Tag Archives: Cambridge Analytica

June 26, 2026 · 07:07

On the lighter side

We all have that at times, the setting of a lighter side. You know the average romcom with sex, a little violence, the setting of blackmail and of course, some piece of software. The average day in the life of an fake AI. So I was ‘rudely’ awakened by news (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyklykn5dwo) where we see ‘Anthropic accuses Chinese rival Alibaba of illicitly extracting AI capabilities’. So it made me laugh, b because this comes at the near start of a bubble heading straight for the HQ of Anthropic. Now let me show you what I was having in mind with all this and best I use graphics for that setting.

So we see the application on the left, the data on the right and in the middle we get the setting of that fake AI, you see it has DML and LLM, which I represented as a separate stage, but it could be one big thing, the coding is in the middle and there is interaction between the three like any application would have. So the middle part could be part of the application (it likely is), but for the clarity I wanted to show it like this. Because the picture fits better for the explanation. So the question becomes (the sound of dramatic horns in my mind)

“US artificial intelligence (AI) giant Anthropic has accused Chinese e-commerce and technology firm Alibaba of “brazenly” and “illicitly” extracting its Claude AI model’s capabilities.” How is this possible? I am not saying that it cannot be true, because that requires evidence, but if we see these parts, how blazingly stupid is anthropic to let someone else have a go at this. Beside this, what EXACTLY is “extracting its Claude AI model’s capabilities”? You see, when you see the image, the capabilities are shown in the application and cannot proceed without data (or less likely so), so as we are in the bubble setting this so called move sounds like a joke and with the added “In a letter sent to two members of the US Congress, the San Francisco-based company said operators linked to Alibaba carried out almost 29 million exchanges with Claude using thousands of fraudulent accounts in what it called the largest extraction campaign of its kind.” It seems like there is a massive security lack in all this (that is, if there is a transgression stage). But the setting that we see with “operators linked to Alibaba carried out almost 29 million exchanges” so as I see it, in 2014 we had the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where Facebook got ‘relieved’ of a whole lot of data. Doesn’t anyone learn from that experience, as such we get a repetition of all this? But I hope the story is clear. How was this even possible? As I see it “According to Anthropic, the campaign was carried out through what are known as “distillation attacks”, which extracted answers from a stronger AI model to train a weaker one.” This is a debatable setting (not stating it cannot happen), but the image I ‘created’ shows that a distillation attack requires a lot of information that requires insider knowledge to be successful. 

As such, I am not saying that Alibaba and the 40 fighters for the Palestinian cause is innocent, but I have doubts on the entire setting. I personally see this as a Dutch SNS setting. Where the massive mortgage (the invested dollars in Anthropic) are written of by putting it into a bad bank and letting that bad bank collapse. As such you need to be aware that I could be wrong, it is based on expected behavior and speculative settings, so do not take my word on it, but consider that at present the BBC is spinning you a yarn by presenting the data from others. Just so you know.

So, this is how I got my 05:00 wake up call, thank you BBC. Now it is time to get some coffee and optionally have breakfast afterwards.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 26, 2025 · 22:06

The tradeoff

That is at times the question and the BBC is introducing us to a hell of a tradeoff. The story (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0kglle0p3vo) is giving us ‘Meta considers charging for ad-free Facebook and Instagram in the UK’, the setting is not really a surprise. On April 10th 2018 we were clearly given “Senator, we run ads” and we all laughed. Congress is trying to be smart over and over again and Mark Zuckerberg was showing them the ropes. Every single time. There was little or no question on this on how they were making money. Yet now the game changes. You see, in the past Facebook (say META) was the captain of their data vessel. A system where they had the power and the collective security of our data in hands. There was no question on any setting and even I was in the assumption that they had firm hands on a data repository a lot larger than the vault if the Bank of England. That was until Cambridge Analytica and in March 2018 their business practices were shown the limelight and it also meant that Facebook no longer had control of their ship of data, which meant that their ‘treasure’ was fading. 

So now we get “Facebook and Instagram owner Meta is considering a paid subscription in the UK which would remove adverts from its platforms. Under the plans, people using the social media sites could be asked to pay for an ad-free experience if they do not want their data to be tracked.” It makes perfect sense that under the guise of no advertising, the mention of paid services make perfect sense. This is given to us via the setting of “It comes as the company agreed to stop targeting ads at a British woman last week following a protracted legal battle.” I don’t get it, the protracted legal battle seems odd as this was the tradeoff for a free service. Is this a woke thing? You get a free service and the advertising is the process for this. As such I do not get the issue of “Guidance issued by the regulator in January states that users must be presented with a genuine free choice.” This makes some kind of sense, so it is either pay for the service or suffer the consequences of advertising. And lets be clear the value of META relies on targeted advertising. What is the use of targeting everyone for a car ad when it includes the 26% of the people who do not have a drivers license. There is the addition that these people need to have an income of over $45,000 to afford the 2025 Lexus RX $90,350 which is about 30%. We can (presumptively) assume that this get us a population of about 20%-25%, so does it make any sense for Lexus to address the 100% whilst only one in four or one in five is optionally in the market? Makes no sense does it? As such META needs to rely on as much targeted advertising as it can. And as you can see, The advertising model, known as “consent or pay”, has become increasingly popular. And at some point they were giving the people “But it reduced its prices and said it would provide a way for users not willing to pay to opt to see adverts which are “less personalised”, in response to regulatory concerns.” That is partially acceptable, but I have a different issue. You see, I foresee issues with “less personalised”, apart from gambling sites, there is a larger concern that even as Facebook (or META) isn’t capturing some data. There is the larger fear that some will offer some services and now care about capturing collected data. For example sites outside the EU (or UK). Sites in China and Russia like their social sites that collect this data and optionally sell it to META. You see, there is as I currently see it no defense on this. Like in the 90’s when American providers made some agreement, but some of them did not qualify the stage of what happened to the data backups and those were not considered, when they were addressed it was years later and the data had left the barn (almost everywhere). 

There is a fear (a personal fear) that the so called captains of industry have not considered (I reckon intentionally) the need of replacing and protecting aggregated data and aggregated results. Which allows for a whole battery of additional statistics. Another personal fear is the approach to data and what they laughingly call AI. It is hard to set a stage, but I will try. 

