Coincidence or No Big Deal for the Google: User Data and Suicide
May 27, 2025
Just the dinobaby operating without Copilot or its ilk.
I have ignored most of the carnival noise about smart software. Google continues its bug spray approach to thwarting the equally publicity-crazed Microsoft and OpenAI. (Is Copilot useful? Is Sam Altman the heir to Steve Jobs?)
Two stories caught my attention. The first is almost routine. Armed with the Chrome Hoover, long-lived cookies, and the permission hungry Android play — The Verge published “Google Has a Big AI Advantage: It Already Knows Everything about You.” Sigh. another categorical affirmative: “Everything.” Is that accurate? “Everything” or is it just a scare tactic to draw readers? Old news.
But the sub title is more interesting; to wit:
Google is slowly giving Gemini more and more access to user data to ‘personalize’ your responses.
Slowly. Really? More access? More than what? And “your responses?” Whose?
The write up says:
As an example, Google says if you’re chatting with a friend about road trip advice, Gemini can search through your emails and files, allowing it to find hotel reservations and an itinerary you put together. It can then suggest a response that incorporates relevant information. That, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said during the keynote, may even help you “be a better friend.” It seems Google plans on bringing personal context outside Gemini, too, as its blog post announcing the feature says, “You can imagine how helpful personal context will be across Search, Gemini and more.” Google said in March that it will eventually let users connect their YouTube history and Photos library to Gemini, too.
No kidding. How does one know that Google has not been processing personal data for decades. There’s a patent *with a cute machine generated profile of Michael Jackson. This report generated by Google appeared in the 2007 patent application US2007/0198481:
The machine generated bubble gum card about Michael Jackson, including last known address, nicknames, and other details. See US2007/0198481 A1, “Automatic Object Reference Identification and Linking in a Browsable Fact Repository.”
The inventors Andrew W. Hogue (Ho Ho Kus, NJ) and Jonathan T. Betz (Summit, NJ) appear on the “final” version of their invention. The name of the patent was the same, but there was an important different between the patent application and the actual patent. The machine generated personal profile was replaced with a much less useful informative screen capture; to wit:
From Google Patent 7774328, granted in 2010 as “Browsable Fact Repository.”
Google wasn’t done “inventing” enhancements to its profile engine capable of outputting bubble gum cards for either authorized users or Google systems. Check out Extension US9760570 B2 “Finding and Disambiguating References to Entities on Web Pages.” The idea is that items like “aliases” and similarly opaque factoids can be made concrete for linking to cross correlated content objects.,
Thus, the “everything” assertion while a categorical affirmative reveals a certain innocence on the part of the Verge “real news” story.
Now what about the information in “Google, AI Firm Must Face Lawsuit Filed by a Mother over Suicide of Son, US Court Says.” The write up is from the trusted outfit Thomson Reuters (I know it is trusted because it says so on the Web page). The write up dated May 21, 2025, reports:
The lawsuit is one of the first in the U.S. against an AI company for allegedly failing to protect children from psychological harms. It alleges that the teenager killed himself after becoming obsessed with an AI-powered chatbot. A Character.AI spokesperson said the company will continue to fight the case and employs safety features on its platform to protect minors, including measures to prevent "conversations about self-harm." Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said the company strongly disagrees with the decision. Castaneda also said that Google and Character.AI are "entirely separate" and that Google "did not create, design, or manage Character.AI’s app or any component part of it."
Absent from the Reuters’ report and the allegedly accurate Google and semi-Google statements, the company takes steps to protect users, especially children. With The profiling and bubble gum card technology Google invented, does it seem prudent for Google to identify a child, cross correlate the child’s queries with the bubble gum card and dynamically [a] flag an issue, [b] alert a parent or guardian, [c] use the “everything” information to present suggestions for mental health support? I want to point out that if one searches for words on a stop list, the Dark Web search engine Ahmia.fi presents a page providing links to Clear Web resources to assist the person with counseling. Imagine: A Dark Web search engine performing a function specifically intended to help users.
Google, is Ahmia,fi more sophisticated that you and your quasi-Googles? Are the statements made about Google’s AI capabilities in line with reality? My hunch is requests like “Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said the company strongly disagrees with the decision. Castaneda also said that Google and Character.AI are "entirely separate" and that Google "did not create, design, or manage Character.AI’s app or any component part of it." made after the presentation of evidence were not compelling. (Compelling is a popular word in some AI generated content. Yeah, compelling: A kid’s death. Inventions by Googlers specifically designed to profile a user, disambiguate disparate content objects, and make available a bubble gum card. Yeah, compelling.
