Self-Appointed Gatekeepers and AI Wizards Clash
August 11, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby being a dinobaby.
Cloudflare wants to protect those with content. Perplexity wants content. Cloudflare sees an opportunity to put up a Google-type toll booth on the Information Highway. Perplexity sees traffic stops of any type the way a soccer mom perceives an 80 year old driving at the speed limit.
Perplexity has responded to Cloudflare’s words about Perplexity allegedly using techniques to crawl sites which may not want to be indexed.
“Agents or Bots? Making Sense of AI on the Open Web” states:
Cloudflare’s recent blog post managed to get almost everything wrong about how modern AI assistants actually work.
In addition to misunderstanding 20-25M user agent requests are not scrapers, Cloudflare claimed that Perplexity was engaging in “stealth crawling,” using hidden bots and impersonation tactics to bypass website restrictions. But the technical facts tell a different story.
It appears Cloudflare confused Perplexity with 3-6M daily requests of unrelated traffic from BrowserBase, a third-party cloud browser service that Perplexity only occasionally uses for highly specialized tasks (less than 45,000 daily requests).
Because Cloudflare has conveniently obfuscated their methodology and declined to answer questions helping our teams understand, we can only narrow this down to two possible explanations.
- Cloudflare needed a clever publicity moment and we–their own customer–happened to be a useful name to get them one.
- Cloudflare fundamentally misattributed 3-6M daily requests from BrowserBase’s automated browser service to Perplexity, a basic traffic analysis failure that’s particularly embarrassing for a company whose core business is understanding and categorizing web traffic.
The idea is to provide two choices, a technique much-loved by vaudeville comedians on the Paul Whiteman circuit decades ago; for example, Have you stopped stealing office supplies?
I find this situation interesting for several reasons:
- Smart software outfits have been sucking down data
- The legal dust ups, the license fees, even the posture of the US government seems dynamic; that is, uncertain
- Clever people often find themselves tripped by their own clever lines.
My view is that when tech companies squabble, the only winners are the lawyers and the users lose.
Stephen E Arnold, August 11, 2025
DuckDuck Privacy. Go, Go, Go
August 8, 2025
We all know Google tracks us across the Web. But we can avoid that if we use a privacy-touting alternative, right? Not necessarily. Simple Analytics reveals, “Google Is Tracking You (Even When You Use DuckDuckGo).” Note that Simple Analytics is a Google Analytics competitor. So let us keep that in mind as we consider its blog’s assertions. Still, writer Iron Brands cites a study by Safety Detectives as he writes:
“The study analyzed browsing patterns in the US, UK, Switzerland, and Sweden. They used a virtual machine and VPN to simulate users in these countries. By comparing searches on Google and DuckDuckGo, researchers found Google still managed to collect data (often without the user knowing). Here’s how: Google doesn’t just track people through Search or Gmail. Its invisible code runs on millions of sites through Google Analytics, AdSense ads, YouTube embeds, and other background services like Fonts or Maps. That means even if you’re using DuckDuckGo, you’re not totally out of Google’s reach. In Switzerland and Sweden, using DuckDuckGo cut Google tracking by half. But in the US, more than 40% of visited pages still sent data back to Google, despite using a privacy search engine. That’s largely because many US websites rely on Google’s tools for ads and traffic analysis.”
And here we thought Google made such tools affordable out of generosity. The post continues:
“This isn’t just about search engines. It’s about how deeply Google is embedded into the internet’s infrastructure. Privacy-conscious users often assume that switching to DuckDuckGo or Brave is enough. This research says otherwise. … You need more than just a private browser or search engine to reduce tracking. Google’s reach comes from third-party scripts that websites willingly add.”
To owners of those websites, Brands implores them to stop contributing to the problem. The write-up emphasizes that laws like the EU’s GDPR do not stem the tide. Such countries, we are told, are still awash in Google’s trackers. The solution? For both websites and users to divest themselves of Google as much as possible. As it happens, Brand’s firm offers site owners just such a solution—an analytics platform that is “privacy-first and cookie-free.” Note that Beyond Search has not independently verified these claims. Concerned site owners may also want to check out alternative Google alternatives.
Cynthia Murrell, August 8, 2025
Billions at Stake: The AI Bot Wars Begin
August 7, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby being a dinobaby.
