A Peek into Google and Palantir Contracts: The UK National Health Service Versions
June 8, 2020
Curious about the legalese, terms, and conditions of US companies licensing and servicing government entities in the United Kingdom require? Good news. You can (at least as of June 6, 2020 at 0600 US Eastern time) can read allegedly complete contracts for software and services.
- The Google NHS agreement is at https://tinyurl.com/y88tzdqq
- The Microsoft NHS agreement is at https://tinyurl.com/y8vzj5ye
- The Palantir NHS agreement is at https://tinyurl.com/ybgdl82p
A contract from Faculty.ai is also available. Founded in 2014, Faculty.ai does not have the cachet of a Google. If you want to look at that contract, it is for now at https://tinyurl.com/ya3kzolw.
The deals are between these firms and an entity doing government business under the name of NHSX which seems to mean “a joint unit bringing together teams from the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England and NHS Improvement to drive the digital transformation of care. COVID-19 Response.”
Are there some interesting details in these documents? Yep. Will these be shared in this blog post? Nope. You will learn some of the DarkCyber’s team insight if you attend our National Crime Conference presentation about investigative tools and systems.
Not invited? For fee briefings are still offered. Contact benkent2020 at yahoo dot com.
Stephen E Arnold, June 8, 2020
Bloomberg on Trump and Twitter: News or Advice from Left Field?
June 1, 2020
I read “Twitter-Trump Spat Signals New Chapter for Social Media.” News, Dear Abby, or a wanna be consultant CxO memo? The write up has a news hook: “Twitter Inc. added a fact-check warning label to two of president’s posts about mail-in voting. In response, Trump threatened in a set of tweets Wednesday to “strongly regulate or close” down social-media platforms.”
What’s interesting about the write up is that the “news” story shoots into an interesting direction: Consulting and legal advice combined in one “real news” story:
Now, with another presidential election just months away, they made a calculated gamble that it was time to take a stand. It will be hard to retreat from here. When the dust settles, Trump’s threats will likely be seen as political theater without any lasting ramifications for Twitter’s business. Technology companies will challenge the president’s executive order in court on the grounds he can’t unilaterally change precedent without Congressional approval.
Is this Bloomberg’s official position? Nah, that would imply accountability for using news as a platform for a well written blog type commentary. The “author” has an email address, but Bloomberg adds:
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Fascinating. “Real news” with advice, a slightly “annoyed parent” tone, and a disclaimer. Hey, we published this, but we are not really backing up the writer or the content. Are we on the “Verge” of a new type of “real news”?
There you go.
Stephen E Arnold, June 1, 2020
And You Thought Brexit Was Screwed Up?
May 26, 2020
Nope, DarkCyber does not know if the information in “Open Letter on Confidential Dealings in Facebook Case” is “real news.” What’s interesting in the write up is this table:
The key point is that three years have passed and not much has happened. The main point is that Brexit may be a speedier bureaucratic process than enforcing the GDPR.
I do love the “accept cookies now” messages. That is one way to measure progress.
Stephen E Arnold, May 26, 2020
DarkCyber Exclusive: Steele Aims for the Hearts of Wall Street Short Sellers
May 23, 2020
We posted a follow up interview with Robert David Steele, a former CIA professional. This video expands on the allegations of wide spread, systemic fraud. Steele explains why a government task force is needed. He describes the scope of the audit, involving six financial giants and a back office operation. If you are interested in learning about alleged skyscraper-sized financial misbehavior, you can view the video on Vimeo at this link.
Stephen E Arnold, May 23, 2020
Amazon Promises an All Star Sub and Thomson 404s to Source
May 18, 2020
The news item was not a breath taker: “Amazon Says Appropriate Executive to Be Available, As U.S. Panel Calls on Bezos to Testify.”
On May 15, the Bezos bulldozer said no in a nice way to the US government. Mr. Bezos would be driving the bulldozer to a small town where one lone retail store front was operating. Apparently knocking down the building in Farmington, Illinois, required his attention. The US government would be able to speak with “the appropriate Amazon executive.” No surprise.