To get this I will refer to a program called SPSS (now IBM Statistics) so called {In SPSS, cluster analysis groups similar data points into clusters, while discriminant analysis classifies data points into pre-defined groups based on predictor variables.}

So to get data points into a grouping like income to household types, this is a cluster analyses.

And to get household types onto data points like income to household types, is called a discriminant analyses. Now as I personally see it (I am definitely not a statistician) If one direction is determined, the other one should always fail. It is a one direction solution. So a cluster analyses is proven, a discriminant analyses to income ill always fail and vice versa. Now with NIP (Near Intelligent Parsing, which is what these AI firms do) They will try to set a stage to make this work. And that is how the wheels come of the wagon and we get a whole range of weird results. But now as people set the stage for contributing to third party parsing and resource aggregation, I feel that a dangerous setting could evolve and there is no defense against that. As I see it, the ‘data boys’ need to isolate the chance of us being aggregated through third parties and as I see it META needs to be isolated from that level of data ‘intrusion’. A dangerous level of data to say the least.

There is always a downside to a tradeoff and too many aren’t aware of the downside of that tradeoff. So have a great day and try to have a half cup of good coffee (data boys get that old premise)

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 16, 2024 · 16:36

What is the colour of cowardice?

That is seemingly the question. We are given by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3y79llndo) where the headline gives us ‘TikTok to begin appeal against being sold or banned in US’ with the added text “TikTok will start making its case on Monday against a law that will see it banned in the US unless its Chinese owner ByteDance sells it within nine months.” I don’t really have a voice in this. I do not use TikTok, I don’t have the app. I use YouTube and YouTube shorts and that fits me just fine. There is only so much procrastinating a person can do until the battery of his mobile/tablet gives out. I have nothing against TikTok, but YouTube got here first and it does more than I ever needed. 

And for the text “The measure – signed into law by President Biden in April – has been prompted by concerns that US users’ data is vulnerable to exploitation by China’s government.” It gives me the question, what evidence is presented? What evidence has been verified? You see America has seen its OWN influencers hand over data (or make available) to Russia, after 8 years we FINALLY see action and more nations are following. As such I am weary of anything anti China appearing after the BS stage America did regarding Huawei and for that part we still haven’t seen clear evidence. A mere mention of ‘could’ and ‘possible’ were given, but no hard evidence. A mere case that was settled and 10 years old. Even as we are given “advocates of America’s powerful free speech rights, enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, say upholding the divest-or-ban law would be a gift to authoritarian regimes everywhere.” I need to agree that these first amendment rights were never ready for the digital revolution we are seeing and we see that in relationship to the Russian paid influencers. I find it weird that they can call themselves ‘victims’ all whilst they got a million dollar deals. Influencers need to be addressed and cut short. If this is not done then you hand a victory to ByteDance and its TikTok. Then we see the accusation “Mr Wang also criticised lawmakers for being vague about the specific national security threats that they say TikTok poses”, really? So where were they (US intelligence) when social media influencers decided to invade national security for Russia. We have yet to see results from that and that is the setting stage for TikTok to be held accountable (if there is any accountability). We see too many anti-China rhetoric, all whilst America is merely trying to keep issues in America and still they cannot tax the minimum part of this, so what is it about? Another claim was seen in another BBC article. We are given “They fear the Chinese government could force ByteDance to hand over data about TikTok’s 170 million US users. TikTok insists it would not provide foreign user data to the Chinese government.” So how is this on ByteDance? As far as I can see it, Facebook already took care of that (via Cambridge Analytica), that is seen as we were given “Facebook later confirmed that it actually had data on potentially over 87 million users, most of them in the USA” (source: the Guardian, NBC, CNET) oh, and that is not all. Politicians Ted Cruz and convicted politician Donald Trump were accused of using this tactic. From there we see the quote “It has not been proven, because the difficult thing about proving a situation like that is that you need to do a forensic analysis of the database”this gets us to the next session. What forensic analyses was used to prove the TikTok matter? It does not because as far as I can see, it is a revenue tactic using the accusation of data. So how often is a firm forced to sell on the accusation? In that case, what cases of forced sales exist for Microsoft? 

That is one of the pillars we need to see and investigate. In March 2024 we got from the BBC “a similar test carried out by Citizen Lab concluded “in comparison to other popular social media platforms, TikTok collects similar types of data to track user behaviour”” does this not imply that similar settings need to exist to the other social media channels? America is a mere 325 million, Europe has over 742 people, the middle east 381 million people and Asia is near 5 billion people, America is a shoddy minority, but these settings are not tested against Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Whatever Elon Musk has and a few other players. This is as one-sided as it gets. And that is not even considering Russia and its poor poor influencer victims in all this. So how is that going? It frustrates me that Huawei had such scruffy treatment whilst NO evidence has ever been produced. 

And in this a report that was given in 2023 where we see “Similarly, a report by the Georgia Institute of Technology last year stated: “The key fact here is that most other social media and mobile apps do the same things.”” So where is the banding of ties to these American social media settings because I do not believe that the NSA isn’t on that same page of collecting non-American  data points. And then we get the largest issues “Although it irks privacy experts, most of us accept that handing over swathes of private data is the deal we make with social networks” it is the price of these free mobile networks. So what is this stage? It is fuelled by the item “Article seven of China’s National Intelligence Law states that all Chinese organisations and citizens should “support, assist and co-operate” with the country’s intelligence efforts. This sentence is often cited by people suspicious not just of TikTok, but all Chinese companies.” If people have an issue with that, that’s fair. However be warned that America let data go to Russia without so much as a threat for 14 years, in the end (2022) we get “Facebook owner Meta has agreed to pay $725m (£600m)” and as far as I know a mere £500,000 was the part for the UK, I think that America has a lot more issues than China. It had to overhaul its data policies at least a decade ago. So how many apps via Twitter, Apple apps, google apps (mostly games) and Facebook has been collecting data? This is seen with “Data was collected on at least 30 million users while only 270,000 people downloaded the app”, so where was the anguish there? I personally see this TokTok issue as a governmental money grab and a consolidation of data in America (away from China). If it becomes a side whether I want my data abused by America versus China is entirely up to the elections as I do not now, not ever trust Trump and I feel that China is the safer place for data and I know I am not alone in this. To be honest, I don’t want either to have it. Perhaps it is an option for Evroc to expand its governance from cloud to include social media data to be placed in Sweden (GDPR) or perhaps Saudi Arabia. It seems that bank violations are harshly dealt with there. If data transgressions are dealt with equally harshly it might be an option. 