I am optimistic that Google knowing “everything,” the death of a child, a Dark Web search engine that can intervene, and the semi-Google lawyers add up to comfort and support.
Yeah, compelling. Google’s been chugging along in the profiling vineyard since 2007. Let’s see that works out to longer than the 14 year old had been alive.
Compelling? Nah. Googley.
Stephen E Arnold, May 27, 2025
AI Search: Go Retro
May 27, 2025
CIO’s article, “Invest In AI Search As An Enterprise Business Asset” reads like a blast from the pasta circa early 2000s. Back then it was harder to find decent information, ergo the invention of Google. However, it was also a tad easier to get ranked. With the advent of AI search the entire game has shifted so these tips are questionable.
CIO shares helpful stats about AI: 90% of AI projects never develop beyond proof of concept and 97% of organizations have trouble demonstrating the business value of generative AI. Then this apt paragraph is tossed at readers:
- “A major reason is that many cautious business leaders treat AI as a source of incremental improvements to existing processes rather than a tool to reshape core business functions. Too often, business leaders underestimate the people, behavior, and organizational changes entailed by strategically using AI.”
- Generative AI is still a new technology so it’s rational not everyone understands its implications and potential. The article then transitions into the difficulties employees have finding information. Another apt observation is made:
- “They have become accustomed to instant gratification on the web, but the lack of investment many organizations make in relevance and content curation makes searching inside the corporate firewall maddeningly unproductive.”
Then readers are treated to sales pitch that’s been heard since every new search technology emerged (well before Google):
“AI search not only incrementally improves productivity but can radically reshape core business capabilities. It replaces simple keyword searches with advanced semantic techniques that understand the intent and context behind a query. Semantic search combines technologies including natural language processing, vector data stores, and machine learning to deliver results that more closely match what users need than keywords without requiring major investments in content curation.”
There is something new that Steve Mayzak, the global managing director of Search at Elastic said: “With semantic search, you can search across an entire book instead of relying on the index alone.”
Now that has my attention. Indices are great but are limited. When I’m doing research, I love having a digital copy and physical copy of the book. The physical copy is easier to maneuver and read, while I have the searching feature, copy/paste, and notes tool in the digital version.
Helpful? Sort of.
Whitney Grace, May 27, 2025
Real News Outfit Finds a Study Proving That AI Has No Impact in the Workplace
May 27, 2025
Just the dinobaby operating without Copilot or its ilk.
The “real news” outfit is the wonderful business magazine Fortune, now only $1 a month. Subscribe now!
The title of the write up catching my attention was “Study Looking at AI Chatbots in 7,000 Workplaces Finds ‘No Significant Impact on Earnings or Recorded Hours in Any Occupation.” Out of the blocks this story caused me to say to myself, “This is another you-can’t-fire-human-writers” proxy.”
Was I correct? Here are three snips, and I not only urge you to subscribe to Fortune but read the original article and form your own opinion. Another option is to feed it into an LLM which is able to include Web content and ask it to tell you about the story. If you are reading my essay, you know that a dinobaby plucks the examples, no smart software required, although as I creep toward 81, I probably should let a free AI do the thinking for me.
Here’s the first snip I captured:
Their [smart software or large language models] popularity has created and destroyed entire job descriptions and sent company valuations into the stratosphere—then back down to earth. And yet, one of the first studies to look at AI use in conjunction with employment data finds the technology’s effect on time and money to be negligible.
You thought you could destroy humans, you high technology snake oil peddlers (not the contraband Snake Oil popular in Hong Kong at this time). Think old-time carnival barkers.
Here’s the second snip about the sample:
focusing on occupations believed to be susceptible to disruption by AI
Okay, “believed” is the operative word. Who does the believing a University of Chicago assistant professor of economics (Yay, Adam Smith. Yay, yay, Friedrich Hayak) and a graduate student. Yep, a time honored method: A graduate student.
Now the third snip which presents the rock solid proof:
On average, users of AI at work had a time savings of 3%, the researchers found. Some saved more time, but didn’t see better pay, with just 3%-7% of productivity gains being passed on to paychecks. In other words, while they found no mass displacement of human workers, neither did they see transformed productivity or hefty raises for AI-wielding super workers.
