News

Posted in Menacing Monopoly

AlterNet: Google is a “monopoly on steroids”

Posted on by Silicon Valley Sleuthhound

The venerable progressive news outlet AlterNet has published an editorial making the case that it has gotten swept up in Google’s crackdown on “fake news”:

The New Media Monopoly Is Hurting Progressive and Independent News

The story is about monopoly on steroids. It is about the extreme and unconstrained power of Google and Facebook, and how they are affecting what you read, hear and see. It is about how these two companies are undermining progressive news sources, including AlterNet.

In June, Google announced major changes in its algorithm designed to combat fake news. Ben Gomes, the company’s vice president for engineering, stated in April that Google’s update of its search engine would block access to “offensive” sites, while working to surface more “authoritative content.”

This seemed like a good idea. Fighting fake news, which Trump often uses to advance his interests and rally his supporters, is an important goal that AlterNet shares.

But little did we know that Google had decided, perhaps with bad advice or wrong-headed thinking, that media like AlterNet—dedicated to fighting white supremacy, misogyny, racism, Donald Trump, and fake news—would be clobbered by Google in its clumsy attempt to address hate speech and fake news.

Read the whole thing.

Posted in Shoddy Security

Malware still lurking in the Google Play mobile app store

Posted on by Silicon Valley Sleuthhound

Embarrassing:

It seems almost too ironic that the Google Play Store has been secretly invaded by even more malware after it has promoted its Google Play Protect security platform for Android. Boasting of technologies like machine learning and artificial intelligence, Play Protect promises to protect Android users more thoroughly without having to increase manpower. Alas, it seems that another malware, named ExpensiveWall, has gotten past the Play Store’s security and this lapse is costing users a lot more than just peace of mind but actual money as well.

Check Point, the cybersecurity firm who reported this latest news, says that ExpensiveWall, named after one of its carriers, “Lovely Wallpaper” is actually a new variant of another malware discovered earlier this year. Both types of malware care costing users money by silently signing them up for premium subscriptions or sending premium SMS. Both strains have also made it past Google’s security checks and have been downloaded thousands of times by users.

SlashGear, which posted the report excerpted above, says Google needs to step its security game. Duh. Supposedly, that’s what they were doing when they launched “Play Protect”. But obviously, they failed.

Anyone who wants a secure mobile platform should invest in a BlackBerry device — and preferably one that runs the secure BlackBerry 10 operating system — to keep their data and networks secure.

Posted in Legal Troubles

Lawsuit alleges Google is a discriminatory place to work

Posted on by Silicon Valley Sleuthhound

Kudos to the plaintiffs for bringing this suit:

Google systematically pays women less than men doing similar work, according to a class action-lawsuit accusing the technology company of denying promotions and career opportunities to qualified women who are “segregated” into lower-paying jobs.

The complaint, filed Thursday on behalf of all women employed by Google in California over the last four years, provided the most detailed formal accounts to date of gender discrimination and pay disparities at the company after months of criticisms and a growing chorus of women publicly speaking out.

Allegations of possible employment violations emerge at court hearing as part of lawsuit to compel company, a federal contractor, to provide compensation data

“We’ve been talking about these issues for a long time, and it hasn’t really changed,” Kelly Ellis, a former Google employee and a lead plaintiff on the case, told the Guardian in her first interview about the suit. “There’s been a lot of PR and lip service, but … this is going to be one of the only ways to get these companies to change how they hire and compensate women.”

Any effort to hold the Monster of Mountain View accountable for its bad business practices is an effort we support. For a company with a motto of “do no evil”, Google sure does a lot of evil things.

Posted in Shoddy Security

Google releases new version of Chrome that incorporates a technology called “WebUSB”

Posted on by Silicon Valley Sleuthhound

USB, or Universal Series Bus, is already a technology that has a lot of security problems. Now Google is rushing to put into its increasingly dominant web browser (Chrome) a technology that allows websites to interface with USB devices via Javascript, which has to be one of the worst ideas they’ve ever come up with:

Google has wrapped up coding the desktop version of Chrome 61, and will be rolling it out for Windows, Mac and Linux “over the coming days/weeks”.

Chrome 61 extends the visibility of USB-connected devices to Web apps. First proposed last year, WebUSB was pitched as an easier way to set up USB devices, since (for example) a vendor’s site could use the API to push a config to a newly-connected gadget.

The feature’s focus, Google says, is on specialist devices that don’t have a standard way to advertise their capabilities. Keyboards or mice are easy, but as is explained in the specification, USB-connected educational devices (say, microscopes) or 3D printers aren’t conveniently accessible.

There’s also the vexed question of USB device updates: the Chrome devs explain WebUSB could let manufacturers update a device by getting users to visit the page and give permission to the update [What could possibly go wrong? – Reg].

What could possibly go wrong, indeed! That wasn’t just the reaction of the folks at The Register; it was also the reaction of a commenter at Phoronix, who also wisely said No thanks, Google.