Just some food for thought, time for a sandwich for me, yummy. Enjoy your day this Monday, knowing it is almost Monday in Vancouver.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 7, 2021 · 23:30

Feel free to lose control

Yup, we all have that. You, me, pretty much everyone. Even the Catholic cleric in [censored], should you doubt that, ask any choir boy there. So when the BBC gave us ‘Facebook sued for ‘losing control’ of users’ data’, I merely shrugged and went ‘Meh’. You see, it is not about “the case against the technology giant, expected to last for at least three years, will argue a “loss of control” over users’ personal data warrants individual compensation”, which is hypocrite on a few levels, we see people handing over data and fact to complete strangers in Facebook and plenty of other social media paths. We laugh at “Coolum resident Essena O’Neill, 19, said she was paid up to $2,000 for the posts, which show her posing with products and often in revealing positions. With more than 600,000 followers on Instagram and 260,000 on YouTube, Ms O’Neill has deleted many of her original photos and re-captioned others with more honest descriptions” (ABC, 2015). We also get (two weeks ago) ““I accidentally posted a picture on Instagram of my wine glass and I was naked,” she said whilst nervously laughing. Then, she went on to explain that you could actually see her naked body in the reflection of the wine glass”, is anyone buying this? Social media has been used on a huge number of settings revealing ‘accidentally’ facts that normally do not get to see the light of day, and in all this we are given ““loss of control” over users’ personal data”? Go cry me a river! In the mean time, did anyone see Alexander Nix, Julian Wheatland, Rebekah Mercer, or Steve Bannon in the dock of a courtroom in any of the hit countries? In this the quote “harvesting of Facebook users’ personal information by third-party apps was at the centre of the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal” applies, a third party app, was there any documented agreement, or documented acceptance of the harvesting of personal data? I do not see Microsoft in the dock in court over their exchange failure that had hit 250,000 businesses, so why not? And when we see “Cambridge Analytica’s app on Facebook had harvested the data of people who interacted with it – and that of friends who had not given consent” did anyone consider putting the board of directors of Cambridge Analytica in prison? I wonder how far we have strayed from the flock of convictions to go after the money and not the transgressors. I do get it, it is a rule or Torts, the mere “go where the money is” is not a wrong setting, but in this setting all the blame on Facebook seems wrong. They are not without fault, I get that, but to see a reference to Journalist Peter Jukes giving us “leading the action, claims his data was compromised”, so how was his data compromised? What evidence is there? In turn I have equal issues with “The Information Commissioner’s Office investigation into these issues, which included seizing and interrogating Cambridge Analytica’s servers, found no evidence that any UK or EU users’ data was transferred by [app developer] Dr [Aleksandr] Kogan to Cambridge Analytica”, I wonder how far backup investigation went, in turn the setting of ‘no evidence that any UK or EU users’ data was transferred’ is almost preposterous, the data was collected, as such it went somewhere, the fact that the Information Commissioner’s Office couldn’t find that part is mere icing on the cake of Cambridge Analytica. In addition, when we see “Mr Jukes told BBC News it was not about “where the data went” but rather “that Facebook didn’t care”. “They didn’t look after it,” he said.” Can this be proven? ‘Didn’t care’ is subjective and presumptive, we can agree that security measures failed, yet ‘They didn’t look after it’ is equally unproven, and these people are not going after the people of Cambridge Analytica as THEY transgressed on the data. As such as we look at Eton boy Alexander Nix, in the setting of “Nix agreed to a disqualifying undertaking prohibiting him from running U.K. limited companies for seven years after permitting companies to offer potentially unethical services, while denying any wrongdoing”, he got a mere slap on the hand, with a mandatory 7 year vacation all whilst we are told ‘denying any wrongdoing’, in addition there is “agreeing to delete previously obtained data”, a 2019 agreement, so where was the data all this time? Let’s be clear, Facebook has made blunders, huge ones, yet in light of the fact that Microsoft gets a mere fine and the issues is closed after that, why keep on going after Facebook? When we see ZDNet give us ‘Microsoft Exchange Server attacks: ‘They’re being hacked faster than we can count’, says security company’ two weeks ago (at https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-exchange-server-attacks-theyre-being-hacked-faster-than-we-can-count-says-security-company/), what gives, why are they not being sued for setting a dangerous precedence on corporate information? We go after Huawei without evidence, we ignore alleged criminals and their app transgressions with our data, but it is fine to go after Facebook whilst ignoring the massive flaw that is Microsoft? So what gives?

So yes, we can lose control all we like, but if we hamper the courts with empty cases that are set on emotion, all whilst people like Alexander Nix, Julian Wheatland, Rebekah Mercer, and Steve Bannon are allowed to return to positions and try again? And what about Cambridge Analytica? As it was soon thereafter acquired by? The only reason I see to acquire Cambridge Analytica is because of hardware, because of software and because of data, so who is looking into that, preferably all before we lose time slapping Facebook around? I see very little after 2018, but perhaps Peter Jukes is too busy to see were his alleged compromised data optionally went. 

So whilst we giggle on statements like “I accidentally posted a picture on Instagram of my wine glass and I was naked”, we see a setting where a large group of people are using social media for all kind of things, the limelight most of all and in this we need to separate the real issues from the fictive cash cows. In this, did you wonder if the people are realising that Wired gave us a mere hour ago “collaboration platforms like Discord and Slack have taken up intimate positions in our lives, helping maintain personal ties despite physical isolation. But their increasingly integral role has also made them a powerful avenue for delivering malware to unwitting victims—sometimes in unexpected ways” (at https://www.wired.com/story/malware-discord-slack-links/) and that is a mere tip of the iceberg, a massively large one. How many apps are a gateway to YOUR system? So when we take notice of “hackers have integrated Discord into their malware for remote control of their code running on infected machines, and even to steal data from victims”, as such in that case it is not the nude reflection shot that matters, it is the wineglass porn that some people decided not to post that is out there for everyone to see. Consider the words by Stephen Fry on 2014, when he said “The best way to prevent nude pictures online, is to never pose nude”, or something according to those lines and he is right, the best social media is the boring one, where you just say hi and connect to relatives. But the limelight is for some just too appealing and to give everyone the lowdown on all your needs and that is what players like Cambridge Analytica were banking on. As such, when we add that light, that spotlight, what data of Peter Jukes was transgressed on and in light of the Exchange server issues, the Cisco issues and the larger stage of interconnecting apps, can it even be proven that it was Facebook? 

