sacred cow burgers.
Stephen E Arnold, June 3, 2022
Make Sales, Bill Time: Is There More to Real Work?
May 20, 2022
A partial answer to this question can be found in “Many Software Companies Are a Joke.” I circled this in bright green (that’s the money paid for not-too-helpful outputs):
The sad thing is that you get used to being busy but not productive, and when I say busy I mean pretending to be working hard when being watched. In other words, you will master the art of “eye service”.
Can one detect signals about “busy but not productive” in sectors other than software development? Let’s give this a whirl.
- Microsoft Teams and its monitoring functions and the parallel development of software that spoofs such monitoring.
- Meetings (in person and virtual) about inconsequential details when core functions do not meet customer needs.
- Decisions to replace informed humans with chatbots so employees do not have to deal with customers who complain about incorrect orders, non-functioning components, or bill mistakes.
I do like the idea of perfecting “eye service.” Perhaps this can be converted into a for-fee training program called “How to Look Busy While Doom scrolling”?
If one does no work, then one is not responsible for problems.
Stephen E Arnold, May 20, 2022
Differences Between Data Science And Business Intelligence
May 17, 2022
Data science is an encompassing term that is hard to define. Data science is an umbrella field that splinters in many directions. The Smart Data Collective explains the difference between two types of data science in, “The Difference Between Business Intelligence And Real Data Science.” According to the article, real data science is combining old and new data, analyzing it, and applying it to current business practices. Business intelligence (BI) focuses more on applications, such as creating charts, graphs, and reports.
Companies are interested in employing real data science and business intelligence, but it is confusing to distinguish the two. Data scientists and BI analysts are different jobs with specialized expertise. Data scientists are experts in predicting future outcomes by styling various models and discovering correlations. BI analysts know how to generate dashboards for historic data based on a set of key performance metrics.
Data scientists’ role is not based on guesswork. They are required to be experts in predictive and prescriptive analyses. Their outcomes need to be reasonably accurate for businesses’ success. BI needs advanced planning to combine data sources into useful content, data science, meanwhile, can be done instantly.
There are downsides to both:
“As you cannot get the data transformation done instantly with BI, it is a slow manual process involving plenty of pre-planning and comparisons. It needs to be repeated monthly, quarterly or annually and it is thus not reusable. Yet, the real data science process involves creating instant data transformations via predictive apps that trigger future predictions based on certain data combinations. This is clearly a fast process, involving a lot of experimentation.”
Business intelligence and real data science are handy for any business. Understanding the difference is key to utilizing them.
Whitney Grace, May 17, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
