Google: Some Interesting News Regarding an Interesting Company?
July 9, 2019
DarkCyber noted a handful of interesting Google news items. We assume that each of these is true, or in the words of one podcast, “actual factual” information.
First, Digital Journal reports that Google is working on cold fusion. The write up explains:
Cold fusion is a hypothesized type of nuclear reaction taking place at room temperature (hence the reference to ‘cold and contrasting to the “hot” fusion which papers within stars or as part of hydrogen bombs). There is currently no accepted theoretical model that would allow cold fusion to occur, and when attempted results have not been reproducible.
Nevertheless, Digital Journal reports via Physics World:
Google together with several research institutes in the U.S. is reported to have reopened what they call the “cold case” of cold fusion. Despite the many failures to observe cold fusion, the scientists contend that the case is not yet closed, and that cold fusion energy is indeed achievable. Google are investing $10 million into the project and there are thirty scientists involved.
Second, “YouTube Software Engineer Injures 8 in Drug-Induced Fourth of July Rampage, Police Say” reports that a person allegedly a Google YouTuber, ingested LSD and behaved in an manner which caused Sonoma county officers to shoot him.
The news story summarized these actions by the alleged Googler:
- To get past his friends trying to stop him, Koffi choked one, stabbed one with a pencil and punched two in the chest, side and face.
- While trying to get away in his rental car, he hit the car parked behind him and lodged the sedan into the house’s garage.
- Koffi ran down the street before a security guard began questioning him. He stabbed the guard’s chest with the metal stake end of a landscape light, then sped away in the guard’s running and unlocked truck.
- On the road, he hit two pedestrians. He then struck a woman walking on a bluff. After hitting a wall, he drove through the side yard of a home and got back on the road in time for two patrol cars to pull up.
- Koffi accelerated toward the officers, ramming into one patrol car as a deputy fired a gun. He didn’t stop until he was shot at least three times through the windshield.
Third, Google researchers allegedly discovered a way to brick (disable) Apple iPhones with an iMessage. According to BGR (Boy Genius Report):
The only fix is a factory reset and there’s no way to recover lost data that wasn’t backed up….The good news is that Apple patched this issue in iOS 12.3, which means that you’re safe as long as you’ve updated to the latest stable iOS release, or if you’re on an iOS 13 beta.
Cold fusion, LSD, and bricking iPhones — linked with a single threat: The Google. Dare I use the acronym: HSSCMM? No, not even high school science clubs could pull off these three events in a week or so.
Stephen E Arnold, July 9, 2019
The Ease with Which Search Marketing Experts Manipulate Relevance and the Clueless
July 8, 2019
The New York Times (paywall, gentle reader, take heed) ran an opinion editorial “real news” item called “I Used Google Ads for Social Engineering.” You can locate the write up on page A 23 of the July 8, 2019, dead tree edition in the version of the paper that is distributed in rural Kentucky. By the way, good luck with that.
The write up contains some interesting factoids; for example:
- “Three out of four smart phone owners turn to Google first to address their immediate needs.” (Immediate needs? Remind me where I put the dog’s shock collar? No. Help me insert a video snip in my weekly DarkCyber video? No. Explain why my Android phone no longer allows me to hear voicemail? No. And I could go on but three fourths of my immediate needs require my attention be directed at Google? Really?)
- A person has 150 micromoments a day. (No, I don’t know what a micromoment is, and I hope I don’t learn either.)
- Redirection is a method which diverts my attention from what I wanted to what Google wanted me to want. (Yeah, that sounds just wonderful.)
The point of the write up is:
Google left behind a blueprint. The blueprint shows, step by step, how you can create your own redirect ads to sway any belief of opinion – held by any Google user, anywhere in the world – of your choice.
Really?
Just a question: “Why hasn’t an entity used the technique to deal with the border crisis or Iranian leaders’ desire to generate explosive material if Google Ads are so darned effective?”
The write up admits there are some weaknesses in Google’s approach.
No kidding? How about making Google the focus of what search engine optimization experts actually do: Distort relevance so poor, little Google doesn’t know what’s what about a particular topic?