I’ll buy popcorn for that court case, it should be fun.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 13, 2021 · 15:46

The contemplation

We all have things to contemplate, for me this all started a while ago, but it got to the forefront yesterday after a call with a friend. We disagree on something and it is not about right or wrong, even if I believe I am right, I see that he in NOT wrong. My setting is data and I have been around it for decades, I have been in specific fields, he has not, but he has a real good grasp of data. So as I made a joke about not forgetting the population of zero for Parler, he dismissed it as zero data groups do not matter, and for a lot it does not, but it actually does.

So how to bring it to the forefront? In this (as a Republican) we can look at the stupid, stupid left and can coin a few phrases. There was the Washington Post ‘Parler, a Platform Favoured by Trump Fans, Struggles for Survival’, my by-line? ‘Rebekah Mercer just got a $23,000,000 tax deductibility option’. USA Today gives us ‘Parler goes dark: Amazon suspends the social platform from its web hosting services’, there is a lot more, but the setting is made, no more Parler and now we get to the zero part. You see, the one thing that President Trump achieved was a larger polarisation, the left thought that they had won, but players like Rebekah Mercer, one the people behind Cambridge Analytica and Parler have settings, they have larger plans. You think that she gives away $23 million without a larger gain somewhere else? It was the nightmare scenario, a unified place for right splinter groups and extremists. You think that people like John Matze will sit still? Uniting right wing splinter groups can be massively profitable, when no one will do business with you, losing 10% on the one who does business with you is still appealing, and splinter groups that cumulatively surpass the 50 million member marker is  still worth the effort.

How does this relate?
Even if Parler is at zero, its members will go somewhere else. There is Telegram, Signal and these people need attention and they will go where they can find it. Even now we see the Financial Times give us ‘WhatsApp fights back as users flee to Signal and Telegram’, and even as we see the quote “Facebook is scrambling to deal with a sudden competitive threat to its messaging platform WhatsApp after a change to its terms of service sparked privacy concerns and prompted users to turn to rivals such as Signal and Telegram in droves” (at https://www.ft.com/content/ee1b716d-4ed2-4b26-8da1-40c98db7b9b6), the stupid stupid left just doesn’t learn, presenting that a thing is doesn’t make it so, and the setting that the media cannot be trusted is out there in big letters. So when I say that Parler: n=0 is important. These people find other means and even as not all will go over, and not all will go to the same solution, if Parler had 100,000 voices, we need to find where at least 80,000 went, we need to tag and identify the extremists, I reckon the US Capitol setting made that clear. 

In this we could consider the work of Marina Soley-Bori ‘Dealing with missing data: Key assumptions and methods for applied analysis’, it was written in 2013, but it is quite good and we start with the premise “the precision of confidence intervals is harmed, statistical power weakens and the parameter estimates may be biased. Appropriately dealing with missing can be challenging as it requires a careful examination of the data to identify the type and pattern of missingness, and also a clear understanding of how the different imputation methods work”, it is a decent starting point. In this stage, the report gives us a group NMAR (Not missing at random) that is the stage we have and it is an important stage. In the report she quotes Allison, 2001 “They lead to an underestimation of standard errors and, thus, overestimation of test statistics. The main reason is that the imputed values are completely determined by a model applied to the observed data, in other words, they contain no error”, the NMAR group is largely ignored and we can accept that in this work, yet in real life, the QAnon group and the Parler users are a larger stage and those who do not flee to 4Chen are in the wind and that is where we do not want them to be, so pushing these people to the dark-web was a silly move. Perhaps some might notice that I bolded one word, one word made the difference. Bias is the setting in missing values that is the dangerous one, most who know what they do see that, they tend to call it ‘arbitrary decisions’ but it remains a form of (whether good or not), of bias and that is where the train goes of the rails (without it being a maglev). The stage to find the NMAR is becoming increasingly important. It is not merely those that move there, it is the group they drag along that becomes a lot larger. You see, they might only gain the interest of an additional 2%, on a stage of 50,000,000 extremists, that is one million votes, that much changes an election, the silly democrats making presentations should have considered that in a much earlier stage. Yes, we see that pornhub can no longer use credit cards, but as these so called hypocrites will still cater to child labor and implied slavery, how much was gained? Especially as one stage was founded on consenting adults, the other was not. We see one side of the story, and the left keeps on hiding the other side, that does not mean that the other side does not exist. The democrats have an ‘out-of-sight-out-of-mind’ approach, that is unless they get hit directly, then they become vindictive. That was never a stage that would ever work, but they will learn at some point. The problem is not their mindset, it is their inability to follow through and people like Rebekah Mercer have the goods to unify one side and get rich in the process. All whilst players like Google pull up their nose at a $25,000,000 bill for a 60% share, they say that they can solve it themselves (they wish), and when they rely on ‘EVERYONE LOVES GOOGLE TV’, all whilst the consumer, when the $65 bill is due and the people see their budget melt away, do you still believe that everyone stays happy and loving? So when I make my solution public domain, do you think that there will be zero cease and desist messages? 

In this the stage is rather large, the splintered right have moved somewhere else and now the larger stage cannot be predicted, when the Parler group goes dark-web, the stage changes even further and earlier some had days to prepare, now hours, how is that a better stage? 