We’ve learned over the past few years that everything connected to the internet tends to be less secure. Therefore, it follows that a device can be made more secure if it’s not connected to the internet. Perhaps we should strive to minimize how many devices can be connected directly to the internet by emphasizing localized control and asking ourselves, “Do we really need internet-controlled light-bulbs?”

This may not be to Google’s advantage, as it won’t be able to obtain as much data from non-internet-connected devices, but it may be to the benefit of the internet at large. Some devices may actually work better and be more useful when connected to the internet, but the majority of the “Internet of Things” probably doesn’t actually need an internet connection, especially if those devices can be controlled locally, either through a physical push of a button or through local networks such as Bluetooth, NFC, Thread, or other P2P mesh networking technologies. The latter could bring much of the same convenience of controlling a smart device from an app, without the downside of allowing someone from the other side of the world to connect to it as well.

Well said. Putting WebUSB in Chrome was a mistake. Then again, using Chrome is a mistake. LGB recommends Firefox instead, or one of its derivatives, like Waterfox or Pale Moon.

Posted in Legal Troubles

Google slammed with record fine by European Union

Posted on by Silicon Valley Sleuthhound

Justice:

Google’s record-breaking 2.4 billion-euro ($2.7 billion) European Union fine could end up being just a fraction of the costs from the EU’s demand that it stop skewing search results to favor its own shopping site.

While the penalty will barely make a dent in its $90 billion cash hoard, Google faces the prospect of less ad revenue and a regulatory backlash targeting other services from maps to restaurant reviews as well as the threat of even more penalties.

The search-engine giant will have “the sword of Damocles hanging over its head,” said Jay Modrall, a lawyer for Norton Rose Fulbright in Brussels. That’s because it’s no longer Google’s choice on how it makes changes to allay EU concerns. Instead, it’s “under a legal requirement to do so and under notice that if its commitments are not sufficient, it’ll be fined even more.”

Google is even more of a monopoly in Europe than it is in the United States, with an estimated 95% market share. Given that it is a near monopoly, it deserves to be stringently regulated. Kudos to the European authorities for holding the Monster of Mountain View accountable for its search-skewing.

Posted in War on Privacy

Google debuts a new way to follow your footsteps around the web

Posted on by Silicon Valley Sleuthhound

Google’s war on privacy is going really, really well:

On Tuesday in San Francisco, at Google’s annual Marketing Next conference, where it unleashes its latest tools for ads, analytics and DoubleClick, the company announced that it’s ready to answer the question that’s been bugging marketers for ages: “Is my marketing working?”

To deliver the answer, it will be training a machine learning tool called Google Attribution on our buying activity. It’s now in beta and will roll out to more advertisers over the coming months.

As Google’s schematic shows, the artificial intelligence (AI) marketing analytics tool will be following us across devices and channels – mobile, desktop, and probably while we’re scuba diving or trying to shop while we’re hiding in a cave, once Google figures those ones out – to see what we’re buying and match it up with what ads we’ve seen. It will then automatically tell marketers what we’re up to.

As Naked Security’s writers point out, Google’s hunger for data is being fed by masses of unsuspecting people who continue to voluntarily use its products.

Depending on which of its tools we use, Google knows what we think, what we need, what we desire, our political and spiritual beliefs, our age, our gender, what music we listen to, what we watch, what we read, where we’ve been, where we plan to go, where we work, where we hang out, where we live, who we meet, where we shop, when we shop, what we buy, how much money we’re worth, how much we spend, and how much energy we consume.

How does it amass all that data? Through Google search, the Chrome browser, Gmail, Google News, Google+, Book Search, YouTube, Picasa, Translation, Maps, Street Views, Waze, Nest, and… well, the list keeps going, and growing, as Google acquires more companies and more data-crunching ability.

Google now proudly claims that it has access to 70% of all credit/debit card transactions in the United States. That makes it even more important that people find alternative homes for their data. Trusting everything to the hands of one company is a really, really bad idea.

Posted in War on Privacy

Google wants to share your photos with your nearest and not-dearest

Posted on by Silicon Valley Sleuthhound

Google’s war on privacy goes on:

Feeble human! Your spouse is clamoring for cute kid photos and you once again forgot to send them. Well, stand aside: Google’s artificial intelligence (AI) will now share your photos for you.

They will be shared automatically, aided by facial recognition and a somewhat kludgy understanding of who you have relationships with. It’s a concept that some are going to be very happy about: getting photos shared to the appropriate recipients has been a holy grail for plenty of startups, and Facebook already does it in its Moments app. Does it more elegantly, too, notes The Verge: after all, Facebook already knows who your friends are.

Google doesn’t. Rather, it guesses, based on whether you’ve sent pictures of the same face to the same phone number or email address. “Must be a buddy,” Google Photos muses, then suggests you share your next few photos of that face with that same recipient.

If this supposed buddy is also a Photos user, they can save your photos to their own library with one tap, and they can share their own photos back to you.