Okay, not much payoff from time savings. Okay, not much of a financial reward for the users. Okay, nobody got fired. I thought it was hard to terminate workers in some European countries.
After reading the article, I like the penultimate paragraph’s reminder that outfits like Duolingo and Shopify have begun rethinking the use of chatbots. Translation: You cannot get rid of human writers and real journalists.
Net net: A temporary reprieve will not stop the push to shift from expensive humans who want health care and vacations. That’s the news.
Stephen E Arnold, May 27, 2025
Microsoft Investigates Itself and a Customer: Finding? Nothing to See Here
May 26, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby and his itty bitty computer.
GeekWire, creator of the occasional podcast, published “Microsoft: No Evidence Israeli Military Used Technology to Harm Civilians, Reviews Find.” When an outfit emits occasional podcasts published a story, I know that the information is 100 percent accurate. GeekWire has written about Microsoft and its outstanding software. Like Windows Central, the enthusiasm for what the Softies do is a key feature of the information.
What did I learn included:
- Israel’s military uses Microsoft technology
- Israel may have used Microsoft technology to harm non-civilians
- The study was conducted by the detail-oriented and consistently objective company. Self-study is known to be reliable, a bit like research papers from Harvard which are a bit dicey in the reproducible results department
- The data available for the self-study was limited; that is, Microsoft relied on an incomplete data set because certain information was presumably classified
- Microsoft “provided limited emergency support to the Israeli government following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks.”
Yeah, that sounds rock solid to me.
Why did the creator of Bob and Clippy sit down and study its navel? The write up reported:
Microsoft said it launched the reviews in response to concerns from employees and the public over media reports alleging that its Azure cloud platform and AI technologies were being used by the Israeli military to harm civilians.
The Microsoft investigation concluded:
its recent reviews found no evidence that the Israeli Ministry of Defense has failed to comply with its terms of service or AI Code of Conduct.
That’s a fact. More than rock solid, the fact is like one of those pre-Inca megaliths. That’s really solid.
GeekWire goes out on a limb in my opinion when it includes in the write up a statement from an individual who does not see eye to eye with the Softies’ investigation. Here’s that passage:
A former Microsoft employee who was fired after protesting the company’s ties to the Israeli military, he said the company’s statement is “filled with both lies and contradictions.”
What’s with the allegation of “lies and contradictions”? Get with the facts. Skip the bogus alternative facts.
I do recall that several years ago I was told by an Israeli intelware company that their service was built on Microsoft technology. Now here’s the key point. I asked if the cloud system worked on Amazon? The response was total confusion. In that English language meeting, I wondered if I had suffered a neural malfunction and posed the question, “Votre système fonctionne-t-il sur le service cloud d’Amazon?” in French, not English.
The idea that this firm’s state-of-the-art intelware would be anything other than Microsoft centric was a total surprise to those in the meeting. It seemed to me that this company’s intelware like others developed in Israel would be non Microsoft was inconceivable.
Obviously these professionals were not aware that intelware systems (some of which failed to detect threats prior to the October 2023 attack) would be modified so that only adversary military personnel would be harmed. That’s what the Microsoft investigation just proved.
Based on my experience, Israel’s military innovations are robust despite that October 2023 misstep. Furthermore, warfighting systems if they do run on Microsoft software and systems have the ability to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. This is an important technical capability and almost on a par with the Bob interface, Clippy, and AI in Notepad.
I don’t know about you, but the Microsoft investigation put my mind at ease.
Stephen E Arnold, May 26, 2025
Ten Directories of AI Tools
May 26, 2025
Just the dinobaby operating without Copilot or its ilk.
I scan DailyHunt, an India-based news summarizer powered by AI I think. The link I followed landed me on a story titled “Best 10 AI Directories to Promote.” I looked for a primary source, an author, and links to each service. Zippo. Therefore, I assembled the list, provided links, and generated with my dinobaby paws and claws the list below. Enjoy or ignore. I am weary of AI, but many others are not. I am not sure why, but that is our current reality, replete with alternative facts, cheating college professors, and oodles of crypto activity. Remember. The list is not my “best of”; I am simply presenting incomplete information in a slightly more useful format.