There is no population zero, unless they are all dead they merely vacated somewhere else and that somewhere else is the problem. This population is not missing at random, they are shunning the media and as we are given ‘An Absurdly Basic Bug Let Anyone Grab All of Parler’s Data’ by Wired (at https://www.wired.com/story/parler-hack-data-public-posts-images-video/) a mere 11 hours ago, do you think that it will be that easy, a person like Rebekah Mercer learned from Cambridge Analytica, was at a bug or an open backdoor? So when we see “The truth was far simpler: Parler lacked the most basic security measures that would have prevented the automated scraping of the site’s data. It even ordered its posts by number in the site’s URLs, so that anyone could have easily, programmatically downloaded the site’s millions of posts”, anyone thinking that things where that simple are out of their mind, this is a setting where some had the lowdown on millions, and as Wired gives us “I wouldn’t even call it a rookie mistake because, as a professional, you would never write something like this”, they touch on the stage that matters, when someone has the lowdown on a group of millions of people and they can unite them, do you think that no one looked at something out there for 2 years? Do you think that this is merely seen 11 hours ago (plus a few weeks to write the article), this issue has been out for a while and now that these people go to other means and other voices (the same voices in other accounts), the problem becomes a lot larger and more real. The people of Parler did not stop being an issue as Parler has population zero, now the people who needed to keep informed need to go back to square one and find them first. So how silly was the move we see now?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 10, 2021 · 21:54

Pirates of a feather

For me this is a little new ground, until recently I was not aware of the ability to speak ‘Parler’, as I see it, they refined it from Parley, which comes from the French ‘Parler’ meaning ‘to speak’. The event was set to “a discussion or conference, especially one designed to end an argument or hostilities between two groups of people”, as such I was aware of the term, but not the setting that President Trump uses. CNN (at https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/15/media/rebekah-mercer-parler/index.html) gave us a little while ago ‘Meet Rebekah Mercer, the deep-pocketed co-founder of Parler, a controversial conservative social network’, and the co-founder to Cambridge Analytica and a few others, so when I saw the Cambridge link, I wondered what data Parler is capturing. This is added in other ways too, but let’s keep to the CNN story for now. And when the article start with the quote “John and I started Parler to provide a neutral platform for free speech, as our founders intended, and also to create a social media environment that would protect data privacy”, all whilst another source gives us “journalists and users have criticised the service for content policies that are more restrictive than the company portrays and sometimes more restrictive than those of its competitors” (source: Washington Post July 2020), and it basically goes from bad to worse. That is given with the quote “The ever increasing tyranny and hubris of our tech overlords demands that someone lead the fight against data mining, and for the protection of free speech online. That someone is Parler, a beacon to all who value their liberty, free speech, and personal privacy.”” And let not forget that this comes from the co-founder of Cambridge Analytica. I still wonder what Parler was capturing, especially with the restrictive rules in place. And if these restrictions were limited to the stage of “But Parler is quickly discovering the limits of free expression. On June 30, Matze used Parler to explain its house rules, apparently frustrated with some of Parler’s new users testing the limits of its free-expression motto by posting pornographic images and obscenities”, I believe that this is up for debate. So even as I take notice of “Wernick wrote a Fox News opinion piece in support of Parler this month, saying Twitter and Facebook are using “technology intended to liberate, instead to subjugate”, I wonder what we will learn when we make a cross section of those on Parler AND on 4Chan, I even wonder if the FBI is not already on this. You see, there is a problem with ‘philanthropists’, the true philanthropist not, but the stage we see “Robert Mercer, who helped oversee Renaissance Technologies hedge fund, and his wife Diane, donated more than $23 million to groups that backed conservative candidates, according to a tally by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics”, in light of Cambridge Analytica, I am still in the personal opinion, that these people would not set $23,000,000 out in the open, unless they can bank at least double that, and with them owning Renaissance Technologies hedge fund, I feel certain I am right. The power of $110,000,000,000 reaches far and too many want scraps from that table of plenty. In this I wonder if Parler is a way to identify and unify the scattered right, it is not a bad plan, if they succeed they have the means to oppose the Democratic side of things to a much larger extent than anyone is willing to give them credit for.

Even as the Wall Street Journal (at https://www.wsj.com/articles/parler-backed-by-mercer-family-makes-play-for-conservatives-mad-at-facebook-twitter-11605382430) gives us ‘Parler Makes Play for Conservatives Mad at Facebook, Twitter’, I believe this goes deeper. Even as the blinker are attached with “After The Wall Street Journal reported on the Mercers’ ties with Parler, Chief Executive John Matze confirmed that Ms. Mercer was the lead investor in the company at its outset and said that her backing was dependent on the platform allowing users to control what they see”, the seting given to us in the beginning, gives us a different tory, and when ‘allowing users to control what they see’ falls away, the one important part remains is identity, when you look in the past, no one has tried to unify the extreme right, there is every chance that the Mercer family see the power and the massive amount of gains that this optionally brings. It took me less than a day to figure out the parts that the media was so eager not to mention, I wonder who else is on tht train, actually, I believe that they all are, even big tech. I expect that they too want the bucket of gold at the and of that nightmare rainbow, and Mercer might have gotten way more than double the investment on that 23 million dollar train, if he unites the right wing and far right wing, the democrats have much to be worried about, they have been used to a scattered opponent in the last 25 years, a unified one is an opponent that they haven’t faced before. And as I see it, the Mercer family is at the speculated centre of all that. 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 29, 2020 · 15:56

Data, Mind setting and Intent

It has always been the case that dat allows for more, Cambridge Analytica might have brought it to the surface, but it was there, it always was. I have been involved with data since 1992, so I see no surprises here. Even as some are ‘befuddled’ or ‘baffled’, I, and many others were not. So when I see the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54915779), I merely shrug my shoulders and go ‘Meh’. Yet the larger part is not seen, it is partially hidden by “buying someone’s name can lead to making guesses about their income, number of children and ethnicity – which is then used to tailor a political message for them”, when I see ‘making guesses about their income’, I wonder who was setting that strange event. When I have a name, I do not need to do any of that, When we combine the election roll data, when we set the stage via social media and when we add real estate data that some have (Equifax, Transunion, Thomson Reuters, Experian, Dunn and Bradstreet), we can start to combine information. I have don this for well over a decade. So when I see the statement from Lucy Purdon, I merely wonder if she is intentionally stupid. You see, it is not about “Data collection is out of control and we need to put limits on what is collected”, it is about “Data collection is out of control and we need to put limits on what is connected”, the shift is two letters which is a huge stage. I have been combining real estate data, past connections, as well as location information. There are really good programs out there and in some cases, I can combine the details of close to a dozen sources, as long as I can create a unique key and that is often possible (not always), privacy is what you had before there was an internet. When we got to the combinations of Merchant house data (Dutch: Kamer van Koophandel), I had the givings of well over a million people, a million more if multiple connections were made and that was in 1994, that was well over 25 years ago and that world did not stop, it never stopped running. Over 10 years ago Oracle introduced array tables, the manual states “Unbounded means that, theoretically, there is no limit to the number of elements in the collection. Actually, there are limits, but they are very high—for details, see Referencing Collection Elements”, it was a game changer, as I saw it it was the first real instance where we could create many to many relationships as well as set that data to a single person. In IBM Statistics I had to be clever and make a workaround, which was per person and a little time consuming, Oracle gave the setting where the computer did all the work, the more powerful the computer. The more data and the quicker we saw results, this was over 10 years ago, and a person like Lucy Purdon should know this, making her either super stupid, or she has an agenda. I do not think that she is stupid, so I am going to make the agenda assumption. There is a stage on what is collected and what is connected, she should know this. Financial institutions are ahed of that curve, because it gives them additional mitigated risk, this is one reason why Google Financial institutions need to keep a Chinese wall on their data away from their Financial Institutions, I gave that view somewhere two weeks ago in ‘A fair call’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/11/09/a-fair-call/), so when we see the events all clinging together, what are we chastising Google for when the stage is a lot worse? And when the BBC gives us ‘So how do the parties get my data in the first place?’ With the added “The electoral register forms “the spine” of data sources, according to PI, but beyond that it is surprisingly difficult to work out what the parties use”, well, I think I have just given you the run down on the way I did it for aver a quarter of a century, as such the gap the BBC is claiming to have versus is weird, especially when they do not give us “We think that they get from A, through B,C ,D and E, through to the result, we merely cannot prove it at present”, but they didn’t give us that, did they?