I noticed that the puffs of smoke were actually canon fire in the AI bot wars. The most recent battle pits Cloudflare (a self-declared policeman of the Internet) against Perplexity, one of the big buck AI outfits. What is the fight? Cloudflare believes there is a good way to crawl and obtain publicly accessible content. Perplexity is just doing what those Silicon Valley folks have done for decades: Do stuff and apologize (or not) later.
WinBuzzer’s “Cloudflare Accuses Perplexity of Using ‘Stealth Crawlers’ to Evade Web Standards” said on August 4, 2025, at a time that has not yet appeared on my atomic clock:
Web security giant Cloudflare has accused AI search firm Perplexity of using deceptive “stealth crawlers” to bypass website rules and scrape content. In a report Cloudflare states Perplexity masks its bots with generic browser identities to ignore publisher blocks. Citing a breach of internet trust, Cloudflare has removed Perplexity from its verified bot program and is now actively blocking the behavior. This move marks a major escalation in the fight between AI companies and content creators, placing Perplexity’s aggressive growth strategy under intense scrutiny.
I like the characterization of Cloudflare as a Web security giant. Colorful.
What is the estimable smart software company doing? Work arounds. Using assorted tricks, Perplexity is engaging in what WinBuzzer calls “stealth activity.” The method is a time honored one among some bad actors. The idea is to make it difficult for routine filtering to stop the Perplexity bot from sucking down data.
If you want the details of the spoofs that Perplexity’s wizards have been using, navigate to this Ars Technica post. There is a diagram that makes absolutely crystal clear to everyone in my old age home exactly what Perplexity is doing. (The diagram captures a flow I have seen some nation state actors employ to good effect.)
The part of the WinBuzzer story I liked addressed the issue of “explosive growth and ethical scrutiny.” The idea of “growth” is interesting. From my point of view, the growth is in the amount of cash that Perplexity and other AI outfits are burning. The idea is, “By golly, we can make this AI stuff generate oodles of cash.” The ethical part is a puzzler. Suddenly Silicon Valley-type AI companies are into ethics. Remarkable.
I wish to share several thoughts:
- I love the gatekeeper role of the “Web security giant.” Aren’t commercial gatekeepers the obvious way to regulate smart software? I am not sharing my viewpoint. I suggest you formulate your own opinion and do with it what you will.
- The behavior of Perplexity, if the allegations are accurate, is not particularly surprising. In fact, in my opinion it is SOP or standard operating procedure for many companies. It is easier to apologize than ask for permission. Does that sound familiar? It should. From Google to the most recent start up, that’s how many of the tech savvy operate. Is change afoot? Yeah, sure. Right away, chief.
- The motivation for the behavior is pragmatic. Outfits like Perplexity have to pull a rabbit out of the hat to make a profit from the computational runaway fusion reactor that is the cost of AI. The fix is to get more content and burn more resources. Very sharp thinking, eh?
Net net: I predict more intense AI fighting. Who will win? The outfits with the most money. Isn’t that the one true way of the corporate world in the US in 2025?
Stephen E Arnold, August 7, 2025
Microsoft Management Method: Fire Humans, Fight Pollution
August 7, 2025
How Microsoft Plans to Bury its AI-Generated Waste
Here is how one big tech firm is addressing the AI sustainability quandary. Windows Central reports, “Microsoft Will Bury 4.9 Tons of ‘Manure’ in a Secretive Deal—All to Offset its AI Energy Demands that Drive Emissions Up by 168%.” We suppose this is what happens when you lay off employees and use the money for something useful. Unlike Copilot.
Writer Kevin Okemwa begins by summarizing Microsoft’s current approach to AI. Windows and Office users may be familiar with the firm’s push to wedge its AI products into every corner of the environment, whether we like it or not. Then there is the feud with former best bud OpenAI, a factor that has Microsoft eyeing a separate path. But whatever the future holds, the company must reckon with one pressing concern. Okemwa writes:
“While it has made significant headway in the AI space, the sophisticated technology also presents critical issues, including substantial carbon emissions that could potentially harm the environment and society if adequate measures aren’t in place to mitigate them. To further bolster its sustainability efforts, Microsoft recently signed a deal with Vaulted Deep (via Tom’s Hardware). It’s a dual waste management solution designed to help remove carbon from the atmosphere in a bid to protect nearby towns from contamination. Microsoft’s new deal with the waste management solution firm will help remove approximately 4.9 million metric tons of waste from manure, sewage, and agricultural byproducts for injection deep underground for the next 12 years. The firm’s carbon emission removal technique is quite unique compared to other rivals in the industry, collecting organic waste which is combined into a thick slurry and injected about 5,000 feet underground into salt caverns.”