AIxploria https://www.aixploria.com/en/ [Another actual directory. Its promotional language says “largest list”. Yeah, I believe that]
AllAITool.ai at https://allaitool.ai/
FamouseAITools.ai https://famousaitools.ai/ [Another marketing outfit sucking up AI tool submissions]
Futurepedia.io https://www.futurepedia.io/
TheMangoAI.co https://themangoai.co/ [Not a directory, an advertisement of sorts for an AI-powered marketing firm]
NeonRev https://www.neonrev.com/ [Another actual directory. It looks like a number of Telegram bot directories]
Spiff Store https://spiff.store/ [Another directory. I have no idea how many tools are included]
StackViv https://stackviv.ai/ [An actual directory with 10,000 tools. No I did not count them. Are you kidding me?]
TheresanAIforThat https://theresanaiforthat.com/ [You have to register to look at the listings. A turn off for me]
Toolify.ai https://www.toolify.ai/ [An actual listing of more than 25,000 AI tools organized into categories probably by AI, not a professional indexing specialist]
When I looked at each of these “directories”, marketing is something the AI crowd finds important. A bit more effort in the naming of some of these services might help. Just a thought. Enjoy.
Stephen E Arnold, May 26, 2025
Microsoft: Did It Really Fork This Fellow?
May 26, 2025
Just the dinobaby operating without Copilot or its ilk.
Forked doesn’t quite communicate the exact level of frustration Philip Laine experienced while working on a Microsoft project. He details the incident in his post, “Getting Forked By Microsoft.” Laine invented a solution for image scalability without a stateful component and needed minimal operation oversight. He dubbed his project Spegel, made it open source, and was contacted by Microsoft.
Microsoft was pleased with Spegel. Laine worked with Microsoft engineers to implement Spegel into its architecture. Everything went well until Microsoft stopped working with him. He figured the moved onto other projects. Microsoft did move on but the engineers developed their own version of Spegel. They have the grace to thank Laine and in a README file. It gets worse:
"While looking into Peerd, my enthusiasm for understanding different approaches in this problem space quickly diminished. I saw function signatures and comments that looked very familiar, as if I had written them myself. Digging deeper I found test cases referencing Spegel and my previous employer, test cases that have been taken directly from my project. References that are still present to this day. The project is a forked version of Spegel, maintained by Microsoft, but under Microsoft’s MIT license.”
Microsoft plagiarized…no…downright stole Spegel’s base coding from Laine. He, however, published Spegel with Microsoft’s MIT licensing. The MIT licensing means:
“Software released under an MIT license allows for forking and modifications, without any requirement to contribute these changes back. I default to using the MIT license as it is simple and permissive.”
It does require this:
“The license does not allow removing the original license and purport that the code was created by someone else. It looks as if large parts of the project were copied directly from Spegel without any mention of the original source.”
Laine wanted to work with Microsoft and have their engineers contribute to his open source project. He’s dedicated his energy, time, and resources to Spegel and continues to do so without much contribution other than GitHub sponsors and the thanks of its users. Laine is considering changing Spegel’s licensing as it’s the only way to throw a stone at Microsoft.
If true, the pulsing AI machine is a forker.
Whitney Grace, May 26, 2025
Censorship Gains Traction at an Individual Point
May 23, 2025
![dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_1.gif "dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]")
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zillennials.
I read a somewhat sad biographical essay titled “The Great Displacement Is Already Well Underway: It’s Not a Hypothetical, I’ve Already Lost My Job to AI For The Last Year.” The essay explains that a 40 something software engineer lost his job. Despite what strike me as heroic efforts, no offers ensued. I urge you to take a look at this essay because the push to remove humans from “work” is accelerating. I think with my 80 year old neuro-structures that the lack of “work” will create some tricky social problems.
I spotted one passage in the essay which struck me as significant. The idea of censorship is a popular topic in central Kentucky. Quite a few groups and individuals have quite specific ideas about what books should be available for students and others to read. Here is the quote about censorship from the cited “Great Displacement” essay:
I [the author of the essay] have gone back and deleted 95% of those articles and vlogs, because although many of the ideas they presented were very forward-thinking and insightful at the time, they may now be viewed as pedestrian to AI insiders merely months later due to the pace of AI progress. I don’t want the wrong person with a job lead to see a take like that as their first exposure to me and think that I’m behind the last 24 hours of advancements on my AI takes.