Several players have the data, and they have the mindset to make the connections in their need to set an advantage, but the stage of the intent cannot be proven, it remain allegedly, and in light of optional data (if others can acquire that data). It was never about collections, it was about connections and enough players know this to set some serious question marks to this article.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 5, 2020 · 15:21

It was never about you

We get it, some players work on a multitude of levels. That is fine, but when a company makes hay through marketing that they are all about the consumers and we get ‘Apple delays new anti-tracking privacy measures’, we see how (what I regard to be) deceptive conduct is the alleged foundation between a company and a $2 trillion company. There is no upside for the consumer, there consumer was entitled to protection and we get “Apple said the changes were being delayed until the start of 2021 to give app developers and websites more time to adapt their services”, which makes us wonder why Apple designed the anti-tracking part in the first instance, a solution made and delayed to give trackers another way to do so, does that make sense?

So if it is a setting and we get “once the change is implemented in 2021, it will be off by default and advertisers will have to ask permission to access it”, at what stage is it in our interest to delay the change? I get it Apple needs a stream of incomes and my personal view there is one in betraying your customer base, that is the simple setting.

The other quote that matters is “Facebook has warned that Apple’s privacy plan could make one of its advertising tools “so ineffective on iOS 14 that it may not make sense to offer it on iOS 14””, which is fair enough, but I reckon that this will optionally cost Apple a few coins. The question becomes: what is the cut-off point and what is the trade off point for Apple and what ‘enhanced security’ will remain for the consumers? 

I reckon that there will be a massive decrease in free apps, it is mere speculation but yes, as mobile data becomes less available the pool for free apps and games will decrease. And let’s be fair, these companies did nothing illegal, but in the end, remember it is not about you, it is about the money you bring in and when was the last time you got that advertisement properly handed to you?

And in this it is Apple who states ‘Think different’, which is what we are doing, we want to see what deals Apple is making with the advertisers, which is NOT illegal lets be upfront about it. As such when we see “It is a world of consumers only”, “The market stands on the shoulders of consumers”, “A life of consumerism revolves around all that you want” and “Markets are built as per the taste of consumers”. We are getting misinformed, the world today is monetary based, so it becomes about the enablers and actively those who push it. That realisation is key in today’s world, the temporary setting of consumers is yesterday’s news and we only move forward when we learn that lesson, until then we are marketing tools and spending fools (an exaggeration I agree). To get ahead of the game we need to accept that marketing will happen, data captures will happen, but we also need to agree that our data is not a third party tool to be handed around the campfire. We might have woken up in the age of Cambridge Analytica, but this stage was not new. A Dutch entrepreneur and politician named Luc Sala already gave visibility to this setting 25 years ago, I was not the first (and I never made that claim). So as the haves and have not people are being segregated, we see a new form of discrimination, not on sex, religion or colour, but on the setting and longevity of your bank card (and the Credit Rating connected to this). Not your credit card, debt is not the equaliser, it is a timeline of how long you can service the organisation that wants you to service them. It is the power of the bank card that makes you a ‘Have’ in their eyes and that is where all the data is priming towards, because the firm who has the data most complete to distinguish the ‘Have’ people, that will be the winner and the US has been in the running the longest and now that China is surpassing them, now they cry in every direction, but as the remarked the ‘status’ of their reason for crying, we merely see the BS that they hide behind, just like Colin Powell and his silver briefcase (Iraq anyone?).

And the US has another problem, the stage was partially going smooth that is until the 45th President made a mess of the entire setting and the entire playing field, not only did he set the stage to a visible perspective, in his utter lack of intelligence he set the stage on ‘national security’ and ‘China’ whilst the evidence would not support it and as this is getting more and more visibility, Huawei is gaining momentum outside of the US and considering that there are less than 350 million Americans, and a growing customer base outside the US surpassing billions of ‘have targets’, that is the stage where the US is losing grip, that is where a lot of the Have’s are. And the stage to find them will soon change, the stage will be about uniting those who have and in this the US is behind, and the lag is increasing. 

There is no stage to make any kind of a reliable prediction who will win, but as far as I can tell, it will not be the US. The stage in the EU is still fluid, several banks were in the running. I first took notice of Credit Agricole in 2018 in that regard. The quote “Acting within the framework of a regulated activity, we offer you and provide products and services requiring the collection and use, as data controller, of the personal data of individuals related to you (for example: employees, shareholders, agents, legal representatives, beneficial owners, family members, third-party representatives, etc.) (the “Data Subjects”)” is set to a larger stage and it is important to realise that Credit Agricole never did anything illegal or against the European GDPR. Yet I took notice of ‘the personal data of individuals related to you’ and I found a little more than bargained for. So when we realise that there is more to life than being identified as a consumer and that the truth, but did you consider that you are optionally set to a different spectrum?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

July 14, 2020 · 15:46

Can’t stop the message

That is the name of the game, at times, no matter the source, we cannot stop the message, we can optionally reduce the impact, that is as good as it gets and that has been the centre stage, not for a day, a month, a year, a decade, but for several centuries. The message will get across, history is filled with examples of that all over the world.

