Google Allegedly Sucking User Data: Some Factoids from the Taylor Legal Filing
November 16, 2020
I read the legal filing by Taylor et al v. Google. The case is related to Google’s use of personal data for undisclosed reasons without explicit user permission to consume the user’s bandwidth on a mobile network. You can download the 23 page legal document from this link, courtesy of The Register, a UK online information service. Here’s a rundown a few of the factoids in the document which I found interesting:
- Google’s suck hundreds of megabytes of data is characterized as a “dirty little secret.” Hundreds of megabytes of data does not seem to me to be “little.”
- Google allegedly conducts “passive information transfers which are not initiated by any action of the user and are performed without their knowledge.” I think this means taking data surreptitiously.
- Taking the data uses for fee network connections. I think this means that the user foots the bill for the data sucking.
- Android has a 54.4 percent of the US smartphone market.
- The volume of data “transferred” is about nine megabytes per 24 hours when an Android device is stationary and not in active use.
This graphic appears in the filing on page 11:
The big bar shows Google’s data sucking compared to Apple’s.
The document states:
Google has concealed its misappropriate of Plaintiffs’ cellular data.
I wonder if Google’s senior executives are aware of what the Android phones are allegedly doing. Google was not aware of a number of employee activities, most recently the leak of ideas for thwarting EU regulators.
Is this another example of entitlement management; that is, acting in a manner of a high school science club confident in its superiority over lesser mortals?
Stephen E Arnold, November 16, 2020
Google Boss to EU: Nope, Did Not See How to Counter Regulatory Hurdles
November 16, 2020
Ooops. And “Hey, I have not seen the report.”
Sound familiar?
“Google CEO Apologises for Document, EU’s Breton Warns Internet Is Not Wild West” reports that:
Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai has apologised to Europe’s industry chief Thierry Breton over a leaked internal document proposing ways to counter the EU’s tough new rules for technology companies.
The write up noted:
Pichai apologised for the way the document came out, a paper which he had not seen nor signed off, saying that he would engage directly with Breton if he sees language and policy that specifically targets Google, another person familiar with the call said.
Yep, a bionic response from Google’s non-digital intelligence node.
Ooops. Ooops. Ooops. Ooops. Error like YouTube filtering. Ooops. Ooops.
PS. Where’s the list of Google 165 critics? Why does this Reuters’ story have different date and time stamps? Just curious.
Stephen E Arnold, November 16, 2020
YouTube Factoid
November 10, 2020
Investor Place published “YouTube Is Now Google’s Biggest Growth Engine and Could Be Worth $200 Billion on Its Own.” The write up contains an interesting factoid which may be semi-true.
YouTube is now nearly 20% of Google’s business, and it’s growing three times faster than the rest of the company.
After decades of effort, Google has another revenue stream, based on advertising and subscriptions.
So what?
There’s the $200 billion and the “could”.
Stephen E Arnold, November 10, 2020
The European Competition Commission Goes for the Throat
November 3, 2020
I wanted to note the October 30, 3030, Reuters’ story “Online Giants Will Have to Open Ad Archives to EU Antitrust Regulators.” At last regulators are taking steps to gain access to the systems and methods used by Google and other online ad giants. The news story helps cement Margrethe Vestager as someone who uses her position to do more than posture. Also, the news story points out that there is a research agency called Algorithm Watch.
The problem is that the companies asked to provide information have legal options. The delays are likely to slow the regulators’ quest for data. If sufficient time goes by, the landscape can be reworked. Internet time is different from regulators’ time.
There is a counter point. Navigate to “Monopoly Power Is Less Dangerous Today Than in Past.” The argument set forth in this Telegraph Herald write up is unlikely to have a significant impact on the good ship SS Margrethe.
Stephen E Arnold, November 3, 2020
BERT: It Lives
November 2, 2020
I wrote about good old BERT before.
I was impressed with the indexing and context cues in BERT. The acronym does not refer to the interesting cartoon character. This BERT is Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers. If you want more information about this approach to making sense of text, just navigate to the somewhat turtle like Stanford University site and retrieve the 35 page PDF.
BERT popped up again in a somewhat unusual search engine optimization context (obviously recognized by Google’s system at least seven percent of the time): “Could Google Passage Indexing Be Leveraging BERT?”