What was a surprise to some in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, was the dead link to the Amazon blog post pointing to the full text of Amazon’s response to the US government. This is particularly interesting since the article was written and checked by at least Ismail Shakil and Kanishka Singh in Bengaluru and Editing by Sonya Hepinstall and Gerry Doyle.
Ah, those trust principles appear to address issues other than verifying links to Amazon documents.
Stephen E Arnold, May 18, 2020
Rah, Rah, Google Under the Monopoly Filter of the US Government
May 16, 2020
Emails. Phone calls. My goodness, news reports from the Wall Street Journal (a Murdoch “real news” outfit) AND ZeroHedge, an insider’s news service.
The basic factoid is that an antitrust lawsuit is chugging along. Twenty two years after leaving the station, government lawyers are ready to board the Google train.
At this moment, anti Googlers are getting their pom poms fluffed. The pro Googlers know that the effort will be like the patient drips of water that form stalactites.
Legal processes take time, and Google will not be in a hurry. Presidents will come and go. Young lawyers will work in their government “socially distanced” spaces, then move into a law firm only to return and pick up where they left off.
Eventually there will be penalties. The penalties will be negotiated.
As the wheels of justice grind forward on government time, the Alphabet Google thing will hurtle along. Its timing is cadenced to Internet time. Lobbyists will lobby. Funds will be donated in proper ways to candidates who are into Google tchotchkes like the treasured Google mouse pad. You know the one. It has multi colored balls on it. A collectors’ item!
The reality is that Google is a government. No government can allow its citizens to revolt. Imagine turning in one’s search box for a Prime membership. Maybe both, but not one or the other.
To sum up: The legal action will chug along. And in the course of that journey, the Google will morph, evolve, and become something quite different.
Like the break up of IBM which never happened, the same destination perhaps. What if a digital Judge Harold H Green chops up Google as AT&T was dismembered. In case you haven’t checked lately, there are two phone companies and one may end up buying the other.
The telecommunications train may have completed a round trip if that happens. Sure, the T Mobile Sprint thing may become a player, but the Bell heads know the number to dial to make a connection.
Net net: Long ride, some excitement, two different time scales. One is on the slow local train; the other is the Osaka Tokyo bullet train.
Stephen E Arnold, May 16, 2020
France: Slow Sunday Lunch, Fast Content Removal
May 14, 2020
Mais, oui. The French enjoy Sunday lunch. A long Sunday lunch even in the midst of l’épidémie. However, sometimes the French want fast action. You know, the TGV of giant Internet routing.
The truth and ethics outfit Thomson Reuters’ story “France to Force Web Giants to Delete Some Content Within the Hour.” Exactly what is a “Web giant.”
Here in Harrod’s Creek, a “Web giant” evokes images of the fun and friendly high school science clubs at Facebook and Google. Maybe the Bezos bulldozer drivers qualify, particularly when books which criticize French cuisine are marketed at a discount? I suppose one could add the culture sucking vampires at Netflix. For a student at the Sorbonne whose father is the head of a major French government department, the student’s grousing about a bad Mac keyboard could put Apple in the hot seat.
What about Cisco, IBM, Oracle, or Walmart? Nah, not really. Online travel agencies operating from a trailer in Hoboken, New Jersey? Nope.
Instagram? Yes. Snapchat? Yes. TikTok (wherever that’s located?) Yes. YouTube? Oh, yeah, YouTube. Twitch? Yep, bet your bippy on that one.
The write up presents the real news this way:
Social networks and other online content providers will have to remove paedophile and terrorism-related content from their platforms within the hour or face a fine of up to 4% of their global revenue under a French law…
There’s one hitch in the git along: Getting the money.
Some long Sunday lunches will be needed so the French collections authorities can find a way to get those euros or whatever currencies flow like a wonderful Beaujolais during the November festival.