So when I wrote “the same model could optionally be used to misinform (or disinform) the person through links that have ‘altered headlines’ One party could use it to flame to larger base of the other party and no matter what claims Facebook makes, the PDF report shows that they are seemingly clueless on how to stop it.” In ‘Presidents are us’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/07/11/presidents-are-us/) I knew what I was talking about, as such it gives me great pleasure to see the BBC give us ‘ISIS ‘still evading detection on Facebook’, report says’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53389657) with the added text “One network’s tactics included mixing its material with content from real news outlets, such as recorded TV news output and the BBC News theme music. It also hijacked Facebook accounts, and posted tutorial videos to teach other Jihadists how to do it. Facebook said it had “no tolerance for terrorist propaganda”.”” They are basically all stages we have seen before and stages we will see again. History has shown that you can not stop the message, you can merely delay the spread and optionally the impact. That is as good as it can get and the fact that we still see: “The researchers believe that at the centre of the network was one user who managed around a third (90 out of 288) of the Facebook profiles. At times, this user would boast of holding 100 ‘war spoils’ accounts, saying: “They delete one account, and I replace it with 10 others.”” People basically never learn. 

And it is not better, not gets to be worse, I wrote in 2013 “This technology should also include Microsoft services including their search engine Bing. Tracking in mobile devices remains a key point. The big advantage of Microsoft’s emerging technology is that it could track a user across a platform.” In the article ‘Patrons of Al-Qaeda’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/10/22/patrons-of-al-qaeda/) that was more than 6.5 years ago, do you think that these people sit on their laurels?  So if big-tech can be flaccid and automated to keep track of nearly anyone, what do you think that Trolls and Terrorists will use to get their message across and this is not new, it is not news, it is the situation that has been out in the open for years. As the BBC gives us “another key to the survival of ISIS content on the platform was the way in which ISIS supporters have learned to modify their content to evade controls.” Yes! And that is news how? Consider that the top 10 technical universities graduate close to 15,000 every semester, so 3 teams a year. Now consider that these parts can only persuade 0.1% (which is massively low), that implies that these players gain 15 tech savvy experts every 4 months and that is before we add those who cater to organised crime, in that numbers game we see that the government’s involved are not in a place to compete, their infrastructure had been downplayed for close to a decade and as salespeople from big-tech come around on the ease of automation we see that the mess merely gets worse and that INCLUDES several defence departments in Europe, the Commonwealth and America. That is the situation and there will be no release any day soon (except for the tech person on the help desk relying on his right hand, plenty of release there). So when you consider that I was merely looking at 10 schools, and the mess is actually a lot larger, how much of a joke is the entire ‘dealing with election bias’? If players like Facebook cannot stop or largely diminish a group that nearly all want gone, how about a situation where a larger group is in doubt of acting? How many backdoors will be given to the Cambridge Analytica minded people? That question becomes a lot more important when we consider the LA Times giving us less than 5 hours ago ‘How Facebook keeps its biggest advertisers happy’ with the quote “The social media company made nearly all of last year’s $71 billion in revenue from advertising and has worked hard to build relationships with both brands and advertising companies through a clubby network of invitation-only groups called client councils”, do you think that people spending $71 billion are kept happy with “offering everything from birthday cakes to ski trips, and dinners at the Silicon Valley home of its chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg.” Do you think that is all it takes? So the people ending up having dinner at that place will also get access and that is where some will be looking, the people with access and that is why the message cannot be stopped, that is why some will persevere and that is before my 5G IP hits the markets. I honestly have no idea to stop some, because some will not be stopped, I can only minimise the dangers, but I am also at the mercy of some Telecom minimisers (or was that mini-misers). Anyway, if Trolls and Terrorists get through 0.5% of the time, those with election needs and other message needs are likely to get through 20-40 times as often and any of the Big-Tech players will remain unable to stop them, unless we employ the bullet through the back of the head solution, this will not ever stop, history has proven me right and the fact that I saw this well over 6 years ago and the BBC got up to speed just now (OK, that was an exaggeration) gives wind to a much larger problem. 

You can never stop the message. Wake up! It is actually that simple.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 15, 2019 · 11:09

It’s fine that fine

I saw he news last week and it was one sentence that made me stop on the spot, but I needed some time to digest it all (and there was news from Iran to contemplate too). Facebook has been fined, the fine (the largest ever at $5,000,000,000) is not the sneer at, but for Facebook it will be business as usual soon thereafter. The amount is nothing more than an Apple building at the edge of the Mojave desert, so it seems little, but that would be the facade that we are offered. The article I initially saw (I forgot the source) stated: “paying fine to stop further investigations“, from my point of view that this would be worth a bundle, I believe that Facebook had been stupid to some degree and super clever in other ways. Let’s face it Mark Zuckerberg is on my level of data knowledge, so he is thinking several iterations ahead of all others and he needs the FTC of his back during the start-up of 5G, whoever is there first has a larger advantage to gain momentum. All my investigations into the dumb smart device shows that, all the data I see optionally coming requires unhindered acceleration and my device was meant to suppress data drag and emphasize on facilitation. Facebook needs this, Google needs this and Huawei has the advantage at present.

The new system when operational will give them (especially with Oak/OS) a 15%-24% advantage and in data terms when we consider that 5G is set to top out at 10 gigabits per second (Gbps), that difference is a lot, it is everything to enable a larger market advantage. Add to this the new devices that offer independence to SME and franchise markets, the stage would push towards smaller independent solution providers, if Google, Apple and Facebook even hesitate for one week the difference will be seen and short thereafter felt as well.

At that point every contract in the new setting will entice 3-5 others to follow as well. It is not word of mouth, it is companies watching their competitors gain advantage and that observed difference is almost exponential against mere word of mouth. And that part will also increase choices.

