When Regulation Fails: A Snapshot of the Google
October 5, 2020
An entity called SEOButler published “The End of Google?” This is a good question like one of those easy ones on a mid term exam in Art History 105. The essay is longer, and it includes data about the size of the Google. Here’s a passage DarkCyber noted:
Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon have amassed wealth and power never before seen in human history. Given their almost limitless resources, the Big 4 can likely avoid, or at least delay, significant changes to the way they do business for years to come… But there’s little doubt that the impetus for governments worldwide to take meaningful action to curb the big tech monopolies is growing. Both political will and public opinion increasingly demand it.
What’s interesting is that the data have been gathered by a search engine optimization firm. These companies, despite their ubiquity, have faced an increasingly steep climb. The fiddling with text and tags in order to snooker the Google search results is a hit and miss business. If someone wants traffic, it is pay to play time; that is, buy advertising. Mother Google requires cash to pay for the almost uncontrollable costs of operating its “system.”
The answer to the question, in DarkCyber opinion, is, “No.” After decades of ineffectual regulation, Googzilla is quite happy having the world as its personal hunting ground. One can check the territory with a Google search or using Google Local.
Stephen E Arnold, October 5, 2020
TikTok Measures Mark a Sharp Turn for U.S. Policy
October 5, 2020
In a severe departure from our previous course, the United States seems to be embracing data localization laws. Nextgov declares, “On TikTok, the Trump Administration is Adopting China’s Own Vision for the Internet.” Though the Administration’s opening demands on the issue have not come to pass, the compromise does mean the data of U.S. TikTok users must be stored in this country on Oracle’s servers. Writer, and GMF Digital director, Sam duPont observes that the administration’s claim it acted out of security concerns does not hold water—the privacy risks of using TikTok, though considerable, are present with many apps. Targeting one company makes little sense. It looks more like a move to assert digital sovereignty and block the free flow of data. DuPont writes:
“On the other hand, requiring domestic data storage as a solution to the risks presented by TikTok is right out of China’s own playbook for the internet, which it has been advocating around the world. Governments in Russia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Vietnam and elsewhere have imposed or considered replicating data localization requirements akin to China’s own. Until recently, the United States has been a staunch opponent of these laws. And for good reason. Data localization requirements do little to improve the privacy or security of data, but they come with significant economic costs. Data storage and processing is a scale business. When a small Korean company can take advantage of cloud computing services provided by a U.S. company with servers located in Singapore, everybody wins. But where data localization laws require redundant data storage and processing facilities in every market, the economic advantages of digitalization diminish rapidly. Like all wars, the U.S.-China digital trade war has come with casualties, and chief among them is the U.S. commitment to an open, global internet.”
We’re reminded of the administration’s “Clean Network” program, an effort to sever all cyber connections between China and the U.S. This digital isolationist posture is similar to that of China itself and, if enough countries follow suit, will endanger the free-flowing internet that connects people around the world both personally and professionally.
Cynthia Murrell, October 5, 2020
Google Will Not Play Baseball with a Mere Nation State
September 29, 2020
DarkCyber spotted an interesting article called “Google Slams Arbitration System in Australia’s New Media Code.” We have heard that Googlers are fans of college basketball, specifically the NCAA tournament. And some Googlers are true fans of cricket. Baseball? Those crazy rules. No thanks.
The write up reports:
The system being proposed is called ‘binding final-offer arbitration’, referred to in the US as ‘baseball arbitration’.
DarkCyber thinks baseball arbitration works like this:
- Side A and Side B cannot agree
- Each side writes up a best and final offer
- An objective entity picks one
- The decision is binding.
Google’s view is that the system is not fair. The write up includes this passage:
Google said it is happy to negotiate fairly and, if needed, see a standard dispute resolution scheme in place. “But given the inherent problems with ‘baseball arbitration’, and the unfair rules that underpin it here, the model being proposed isn’t workable for Google”. [The Google voice is that of Mel Silva, VP, Google Australia and New Zealand.
