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
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
Microsoft: The Joy of Figuring Out What Code Can Do
October 26, 2020
DarkCyber finds Microsoft in an interesting spot. On one hand, Microsoft wants to be open sourcey. The idea of community created and community supported software provides a useful source of ready-to-microwave code nuggets, hints about whom to hire, and an opportunity to reduce the maintenance cost of certain components.
On the other hand, monitoring what’s on GitHub and, more importantly, how code can be used is a sticky wicket.
“RIAA Blitz Takes Down 18 GitHub Projects Used for Downloading YouTube Videos” explains:
Microsoft-owned GitHub has removed today 18 projects from its code-hosting portal following a legal request filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)….In a letter sent to GitHub, RIAA argued that the “clear purpose of this source code [the youtube-dl library]” was to “circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube” and to allow users to “reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings […] without authorization.”
The issue is likely to be a thorny one. Code can be used for many things:
- To perform a function
- A way to learn how to do a task
- Create software unrelated to the GitHub offering.
Microsoft has removed the “offending” software. But the problem could become the seed of a giant junk maple in the main Redmond campus green space. The article makes this point, and it is an important one:
RIAA isn’t alleging the library infringed on its rights, but that the library is illegal in itself.
Just as Microsoft wants to get open sourcey and more social, it finds itself in an interesting spot. Who or what will fertilize and water this tiny take down seed? Exactly what can code do? Exactly to what purposes can code be put? What about software which includes code which can do something a third-party defines as illegal? So many questions for the JEDI knights.
Stephen E Arnold, October 26, 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
Nix on Those Ethics Classes: To the Cricket Ground
September 28, 2020
I read “Cambridge Analytica’s Ex-CEO Banned from Running Companies for 7 Years.” I immediately thought about the former top dog at Fast Search & Transfer. His dalliance with financials resulted in a two year jail sentence with one year suspended if the information in Global Investigations Review is on the money; that is, actual money, not the confections generated by the enterprise search system that could do more than Autonomy’s system. The CNet article quoted a legal eagle as saying:
Following an extensive investigation, our conclusions were clear that SCL Elections had repeatedly offered shady political services to potential clients over a number of years,” Mark Bruce, chief investigator for the UK government’s Insolvency Service, said in a release. “Alexander Nix’s actions did not meet the appropriate standard for a company director and his disqualification from managing limited companies for a significant amount of time is justified in the public interest.”
Which sentence was more appropriate? A year in jail for financial impropriety or generating outputs which may have altered outcomes of democratic elections?
Good question.
Now about those ethics classes at Eton? Nope, a student will learn how to promote understanding of relationships between humans, location and environment and incorporate technology to expand learning experiences. One plus of the Etonian’s education: Lots of practice with “trials.”
Jail time? Obviously inappropriate. Just common courtesy, of course. Of course, old chum.
Stephen E Arnold, September 28, 2020
DarkTrace: Details about the Company Floated
September 24, 2020
DarkCyber noted “Goldman Snubs £2bn Darktrace Float Amid Lynch Extradition Battle.” The Sky News article presented some information which struck the DarkCyber research team as interesting. The story reported:
Legal issues surrounding the British technology star have led to Goldman Sachs deciding not to seek an IPO role…
The question is, “Why?” Goldman Sachs, like other high profile financial institutions, has been embroiled in interesting deals in the past. Wikipedia offers a list which warrants consideration if only to weed out the realities from the allegations.
SkyNews includes these data in its story:
- The sale of Autonomy to Hewlett Packard allegedly influenced the decision
- Invoke Capital (founded by Michael Lynch) was the first investor in the cyber-centric firm Darktrace
- Darktrace employs more than 1200 people and has more than 40 offices
- The company has “more than $200 million in revenue”
- “Mr Lynch stepped down from the Darktrace board in 2018, Invoke remains the company’s largest shareholder.”
- “KKR had increased its stake in Darktrace as part of a reorganization of the company’s shareholder structure.”
- “Darktrace might quickly be valued at well over £2bn.”
- Poppy Gustafsson, a former Autonomy professional, is the CEO
- Darktrace has $1bn in “cumulative bookings.”
- Customers include AIG, BT Group, Jimmy Choo, the Science Museum Group and William Hill.
According to The Register, Autonomy’s auditor Deloitte was fined about $20 million US for “misconduct.”
