The capitalist tool suggesting capitalism does not work as desired. Remarkable.
A Compliance Hat Trick?
October 14, 2021
Apple, Google, and Microsoft have scored. I read “LinkedIn Caves Again, Blocks US Journalists’ Accounts in China.” I noted this passage:
LinkedIn — the business-oriented social media platform owned by Microsoft — has spent the last few years increasing its compliance with the Chinese government’s demands for censorship.
The write up points out that a reporter for Axios, another with-in online information service, has been disappeared.
The cited article provides links and more color for the Chinese action.
It appears that major US technology companies are complying with guidelines and regulations in the countries in which they operate.
Why?
One possible answer is revenue. Another may be a desire to avoid legal consequences for the firms’ in-country employees.
It seems reasonable to conclude that the era of the Wild West Internet is ending. Some large countries want to manage certain aspects of information and data flows.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? The answer depends on one’s point of view, where one lives, and how one generates revenue/income.
Stephen E Arnold, October 14, 2021
Regulators Move, Just Slowly Toward Facebook
October 14, 2021
Finally, after 17 years a dim light flickers on. Vox Recode reports, “It’s Getting Harder for People to Believe that Facebook Is a Net Good for Society.” Though experts have been sounding the alarm for years, Facebook has insisted its ability to bring folks together far outweighs any damage perpetuated by its platforms. Now, though, more people are challenging that defense. Writer Shirin Ghaffary tells us:
“A new series of reports from the Wall Street Journal, “The Facebook Files,” provides damning evidence that Facebook has studied and long known that its products cause measurable, real-world harm — including on teenagers’ mental health — and then stifled that research while denying and downplaying that harm to the public. The revelations, which only strengthen the case that a growing chorus of lawmakers and regulators have been making for breaking up Facebook or otherwise severely limiting its power as a social media giant, could represent a turning point for the company. Already, the Journal’s reporting has prompted consequences for Facebook: A bipartisan Senate committee is investigating [Facebook-owned] Instagram’s impact on teenagers, and a group of legislators led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) is calling for Facebook to halt all development of its Instagram for Kids product for children under 13, which BuzzFeed News first revealed the company was developing in March.”
Ghaffary reminds us the wheels of government turn slowly and, often, to little effect. The investigations are in early stages and may not lead to any real changes or meaningful consequences. At least some politicians are more willing to question Facebook about the harm it causes, as some did at recent Congressional hearings. Unfortunately, Facebook is inclined to withhold damaging information even at the request of elected officials. We learn:
“When Rep. Rodgers and other Republicans followed up with Facebook and asked about the company’s internal research on the effects of its products on mental health, the company did not share the Instagram research results, according to Bloomberg, nor did it share them with Sen. Ed Markey when his office also asked Facebook to provide any internal research on the matter in April, according to letters provided by Markey’s office to Recode.”
But wait, there’s more. The Journal’s reporting also reveals the company’s VIP program, through which certain celebrities and politicians can break its rules (such as they are). It also shows that, in 2018, Facebook modified its algorithm to encourage the sharing of angrier content. Anything to generate traffic and revenues, whatever the consequences, it seems.
Cynthia Murrell, October 14, 2021
Regulating Big Tech: Ho, Ho, Ho. That Is a Good One
October 11, 2021
How long do government attorneys remain on the job? One answer is, “Until a big time firm comes with a juicy job.”
Now what’s this fact of government life suggest for regulating big tech?
One clue appears in “Apple Files Appeal in Epic Games Case, Potentially Delaying App Store Changes for Years.” The operative word is “appeal.” Yep, Apple has money, lawyers, and corporate patience. The US government has fewer legal resources and some lawyers who might jump at a chance to work in the big weird spaceship house pizza dish.
Here’s the passage I noted:
If Apple wins the stay, which will be decided by a judge in November, a rule change potentially allowing developers to circumvent App Store fees of 15% to 30% may not take effect until appeals in the case have finished, a process that could take years.
Does this suggest that taking steps to deal with “big tech” may be a tough job?
Yep.
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2021
China: Rethinking Decentralized Finance the CCP Way
October 11, 2021
I read “Bitcoin Plummets after China Intensifies Cryptocurrency Crackdown.” The “real” news story reports:
Chinese government agencies including the country’s securities regulator and the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) said in a statement on Friday that all cryptocurrency-related business activities are illegal and vowed to clamp down on illicit activities involving digital currencies.