Yet it is not about what comes next (only partially) it is about what is now. There are two essential parts in the fine. The first is how it was a 3-2 split, with the Republicans all in favour to continue and the Democrats all eager to block. There is a polarising difference there. I am partial on the Republican side, Democrats clearly misrepresented this with the quote: “the dissent of the two Democrats on the commission because they sought stricter limits on the company” (source: NY Times). It is not about stricter limits one the company, it is the fact that the data has grown to dimensionality far beyond what governments have and it is available for purchase (to some degree). The element that we forget with the fine is what the Guardian gives us (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/12/facebook-fine-ftc-privacy-violations) when we see: “Facebook will now re-examine the ways it handles user data, but the settlement will not restrict the company’s ability to share data with third parties, reports said“, it is to some degree about the ability to share data and how granular that data is set for the upcoming war that the Democrats want to wage. It has direct implications in insurance and healthcare and the Democrats have a system in mind that cannot function when all that data is available for health care scrutiny (one of many issues), yet healthcare is the most visible one. One short thought like on what drinks (alcoholic) you like and you might be seen as a higher risk and as such see your premium rise. Alcohol, tobacco and recreational pharmacy might be the most visible ones, but as the data net grows, we see a more comprehensive flag system that pushes close to 20% out of healthcare soon enough (as premiums go up and up on the risky groups) and it is not that this point is coming soon, this point has already been passed and the moment that data gets out, the ducks come home to roost on a coffin.

As the New York Times gives us the quote: “Last year, the European Union fined Google $5.1 billion for abusing its large market share in the mobile phone industry. More recently, numerous officials and lawmakers around the world have rushed to regulate Facebook” (at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/technology/facebook-ftc-fine.html), we seemingly all put it on one pile, yet that would be a massive problem and wrong too. In one side (source: the Verge) we get: “Google also made customers sign contracts forbidding them from including rival search engines on their sites alongside Google’s own. In 2009, Google allowed the inclusion of rival search engines as long as Google’s was more prominent. In 2016, around the time the EU announced its case, the company removed these terms altogether“, we can debate the correctness, but we can also accept that Google started this and took the advantage that they engineered, as in most places software cannot be patented, so it had to find another path to gain the advantage it created whilst followers re-engineered whatever Google published as soon as humanly possible. We can call it wrong (or not) but that stage is in place and it links to now and it also links to Facebook. The 5G wave is all about getting there first and at present the FTC was in a place to stop Facebook innovation and paying the fine will give larger gains to Facebook than to let investigative wave after wave continue to slow Facebook down, and when we realise that Facebook is no longer the only player on that level Facebook needed to make a tactical decision.

Still, there is a remaining issue with the Facebook data and how it becomes available and the lack of answers should remain to be a cause for concern. It comes down to the beginning when we got: “The F.T.C.’s investigation was set off by The New York Times and The Observer of London, which uncovered that the social network allowed Cambridge Analytica, a British consulting firm to the Trump campaign, to harvest personal information of its users. The firm used the data to build political profiles about individuals without the consent of Facebook users“, that was merely the tip of the iceberg and those who comprehend Facebook data know this to be true. The issue is not merely how the data is collected; it is what else becomes available and what else is collected. To see this we need to consider the added image.

At present there are some stages where larger contracts give people their advertising over different locations. Yet what happens when you have a complete mobile image on where what is shown? What happens when we see interactions of an advertising and where it actually works and how users react, that is the next stage and the data is ready and to some degree in that setting Facebook is more ready than others, that is the image that pushes us all and the innovation through handed data and as we can see Facebook people either do not care, or have no comprehension of all the data linked to their actions.

I took that data and more into another innovation and pushed it to a new stage, giving the collector even more data, more advertising options and optionally even more data opportunities on a larger scale. It is that shift that is all the difference between a 5% and a 9% market share for companies and now it is no longer local, the data allows for global exposure, so consider that exposure in New Delhi (India) could also expose those in Little Bombay (New Jersey) addressing a similar group at the same time, brand exposure that becomes global changing the entire setting for smaller enterprises at close to similar prices, driving advertisement bidding wars and pushing revenues for those in that area and that is merely the first part of the IP I created. Places like Facebook could get a much larger advantage and transform advantage into momentum pushing that advantage further and faster. It is only for the bigger puppies (Google, Facebook, Huawei) but they all want the largest juiciest bone to gnaw on and that is where the group of innovations push the difference, so in the end $5 billion is chicken feed under what is pushing towards the surface at this very moment, and they all want to nibble on that pie, they merely need to be the first in the game to gain advantage through momentum. As I see it IBM and Microsoft are already out of the game trying to facilitate the systems and the data and to be fair Microsoft Azure does have a larger advantage here, but IBM is not sitting still and we know that Facebook (to a lesser degree) and  Google have systems that work. The playing field is near level and the match is far from over, now with the Huawei push and Oak/OS they have opportunity to gain advantage and they can decide who to allow access to that new system, so even as Google seemingly had the advantage, the Trump trade war took that advantage away from them, so there is a second level war going on and whomever makes the larger deal with Huawei gets the gain, the issue is that Huawei hardware is more advanced and that is their advantage, the Trump trade war stopped innovation towards the US, so as such in a global setting now pushes the advantage to Europe, India and the Middle East. In this the US loses more than it comprehended in advance and it all depends on how they react to the change. It is the error in judgement on 4G and 5G is where the American disadvantage lies. In 4G is was ‘Wherever I am‘, now with 5G it becomes ‘Whenever I want it‘ and for that step the most advanced provider wins , it is not Ericsson, not Nokia, not Telstra, and not Sprint. It is Huawei that can facilitate towards ‘Whenever I want it‘ to a much larger degree at present and that wins the race, but the others are not done yet and there the Facebook data becomes a power player, an optional sledgehammer for those who know how to bash a wall and that is happening now, so when we see: “Facebook and other large tech companies are under an increasingly harsh spotlight in Washington, D.C., including at a “social media summit” at the White House on Thursday in which President Trump repeatedly bashed Silicon Valley as being unfair to conservatives. Facebook wasn’t invited to attend, nor were other tech companies. They have previously said they police their platforms without regard to political ideology“, we see a setting that we accept to some degree, yet those who are all about that “Social Media Summit” seemingly do not comprehend the application of data to the degree they need to and as such they as shooting themselves as well as their economic options in the foot, which is good news for Huawei, not that much for the other players.

I reckon that I will be proven correct within the next 12 months. When the dust settles we will see the first clear winners, I am certain that Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympics shows me to be correct and it will show the first larger winner, at present in this culture of short sighted decisions Google and Huawei will have the largest advantage, but 2 other players are not out of this race yet, so plenty can happen before we see the Olympic flame light the fires and start the Tokyo Summer Olympics.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,