Self-censorship was used to create a more timely version of the author. I have been writing articles with titles like “The Red Light on the Green Board” for years. This particular gem points out that public school teachers sell themselves and their ideas out. The prostitution analogy was intentional. I caught a bit of criticism from an educator in the public high school in which I “taught” for 18 months. Now people just ignore what I write. Thankfully my lectures about online fraud evoke a tiny bit of praise because the law enforcement, crime analysts, and cyber attorneys don’t throw conference snacks at me when I offer one of my personal observations about bad actors.
The cited essay presents a person who is deleting content into to present an “improved” or “shaped” version of himself. I think it is important to have in original form essays, poems, technical reports, and fiction — indeed, any human-produced artifact — available. These materials I think will provide future students and researchers with useful material to mine for insights and knowledge.
Deletion means that information is lost. I am not sure that is a good thing. What’s notable is that censorship is taking place by the author for the express purpose of erasing the past and shaping an impression of the present individual. Will that work? Based on the information in the essay, it had not when I read the write up.
Censorship may be one facet of what the author calls a “displacement.” I am not too keen on censorship regardless of the decider or the rationalization. But I am a real dinobaby, not a 40-something dinobaby like the author of the essay.
Stephen E Arnold, May 23, 2025
We Browse Alongside Bots in Online Shops
May 23, 2025
AI’s growing ability to mimic humans has brought us to an absurd milestone. TechRadar declares, “It’s Official—The Majority of Visitors to Online Shops and Retailers Are Now Bots, Not Humans.” A recent report from Radware examined retail site traffic during the 2024 holiday season and found automated programs made up 57%. The statistic includes tools from simple scripts to digital agents. The more evolved the bot, the harder it is to keep it out. Writer Efosa Udinmwen tells us:
“The report highlights the ongoing evolution of malicious bots, as nearly 60% now use behavioral strategies designed to evade detection, such as rotating IP addresses and identities, using CAPTCHA farms, and mimicking human browsing patterns, making them difficult to identify without advanced tools. … Mobile platforms have become a critical battleground, with a staggering 160% rise in mobile-targeted bot activity between the 2023 and 2024 holiday seasons. Attackers are deploying mobile emulators and headless browsers that imitate legitimate app behavior. The report also warns of bots blending into everyday internet traffic. A 32% increase in attack traffic from residential proxy networks is making it much harder for ecommerce sites to apply traditional rate-limiting or geo-fencing techniques. Perhaps the most alarming development is the rise of multi-vector campaigns combining bots with traditional exploits and API-targeted attacks. These campaigns go beyond scraping prices or testing stolen credentials – they aim to take sites offline entirely.”
Now why would they do that? To ransom retail sites during the height of holiday shopping, perhaps? Defending against these new attacks, Udinmwen warns, requires new approaches. The latest in DDoS protection, for example, and intelligent traffic monitoring. Yes, it takes AI to fight AI. Apparently.
Cynthia Murrell, May 23, 2025
Some Outfits Takes Pictures… Of Users
May 23, 2025
Conspiracy theorists aka wackadoos assert preach that the government is listening to everyone with microphones and it’s only gotten worse with mobile devices. This conspiracy theory has been running circuits since before the invention of the Internet. It used to be spies or aluminum can string telephones were the culprit. Truth is actually stranger than fiction and New Atlas updated an article about how well Facebook is actually listening to us, “Your Phone Isn’t Secretly Listening To You, But The Truth Is More Disturbing.”
Let’s assume that the story is accurate, but the information was on the Internet, so for AI and some humans, the write up is chock full of meaty facts. It was revealed in 2024 that Cox Media Group (CMG) developed Active Listening, a system to capture “real time intent data” with mobile devices’ microphones. It then did the necessary technology magic and fed personalized ads. Tech companies distanced themselves from CMG. CMG stopped using the system. It supposedly worked by listening to small vocal data uploaded after digital assistants were activated. It bleeds into the smartphone listening conspiracy but apparently that’s still not a tenable reality.
The mobile cyber security company Wandera tested the listening microphone theory. They placed two smart phones in a room, played pet food ads on an audio loop for thirty minutes a day over three days. Here are the nitty gritty details:
“User permissions for a large number of apps were all enabled, and the same experiment was performed, with the same phones, in a silent test room to act as a control. The experiment had two main goals. First, a number of apps were scanned following the experiment to ascertain whether pet food ads suddenly appeared in any streams. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the devices were closely examined to track data consumption, battery use, and background activity.”