Blech. But the process does keep the waste from being dumped aboveground, where it could release CO2 into the environment. How much will this cost? We learn:
“While it is still unclear how much this deal will cost Microsoft, Vaulted Deep currently charges $350 per ton for its carbon removal services. Simple math suggests that the deal might be worth approximately $1.7 billion.”
That is a hefty price tag. And this is not the only such deal Microsoft has made: We are told it signed a contract with AtmosClear in April to remove almost seven million metric tons of carbon emissions. The company positions such deals as evidence of its good stewardship of the planet. But we wonder—is it just an effort to keep itself from being buried in its own (literal and figurative) manure?
Cynthia Murrell, August 7, 2025
Taylorism, 996, and Motivating Employees
August 6, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby being a dinobaby.
No more Foosball. No more Segways in the hallways (thank heaven!). No more ping pong (Wait. Scratch that. You must have ping pong.)
Fortune Magazine reported that Silicon Valley type outfits want to be more like the workplace managed using Frederick Winslow Taylor’s management methods. (Did you know that Mr. Taylor provided the oomph for many blue chip management consulting firms? If you did not, you may be one of the people suggesting that AI will kill off the blue chip outfits. Those puppies will survive.)
“Some Silicon Valley AI Startups Are Asking Employees to Adopt China’s Outlawed 996 Work Model” reports:
Some Silicon Valley startups are embracing China’s outlawed “996” work culture, expecting employees to work 12-hour days, six days a week, in pursuit of hyper-productivity and global AI dominance.
The reason, according to the write up, is:
The rise of the controversial work culture appears to have been born out of the current efficiency squeeze in Silicon Valley. Rounds of mass layoffs and the rise of AI have put pressure and turned up the heat on tech employees who managed to keep their jobs.
My response to this assertion is that it is a convenient explanation. My view is that one can trot out the China smart, US dumb arguments, point to the holes of burning AI cash, and the political idiosyncrasies of California and the US government.
The reason is that these are factors, but Silicon Valley is starting to accept the reality that old-fashioned business methods are semi useful. The idea that employees should converge on a work location to do what is still called “work.”
What’s the cause of this change? Since hooking electrodes to a worker in a persistent employee monitoring environment is a step too far for now, going back to the precepts of Freddy are a reasonable compromise.
But those electric shocks would work quite well, don’t you agree? (Sure, China’s work environment sparked a few suicides, but the efficiency is not significantly affected.)
Stephen E Arnold, August 6, 2025
Another Twist: AI Puts Mickey Mouse in a Trap
August 5, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby being a dinobaby.
The in-the-news Wall Street Journal reveals that Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse may have their tails in a modernized, painful artificial intelligence trap. “Is It Still Disney Magic If It’s AI?” asks an obvious question. My knee jerk reaction after reading the article was, “Nope.”
The write up9 reports:
A deepfake Dwayne Johnson is just one part of a broader technological earthquake hitting Hollywood. Studios are scrambling to figure out simultaneously how to use AI in the filmmaking process and how to protect themselves against it. While executives see a future where the technology shaves tens of millions of dollars off a movie’s budget, they are grappling with a present filled with legal uncertainty, fan backlash and a wariness toward embracing tools that some in Silicon Valley view as their next-century replacement.
A deepfake Dwayne is a short step from deepfake of the entire Disney menagerie. Imagine what happens if a bad actor puts Snow White in some compromising situations, posts the video on a torrent, and publicizes the service on a Telegram-type communications system. That could be interesting. Imagine Goofy at the YMCA with synthetic village people.
How does Disney manage? The write up says:
Some Epic [a Disney “partner”] executives have complained about the slow pace of the decision-making at Disney, with signoffs needed from so many different divisions, said people familiar with the situation.
Slow worked before AI felt the whips of the funders who want payoffs. Now speed thrills. Dopey and Sleepy are not likely to make substantive contributions to Disney’s AI efforts. Has the magic been revealed or just appropriated by AI developers?
