Featurespace Raises Capital for Bank Fraud Monitoring Technology
September 21, 2016
Monitoring online fraud has become an increasingly popular application for machine learning and search technology. The Telegraph reported Cambridge AI fraud detection group raises £6.2m. The company, Featurespace, grew out of Cambridge University and its ARIC technology goes beyond rule-based fraud-detection. It scans all activity on a network and thus learns what registers as fraudulent or suspicious. The write-up tells us,
The company has now raised $9m (£6.2m), which it will use to open a US office after signing two big stateside deals. The funding is led by US fintech investor TTV Capital – the first time it has backed a UK company – and early stage investors Imperial Innovations and Nesta.
Mike Lynch, the renowned technology investor who founded software group Autonomy before its $11.7bn sale to Hewlett Packard, has previously invested in the company and sits on its board. Ms King said Featurespace had won a contract with a major US bank, as well as payments company TSYS, which processes MasterCard and Visa transactions.”
Overall, the company aims to protect consumers from credit and debit card fraud. The article reminds us that millions of consumers have been affected by stolen credit and debit card information. Betfair, William Hill and VocaLink are current customers of Featurespace and several banks are using its technology too. Will this become a big ticket application for these machine learning technologies?
Megan Feil, September 21, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
There is a Louisville, Kentucky Hidden Web/Dark Web meet up on September 27, 2016.
Information is at this link: https://www.meetup.com/Louisville-Hidden-Dark-Web-Meetup/events/233599645/
SLI Search: Loss Narrows for $35 Million Business
September 14, 2016
SLI Systems offers an eCommerce search system. If you followed the history of NBC’s search efforts, you may know that SLI Systems has some DNA from Snap Search. The company is an interesting one. It competes with EasyAsk, another eCommerce search vendor.
SLI released its financial results in a news release titled “SLI Systems Announces Financial Research for the Year to 30 June 2016.” (Some news releases have the ability to disappear or become a pay to play feature. The release was online an free as of September 6, 2016.)
The write up confirmed what most stakeholders in search and content processing systems may avoid thinking about: Generating revenue in today’s economic climate is difficult.
SLI Systems is a $35 million dollar company. The firm lost several big accounts for a range of reasons. The good news is that instead of losing $7 million in FY2015, SLI reported a before tax loss of $162,000. There are no details about what caused the hefty loss 12 months ago or what a new management team to reduce the shortfall by almost $8 million. Great management? Magic?
I circled this chunk of management explanation:
SLI Systems Chairman Greg Cross said: “The 2016 financial year has been a period of significant change for the company. Chris Brennan took over as Chief Executive Officer in October 2015 and since then we have recruited three key executives: a new Chief Revenue Officer, a new Chief Marketing Officer and a new Vice President of Customer Success. Drawing on the expertise of these new recruits and the broader management team, SLI has put in place new business processes and organizational structures to lift the performance of the business for the long term.
He added:
“The company remains in a strong financial position. Although we expect net cash outflows in the coming year as we return to a growth trajectory, we remain confident that we have sufficient cash resources to support the company’s plan. We are looking forward to the remainder of the year with cautious optimism,” Mr. Cross said.
SLI is based in New Zealand. The mot recent version of the company’s Web site does not make it easy to locate the company’s address at 78 – 106 Manchester Street. Christchurch 8011. New Zealand. New Zealand Phone: 0800 754 797. The company’s office appears to be in the Enterprise Precinct Innovation Center. The firm has an office in San Jose, California. SLI’s office locations are available at this link.
Stephen E Arnold, September 14, 2016
Alphabet Google Spells Mess for One Expert
September 10, 2016
An MBA infused article caught my attention. The title was a magnet, and I was not hunting for Google related information. Nevertheless, I read “Larry Page’s Grand Plan for Google Looks More Like a Mess than a Success.” Before I comment on the write up, I must admit I liked the euphony of “mess” and “success.” Ogden Nash would have approved I surmise.
The main point is that Google leveled up and created Alphabet. The idea was that a Ling Temco Vought style outfit would be more in tune with the Loon balloon business, the solving death business, the Google Fiber business, and the other alleged money engines the online ad firm was inventing or, at least, me-too’ing.
The write up points out that some financial discipline is in evidence. Google Fiber and the quite exciting Nest initiatives are under scrutiny. I noted this passage:
the company’s self-driving car project still hasn’t announced any business plan and a bunch of people have left. The life sciences division Verily has been accused of peddling “slideware,” and Google just killed its ambitious build-it-yourself-phone.
Right, the modular phone. Great idea. What happens when the little gem is dropped or the coefficient of friction decreases with use and the electronic bits drop into the garbage disposal?
The write up adds:
right now, the parts of the company that were once the perfect marketing for luring potential talent and showing off Google as the world’s most influential tech pioneer, look more like a mess than an advertisement.