Taking down content is more difficult than popping a cork. That’s the point. One hour may be too little time for Web giants to do much more than trip over their Airbird clad feet.
Stephen E Arnold, May 15, 2020
Google Australia: Whose Head Is in What Logical Pouch?
May 6, 2020
I spotted this story in my UK news stream this morning (May 6, 2020 at 0600 am): “Google Is Like a Poster in the Newsagent’s Window for Publishers, Tech Giant Says.”
Is this argument reminiscent to those of the first year high school debaters offer?
The write up reports with truth and accuracy that Google Australia’s managing director said:
“Publishers provide posters with headlines for newsagents to display in their windows to help draw customers to buy papers. In contrast, Google Search sends readers from Australia and all over the world to the publishers’ sites for free [Silva’s italics] – helping them to generate advertising revenues from those audiences and convert them into paying subscribers.”
The original Google blog post is at this link for now.
The write up noted:
Guardian Australia revealed last week that negotiations for the voluntary code had stalled over three main factors: the media’s access to data and notice of ranking changes, and stonewalling by Google and Facebook on payment for content.
The issue is that old school publishers have watched their world change. Google wanted to index information and really was not keen on paying for that action.
Due to the regulatory environment which allowed Google to do what it wanted for the last 20 plus years, it is clear that Google has the upper hand.
Australia wants money to keep its “old school” news businesses alive. Google doesn’t want to pay; Google’s business model is predicated on giving indexed information away in order to attract advertisers who want their message displayed when a person searches for something.
The model has worked well. Maybe it is not the integrated, diversified money machine that the Bezos bulldozer has rolled out, but Google does produce revenue, certainly more than “real” news outfits.
Google, in an alternate reality, might license the right to index “real” news, display ads when those results are displayed, and share — yes, share on an equitable basis — the revenue the Google system generates from the content.
Sure, and pigs can fly.
Google is doing some word painting. But this time, maybe the company is putting its Googley head in its sticky marsupial pouch. There Google can tell itself and others that its indexing of news content is just like a poster in a store front’s window.
But Google, with some help from Amazon, has put most of the store fronts out of business. Facebook is keeping people occupied with its social service.
Google is just providing a service. For free too. Plus, Google doesn’t sell ads on the Google News service. Is the reason that Google could not figure out how to do this without igniting yet another firestorm over its approach which is reminiscent of the activity described in “The Destruction of Sennacherib.” Instead of wolves, Google is going after publishing wallabies, creatures ill equipped to deal with the digital war machine:
For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed;
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!
Will the legal eagles in Australia buy the Google argument? Will a regulator explain that consuming news wallabies is prohibited? Will Australia set a precedent for others in the Five Eyes’ group? Will Google’s lawyers prevail at a time when no one really seems to care about the business practices of de facto US monopolies?
DarkCyber is not certain. Google has been masterful is slipping away from problems. But the argument that Google is the digital equivalent of an A4 printed posted taped to a window of an increasingly rare newsstand is remarkable.
Does Google have its head in its pouch? This is indeed possible. Google does not want to recognize that the attitude toward the fun and cheerful company has changed.
Why not ask Amanda Rosenberg? She may have some insight into metaphorical arguments offered by the Google.
Stephen E Arnold, May 6, 2020
Google: Another Glitch Down Under
May 1, 2020
DarkCyber spotted this story from ABC.net.au: ‘Publisher’ Google Ordered to Pay $40k in Damages for Defaming Melbourne Lawyer after Court Ruling. Aside from the money, the key point in the write up is the word “publisher.” I wrote Google: The Digital Gutenberg in 2008. The book is now out of print because another wonky publisher nuked itself.
In that monograph, I pointed out that Google was indeed a publisher, a digital Gutenberg. Auto generated pages were content, results lists with YouTube recommendations were reports, and nifty boxes summarizing Machu Picchu were the equivalent of old school pasteboard baseball cards. (Just try and steal those in the 1950s, gentle reader.)
Few agreed with my conclusions in Google: The Digital Gutenberg. Now, 12 years later, it seems as if a Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia) has seen the light.