The issue seems to be that a US company is not going to play ball with a country. Which is more important for citizens of Australia?
Google appears to adopt the position that its corporate interests override the nation state’s. The country — Australia in this case — seems to hold the old fashioned, non Silicon Valley view that its interests are more important.
DarkCyber believes that Googlers will perceive Australia’s intransigence as “not logical.” Google is logical as evidenced by this article “Alphabet Promises to No Longer Bung Tens of Millions of Dollars to Alleged Sex Pest Execs Who Quit Mid-Probe.” Logical indeed.
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2020
Hacking a Mere Drone? Up Your Ante
September 29, 2020
So many technology headlines are the stuff that science fiction is made of. The newest headline is a threat is something not only out of science fiction but also from the suspense genre says Los Angeles Air Force Base: “SMC Team Supports First Satellite Hacking Exercise.”
For a over the year, the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) experts in ground and satellite technology led a satellite hacking exercise. The event culminated in the Space Security Challenge 2020: Hack-A-Sat. The Special Programs Directorate and the Enterprise Corps Cross Mission Ground and Communications cyber operations team combined their forces for the exercise:
“This challenge asked security researchers, commonly known as hackers, from across the country and around the world to focus their skills and creativity in solving cybersecurity challenges on space systems. These white-hat ethical hackers are members of the research and security communities focused on legally and safely finding vulnerabilities for many different types of systems. This challenge focused on bridging the gap between space, cyber and security communities and growing these ecosystems.”
DEF CON controlled the exercise environment so the teams could practice their skills safely and securely. The competitors explored the satellite system, including the radio frequency communications, ground segments, and satellite bus. The Hack-A-Sat was basically war games with code. The purpose was to expose the experts to new systems they otherwise might not have access to.
The teams want to practice their skills in simulations and Hack-A-Sat events in preparation for real life events. The more real life scenarios the experts experience the more prepared they are to troubleshoot system errors and emergencies.
The Hack-A-Sat event is part of the future mission to the moon and defending the
United States from enemy threats. However, if the United States can undertake these exercises, bad acting countries can as well. It would be horrible if authoritarian governments discovered how to hack US satellites. The metaphor is scary but apt: could the equivalent of a 9/11 terror attack happen by satellite hacks?
Whitney Grace, September 29, 2020
China: A Digital Currency Forecast
September 27, 2020
DarkCyber noted “‘One Day Everyone Will Use China’s Digital Currency.” If you have read Beyond Search/Dark Cyber before, you may know that words like “all,” “every,” and similar categorical affirmatives are irritants. We live in an era of “black swans” and words like “never” are tough to accept as characterizing the present datasphere. Nevertheless, we have an “everyone” from the Beeb.
The main idea is that Chinese digital currency will become the big dog. Hasta la vista dollares en efectivo. The Delphic statement comes from Chandler Guo, a “pioneer in cryuptocurrency.” The Chinese DCEP is coming. DCEP is the digital currency electronic payment, and it seems destined to become the way to pay.
The write up notes:
But many question whether it will succeed and there are concerns that it will be used by Beijing to spy on citizens.
And there is the Chinese spy thing.
The article includes an anonymous source, a now standard journalistic convention:
“The Chinese government believes that if some other countries can also use the Chinese currency it can break the United States’ monetary sovereignty. The United States has built the current global financial system and the instruments,” says an anonymous Chinese crypto currency observer known as Bitfool.
Are Guo and Bitfool correct? Sure, why not. It is 2020, the Year of the Black Swan.
Stephen E Arnold, September 27, 2020
US Public Records: When Is Mail Mail?
September 25, 2020
DarkCyber operates from rural Kentucky. We do watch what other fly over states do. “Citizens Not Entitled to Receive Public Records by Email, Judge Rules” explains that in Oklahoma:
Custer County District Judge Jill Weedon ruled this summer, though, that the law does not entitle citizens to receive public records by email, upholding the county sheriff’s refusal to send a police report to a professor.