Stephen E Arnold, September 24, 2020
US Social Media Companies: More Financial Brutality Coming?
September 23, 2020
DarkCyber spotted “EU Could Shut Misbehaving Tech Firms Out of Single Market.” The write up concerns the European regulators’ Digital Services Act, 2020 edition. The article reports:
The bill would increase the responsibilities and liabilities of tech companies, particularly regarding content on social media platforms. Breton said that EU regulators are preparing a list of activities that tech companies would be required to eliminate. It may also establish a rating system which allow the public and shareholders to score companies on factors such as tax compliance and – for online platforms – how quickly they remove illegal content. Under these proposals, tech companies may be forced to break up or sell some of their European operations if their market dominance is judged to be a threat to the interests of consumers and competitors.
There are precedents. The Great Firewall of China and the exclusionary actions directed at US technology companies. The American attempts to shut down or co-opt TikTok and WeChat. The Indian government’s aggressive stance toward Chinese apps. Russian actions, including the preferential deal with Telegram, a messaging service.
Observations:
- American technology companies are the target of these legal machinations
- Fragmentation of online services seems to be a response to decades of flawed regulation
- Tax revenues may lead to deals, which may do little to address the impact of non-intermediated content flows.
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
Facebook: Luck of the Irish
September 16, 2020
“Facebook Takes Legal Action after Irish Regulator Threatens to Clamp Down on Transatlantic Data Transfer” illustrates that the company is consistent. The write up reports:
Facebook … launched legal action against Ireland’s data regulator, in an attempt to halt a preliminary order that could stop the company from transferring user data from the European Union to the U.S. The social media giant has applied to seek judicial review of the approach used by Ireland’s Data Protection Commission on the grounds it was premature for the IDPC to have reached a preliminary conclusion at this stage.
On the surface, it appears that Facebook wants to rely on the legal system, not the luck of the Irish, in its effort to sidestep certain constraints on its business. Is this action out of step with Facebook’s socially responsible policies? No. Facebook is acting in a consistent manner. Facebook’s tag line, according to one person on the DarkCyber research team, is “socially responsible.” Another team member understood that colleague to have used the word “reprehensible.”
Another perplexing issue which DarkCyber cannot resolve.
Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2020
Facebook a PR Firm? What about a Silicon Valley Cash Rich Intelligence Agency?
September 1, 2020
DarkCyber noted “Facebook, The PR Firm.” The main idea seems to be:
I [Can Duruk maybe?] saw on Twitter a leak from Facebook where the comms people were pleading to their coworkers to stop leaking to the press. The comms folks, in a weird form of irony, were so inundated with their moderation work that they had to ask people whose main task is to create more moderation work for the poorly paid and mentally traumatized people to please creating less work for them.
That statement combines the best of Escher and Kafka.
The write up notes:
I read Facebook less as a tech company, but instead a communications one. Not a telecom communications, but more like a PR / marketing consultancy. There’s nothing original about Facebook. It’s a company that hires people to build others’ ideas, and, more often than not, it does that better and faster than them too. And when it can’t do that, it just buys them outright. There is a lot of building, but the ideas are outsourced. But what Facebook is really good at is actually doing all this while fighting what seems to be a never-ending, at least since 2016 or so, PR battle while not giving an inch.
Is the entrepreneur Mark Zuckerberg a reincarnation of Ivy Lee, a metempsychosis in the realm of online social media?
And the final line of the write up reminds the reader:
This, after all, is a company that once thought comparing itself to a chair was a good idea.
DarkCyber thinks the write up makes some helpful points. However, several observations emerged from our morning Zoom “meeting” among the team members who had the energy to click a mouse button:
- Facebook has internalized the mechanisms used by some intelligence agencies and specialized services firms; for example, the dalliance in and out of court with NSO Group
- Facebook can perform what can be called “beam forming.” The idea is to take digital bits, focus them on a topic or issue, and then aim the beam of content at individuals and groups. The beam works like a wood carver’s oblique knife. The “targets” are shaped as needed.
- The company can exert threats in order to apply pressure to entities with a perceived intention of doing Facebook hard; for example, the threats made to Australia if the social media giant has to pay for news.
To sum up, DarkCyber believes that Facebook has more in common with an intelligence operation than a PR firm. I mean public relations. Really? Does Facebook care about relating to the public? Money, clicks, users, tracking, and data for sure. But public relations?
Stephen E Arnold, September 1, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