Here’s another question that might befuddle Immanuel Kant:
Some Disney executives have raised concerns ahead of the project’s launch, anticipated for fall 2026 at the earliest, about who owns fan creations based on Disney characters, said one of the people. For example, if a Fortnite gamer creates a Darth Vader and Spider-Man dance that goes viral on YouTube, who owns that dance?
From my tiny office in rural Kentucky, Disney is behind the eight ball. Like Apple and Telegram, smart software presents a reasonable problem for 23 year old programmers. For those older, AI is disjunctive. Right, Dopey? Prince AI is busy elsewhere.
Stephen E Arnold, August 5, 2025
Yahoo: An Important Historical Milestone
August 5, 2025
Sorry, no smart software involved. A dinobaby’s own emergent thoughts.
I read “What Went Wrong for Yahoo.” At one time, my team and I followed Yahoo. We created The Point (Top 5% of the Internet) in the early 1990s. Some perceived The Point as a variant. I suppose it was, but we sold the property after a few years. The new owners, something called CMGI, folded The Point into Lycos, and — poof — The Point was gone.
But Yahoo chugged along. The company became the poster child for the Web 1 era. Web search was not comprehensive, and most of the “search engines” struggled to deal with several thorny issues:
- New sites were flooding the Web One Internet. Indexing was a bottleneck. In the good old days, one did not spin up a virtual machine on a low cost vendor in Romania. Machines and gizmos were expensive, and often there was a delay of six months or more for a Sun Microsystems Sparc. Did I mention expensive? Everyone in search was chasing low cost computer and network access.
- The search-and-retrieval tools were in “to be” mode. If one were familiar with IBM Almaden, a research group was working on a system called Clever. There were interesting techniques in many companies. Some popped up and faded. I am not sure of the dates but there was Lycos, which I mentioned, Excite, and one developed by the person who created Framemaker, among others. (I am insufficiently motivated too chase down my historical files, and I sure don’t want to fool around trying to get historical information from Bing, Google, Yandex, and (heaven help me! Qwant). The ideas were around, but it took time for the digital DNA to create a system that mostly worked. I wish I could remember the system that emerged from Cambridge University, but I cannot.
- Old-fashioned search methods like those used by NASA Recon, SDC Orbit, Dialog, and STAIRS were developed to work on bounded content, precisely structured, indexed or “tagged” in today’s jargon, and coded for mainframes. Figuring out how to use smaller machines was not possible. In my lectures from that era, I pointed out that once something is coded, sort of works, and seems to be making money — changes is not conceivable. Therefore, the systems with something that worked sailed along like aircraft carriers until they rusted and sank.
What’s this got to do with Yahoo?
Yahoo was a directory. Directories are good because the content is bounded. Yahoo did not exercise significant editorial control. The Point, on the other hand, was curated like the commercial databases with which I was associated: ABI/INFORM, Business Dateline (the first online information service which corrected erroneous information after a content object went live), Pharmaceutical News Index, and some others we sold to Cambridge Scientific Abstracts.
Indexing the Web is not bounded. Yahoo tried to come up with a way to index what was a large amount of digital content. Adding to Yahoo’s woes was the need to indexed changed content or the “deltas” as we called them in our attempt at The Point to sound techno-literate.
Because of the cost and revenue problems, decisions at Yahoo — according to the people whom we knew and with whom we spoke — went like this:
- Assemble a group with different expertise
- State the question, “What can we do now to make money?”
- Gather ideas
- Hold a meeting to select one or two
- Act on the “best ideas”
The flaw in this method is that a couple of smart fellows in a Stanford dorm were fooling around with Backrub. It incorporated ideas from their lectures, what they picked up about new ideas from students, and what they read (no ChatGPT then, sorry).
I am not going to explain what Backrub at first did not do (work reliably despite the weird assemblage of computers and gear the students used) and focus on the three ideas that did work for what became Google, a pun on a big number’s name:
- Hook mongrel computers to indexing when those computers were available and use anything that remotely seemed to solve a problem. Is that an old router? Cool, let’s use that. This was a very big idea because fooling around with computer systems could kill those puppies with an errant instruction.