Okay. That seems to be a bit negative.
Here in Harrod’s Creek, we love the Alphabet Google thing. The MBA-ish write up does not ask this question, “Why does Alphabet Google assume that its new initiatives will succeed?” The DNA of Google is anchored in the proteins of GoTo.com and Overture.com. This means Yahoo purple in these Alphabet Google progeny.
How is that family tree performing? After 15 years, Google has one revenue stream. Google’s success with “innovations” seems to be counter to the image the company tries to project. Do MBAs understand the mentality of “go to” members of the math team and science club? The last time I drove down 101 I noted a strong scent of musk when a Google self driving car crept past me. Interesting.
Stephen E Arnold, September 10, 2016
Hewlett Packard: About Face
September 7, 2016
I read “Exclusive: HP Enterprise in Talks to Sell Software Unit to Thoma Bravo – Sources.” Who does not love a news story labeled “exclusive” and attributed to “sources” when the subject is Hewlett Packard Enterprise? The thrust of the story is that HPE, fresh from making marketing noises about its enterprise software business, is allegedly selling those software businesses.
Let’s assume that this is indeed accurate. The asking price is is in the neighborhood of $8 to $10 billion or more if the excited buyer really wants this collection of software.
Why is HPE selling what it has been working hard to craft into a sustainable revenue stream with healthy profit margins? The write up reports:
HPE’s software unit generated $3.6 billion in net revenue in 2015, down from $3.9 billion in 2014. The company has said revenue growth in its software unit has been challenged by a market shift toward cloud subscription offerings.
Yep, these numbers will drive potential buyers into a frenzy.
The word in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, is that HPE is eager to find a way to make money, boost the company’s value to shareholders, and plug into to the fluffy cloud opportunities. HPE’s present software may not be the answer for HPE. Another outfit should be able to release a flood of revenue.
One of the goslings (un-named, of course) thought that HPE was going cold turkey to kick its Autonomy habit. The shadow of the search business makes life chilly for the would be technology leader. In an “exclusive” comment to Beyond Search, HPE anticipates victory in its legal flap associated with the purchase of Autonomy for an modest $10 or $11 billion.
We don’t know if our un-named gosling is on the right track, but if HPE sells Autonomy and other assorted gems from its software vault, the difference between what HPE paid for Autonomy and then the amount generated by the sale of Autonomy is only a couple billion dollars.
What’s a few billion dollars for a focused, consistent, well managed outfit like HPE? A pittance I say.
I wonder, “Does the buyer of HPE’s Autonomy-infused bundle recognize the excitement selling search and retrieval will engender?” Sure. These are savvy folks. Generating revenue from proprietary search and content processing software is really easy.
If Google can do, anyone can, right? Oh, Google closed its enterprise search product. Well, what about Palantir? Oh, Palantir relies on open source for findability functions. How about IBM? Oh, shucks, IBM relies on Lucene with home brew code and acquired technology.
As I said, search is easy.
Stephen E Arnold, September 7, 2016
Revolving Door Hires at Google
September 7, 2016
It looks like Google has determined the best way to address its legal challenges in Europe is to infiltrate and influence its governments. The Guardian reports, “Google: New Concerns Raised About Political Influence by Senior ‘Revolving Door’ Jobs.” The personnel-based tactic has apparently worked so well in the U.S. that Google is applying it to the European arena. Writer Jamie Doward cites research by the the Google Transparency Project, a venture of the Campaign for Accountability (CfA), when she writes:
New concerns have been raised about the political influence of Google after research found at least 80 ‘revolving door’ moves in the past decade – instances where the online giant took on government employees and European governments employed Google staff. … The CfA has suggested that the moves are a result of Google seeking to boost its influence in Europe as the company seeks to head off antitrust action and moves to tighten up on online privacy.
The article gets into specifics on who was hired where and when; navigate to it for those details. In sum, Doward writes:
Overall, the research suggests that Google, now part of parent company Alphabet Inc, has hired at least 65 former government officials from within the European Union since 2005.
During the same period, 15 Google employees were appointed to government positions in Europe, gaining what the CfA claims are ‘valuable contacts at the heart of the decision-making process’.
Anne Weisemann, CfA executive director, points to Google’s success influencing the U.S. government as a driving factor in its EU choices. She notes Google spends more to lobby our federal government than any other company, and that Google execs grace the White House more than once a week, on average. Also, CfA points to more than 250 of these “revolving door” appointments Google has made in the U.S.
For its part, Google claims it is just hiring experts who can answer government officials’ many questions about the Internet, about their own business model, and the “opportunity for European businesses to grow online.” There’s no way that could give Google an unfair advantage, right?