I worked through the write up twice. It was, one might say, somewhat challenging to understand. I think I figured it out:
Google is trying to index the context in which an “answer” to a user’s query resides. Via Google parsing magic, the answer may be presented to the lucky user.
I pulled out several gems from the article which is designed to be converted into manipulations to fool Google’s indexing system. SEO is focused on eroding relevance to make a page appear in a Google search result list whether the content answers the user’s query or not.
The gems:
- BERT does not always mean the ‘BERT’. Ah, ha. A paradox. That’s helpful.
- Former Verity and Yahoo search wizard Prabhakar Raghavan allegedly said: “Today we’re excited to share that BERT is now used in almost every query in English, helping you get higher quality results for your questions.” And what percentage of Google queries is “almost every”? And what percentage of Google queries are in English? Neither the Googler nor the author of the article answer these questions.
- It’s called passage indexing, but not as we know it. The “passage indexing” announcement caused some confusion in the SEO community with several interpreting the change initially as an “indexing” one. Confusion. No kidding?
- And how about this statement about “almost every”? “Whilst only 7% of queries will be impacted in initial roll-out, further expansion of this new passage indexing system could have much bigger connotations than one might first suspect. Without exaggeration, once you begin to explore the literature from the past year in natural language research, you become aware this change, whilst relatively insignificant at first (because it will only impact 7% of queries after all), could have potential to actually change how search ranking works overall going forward.”
That’s about it because the contradictions and fascinating logic of the article have stressed my 76 year old brain’s remaining neurons. The write up concludes with this statement:
Whilst there are currently limitations for BERT in long documents, passages seem an ideal place to start toward a new ‘intent-detection’ led search. This is particularly so, when search engines begin to ‘Augment Knowledge’ from queries and connections to knowledge bases and repositories outside of standard search, and there is much work in this space ongoing currently. But that is for another article.
Plus, there’s a list of references. Oh, did I mention that this essay/article in its baffling wonderfulness is only 15,000 words long. Another article? Super.
Stephen E Arnold, November 2, 2020
India Asks an Existential Question about Google
November 2, 2020
I noted an article on the India TV News called “Isn’t Google Violating Users’ Fundamental Rights by Controlling Choices? Parliamentary Panel Asks.” The write up states:
A parliamentary panel on Thursday [October 29, 2020] questioned the “neutrality” of Google when it is engaged in both advertising and content, and asked was it not violating the fundamental rights of users by “controlling” their choices. Top executives of the search engine appeared before the Joint Committee of Parliament on the Personal Data Protection Bill and responded to queries related to data security.
The article continued:
During the meeting, MPs cutting across party lines asked how can Google be a “neutral platform” when it is engaged in both advertising and content, and how is it possible that it does not give “preferential treatment” to some advertisers in search results, sources said. Some members also posed questions about whether data being processed and stored in the country of origin or somewhere outside, sources said. Noting that Google has a wider presence and available on different forms on the web, some members said it “has the power to affect the choices of its users” and that needs to be checked.
The story did not speculate about the answer to this question. I am not sure if students of Søren Kierkegaard will be enlisted to assist in determining the answer about fundamental rights, the violation thereof, and related issues.
Stephen E Arnold, November 3, 2020
Inconsistent: Not If You Are Googley
November 2, 2020
In the rip roaring testimony on October 28, 2020, I thought some of those digital illuminati wanted Federal guidelines. But I could be mistaken. “The Technology 202: The Social Media Hearing Was a Missed Opportunity for Lawmakers” stated authoritatively:
The nearly four-hour event was chaotic and disjointed from the outset, as lawmakers frequently jumped from hot-button issue to issue — from the Twitter’s’ handling of dictators’ accounts to Google and Facebook’s effect on local news
I like the “dictators’ accounts.” Plural. Lots of dictators.
I noted “Google Steps Up Campaign against EU Push for Tough New Tech Rules.” I learned this allegedly “real” factoid:
Alphabet Inc unit Google has launched a 60-day strategy to counter the European Union’s push for tough new tech rules by getting U.S. allies to push back against the EU’s digital chief and spelling out the costs of new regulations, according to a Google internal document.