- Find inspiration in the IBM Clever system; that is, determine relevance by looking at links to a source document. This was a variation on Gene Garfield’s approach to citation analysis
- Index new Web pages when the appeared. If the crawler / indexer crashed, skip the page and go to the next url. The dorm boys looked at the sites that killed the crawler and figured out how to accommodate those changes; thus, the crawler / indexer became “smart”. This was a very good idea because commercial content indexing systems forced content to be structured a certain way. However, in the Web 1 days, rules were either non existent, ignored, or created problems that creators of Web pages wrote around.
Yahoo did none of these things.
Now let me point out Yahoo’s biggest mistake, and, believe me, the company is an ideal source of insight about what not to do.
Yahoo acquired GoTo.com. The company and software emerged from IdeaLab, I think. What GoTo.com created was an online version of a pay-to-play method. The idea was a great one and obvious to those better suited to be the love child of Cardinal Richelieu and Cosimo de’ Medici. To keep the timeline straight, Sergey Brin and Larry Page did the deed and birthed Google with the GoTo.com (Overture) model to create Google’s ad foundation. Why did Google need money? The person who wrote a check to the Backrub boys said, “You need to earn money.” The Backrub boys looked around and spotted the GoTo method, now owned by Yahoo. The Backrub boys emulated it.
Yahoo, poor old confused Yahoo, took legal action against the Backrub boys, settled for $1 billion, and became increasingly irrelevant. Therefore, Yahoo’s biggest opportunity was to buy the Backrub boys and their Google search system, but they did not. Then Yahoo allowed their GoTo to inspire Google advertising.
From my point of view, Cardinal Richelieu and Cosimo were quite proud that the two computer science students, some of the dorm crowd, and bits and pieces glued together to create Google search emerged as a very big winner.
Yahoo’s problem is that committee think in a fast changing, high technology context is likely to be laughably wrong. Now Google is Yahoo-like. The cited article nails it:
Buying everything in sight clearly isn’t the best business strategy. But if indiscriminately buying everything in sight would have meant acquiring Google and Facebook, Yahoo might have been better off doing that rather than what it did.
Can Google think like the Backrub boys? I don’t think so. The company is spinning money, but the cash that burnishes Google leadership’s image comes from the Yahoo, GoTo.com, and Overture model. Yahoo had so many properties, the Yahooligans had zero idea how to identify a property with value and drive that idea forward. How many “things” does Google operate now? How many things does Facebook operate now? How many things does Telegram operate now? I think that “too many” may hold a clue to the future of these companies. And Yahooooo? An echo, not the yodel.
Stephen E Arnold, August 5, 2025
Bubble? What Bubble? News Bubble, Financial Bubble, Social Media Bubble?
August 5, 2025
We knew the AI hype was extreme. Now one economist offers a relatable benchmark to describe just how extreme it is. TechSpot reports, “The AI Boom is More Overhyped than the 1990s Dot-Com Bubble, Says Top Economist.” Writer Daniel Sims reveals:
“As tech giants pour more money into AI, some warn that a bubble may be forming. Drawing comparisons to the dot-com crash that wiped out trillions at the turn of the millennium, analysts caution that today’s market has become too reliant on still-unproven AI investments. Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, recently argued that the stock market currently overvalues a handful of tech giants – including Nvidia and Microsoft – even more than it overvalued early internet companies on the eve of the 2000 dot-com crash. The warning suggests history could soon repeat itself, with the buzzword ‘dot-com’ replaced by ‘AI.’”
Paint us unsurprised. We are reminded:
“In the late 1990s, numerous companies attracted venture capital in hopes of profiting from the internet’s growing popularity, and the stock market vastly overvalued the sector before solid revenue could materialize. When returns failed to meet expectations, the bubble burst, wiping out countless startups. Slok says the stock market’s expectations are even more unrealistic today, with 12-month forward price-to-earnings ratios now exceeding the peak of the dot-com bubble.”
See the write-up for more about price-to-earnings ratios and their relationship to bubbles, complete with a handy bar chart. Sims notes the top 10 firms’ ratios far exceed the rest of the index, illustrating their wildly unrealistic expectations. Slok’s observations echo concerns raised by others, including Baidu CEO Robin Li. Last October, Li predicted only one percent of AI firms will survive the bubble’s burst. Will those top 10 firms be among them? On the plus side, Li expects a more realistic and stable market will follow. We are sure the failed 99 percent will take comfort in that.
