Google and Microsoft To Block Child Abuse Images?

 Computing, Security  No Responses »
Nov 182013
 

Today the news comes that Google and Microsoft have agreed to block child abuse images. Great!

Anyone reading (or watching) the news story could be forgiven for thinking that this will solve the problem of child abuse images on the Internet, but that won’t happen. What Microsoft and Google have done is a tiny increment on what they were already doing – instead of just excluding hosts given to them by the Internet Watch Foundation, they are also going to ‘clean up’ the search results for certain searches.

It isn’t blocking child abuse images. The search companies can’t do that; anything who thinks so needs to go and learn a bit more about the Internet which includes the government. Who have of course come out of their rabbit hutch spitting lettuce leaves everywhere, saying that if this action by the search companies isn’t effective they’ll legislate.

Which is just about the clearest evidence so far that the government is completely clueless when it comes to technology; obviously Eton‘s reputation is overstated when it comes to technology education.

People tend to think of child abuse images as being a little bit like anything else you browse to on the Internet – you just search for it, and up it pops. I haven’t tried, but I suspect what you would get is a large number of pages like this one – talking about child abuse images in some way, but no real images. Undoubtedly there are some really dumb child pornographers out there who stick up their filth on ordinary web servers; whereby they’ll quickly get indexed by the search engines and someone law enforcement bods will come pounding on the door.

However the biggest area of child abuse image distribution is likely to be one of the variety of ‘stealth’ Internets … the “dark nets’, or ‘deep web‘.

The later are web sites that cannot be indexed by the search engines for various reasons – password protection, links have never been published, etc. These would be the choice of the not quite so dumb child pornographer.

The former are harder to find – they are roughly analogous to peer-to-peer file sharing networks such as Bittorrent which is widely used for sharing copyrighted material (films, music, etc.). But ‘friend to friend’ file sharing networks are private and not public; you need an invitation to join one. This is where the intelligent child pornographer lurks.

And all the hot air we’ve heard from the government so far is going to do pretty much bugger all about the really serious stuff. If you are a clueless politician reading this, get a clue and ask someone with half a brain cell about this stuff. And don’t invent half-arsed measures before asking someone with a clue about whether they’re likely to be effective or not.

Does Google’s Glass Herald The End Of Civilisation?

 Computing, General, Security  No Responses »
May 192013
 

Executive summary: No.

According to some, the introduction of Google’s latest product – the Glass(es) – will undoubtedly herald the end of civilisation as the we know it and the survivors will be skittering from bunker to bunker in a forlorn hope of evading surveillance. Actually the biggest threat Google’s Glass(es) have to the world, is the threat to proper grammar – they’re glasses!

The strange thing about the lists of problems encountered with Google’s Glass(es) is that they are “problems” that are already here. Google has done something nifty with their product, which is basically to integrate possibilities into something a non-geek can use. And it is not as if it is particularly revolutionary – people have been looking at augmented reality on smartphones for years and thinking that it was pretty cool, but wouldn’t it be better if you didn’t have to hold up your smartphone all the time?

The big problem is the threat of pervasive surveillance, and threats that come about as a result of that pervasive surveillance. If Google were never to have invented these things, we would still have a problem with pervasive surveillance. As other have pointed out, the use of video (and still) recording on smartphones is already bring in an age of pervasive surveillance; or at least pervasive surveillance under the control of individuals as we already have pervasive surveillance by corporations and government.

It is true that there are negative aspects to pervasive surveillance, but it is also true that there are positive aspects too. Street crime becomes a far riskier proposition if everyone around can just say “Ok. Start recording video.”. People getting up to foolish activities being “outed” on Youtube? The more it happens, the less the pain.

And of course make laws to punish the publication of privacy invading video but not the recording of it; with a proper public interest imminity. That is what the public should be interested in, not what it wants to be interested in.

There are those who say that publication of embarrassing activities onto social media sites may make it harder for people to get employment. The fault here is not what is published to social media sites nor people who take part in such activities, but with the employers who insist on having employees so squeaky clean. If you never employ people who have danced naked on top of a table, you’ll end up with boring employees.

And I’ll bet that there is a high incidence of naked table-top dancing in the past of anyone whose thinking is inventive, creative, and out-of-the-box. Or in other words, employers should be going out of their way to hunt down and employ the naked table-top dancers (No I probably haven’t).