The write up identifies one measure of success:
Nine days after my campaign began [to prevent suicide], the ads were accepted by Google. My ad was the first result across the United States when someone Google with suicidal intent. I showed unique ads to suicidal people who were physically located around the Golden Gate Bridge. Nearly one in three searches who clicked my ad dialed the hotline – a conversion rate of 28 percent. The average Google Ads conversion rate is 4 percent. The campaign’s 28 percent conversion rate was met in the first week.
Who can dispute the value of Redirect, Google Ads, and clicks?
Not me.
The write up points out:
Click data can be used for harm by a redirector whit bad intentions. If redirectors can groom ISIS sympathizers, they can also use it to groom school shooters. A redirector using a call forwarding service can link up with like minded terrorist by having clickers’ calls directed to their phones.
There you go. The how to manipulate method. Pederasts, are you paying attention? Credit card scammers, pay attention? Contraband vendors, you need Google Ads, right now.
The write up continues:
Using Google’s ISIS campaign blueprint, anyone can access the platform’s precise targeting tools and redirect ads to help further his or her own agenda. For instance, swaying peoples’ political beliefs during an election.
Why does this method work like a champ?
More than 50 percent of people still can’t differentiate between an ad )redirect or not) and an organic result on Google.
The person writing the article was at the time of the writing a Google certified partner and the founder of an outfit called Berlin SEM. I think SEM means “search engine marketing.”
Let’s step back and look at a handful of questions:
- Is this “news” or is it a marketing play designed to make the phone ring and the email flow to Berlin SEM?
- Are there mechanisms in place at Google or elsewhere to prevent this type of exploitation, what some call a “dark method”?
- Are the data presented in the write up or available from other sources able to tie an action to a Google ad budget; that is, “How much does it cost (money and time) to skew an election, cause me to buy an shirt, or perform some other action I did not want to perform?
DarkCyber is one the fence about [a] the benefit of presenting information about behavior manipulation via ads and [b] the inappropriateness of presenting a partial description of what an effective distortion campaign requires.
But an opinion editorial is not designed to be data heavy, thorough, and comprehensive. In fact, the write up is another example of trying to criticize Google and making the Google method into a service some advertisers will want to use now and more often.
The message strikes DarkCyber as, “That Google advertising is just what I need to make sales.”
Good job. Boost that usage of Google because micromoments are just an opportunity to distort. Don’t forget the tweets, the Facebook posts, the traditional news release, and for fee content placement.
Combo propaganda campaigns are more effective and warrant more comprehensive explanation, analysis, and discussion, not advertorials.
Stephen E Arnold, July 8, 2019
The Online Titans Deliver News As Slivers of Information
July 8, 2019
Last week a person who plays piano in our local symphony orchestra asked me, “How can I keep track of the news?”
Ever helpful, I immediately responded The Big Project. If you are not familiar with this service, navigate to this link for news. The service is a useful place to look for US and non-US news. Content is in English as well as in other languages. The layout takes a bit of learning, but the service is a good one.
But the write up “Google News vs Microsoft News: Which News Reader Is Better” goes in a different direction. In the article, the two choices are Google and Microsoft. The methods of access are mostly mobile centric.
The bottom line seems to be a fine “no decision” by the experts at Guiding Tech. The article states:
Here is what I think. Google News is better when it comes to managing sources and finding content or news stories. You can control and add topics, blogs, and magazines. The Full Coverage and Timeline feature are beneficial. Microsoft News offers a better reading experience. The dark mode is consistent, it blocks ads effectively, and you can change the layout or even font size.
Gentle reader, compare these two news services to the content available from The Big Project. Answer these questions:
- Which of the three allows explicit access to specific sources?
- Which of the three contain content in more than one language?
- Which of the three makes it possible to follow a story across publications and countries?
Like much US generated information, the perspective within the American lens is different (sometimes) from that which is available from multiple lenses.
Informed or uninformed? Which is better? In Harrod’s Creek, we go with the multiple source approach. Big slices and chunks of news, please, not slivers, not tiny slivers from a curated selection of just okay sources.