Cynthia Murrell, August 5, 2025
Yep, Google Is Innovative
August 4, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. Not even smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I read the weird orange newspaper story “Google’s AI Fight Is Moving to New Ground.” What? Google has been forced to move to new ground. What’s this “is moving” progressive tense stuff? (You will have to pay to read this article. The good old days of handing out orange newspapers on Sixth Avenue in Midtown are long, long gone.)
The orange newspaper says:
Being presented with ready-made answers means they [Google’s users of its Web search service] are less likely to click on links, of course — according to Pew Research in the US, about half as likely. But that hasn’t stopped solid growth in search advertising revenue.
Perhaps the missing angle is an answer to this question, “Where are advertisers supposed to go? The Saturday Evening Post, the Stephen Colbert Show, or TikTok- and Telegram-type services?”
How about this statement:
Google’s investors can at least draw heart from signs that their company is starting to find its innovative spark. Project Mariner, a prototype it showed off two months ago, closely echoes ChatGPT agent.
Innovation is “me too”? What?
And here’s another statement I circled:
But the lock on advertising that Google has long enjoyed thanks to search is starting to loosen, leaving it to fight on a new battlefield against AI apps — and not just those from OpenAI.
Many outfits are struggling. One example is General Motors. Another is traditional print publications in the US. With strong revenue growth on intellectual gold mines like YouTube, the “lock” is wobbly. Give me a break.
Management by MBA with blue chip consulting experience maximize revenue the old fashioned way: Automation, tougher deals, and fierce protection of walled garden revenue streams.
There is a reason a number of countries are engaged in legal dust ups with Google. How did that work out in the UK for Foundem.com?
Stephen E Arnold, August 4, 2025
China Smart, US Dumb: Is There Any Doubt?
August 1, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I have been identifying some of the “China smart, US dumb” information that I see. I noticed a write up from The Register titled “China Proves That Open Models Are More Effective Than All the GPUs in the World.” My Google-style Red Alert buzzer buzzed and the bubble gum machine lights flashed.
There is was. The “all.” A categorical affirmative. China is doing something that is more than “all the GPUs in the world.” Not only that “open models are more effective” too. I have to hit the off button.
The point of the write up for me is that OpenAI is a loser. I noted this statement:
OpenAI was supposed to make good on its name and release its first open-weights model since GPT-2 this week. Unfortunately, what could have been the US’s first half-decent open model of the year has been held up by a safety review…
But it is not just OpenAI muffing the bunny. The write up points out:
the best open model America has managed so far this year is Meta’s Llama 4, which enjoyed a less than stellar reception and was marred with controversy. Just this week, it was reported that Meta had apparently taken its two-trillion-parameter Behemoth out behind the barn after it failed to live up to expectations.
Do you want to say, “Losers”? Go ahead.
But what outfit is pushing out innovative smart software as open source? Okay, you can shout, “China. The Middle Kingdom. The rightful rulers of the Pacific Rim and Southeast Asia.
That’s the “right” answer if you accept the “all” type of reasoning in the write up.
China has tallied a number of open source wins; specifically, Deepseek, Qwen, M1, Ernie, and the big winner Kimi.
Do you still have doubts about China’s AI prowess? Something is definitely wrong with you, pilgrim.
Several observations:
- The write up is a very good example of the China smart, US dumb messaging which has made its way from the South China Morning Post to YouTube and now to the Register. One has to say, “Good work to the Chinese strategists.”
- The push for open source is interesting. I am not 100 percent convinced that making these models available is intended to benefit non-Middle Kingdom people. I think that the push, like the shift to crypto currency in non traditional finance, is part of an effort to undermine what might be called “America’s hegemony.”
- The obviousness of overt criticism of OpenAI and Meta (Facebook) illustrates a growing confidence in China that Western European information channels can be exploited.
Does this matter? I think it does. Open source software has some issues. These include its use as a vector for malware. Developers often abandon projects, leaving users high and dry with some reaching for their wallet to buy commercial solutions. Open source projects for smart software may have baked in biases and functions that are not easily spotted. Many people are aware of NSO Group’s ability to penetrate communications on a device by device basis. What happens if the phone home ability is baked into some open source software.
Remember that “all.” The logical fallacy illustrates that some additional thinking may be necessary when it comes to embedding and using software from some countries with very big ambitions. What is China proving? Could it be China smart, US dumb?
Stephen E Arnold, August 1, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