The write up continued:
When asked about the document, Google said new rules should take into account that people and companies are asking more from tech companies, rather than less. “As we’ve made clear in our public and private communications, we have concerns about certain reported proposals that would prevent global technology companies from serving the growing needs of European users and businesses,” Karan Bhatia, vice president, global government affairs and public policy, said. The paper proposed increasing the pushback against European Commissioner for internal market Thierry Breton, who is in charge of the DSA, by reaching out to the U.S. government and embassies with the message that the new rules threaten transatlantic relations.
Inconsistent, no just playing chaos and a game plan.
Stephen E Arnold, November 2, 2020
Google Reveals Its Aspiration: Everything
October 30, 2020
An online publication called Gadgets360 published “Google Renames the Chromebook Search Button to the Everything Button.” The lowly capitalization lock key has been identified as expendable. By repurposing a way to create CAPS, Google has performed two vital services:
- Easier access to search
- A way to reveal its aspiration: To be “everything” to a human user.
The article states:
Google is renaming a button on Chrome OS PC keyboards to ‘Everything Button. … Google said that the new name for the Launcher button was chosen to reflect user feedback; the search giant hoped that the inclusion of the new name for the button will help highlight that Chromebook laptops have a dedicated button on their keyboards. Clicking on the Everything Button will open up a search bar through which you can search for things on Google, as well as for apps and files on the Chrome OS machine.
Interesting. What about confusion with the freeware application called Everything. David Carpenter at Voidtools.com has offered his useful information retrieval software for several years. Google is indeed innovative and proving that it is “everything” a me-too outfit would want to be.
Stephen E Arnold, October 30, 2020
A Failure to Understand Google and History: First, There Is No Google History for Real Googlers
October 30, 2020
I read “Creative Director At Google Stadia Advocates Streamers Paying Game Devs And Publishers.” The write up explains why game streaming is a good thing. A Googler involved in Stadia, Google’s effort to be a player in the big money world of online escapism, wondered publicly if “Twitch and YouTube users should be “paying the developers and publishers” of the games they stream.”
The write up includes this point:
Meanwhile, I’m just wondering why Hutchinson doesn’t just go read his own employer’s 2013 study that shows just how beneficial let’s plays and game-streaming is for the industry. He might also want to realize that Google’s YouTube has an entire wing of it’s service called YouTube Gaming, built around game-streaming….But it’s probably time to educate Hutchinson on the actual facts that his own employer has made clear in the past.
Observations:
- Googlers are a-historical; that is, there is no history. This is not the Wu thing about the “end of history.” The past is a non-event.
- Googlers making statements illustrate the lack of a cohesive intellectual fabric at the Google. Googlers see the world through a lens crafted by a single Googler or a small group of Googlers clumping.
- Google lawyers, not those working on products, are responsible for figuring out what happened in the past. But those analyses are only germane to legal issues in the here and now.
This article, its reference to a 2013 Google study, and the observation of a single atomic Googler vibrating in bonus space underscore a lack of understanding about the company. The past — like the Googler who died of an alleged overdose on a yacht with an interesting person or the attempted suicide by a jilted friend of a senior Googler — don’t exist. Google invented Google. That’s for sure. However, the silliness of historical events, a record of actions, and the “actual facts” are not germane.
Google is a now outfit. History is for the non-Googleys.
Stephen E Arnold, October 30, 2020
Cybersecurity Lapse: Lawyers and Technology
October 29, 2020
“Hackers Steal Personal Data of Google Employees after Breaching US Law Firm” is an interesting article. First, it reminds the reader that security at law firms may not be a core competency. Second, it makes clear that personal information can be captured in order to learn about every elected officials favorite company Google.
The write up states:
Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP, a law firm that offers employment verification compliance services to Google in the United States, suffered unauthorized access into its computer systems in September that resulted in hackers accessing the personal information of present and former Google employees.
The article quotes to a cyber security professional from ImmuniWeb. I learned:
According to Ilia Kolochenko, Founder & CEO of ImmuniWeb, the fact that hackers targeted a law firm that stores a large amount of data associated with present and former Google employees is not surprising as law firms possess a great wealth of the most confidential and sensitive data of their wealthy or politically-exposed clients, and habitually cannot afford the same state-of-the-art level of cybersecurity as the original data owners.
This law firm, according to the write up, handles not just the luminary Google. It also does work for Lady Gaga and Run DMC.
Stephen E Arnold, October 29, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