Stephen E Arnold, July 8, 2019
Google: Ever Flexible, Ever Accommodating to Its Values
July 7, 2019
Is Google taking its workers’ concerns seriously? Business magazine Inc. levels some strong criticism at the company in its piece, “Google Rejected Employees’ Plea to Reform its Sexual Harassment Policy. Here’s Why that Is a Big Mistake.” Sure, Google did make a few changes to its policy after last year’s walkout, but those changes fell short of employee demands. Shareholders attempted to remedy that at their June meeting with a simple proposal:
“RESOLVED, Shareholders request management review its policies related to sexual harassment to assess whether the Company needs to adopt and implement additional policies and to report its findings, omitting proprietary information and prepared at a reasonable expense by December 31, 2019.”
Sounds reasonable to right? Not, apparently, to Google’s board of directors, which recommended against the resolution, or Larry Page or Sergey Brin, who’s “no” votes held the weight of their combined 51% of the vote. (The two cofounders together own only 13% of the stock, but that’s a paradox for another time.) On top of that, company brass demonstrated their disdain for the issue: CEO Sundar Pichai refused to answer questions at the meeting, and neither Page nor Brin even bothered to show up. Writer Suzanne Lucas reproaches the company:
“Rejecting a proposal to assess sexual harassment policies basically states, ‘We’re happy as we are.’ Except, the ‘we’ here includes all employees (and contractors) who aren’t happy. And Alphabet leadership blatantly indicated that they were not interested in listening to the little people. … “When you don’t show up, you don’t answer questions, and the voting is ‘ceremonial’ rather than meaningful, you’re screaming, ‘I don’t care!’ And while businesses exist to make money, you can’t keep a business going with unhappy employees. If you don’t listen to reasonable proposals, you’re not going to keep people happy.”
Indeed. Lucas outlines four components she says make for an effective sexual harassment policy: bright-line rules; investigating each and every claim, preferably through an outside entity if executives are involved; making no exceptions for the most valuable employees; and open reporting within the company (without naming names). See the write-up for details on each of these points.
Will Google change its tune, or will it continue to pretend it does not have a sexual harassment problem? Time’s up. A or B?
Cynthia Murrell, July 7, 2019
Google: Instructional Hacking Policy Is Nothing New
July 6, 2019
I read “YouTube Says Its Policy on Instructional Hacking Videos Isn’t New.” The subtitle for the article is:
But a specific ban against instructional hacking could have negative consequences.
Maybe bad publicity?
The write up states:
This week Kody Kinzie, co-founder of the ethical hacker group Hacker Interchange, reported that its YouTube channel had received a strike for breaking one of its rules. Which rule? A ban against “Instructional hacking and phishing: Showing users how to bypass secure computer systems.” Fellow information security professionals and others — including some Google employees — came out in support of the Null Byte channel and its Cyber Weapons Lab series, while YouTube retracted the strike and reinstated the removed videos.
Yes, information is bad, no good. Plus, flip flops are part of a busy, bright Googler’s day.
The article includes a list of bad things one must not do on the Google. Examples include eating disorders and instructional theft. What is “instructional theft”? Stealing Sony Vegas 15? I noted this statement in what appears to be an official Google statement of policy:
Please note this is not a complete list.
DarkCyber has come across information designed to meet the needs of individuals with an unusual interest in the behaviors of young children, data about hacking commercial software, videos supporting the for fee activities of “talent” who collect money via “donations”, and similar topics. Example? Sure, how about this:
Several observations:
- Policies are a bit like those implemented by parents who say, “Because I said so.”
- Google generates situational decisions because its policy appears to be “react”, handwave, and move on
- Responsibility for what Apple’s Tim Cook calls chaos is an uncomfortable burden and best left for others to shoulder. Interns? New hires? People who cannot catch on with a hot project team? Castoffs from Dodgeball, Orkut, WebAccelerator, etc.?
Fascinating stuff, particularly the “Please note this is not a complete list.” Perhaps there is no list, just whatever whatever is needed to douse a brush fire and generate clouds of smoke to season red herrings?