Well, that seems clear. Draconian? Sure.
A demonstration of power? Sure.
Popular among the digital currency enthusiasts in China? For party members, probably. For others, probably less enthusiasm.
What’s interesting is that China appears to recognize the threats posed by “digital everything” require government action.
Russia is playing a fence sitting game.
As nation states pick a team, will a different alignment of power emerge?
Interesting. What happens if those on the China side embrace total surveillance? Even more interesting.
I am delighted I am old. Thumbtypers are likely to have a different take on this development.
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2021
India: Offensive Cyber Activity or a Swipe at Specialized Software and Threat Intelligence
September 29, 2021
I read “Exclusive: An American Company Fears Its Windows Hacks Helped India Spy On China And Pakistan.” The write up reports:
A U.S. company’s tech was abused by the Indian government, amidst warnings Americans are contributing to a spyware industry already under fire for being out of control.
The write up’s emphasis is on an intriguing point; to wit:
Sometimes American companies aren’t the victims, but the ones fueling costly digital espionage.
The named firm is Exodus. Forbes presents this factoid, which I assume is “true”:
“They’re significant because the size of the market is relatively small, and the skill set required [to find zero days] is in possession of just a few thousand people worldwide at any given time,” says Katie Moussouris, founder of Luta Security and creator of Microsoft’s bug bounty program to reward hackers for vulnerability disclosures.
Okay, the market is small. And the expert? From another low profile outfit called Luta. But the story is not straight forward.
Exodus pumped out a report of an exploit. India’s technology professionals (presumably one of the few thousand in the world) recognized the value of the information. Then hunted around for another vulnerability its cyber fighters could employ.
The Forbes’s report says:
Any such zero-day spill would be especially concerning coming from a company that tries to keep a lid on around 50 zero days a year, covering the world’s most popular operating systems, from Windows to Android to Apple’s iOS. And Brown isn’t alone in seeing his creation used in ways he didn’t intend.
Exodus cut off India from its threat information. The write up concludes:
With the supply there, American government is hungry for hacks of all kinds of technologies.
Several observations:
- How many companies pump out threat intelligence? Are there other examples of “customers” using threat intelligence to develop cyber weapons?
- Why is Microsoft opining about security; specifically, NSO Group? The reasons exploits exist may be in part due to the security posture of Microsoft itself. No, Windows 11 did not distract me from noticing the Redmond giant’s magnetism for bad actors.
- What’s the agenda for this story? A lack of regulation? The behavior of the many, many outfits engaged in generating alerts, notices of exploitable flaws, or the damage done by leaking once secret specialized software into the public spotlight?
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2021
Facebook Brings People Together: A Different Spin
September 29, 2021
I read “Lawmakers Ask Zuckerberg to Drop ‘Instagram for Kids’ After Report Says App Made Kids Suicidal.” The write up reports about more concern and hand wringing about the impact of social media. Finally an anonymous but brave Facebook whistleblower has awakened the somnambulant US elected officials from their summer siesta. Here’s a quote from the write up:
“Children and teens are uniquely vulnerable populations online, and these findings paint a clear and devastating picture of Instagram as an app that poses significant threats to young people’s wellbeing,” the lawmakers said.
Facebook was founded in 2004. Let’s see that works out to about eight days in the timescape of US elected officials, doesn’t it. Why rush?
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2021
Cambridge: We Do It Huawei
September 28, 2021
Intelligence agencies are aware China has been ramping up its foreign espionage efforts, largely through civilian operatives. Now The Statesman reports, “Huawei Infiltrates Cambridge University.” We wonder what other universities have also been targeted. Perhaps our neighbor, the University of Tennessee at Knoxville? That institution not too far from an interesting government operation.
Huawei is China’s mammoth technology company and is largely viewed as a security threat, operating on behalf of the Chinese government. The U.S. maintains sanctions against the company and several countries have banned Huawei’s 5G technology over security concerns. The article tells us:
“Huawei has been accused of ‘infiltrating’ a Cambridge University research centre after most of its academics were found to have ties with the Chinese company, The Times, UK reported. Three out of four of the directors at the Cambridge Centre for Chinese Management (CCCM) have ties to the company, and its so-called chief representative is a former senior Huawei vice-president who has been paid by the Chinese government. The university insists that one former Huawei executive has never delivered services to the centre while the firm itself has said any suggestion of impropriety is absurd. Daily Mail reported that critics have claimed that the Huawei ties are a demonstration that the university has allowed the CCCM to be infiltrated by the Chinese company which has been banned from joining Britain’s 5G network. Johnny Patterson, policy director of the Hong Kong campaign group, told the newspaper the university should investigate the relationship between Huawei and the CCCM.”