The results showed that phones weren’t listening to conversations. The truth was on par and more feasible given the current technology:
“In early 2017 Jingjing Ren, a PhD student at Northeastern University, and Elleen Pan, an undergraduate student, designed a study to investigate the very issue of whether phones listen in on conversations without users knowing. Pretty quickly it became clear to the researchers that the phones’ microphones were not being covertly activated, but it also became clear there were a number of other disconcerting things going on. There were no audio leaks at all – not a single app activated the microphone,’ said Christo Wilson, a computer scientist working on the project. ‘Then we started seeing things we didn’t expect. Apps were automatically taking screenshots of themselves and sending them to third parties. In one case, the app took video of the screen activity and sent that information to a third party.’”
There are multiple other ways Facebook and companies are actually tracking and collecting data. Everything done on a smartphone from banking to playing games generates data that can be tracked and sent to third parties. The more useful your phone is to you, the more useful it is as a tracking, monitoring, and selling tool to AI algorithms to generate targeted ads and more personalized content. It’s a lot easier to believe in the microphone theory because it’s easier to understand the vast amounts of technology at work to steal…er…gather information. To sum up, innovators are inspirational!
Whitney Grace, May 23, 2025
Sharp Words about US Government Security
May 22, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby who gets revved up with buzzwords and baloney.
On Monday (April 29, 2025), I am headed to the US National Cyber Crime Conference. I am 80, and I don’t do too many “in person” lectures. Heck, I don’t do too many lectures anymore period. A candidate for the rest home or an individual ready for a warehouse for the soon-to-die is a unicorn amidst the 25 to 50 year old cyber fraud, law enforcement professionals, and government investigators.
In my lectures, I steer clear of political topics. This year, I have been assigned a couple of topics which the NCCC organizers know attract a couple of people out of the thousand or so attendees. One topic concerns changes in the Dark Web. Since I wrote “Dark Web Notebook” years ago, my team and I keep track of what’s new and interesting in the world of the Dark Web. This year, I will highlight three or four services which caught our attention. The other topic is my current research project: Telegram. I am not sure how I became interested in this messaging service, but my team and I will will make available to law enforcement, crime analysts, and cyber fraud investigators a monograph modeled on the format we used for the “Dark Web Notebook.”
I am in a security mindset before the conference. I am on the lookout for useful information which I can use as a point of reference or as background information. Despite my age, I want to appear semi competent. Thus, I read “Signalgate Lessons Learned: If Creating a Culture of Security Is the Goal, America Is Screwed.” I think the source publication is British. The author may be an American journalist.
Several points in the write up caught my attention.
First, the write up makes a statement I found interesting:
And even if they are using Signal, which is considered the gold-standard for end-to-end chat encryption, there’s no guarantee their personal devices haven’t been compromised with some sort of super-spyware like Pegasus, which would allow attackers to read the messages once they land on their phones.
I did not know that Signal was “considered the gold standard for end-to-end chat encryption.” I wonder if there are some data to back this up.
Second, is NSO Group’s Pegasus “super spyware.” My information suggests that there are more modern methods. Some link to Israel but others connect to other countries; for example, Spain, the former Czech Republic, and others. I am not sure what “super” means, and the write up does not offer much other than a nebulous adjectival “super spyware.”
Third, these two references are fascinating:
“The Salt Typhoon and Volt Typhoon campaigns out of China demonstrate this ongoing threat to our telecom systems. Circumventing the Pentagon’s security protocol puts sensitive intelligence in jeopardy.”
The authority making the statement is a former US government official who went on to found a cyber security company. There were publicized breaches, and I am not sure comparable to Pegasus type of data exfiltration method. “Insider threats” are different from lousy software from established companies with vulnerabilities as varied as Joseph’s multi-colored coat. An insider, of course, is an individual presumed to be “trusted”; however, that entity provides information for money to an individual who wants to compromise a system, a person who makes an error (honest or otherwise), and victims who fall victim to quite sophisticated malware specifically designed to allow targeted emails designed to obtain information to compromise that person or a system. In fact, the most sophisticated of these “phishing” attack systems are available for about $250 per month for the basic version with higher fees associated with more robust crime as a service vectors of compromise.
The opinion piece seems to focus on a single issue focused on one of the US government’s units. I am okay with that; however, I think a slightly different angle would put the problem and challenge of “security” in a context less focused on ad hominin rhetorical methods.
Stephen E Arnold, May 22, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