Stephen E Arnold, July 6, 2019
Google to Kiwis: You Are Flightless Birds, Not Us
July 5, 2019
I read “Google Suspends Trends Email Alerts in New Zealand after Breaching Court Order.” The headline caught my attention. New Zealand? Home of Kim Dotcom. Get away spot for some Silicon Valley Lord of the Rings admirers? A handy place to experience earth tremors.
The write up reminded me:
Google has backed down in a spat with the New Zealand government after its email alert system Trends breached a court order suppressing details of a high-profile murder case. According to Reuters and AFP, Google has suspended its Trends feature in the country following outcry from the New Zealand government.
I can understand Google’s point of view. New Zealand is a mere country and a small one at that. It is far away, and it does not click as much as an important country’s residents.
The hassle surfaced because an automated Google alert named the person who killed another. Stating the alleged killer’s name was a no no. Google ignored that court order.
Google said, “Yo, we’re sorry.” However, Google was not too keen on making changes to its systems because a mere country wanted the US firm to follow the laws of that lesser nation state.
Here’s the nifty part. The write up reported:
New Zealand politicians reacted strongly to this reply, with justice minister Andrew Little accusing Google of “flipping the bird” at the country’s legal system.
What’s the problem with Google (a big virtual country) doing what’s good for itself. Plus, little countries have to be careful because Google has digital firepower and could use it to send a message. Oil embargo? Forget that? How about no email and no Web traffic?
The write up included this statement:
In the UK, for example, politicians have argued that Facebook is incapable of policing “harmful” content on its platform, and needs to be overseen by domestic regulators. In France, Google has been fined millions of dollars for failing to meet EU data privacy laws. And in New Zealand, Facebook was strongly criticized by prime minister Jacinda Ardern for failing to stop the spread of videos of the Christchurch terrorist attacks. “They are the publisher not just the postman,” said Arden in March. “There cannot be a case of all profit no responsibility.”
Get real. This is the Google politicians and officials are irritating. What about removing New Zealand and the UK from Google Maps?
If you are not on Google, you don’t exist. Understand?
Stephen E Arnold, July 5, 2019
YouTube: About Face
July 5, 2019
DarkCyber noted another example of high school science club management methods. “YouTube Reinstates Yanked Ethical Hacking Videos” reports:
YouTube’s clear as mud moderation rules were once again confused this week as the site pulled a bunch of ethical hacking videos, only to reinstate them shortly afterwards.
The UK news source reports that Google allegedly said to another online information service:
“With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call,” a Google spokesperson told The Verge after the videos were restored. “We have an appeals process in place for users, and when it’s brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it.”
The Inquirer.net writes:
Iffy moderation on YouTube. Surely not.
DarkCyber wants to point out that “iffy” is a standard operating procedure when implementing high school science club management methods. The science club is, by definition, correct. There is a corollary about consistency; that is, “What the science club does is, by definition, consistent.
You have to be in the science club to appreciate the truth of this statement.
Stephen E Arnold, July 5, 2019
Google: The Deciders Decide and Damage Some Security Data Flows
July 4, 2019
I read “YouTube Strikes Infosec Channels for Instructional Hacking Content.” DarkCyber view is that some information which routinely makes its way into open source should not be there. But, hey, we’ve been accused of being dinosaurs before. DarkCyber’s beloved leader, Stephen E Arnold, coined the term “Googzilla” and its reptilian connotations definitely applies to some of the DarkCyber team.
The point of the write up strikes DarkCyber as:
‘Youtube banning security disclosures doesn’t make products more secure, nor will it prevent attackers from exploiting defects – but it will mean that users will be the last to know that they’ve been trusting the wrong companies, and that developers will keep on making the same stupid mistakes…forever.’
Several observations:
ITEM 1: DarkCyber’s sparkling fountains of fire describes the management of some Silicon Valley firms as following the management precepts of “high school science clubs.” This means that bright, arrogant, confident, and generally mathy type people create an us-them dichotomy. Then the “us” people create a tidy little world which allows pranks, outstanding decisions, and numerous snide comments to pass for intelligence. Apply the HSSC method and you get…
High School Science Club Management Methods
A good example is a decision which is short sighted, difficult to explain, and probably as practical as driving a US Fourth of July parade war fighting vehicle to a party at the local Burger King.