The article concludes with a call to reevaluate how government officials view Google—it is now much more than a search engine, it is a major political actor. Caution is warranted as the company works its way into government-run programs like the UK’s National Health Service and school systems. Such choices, ones that can affect the public on a grand scale, should be fully informed. Listening to Google lobbyists, who excel at playing on politicians’ technical ignorance, does not count.
Cynthia Murrell, September 7, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
There is a Louisville, Kentucky Hidden Web/Dark Web meet up on September 27, 2016.
Information is at this link: https://www.meetup.com/Louisville-Hidden-Dark-Web-Meetup/events/233599645/
A Blurred In-Q-Tel X-Ray: Real Journalists Uncover Old News
September 4, 2016
I noted this write up by the Rupert Murdoch outfit, the Wall Street Journal: “The CIA’s Venture-Capital Firm, Like Its Sponsor, Operates in the Shadows.” You may have to buy a dead tree version of the Wall Street Journal, go to your public library, or subscribe to read the source itself. (Don’t hassle me if the link begs for dollars. Buzz Mr. Murdoch and express your views.)
The point of the article is that the US government’s intelligence outfit operates a venture capital firm. That investment entity does business as In-Q-Tel. The goal, in my opinion, is to identify promising technologies which may have application at the Central Intelligence Agency. Please, note that much of the work at the CIA is not public. That’s because it mostly operates in secrecy. The fact that a government has secret activities is not exactly news.
Furthermore, whom do you think advises the Central Intelligence Agency and its various units? Choose from the following list:
- Immigrants without US entry authorizations
- Felons recently released from prison to a half way house
- Individuals working for governments antithetical to the posture of the United States
- Investigative journalists looking for a gig
- Individuals with clearances or a track record of serving the US.
Okay, you picked one to three. You may qualify for work at a large, “real news” outfit. If you selected item four, you now understand why the news about the individuals and the companies exposed to In-Q-Tel is stale.
Obviously those in the spy game want folks who are in the same fox hole.
The write up reveals this stunning factoid: In-Q-Tel provides only limited information about its investments, and some of its trustees have ties to funded companies.
No kidding.
With considerable assiduity, the write up lists the companies in which In-Q-Tel has invested and notes:
Of about 325 investments In-Q-Tel says it has made since its founding, more than 100 weren’t announced, although the identities of some of those companies have leaked out. The absence of disclosure can be due to national-security concerns or simply because a startup company doesn’t want its financial ties to intelligence publicized, people familiar with the arrangements said. While moneymaking isn’t In-Q-Tel’s goal, when that happens, such as when a startup it funded goes public, In-Q-Tel can keep the profit and roll it into new projects. It doesn’t obtain rights to technology or inventions.
There you go. Why not let another nation’s intelligence services invest in high potential but little known innovators? The US government is trying to bring more business discipline to some of its activities. Therefore, is it not logical that an intelligence agency seeking high value products and services can use the proceeds from its investments to further the work of the intelligence agency?
I guess that’s a thought foreign to some real journalists.
What does one expect the CIA and In-Q-Tel to do? Publish a daily newspaper detailing the companies, people, and technologies the CIA is interested in? What about going on Fox News and explaining what’s hot and what’s not in advanced technology? Oh, right. Technology is not as much fun as pundits who over talk one another.
I know that an outfit owned by Rupert Murdoch is in the news business. I know that gathering information from the In-Q-Tel Web site is really difficult. For me, information about In-Q-Tel is a bit of a yawner.
I would much rather read about some of the management methods used in some major media entities. Government efforts to identify cutting edge technologies is just not that interesting to me. Where’s the beef? Why not consider why certain categories of investments have not yielded products and services which can be used across missions? Why not explore why Purple Yogi was a dead end and why Palantir is not? Oh, right. That’s harder than realizing that in certain types of work one wants to deal with individuals from that fox hole.
Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2016
The Wheel of Search: Leidos
September 3, 2016
I know that most experts in search and content processing do not know too much about Teratext, the search system once owned by SAIC, a services firm. Teratext is described in this free profile. I read “Leidos Closes Lockheed Merger.” What I wanted to point out is that Lockheed Martin is “back into” the search business. The company sold its AeroText system, which is similar in some ways to to Leidos TeraText, to Rocket Software. With this deal, one services firm has moved search from its core business to a subsidiary and then sold that entity (Leidos) to a major US government contractor. Now Lockheed Martin is back in the search and content processing business. I find this brokering of search and content systems interesting because the technology is becoming dated and the systems require substantial professional support to install, optimize, operate, maintain, and extend. The wheel of search keeps on turning on axels of decades old technology. There is money in search, particularly some massive, complex systems.
Stephen E Arnold, September 3, 2016
Google: The Teacher Pakistanis Seek?