Like the song from “Oklahoma” says:
It’s a scandal, it’s an outrage!
Any farmer will tell you it’s true.
The article points out:
“The court … agrees that it would be more efficient to produce the requested documents electronically,” she said, “however [the act] does not require that the sheriff do so. The remedy … is in the Legislature, not the courts.”
The solution? Put on a mask and pick up the records in person maybe? That email stuff is progressive for Kentucky and obviously Oklahoma too.
Stephen E Arnold, September 25, 2020
Kiddie Ads: Facebook and Google Called Out
September 23, 2020
DarkCyber noted “Google and Facebook Under Pressure to Ban Children’s Ads.” The write up seems to demand more than a sleek Silicon Valley “I will have to look into that and get back to you.” The write up states:
Tech firms have been urged to stop advertising to under-18s in an open letter signed by MPs, academics and children’s-rights advocates. Behavioral advertising not only undermines privacy but puts “susceptible” youngsters under unfair marketing pressure, the letter says. It is addressed to Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft. In a separate move Google-owned YouTube is accused of unlawfully mining data from five million under-13s in the UK. European data protection laws forbid the mining of data of young children.
Does advertising to young people make any difference. The messaging environment is one giant selling and motivating ecosystem.
DarkCyber believes that if the information in the ZeroHedge article “Popular Children’s App Allegedly Requests Minor To Take Naked Pictures” is accurate, more than advertising needs attention.
Government regulators have been slow to understand the knock on effects of unfettered messaging and interaction via digital services.
The write ups are interesting. The question is, “How does one undo decades of missteps?”
Stephen E Arnold, September 23, 2020
Financial Crime: Business As Usual?
September 22, 2020
DarkCyber noted “HSBC Moved Vast Sums of Dirty Money after Paying Record Laundering Fine.” The article makes clear that banks do what banks do: Move money. Why? To make money, earn bonuses, and become a master of the banking universe.
Is anyone surprised? The authors of the write up seem to be. We noted this passage:
The FinCEN Files investigation found that HSBC’s highly profitable branch in Hong Kong played a key role in keeping the dirty money flowing. Although providing only a partial view of HSBC’s suspicious activity reports, the records show that between 2013 and 2017, HSBC’s U.S. compliance staff, who are charged with monitoring customer activity, filed reports lacking crucial customer information on 16 shell companies that had processed nearly $1.5 billion in more than 6,800 transactions through the bank’s Hong Kong operations alone. More than $900 million of that total involved shell companies linked to alleged criminal networks…
Institutions have processes. Once processes kick in, the paper pushing and the employees keep the wheels turning. The “work” is following the “rules” in order to complete tasks. Changing work processes in a large organization is difficult, often impossible. Quibi makes videos few watch. Facebook sells targeted ads across borders based on free flowing data. Successful organizations are successful because individuals find ways to generate profit from tasks others find giant money losers.
The write up hits the problem right between the eyes, stating:
Compliance officers said that the bank did not give them enough time to meaningfully investigate suspicious transactions and that branches outside the U.S. often ignored requests for crucial customer information. They said they were treated as a second-class workforce within the bank, with little power to shut down problematic accounts.
The exposition about the HSBC big bank is a reminder that institutions are, supercharged with online systems, smart software, and people who follow prescribed work procedures. In these efficient organizations, making money is the driver.
Regulators, compliance officers, and employees are unable to take meaningful action. Is it a surprise that “The Risk Makers: Viral Hate, Election Interference, and Hacked Accounts: Inside the Tech Industry’s Decades-Long Failure to Reckon with Risk” reaches an obvious conclusion: Money is the driver.
Consider the question, “What’s gone wrong?”
The answer is, “Nothing.” The system is what regulators, employees, and people want it seems.