ITEM 2: Figuring out what is positive information versus negative information is subjective. This means that one person will see the dress as one color and another person will see the garment as another color. Which is it? Don’t ask me, just ask the people at the search company. I know I can’t figure out what people will “perceive.” Obviously, the HSSCMM allows this type of decision making. The science club is, by definition, right. Plus, now member of the science club have lots of money.
ITEM 3: When making the Loon balloon into a commercial company or insisting that search results are relevant, Silicon Valley type companies are delightful. When these firms decide what information is technically permissible or not allowed demonstrates their decision making capabilities. If there were viable MBA programs, perhaps this type of deciderism would become a case study. Oh, right, MBA programs are facing some headwinds now.
Net net: The deciders decide. The followers follow. Medieval methods are good. The punishment? Banishment. DarkCyber assumes this is preferable to a dungeon in Mountain View or a ban on Philz coffee.
Stephen E Arnold, July 4, 2019
Google: A Question of Judgment
July 3, 2019
In the realm of unintended consequences, this one is a doozy. MIT Technology Review reports, “YouTube’s Algorithm Makes it Easy for Pedophiles to Find More Videos of Children.” The brief write-up provides just-the-facts coverage of the disturbing issue. Writer Charlotte Jee summarizes:
“YouTube’s automated recommendation system has gathered a collection of prepubescent, partially clothed children and is recommending it to people who have watched similar videos, the New York Times reports. While some of the recommendations have been switched off on certain videos, the company has refused to end the practice. …
We noted:
“YouTube disabled comments on many videos of children in February after an outcry over pedophiles using the comment section to guide each other. It doesn’t let kids under 13 open accounts. However, it won’t stop recommending videos of children because it is worried about negative impact on family vloggers, some of whom have many millions of followers. In a blog post responding to the New York Times story, YouTube said that it was ‘limiting’ recommendations on some videos that may put children at risk.”
Those limits are to be applied to videos with minors in “risky situations,” though the blog post does not specify who, or what, will make that judgment. Jee is suspicions of YouTube’s motivations, noting that the site’s goal is to capture and keep “eyeballs.” Despite what else is allowed to thrive across the platform, the company apparently decided to draw a (dotted) line at this issue.
Cynthia Murrell, July 3, 2019
Facebook and Google: An Obvious Question Ignored
July 2, 2019
I read the Guardian’s opinion essay by Shoshana Zuboff, the author of the beach read The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The write up’s title is “It’s Not That We’ve Failed to Rein in Facebook and Google. We’ve Not Even Tried.” I marked this passage as interesting to me:
The tech companies’ innovation rhetoric effectively blinded users and lawmakers for many years. Facebook and Google were regarded as innovative companies that sometimes made dreadful mistakes at the expense of our privacy.
The argument is that words caused law makers, users, and observers to unwittingly help out the bright folks who created “surveillance capitalism.”
This is one of the themes in Dr. Zuboff’s best selling book. A couple of observations:
- I am not sure Facebook and Google knew what they were doing. Situational decisions, user acceptance, and revenue pulled the folks forward. Hindsight makes the path easy to spot like a satellite photo that reveals an old Roman road.
- The technology components became available. In the spirit of tinkerers, a bit of experimentation produced some winners. When internal innovation was not enough, a couple of acquisitions proved to be the spark Facebook and Google needed. Who knew that DoubleClick cookies would be a better idea? Who knew that bad actors would flock to Facebook services?
- Governments — particularly the Five Eyes’ group — realized that Facebook and Google could be very useful. I recall that after my lecture at the International Chiefs of Police meeting in Canberra seven or eight years ago, quite a few attendees wanted to talk about the utility of non governmental data captured by these two outfits.
So what’s the big question?
What value do Facebook and Google deliver to LE and intel agencies?
Answer that, and there might be some useful topics for discussion. Pointing at committees and officials who are groomed by lobbyists is not particularly helpful.
Stephen E Arnold, July 2, 2019
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
