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
Are Big Tech Companies Like Countries? Not Exactly
November 11, 2020
The BBC published “China to Clamp Down on Internet Giants.” The article explains that China has figured out that online outfits may pose a challenge to government officials, procedures, and methods. The article explains:
China has proposed new regulations aimed at curbing the power of its biggest internet companies. The regulations suggest increasing unease in Beijing with the growing influence of digital platforms.
China has taken steps to make sure ants won’t ruin the government picnic. Other companies are affected as well. Europe is taking a similar, but uniquely European approach. Plus, the United States, asleep at the regulatory switch for a couple of decades, has heard the regulatory bleats as well.
The proposed rule changes in China, according to the BBC:
…will also take aim at companies that treat customers differently based on their data and spending habits.
Are big tech companies like countries? No, no they are not. Some big tech companies may not agree until the regulators grab their insect spray and zap the ants and other creatures buzzing in an annoying manner.
Stephen E Arnold, November 11, 2020
Gravity and the Ant: Real Power Can Crush Even the Hardy
November 6, 2020
I read a news story called “How Billionaire Jack Ma Fell to Earth and Took Ant’s Mega IPO with Him” from the trust principles outfit Thomson Reuters. The story was sort of news and sort of MBA analysis.
The news part is that the Chinese regulators pulled the plug on an initial public offering for an alternative bank. The entrepreneur Jack Ma learned that the Chinese government was not too keen on a person offering an alternative to the existing financial system in the Middle Kingdom.
Long story short: No IPO.
The analysis part of the write up veered into “humility” and “hubris.” These are concepts once taught when students went to school and suffered through in person classes about Greek tragedy, philosophy, and maybe history.
Long story short: Individuals have a tough time when there is an authority with power.
What’s interesting to me is that the Ant crushed story did not find a contrast between China’s approach to an entrepreneur and the US government’s approach to entrepreneurs. The subject seems rich with possibilities:
- The US has not one Ant but an anthill of ants with names like FAANG, bit telcos, and Goldman Sachs type outfits.
- China acted quickly to deal with an alternative to established institutions. US regulators have allowed many ants to rework the economic landscape.
- The big Ant Ma has dropped from sight at least for now. The anthill’s occupants are everywhere: New products, services, and features.
The difference between the Chinese approach and the US approach to upstarts is fascinating.
Net net: Power has pull. The gravity of the situation is obviously clear to Jack Ma. In the US, some of the ants are scrambling to control the flow of information within their systems.
Interesting how one Ant can put large scale systems in sharp relief.
Stephen E Arnold, November 6, 2020
NASA and Software Integration
November 6, 2020
I spotted “NASA’s New Rocket Would Be the Most Powerful Ever. But It’s the Software That Has Some Officials Worried.” The issue is successful integration. Here are the companies building the principal propulsion systems:
- Aerojet Rocketdyne (the Super Strypi launch vehicle)
- Boeing (yep, the 737 Max outfit)
- Lockheed Martin (the F-35 outfit)
- Northrop Grumman (the Zuma payload detacher issue)
- United Launch Alliance (a joint venture of The Boeing Company and Lockheed Martin Corporation).
The write up raises the question, “Will the software developed by the companies work in a smoothly, integrated, coordinated way?”
The answer should be, “Yes. Absolutely.”
The answer is, “Each subsystem works within its test environment.”
The article contains these statements:
All of those components need to work together for a mission to be successful. But NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) recently said it was concerned about the disjointed way the complicated system was being developed and tested. At an ASAP meeting last month, Paul Hill, a member of the panel and a former flight and mission operations director at the agency, said the “panel has great concern about the end-to-end integrated test capability and plans, especially for flight software.” Instead of one comprehensive avionics and software test to mimic flight, he said, there is “instead multiple and separate labs; emulators and simulations are being used to test subsets of the software.”
The proof of successful integration and coordinate will arrive at lift off it seems.
A Boeing vice president John Shannon is quoted in the article:
Shannon said the systems have been “completed, tested in integration facilities at [NASA’s] Marshall Space Flight Center. We’ve had independent verification and validation on it to show that it works well with the flight software and the stand controller software. And it’s all all ready to go.”
Okay.