Not surprisingly, money appears to be a factor. British politician Iain Duncan Smith asserts Cambridge has become reliant on Chinese funding in recent years. He proposes an inquiry into the role of Chinese funding throughout UK institutions and companies. We wonder how many other countries are seeing a similar pattern. It China trying to buy its way into world dominance? Is it working?
Cynthia Murrell, September 28, 2021
US Government Procurement: A Technology Brake?
September 27, 2021
I read “Study: Pentagon Reliance on Contractors Hurt US in 9/11 Wars.” I was not certain how to process the story. Was it a blockbuster exposé or was it another recycled Hummer tire?
The write up states:
Up to half of the $14 trillion spent by the Pentagon since 9/11 went to for-profit defense contractors, a study released Monday found. It’s the latest work to argue the U.S. reliance on private corporations for war-zone duties that used to be done by troops contributed to mission failure in Afghanistan. In the post-9/11 wars, U.S. corporations contracted by the Defense Department not only handled war-zone logistics like running fuel convoys and staffing chow lines but performed mission-crucial work like training and equipping Afghan security forces — security forces that collapsed last month as the Taliban swept the country.
Has the enshrinement of procurement methodology created the situation? Are there other forces at work; for example, people complain about meetings. Nevertheless, the work of some government professionals is meetings.
Who does the work?
Maybe contractors? Interns? People hired on Fiverr?
The write up states:
And up to a third of the Pentagon contracts went to just five weapons suppliers. Last fiscal year, for example, the money Lockheed Martin alone got from Pentagon contracts was one and a half times the entire budgets of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to the study.
Are the expenditures audited? Does anyone know where the money goes?
The write up wraps up with this statement:
Relying less on private contractors, and more on the U.S. military as in past wars, might have given the U.S. better chances of victory in Afghanistan…
Interesting.
Stephen E Arnold, September 27, 2021
China and That Old Time Religion: Oil and Water?
September 22, 2021
Chairman Mao Zedong infamously said, “Religion is the opiate of the people.” Since the communist takeover in China, the country’s government has not sanctioned any religion. In short, China does not like religion at all. China does not like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, nor Islam.
Islam is a hot button issue for China, because of its extermination of Uyghurs Muslims. China has not formerly acknowledged the Uyghur genocide. China does not like the Uyghurs, because the the minor Islamic denomination are separating themselves from the main Chinese population. Under the Chinese government, all people are equal and the same. The government does not like it when people separate themselves into ethnic or religious groups. Uyghur adults are being sent to extermination camps, while Uyghur children are separated from their parents and reeducated. China’s population crisis is another issue.
China banning the Koran reader is not any different from banning the Bible, Torah, or other religious documents. China notoriously bans literature and other media that the government finds contrary to its ideals. A developer named Ameir tweeted on Twitter that he uploaded the Koran reader to the China Apple App Store and he was told:
“I got notified from Apple that the Quran Reader has been removed from sale in China because it has ‘content that is illegal in China as determined by the Cyberspace Administration of China.’It’s literally just the Quran.”
Another user replied that China does not allow the Bible online either.
Whitney Grace, September 22, 2021
Cough, Cough: A Phrase to Praise?
September 20, 2021
I read “Critics Warn of Apple, Google Chokepoint Repression.” The article contains a phrase which may become one to praise: “A convenient chokepoint.”
The write up is arriving a couple of decades too late. The chokepoints have been building, reinforcing, and lobbying for many years. Wall Street loves the Apples and Googles of the Silicon Valley money engines.
One doesn’t have to be much of a student of political science or have an MBA in nudging to figure out what’s going to happen. When threatened with financial loss, some of these outstanding American business entities will respond.
My hunch is that rolling over at the snap of fingers in China, Russia, and elsewhere will become predictable behavior. Instead of a treat, the obedient get to make money. The alternative is a kick in the digital ribs.
Stephen E Arnold, September 20, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