According to the article, the person who triumphed over Googzilla allegedly said:
“Her Honour has found that Google is a publisher of the defamatory imputations once Google receives notice of a defamatory publication online as a result of the use of its search engine.”
The key word: Publisher. If the other Five Eyes embrace this decision, DarkCyber what other interesting consequences might manifest themselves.
Stephen E Arnold, May 1, 2020
Facebook Chokes NSO Group: Will NSO Group Tap Out?
April 27, 2020
Facebook has become a digital world unto itself. From the insouciance demonstrated during the Cambridge Analytica matter to the cheerful attempt to create a global currency, Facebook has was some might call digital schnorrer. Take data and do what’s necessary to get as much as possible for nothing. Pay for data? Nah. Testify so elder statesmen can understand? Nah. Make it easy for consumers to manage their free Facebook accounts? Nah.
These are fascinating characteristics of a social media company eager to bring people together. But the company has another characteristic, and it is one that certainly surprised the hapless researchers at DarkCyber.
Cyberscoop reported that the Facebook legal eagles are doubling down on the bet that they can squeeze the NSO Group. Is it for cash? Is it for power? Is it to make darned clear that Facebook is more powerful than a company which develops specialized software for government agencies? DarkCyber doesn’t know, but it is clear, if the information in “Facebook: NSO Group Used U.S.-Based Servers in Operations against WhatsApp” is accurate, Facebook is ready to rumble.
The write up states:
In court documents, Facebook-owned WhatsApp claims NSO Group used a server run by Los Angeles-based hosting provider QuadraNet “more than 700 times during the attack to direct NSO’s malware to WhatsApp user devices in April and May 2019.”
The article points out that:
The filing is a blow to NSO Group’s claims that its signature product, Pegasus, isn’t capable of running operations in the United States.
What’s remarkable is that the lawsuit has become increasingly high profile. Dust ups related to what DarkCyber calls intelware and third parties usually keep a lower profile. A good example is the efforts expended to keep the lid on the interesting litigation between Analyst’s Notebook and Palantir Technologies. This matter, if mentioned at a conference, evokes the question, “What? When?”
The Facebook NSO Group dispute is getting media traction. Cyberscoop includes the full 35 page document via link in its article.
DarkCyber’s view is:
- There are some ironic factors in Facebook’s pursuit of this matter; for example, allegedly Facebook wanted to license NSO Group’s Pegasus. Is Facebook a bride left at the alter?
- Is Facebook trying to deflect attention from its own data policies? ( It is helpful to keep in mind that Facebook has to pay $5 billion for its Cambridge Analytica adventure.)
- Facebook’s own behaviors have been troubling to some individuals due to its own privacy and data actions; for example, exposing friends of friends without oversight to Facebook partners.
- Facebook’s shift from the privacy procedures users assumed were in place to a more Wild West approach to data as the social media firm sought to expand its revenues and user base.
Intelware companies are not new, but they are small compared to today’s Facebook. Intelware companies are like some flowers which die in direct sunlight. A special climate controlled environment is necessary for survival.
Facebook may be waking up to the fact that certain government agencies want access to Facebook data. Specialized firms, not just NSO Group, have the ability to work around, under, and through whatever shields Facebook puts in place to keep Facebook data for Facebook. And when Facebook does play nice with government agencies, Facebook plays by its own rules and brings the ball and the referee to the game.
DarkCyber’s perception is that Facebook was and is offended by what it thinks NSO did or does. DarkCyber assumes that Facebook wants it own NSO Group-style capabilities and is defending itself in order to be the Facebook everyone knows and loves.
With the Facebook – NSO Group matter moving forward, the path each company, the lawyers, and possibly government officials will explore will be interesting to chart.
Plus who knows whether Facebook is fighting hard to protect its customers or fighting another battle.
Also, NSO Group may, like a WWE star, have a masked helper waiting in the wings eager to join the fray.
Stephen E Arnold, April 27, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