What could go wrong? Lots. Tess Townsend used her imagination:

  • You set up photo sharing with your spouse or partner. The two of you split and you both forget to turn it off. They continue to receive whatever photos, and you may wish you hadn’t sent those or they may not wish to receive them. You can go still switch off the connection, but you can’t un-see the photos.
  • A demanding, and perhaps abusive, friend or family member insists that you turn on photo sharing. It becomes more difficult in an already difficult situation to maintain your privacy. Lieb notes that whoever you share photos with does not see an indication of whether you have the app set to show your selected sharing contact all of your photos or just a subset.
  • You’re taking photos of a group of friends and Google is suggesting you send the photos to someone you don’t want to show them to for whatever reason. Perhaps the suggested recipient is an ex or a former friend with whom you not longer speak. It’s your decision whether to press send, but this can be an unsettling experience, and sometimes fingers slip.
  • Maybe that person’s name is included in a group of names, you miss that it’s there or mistake it for another name, act quickly, and hit send.
  • You take a photo you don’t want to share with anyone. Google either automatically shares it or suggests that you share it.

The de facto Google slogan is Privacy Is Dead. The company has suffered from one privacy bugaboo after another (the WiSpy scandal, the Buzz debacle) but it keeps pressing forward.

There were reports a few years ago that Google had shelved plans to debut facial recognition technologies because it was concerned that there would be a backlash. Now, apparently, the brass at the Monster of Mountain View have judged that now is the right time to go forward.

Posted in Menacing Monopoly, War on Privacy

New York Times expose: How Google took over the classroom

Posted on by Silicon Valley Sleuthhound

“The tech giant is transforming public education with low-cost laptops and free apps,” reports The New York Times’ Natasha Singer. “But schools may be giving Google more than they are getting.”

Key excerpt:

Schools may be giving Google more than they are getting: generations of future customers.

Google makes $30 per device by selling management services for the millions of Chromebooks that ship to schools. But by habituating students to its offerings at a young age, Google obtains something much more valuable.

Every year, several million American students graduate from high school. And not only does Google make it easy for those who have school Google accounts to upload their trove of school Gmail, Docs and other files to regular Google consumer accounts — but schools encourage them to do so. This month, for instance, Chatfield Senior High School in Littleton, Colo., sent out a notice urging seniors to “make sure” they convert their school account “to a personal Gmail account.”

That doesn’t sit well with some parents. They warn that Google could profit by using personal details from their children’s school email to build more powerful marketing profiles of them as young adults.

“My concern is that they are working on developing a profile of this child that, when they hit maturity, they are able to create a better profile,” said David Barsotti, an information technology project manager in the Chicago area whose daughter uses Google tools in elementary school. “That is a problem, in my opinion.”

Barostti is right. It’s a problem… a very big problem.

Posted in Menacing Monopoly

Jonathan Taplin: Google will need to be broken up because it’s getting too big

Posted on by Silicon Valley Sleuthhound

Looking ahead, Jonathan Taplin concludes that the current U.S. regime is unlikely to check Google’s ambitions or wide reach, which will necessitate a breakup of the company down the road:

I’m under no delusion that, with libertarian tech moguls like Peter Thiel in President Trump’s inner circle, antitrust regulation of the internet monopolies will be a priority. Ultimately we may have to wait four years, at which time the monopolies will be so dominant that the only remedy will be to break them up. Force Google to sell DoubleClick. Force Facebook to sell WhatsApp and Instagram.

Woodrow Wilson was right when he said in 1913, “If monopoly persists, monopoly will always sit at the helm of the government.” We ignore his words at our peril.

“Jonathan Taplin is the director emeritus of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Innovation Lab and the author of Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy,” according to his New York Times byline.

Posted in Legal Troubles

United States government accuses Google of ‘extreme’ gender pay discrimination

Posted on by Silicon Valley Sleuthhound

Well, well, well….

Google has discriminated against its female employees, according to the US Department of Labor (DoL), which said it had evidence of “systemic compensation disparities”.

As part of an ongoing DoL investigation, the government has collected information that suggests the internet search giant is violating federal employment laws with its salaries for women, agency officials said.

“We found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce,” Janette Wipper, a DoL regional director, testified in court in San Francisco on Friday.

Reached for comment Friday afternoon, Janet Herold, regional solicitor for the DoL, said: “The investigation is not complete, but at this point the department has received compelling evidence of very significant discrimination against women in the most common positions at Google headquarters.”

Herold added: “The government’s analysis at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry.”

Google, of course, denies the allegations:

Google said it vehemently disagreed with the charges, which the Mountain View, California, company said it hadn’t heard until Wipper’s court appearance.

“Every year, we do a comprehensive and robust analysis of pay across genders and we have found no gender pay gap,” Google said in its statement.

Uh huh.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Historically, the United States government has gone fairly easy on Google, whereas the European Union has cracked down more harshly when it has taken a dislike to questionable Google business practices. It sounds like the gloves may be off, at least with respect to this particular issue.