September 2, 2016
I read “Pakistan University Students All Set to Be Taught by Google.” The write up revealed:
Google, an internet giant has planned to visit universities in Pakistan to spread awareness among Pakistani students regarding modern and useful tools and various other services.
And the curriculum? Here’s what the write up explained:
This purposeful event will be focused on effective products of Google for monetization such as Google AdMob and Google Adsense.
No reference to the expanded Google patents collection, Google books, or Google maps.
Does this suggest that the academic focus is revenue generation from the for fee advertising business at the Alphabet Google thing?
Our best guess: Yep. A little learning is a dangerous thing some old dude said. But revenue is revenue. Next up? Kyrgyzstan? There are some interesting markets in that nation state we have heard.
Stephen E Arnold, September 2, 2016
Truth or Fiction: US Army Cannot Count Money
August 24, 2016
I believe everything I read on the Internet. When the information comes from a real journalism type outfit, I am no Doubting Thomas. I wish to point out that the write up “US Army Fudged Its Accounts by Trillions of Dollars, Auditor Finds” strikes me as fiction. Just to keep the math straight, here’s a summary of numbers:
- 1,000 is one thousand
- 10,000 is ten one thousands
- 100,000 is ten ten thousands
- Let’s jump up a bit.
- One million is 1,000,000
- A billion is 1,000,000,000
- A trillion is 1,000,000,000,000.
In Zimbabwe there was a $10 trillion dollar bill. So misplacing a bill is easy to do:
My recollection from my days at Booz, Allen is that most humanoids have difficult with quantities over 1,000. Imagine what happens when one has to think about trillions or a one followed by 12 zeros.
If the write up is on the money, the US Army is composed of individuals who cannot deal with big numbers or money. I learned:
The Defense Department’s Inspector General, in a June report, said the Army made $2.8 trillion in wrongful adjustments to accounting entries in one quarter alone in 2015, and $6.5 trillion for the year. Yet the Army lacked receipts and invoices to support those numbers or simply made them up.
How can a US federal entity make up numbers? The Department of Defense is into Windows and Excel. The US Army has a fancy data aggregation and analysis system called Distributed Common Ground or DCGS-A.
The write up stated:
The report affirms a 2013 Reuters series revealing how the Defense Department falsified accounting on a large scale as it scrambled to close its books. As a result, there has been no way to know how the Defense Department – far and away the biggest chunk of Congress’ annual budget – spends the public’s money. The new report focused on the Army’s General Fund, the bigger of its two main accounts, with assets of $282.6 billion in 2015. The Army lost or didn’t keep required data, and much of the data it had was inaccurate, the IG said.
I was surprised an auditor was able to assemble the needed information. I highlighted this statement from the source article:
The IG report also blamed DFAS [Defense Finance and Accounting Service] , saying it too made unjustified changes to numbers. For example, two DFAS computer systems showed different values of supplies for missiles and ammunition, the report noted – but rather than solving the disparity, DFAS personnel inserted a false “correction” to make the numbers match. DFAS also could not make accurate year-end Army financial statements because more than 16,000 financial data files had vanished from its computer system. Faulty computer programming and employees’ inability to detect the flaw were at fault, the IG said.
Trillions. Hmmm. Why not put DCGS-A on the forensic team? If that system does not work, why not let Palantir Gotham have a go at figuring out where the money went? Another option is IBM i2 Analyst’s Notebook, right?
Yes, government integrity. There’s a Web site for that too: https://www.oge.gov/.
Did you know that?
Stephen E Arnold, August 24, 2016
Thiel and Palantir: Big Play or Not?
August 19, 2016
I read “This Company is Billionaire Peter Thiel’s Biggest Holding.” I am not certain if the write up is a rah rah for a savvy investor or a prognostication about the risks of investment concentration.
The subject is Peter Thiel, investment wizard, and Palantir Technologies. I associate Mr. Thiel with Hulk Hogan, which may be an indication of my own shallowness. I associate Palantir Technologies with its legal dust up with i2 Group (a former client, by the way) and the legal spat with the US Army.
The write up points out:
Late last year, Palantir raised nearly $900 million in a round that valued the company at $20 billion. That makes Palantir the fifth-most valuable start-up in the world, after Uber, Xiaomi, Didi Chuxing, and Airbnb.
That’s good.
But the company may be overvalued. The write up asserts:
If Palantir does go public, it could propel his net worth to new heights.
The write up does not address what happens if Palantir’s value falls and the company does not enter into an initial public offering.
That’s a good question. Perhaps a financial black eye will result? What happens if the legal hassle with US Army is resolved in a way that leaves Palantir Technologies out in the cold?
No answers to these unasked questions. But the write up’s headline is a barn burner even if the information payload is a wet noodle.
Stephen E Arnold, August 19, 2016
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