There are those who say that it will somehow increase bullying. It is true that this will be an extra tool in the arsenal of bullies, but in can also be an extra tool in the arsenal of those targeted by bullies. To stop what happened to Amanda Todd (and others), we need to stop bullying whether assisted by technology or the old-fashioned kind.

And of course we have the argument that Google is powerful enough already, and Glass(es) will make that worse. Well, first of all Google Glass(es) won’t be the only product of this kind out there. And if Google is too powerful, it is time to chop them down to size rather than blocking this product.

At least the hysterical reaction of some businesses is giving me a new retirement fund possibility. When I eventually get around to getting some, mine will have prescription lenses in, and any business that wants to ban me will get sued for discrimination against the “disabled”.

We need to be careful of condemning a technology for the poor behaviour of people, when it is the poor behaviour that is at fault.

Islands In The Cloud

 Computing  No Responses »
Nov 172011
 

I have an Android phone that automatically uploads photos to Google; you have an iPhone that automatically uploads photos to Apple’s iCloud service. We both want to send photos to a Facebook gallery for some friends.

To solve this problem, we either have to copy photos manually from Google to Facebook, or make use of some special application to do the work for us. But isn’t this the wrong solution to the problem ?

If the different propriety clouds used an open standard for uploading photos, it would be possible to automatically upload to Google from an iPhone, upload to Apple’s iCloud from an Android phone, or … to some new competitor. Or even for those of us who prefer to do our own thing, to our own servers.

As someone who mixes and matches things, I have “islands of data” in different clouds – some photos are uploaded to Facebook (when I can be bothered), some are in Googleland, and some (the ones I regard as the better ones) are uploaded to my own server. And that is just photos; there are also contacts, notes, documents, drawings, etc. None of this can be easily moved from one island to another – sure I could move it manually, but why would I want to do that ? Computers after all are supposed to be good at automation.

This is all down to the convenience of the cloud providers of course – Google makes it easy to use their services and hard to use others because it’s in their interests to do so, Apple is similarly inclined to keep your imprisoned in their “perfumed prison”. And so on.

But it’s all our data and they should make it easy to move our data around. This not only would be useful for us, but less obviously would actually benefit the cloud providers. After all if I find it tricky moving from one online photo gallery “cloud” to another, I’m less inclined to do so.

Making it easier to move cloud data from one provider to another not only means it is easier for a customer to “escape” one proprietary cloud, but it is also easier for a customer of another cloud to move in. And it would not necessarily be that difficult to do – just produce a standardised API that works across multiple different cloud providers, and let the application developers loose.

To a certain extent this is possible right now – for example, Facebook has an API and Twitter has an API and it is possible to produce code to send status updates to both places. But the equivalent to update a Google Plus status does not seem to be available, and combining status updates in one tool just isn’t there as yet – I have a simple script which sits on top of two other tools (and very nicely pops up a window, a text input box, or takes the status on the command line). But with a standardised API, the code would be much easier to write.

 

What Happens To The Google Adsense Interest ?

 General  No Responses »
Dec 042010
 

If you look down the side of this post, you will see some sort of advertisement, and like the majority of people I took the easy way out and chose Google to supply the ads. Of course as this blog site is a personal site of somebody who comes a long way from being famous, the amount of money that comes in is negligible. In fact I have not received a single payment as yet.

Nothing wrong with that of course – it is stated quite plainly that payments are only made when the level reaches a certain level – who needs a cheque for £0.99 ? It would cost Google more to send them out than the payments themselves are worth.

But the interesting thing is what happens to all those negligible amounts of money ? Don’t forget that morally, that money does not belong to Google: Someone who wants to advertise something online, pays Google, and Google in turn pays whoever provides online “space” to allow the advertisements to appear. As soon as the adverts appear on my (or your) blog, Google owes me money.

The interest on my queued payments is pretty negligible, but how many other sets of negligible payments are there in Google’s bank accounts ? And how much interest is Google earning ?

Or should I say “stealing” ? Don’t forget that money is owed for services rendered – it doesn’t belong to Google at all, and if Google is making any money at all through interest, then it is morally obliged to do something with that interest other than add it to the bottom line.

Now personally I’m not interested in receiving the interest on the money Google owes me – it’s a trivial amount to me. But added up together with the trivial amounts owed to thousands of others, it may well make a difference to some charity or other. What I would like to see is an extra tab on my Adsense console letting me choose which charity Google should pay the interest to.