Stephen E Arnold, November 6, 2020
Voyager Search Tapped for USDA Search and Discovery Project
November 4, 2020
Low-profile enterprise search company Voyager Search just made an important deal with a high-profile government agency. AIThority announces, “New Light Technologies and Voyager Search Team Win New Contracts with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Implement Data Search and Discovery Solutions.” Voyager’s partner in the project, New Light Technologies (NLT), is a consulting firm working in the areas of cloud tech, cybersecurity, software development, data analytics, geospatial tech, and scientific R&D. The write-up reports:
“Access to accurate information is crucial to the department’s mission to support sustainable agriculture production and protection of natural resources. Both NLT and Voyager Search bring many years of experience developing award-winning federal data integration and dissemination platforms and will build federated data search solutions to index and link disparate cloud-based and on-prem data sources, including large repositories of imagery and geospatial data files that are used for a variety of analytical reporting and data dissemination systems, such as the Global Agricultural Information Network, Global Agricultural & Disaster Assessment System, Crop Explorer, and the Geospatial Data Gateway. Leveraging NLT and Voyager Search’s Professional Services Department and Vose technology which provides robust spatial search capabilities, the team’s solution will enable users to search for data, content, and documents by who, what, when, and where. Together, the team is providing the technology and services to advance a modern data architecture for the department that will support improved information flow, security, and analysis as well as power the Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) of the future.”
“Voyager” is a popular name for a business, so do not confuse Voyager Search with other enterprises like digital innovation firm Voyager, manufacturer Voyager Industries, or even the Voyager Company that pioneered DC-ROM production back in the day. Vose is the name of Voyager Search’s platform that will be used for the USDA project, but the company also offers Server, essentially Vose for larger implementations, and ODN (Open Data Network), a searchable global-content catalog. Both products build on Vose’s “smart spatial search” technology. Based in Redlands, California, Voyager Search was founded in 2008.
Cynthia Murrell, November 4, 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
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
France: No Palantir Gotham Clone. Really?
October 29, 2020
DarkCyber noted “A French Alternative to Palantir Would Take Two Years to Make, Thales CEO Says.” The Reuters news story contains information which allegedly originated with Patrice Caine, the CEO of Thales, a rough equivalent to a large US defense contractor like Raytheon or the British outfit BAE Systems.
Factoids which appear in the write up:
- DGSI, the French equivalent of a mash up of the FBI and NSA, said there was no comparable product available from a French company
- France wants to achieve digital sovereignty in the intelware and policeware markets; that is, use French products
- The time required to clone Gotham is 24 months; however, the assistance of the French government would be needed.
DarkCyber observations:
First, the perception that no French company can deliver this type of system may come as a surprise to some French companies. Firms like Sinequa have marketed intelligence capabilities for many years. Some policeware and intelware is just enterprise search gussied up with a stage costume and some eye liner. Plus, there are other companies as well who might interpret the “no comparable product” comment as an affront; for example, hot ticket Datanami or the quite functional Amesys Eagle and Shadow technology.
Second, the desire to use French products is important. However, the French government has not moved with sufficient purpose to cultivate the type of innovation in intelware evident in the UK, for example. The UK is a policeware and intelware hot spot; for instance, the Gamma Group among others. The deanonymization of digital currencies revolution has been chugging along for a number of years because one university moved forward.
Third, the idea that two years are needed before France has a system comparable to Palantir Gotham is either wildly optimistic or an understatement about the time required. Fast ramping is possible with a French nucleus, supplemented with strategic acquisitions. For example, tap Dassault Exalead, provide funding, and recommend that innovative companies be identified and moved lock, stock, and barrel to Montpellier or Toulouse.
DarkCyber’s team can identify what to buy and what to do to assemble a French solution to the need for a Palantir-type system. It is important to remember that Palantir Gotham is “old” in Internet years. There are innovators and talent to create what France wants more in step with the modern era, not the emulation of a i2 Ltd’s late 1990’s thinking.
And where did the phrase “red tape” originate? Yep, France.
Stephen E Arnold, October 29, 2020
Google to Government: Deeply Flawed Are Your Arguments
October 21, 2020
Google publishes The Keyword, a blog about public policy. The blog presented an essay called “A Deeply Flawed Lawsuit That Would Do Nothing to Help Consumers.” The argument is interesting. The important section is meta; specifically, “The bigger point the lawsuit misses.” The article asserts:
The bigger point is that people don’t use Google because they have to, they use it because they choose to.
One click away from another services, right? People are smart enough to use a service like Swisscows.com, Qwant.com, or Izito.com.
Another key point:
It’s also trivially easy to change your search engine in our browser, Chrome.
Those who use mobile phones can navigate the menus and options in Chrome on a mobile phone or in a desktop computer.
The essay includes “Next Steps.” In this conclusion to the essay, the article states what appears to be the obvious:
We understand that with our success comes scrutiny, but we stand by our position. American antitrust law is designed to promote innovation and help consumers, not tilt the playing field in favor of particular competitors or make it harder for people to get the services they want.
My summary of the essay is: “If you are Googley, you get it. If not, you are not Googley, and there is not much we can do to assist you.”
What happens when governments asleep at the switch for 20 years are told the Google facts about Google? Not much. Habits like a soft bed are easy to get into and hard to get out of.
Ask someone addicted to an opioid, alcohol, shaping information flows, or just doing whatever one wants.
Stephen E Arnold, October 21, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