Observations:
- A new definition of “crime” may be needed to embrace the reality of institutional behavior
- Regulatory authorities struggle to deal with corporate entities which are more impactful than governments
- Individuals appear willing to skirt social norms in order to feather their nest and craft a life outside of certain institutions.
Intriguing challenges for the institutions, their employees, and the governments charged with enforcing rules, laws, and mandated behaviors.
Stephen E Arnold, September 23, 2020
Another Swiftian Moment? Who Is Working for Whom?
September 21, 2020
I spotted “It’s Ridiculous. Underfunded FTC and DOJ Can’t Keep Fighting the Tech Giants Like This.” The information in the write up may be one of those spontaneous search engine optimization ploys or the work of super-intelligent smart software. To my inexperienced eyes, the write up seems to be semi accurate.
The idea is that “US regulators don’t have enough money to properly check the tech giants.” I would suggest that the revolving door, free logo bedecked mouse pads, and nifty briefings with edible food are also among the reasons.
The write up asserts:
The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice’s antitrust division have a combined annual budget below what Facebook makes in three days. The FTC runs on less than $350 million per year, the DOJ’s antitrust division on less than $200 million. Facebook made $18 billion last quarter alone. The funding disparity between the tech giants and their regulators leads to an unbalanced fight, current and ex-staffers said: The agencies can’t investigate the tech giants to the extent they’d like.
The write up did not mention taxes, but is that significant? Of course not.
The write up also does not point out that the demographics of staff in some Federal agencies may suggest that the contest between enforcers and the enforced is a bit like the Barcelona soccer team taking on a group of under 12s in a match.
The write up may be getting close to the resource disparity. The larger question may be, “Who is working for whom?”
Stephen E Arnold, September 21, 2020
TikTok Ticks Along
September 18, 2020
US President Donald Trump allegedly banned Americans from using TikTok, because of potential information leaks to China. In an ironic twist, The Intercept explains “Leaked Documents Reveal What TikTok Shares With Authorities—In The U.S.” It is not a secret in the United States that social media platforms from TikTok to Facebook collect user data as ways to spy and sell products.
While the US monitors its citizens, it does not take the same censorship measures as China does with its people. It is alarming the amount of data TikTok gathers for the Chinese, but leaked documents show that the US also accesses that data. Data privacy has been a controversial topic for years within the United States and experts argue that TikTok collects the same type of information as Google, Amazon, and Facebook. The documents reveal that ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, the FBI, and Department of Homeland Security monitored the platform.
Law enforcement officials use TikTok as a means to monitor social unrest related to the death of George Floyd. Floyd suffocated when a police officer cut off his oxygen attempting to restrain him during arrest. TikTok users post videos about Black Lives Matter, police protests, tips for disarming law enforcement, and even jokes about the US’s current upheaval. TikTok’s user agreement says it collects information and will share it with third parties. The third parties include law enforcement if TikTok feels there is an imminent danger.
TikTok, however, also censors videos, particularly those the Chinese government dislikes. These videos include political views, the Hong Kong protests, Uyghur internment camps, and people considered poor, disabled, or ugly.
Trump might try to make the US appear as the better country, but:
““The common concern, whether we’re talking about TikTok or Huawei, isn’t the intentions of that company necessarily but the framework within which it operates,” said Elsa Kania, an expert on Chinese technology at the Center for a New American Security. “You could criticize American companies for having an opaque relationship to the U.S. government, but there definitely is a different character to the ecosystem.” At the same time, she added, the Trump administration’s actions, including a handling of Portland protests that brought to mind the police crackdown in Hong Kong, have undercut official critiques of Chinese practices: “At a moment when we’re seeing attempts by the administration to draw a contrast in terms of values and ideology with China, these eerie parallels that keep recurring do really undermine that.”
Where is the matter now? We will have to ask an oracle.
Whitney Grace, September 18, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
