Machine vs. machine battle has begun to de-fraud the internet of lies A long-ago cartoon in The New Yorker put it plainly: "On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog." If that cartoon had been written today, the caption might have read, "On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a fraud." Scam artists, snake oil salesmen, sock puppets, bot armies and bullies - every time we look up, it seems as …
Chaos is bad for business.
So how do you explain the daliymail.co.uk? Or fourchan, they both thrive and survive on chaos surely?
(Also the chaos that is the commentard community is a big draw for me personally, helping me view ads for the register directly but that's my own bias simply explained)
That said... Don't feed the trolls....
To solve this, it helps to put the fake news in context - something that simple AI rules can't realistically do yet
Consider these news stories, what AI or machine learning can put them into context?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4394216/PETER-HITCHENS-noble-cause-Bombs-Al-Qaeda.html
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159264981001/the-syrian-gas-attack-persuasion#_=_
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4396138/Generals-taking-White-House-says-JOHN-R-BRADLEY.html
( notice that these are a rare exception of the Daily Wail seeming to make sense! )
None of those stories are "news" at all, they are all clearly opinions.
It's the total and abject failure to differentiate between these two VERY DIFFERENT types of story that's causing at least 80% of the "fake news" hysteria. Any algorithm that fails to make that distinction - will only make matters worse.
Not really. A tiny little disclaimer that not everything in the contents is true is usually enough, if the Weekly World Lies was any example (IIRC, they didn't stop because they got into legal trouble, they simply weren't selling anymore).
As for Sunday Sport, what's that (consider this writer is American)?
Some of my buddies and I commuted from California's 'Lovely' Central Valley in to SiliVlley in the 90's and we would specifically stop at the grocery to purchse an Enquirer (or other such sillines) for us to read on the way back home.
Picture: Up at BFAM, two hour run to work, ten hour I.T. day, assemble four I.T. professionals (at different companies), two hour run back home. Well ...
The SUN and Enquirer are effin' Hysterical after a day in the CoLo. (Also, Four punchy geeks will laugh at anything.)
So yeah, there is a market, of sorts. I prefer The Onion to CNN by a long shot (and if I want actual information, I'll ask John Olliver what the hell is going on).
Facebook and Google are part of the thievery, that's the problem... Its constant profiteering at the expense of everyone else.... Time to call it a day I say and lets start over with a new model. Some cases in point:
=============================
Exhibit A:
Mississippi attorney general Jim Hood: "In my 10 years as attorney general I have dealt with a lot of large corporate wrongdoers” -"I must say that yours is the first I have encountered to have no corporate conscience for the safety of its customers, the viability of its fellow corporations or the negative economic impact on the nation which has allowed your company to flourish.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/17/almunia_to_google_critics_youre_mad/
=============================
Exhibit B:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/25/oracle_points_brussels_at_googles_super_profiles/
=============================
Exhibit C..Z:
Just search the Reg...
=============================
I'd be all for a license to use the Internet, with just a basic requirement to show that you actually know how to think and breathe at the same time. Anonymity is however much more important than people seem to realize. I would NEVER advocate for any sort of internet where anonymity isn't available.
>The IdiotInChief & cronies/hangerson/sycophants are hardly anonymous, and between them seem to go out of their collective way to generate a metric buttload of "false news" ... at least the daily back-peddling sure makes it seem that way.<
Sheep will not see!
Sheep gets mugged, raped and murdered.
Sheep has seen, finally, but is now a DEAD sheep!!!
Next sheep, repeat rinse repeat...
Just go on chewing curd, Jake...
My first encounter with fake news was on ITV. It was just a throw away comment on a current story at the time where they said "when they found WMD's in Iraq". As I've said before news has always been fake but when you start reading and believing the wrong fake news it's now a problem.
The truth is always there but you now need to dig a bit deeper to get to it. I find it helps if you understand what the slant is that the media are trying to push.
Lets take the current situation in Syria.
America claims Assad has used chemical weapons on the insurgents.
Russia claims Assad bombed insurgents who had chemical weapons.
Now you have to ask yourself a few questions here,
Would Assad take the risk? What would he gain? Did the chemical weapons actually have any effect?
How would the insurgents get hold of chemical weapons? What benefit would it be to them to use them against Assad? If they did have chemical weapons why have they not already used them?
My own personal opinion is that there were no chemical weapons and this is a precursor to America going in and they are sabre rattling against Russia to get them to back off. This wouldn't be the first time it has happened as we all know what happened in Afghanistan.
I believe that because there is no way on earth Israel would allow either side to have chemical weapons. They would go in and bomb the shit out of either side.
"my own personal opinion is that there were no chemical weapons"
... it is even less likely that the whole thing was faked than that it was a false flag.
As for "would Assad take the risk" ask yourself why Kim Jong Un took the risk of assassinating his half-brother. There may be reasons to consider that Assad didn't do this, but they aren't "he isn't mad or bad enough"
There is enough evidence to show chemical weapons WERE used. There is debate as to whether it was of a type and grade available to Assads regime. I'd find it just as believable it was the US or Russian forces under a false flag operation. I've also not seen any indication as to how the weapons were supposedly delivered. Air attack? Artillery? Large vats opened upwind?
"When it comes to truth, what’s good for Google and Facebook is good for the rest of us."
This brand of Californian tech optimism is 5 years past its sell by date.
Facebook and Google don't care about truth. At best they'll be forced to deploy algorithms to filter the bits currently giving them negative press coverage.
Google literally runs on click fraud, and facebook also runs on dailymail tier outrage.
"None of that should surprise us. People are wonderful and horrible. The network we’ve built for ourselves serves both the honest and the liar. But we have no infrastructure to manage a planet of thieves."
Reminds me of the Charles Bowen Peom:
“The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust hath the just’s umbrella.”
On a level playing field, the liars often (if not always) have the advantage. It is probably good to un-level the playing field, but who will be doing the un-leveling? Who would we trust?
So all those financial types who bet on market volatility are doing badly? All those selling arms ro war-torn nations?
Chaos is a pre-requisite for a lot of people to make a lot of money. That's why it keeps turning up all over the place.
As for "fake news", what happens if your fake news blocking thingy gets just a little over sensitive and starts blocking advertising (a lot of which stretches the truth as far as it can without lying completely), what of ad firms profits then?
Say rather, that there are people who do very well out of chaos. But they are outnumbered, and theoretically can be outspent, by those who don't.
The quote is oversimplified, sure, but there is a truth underlying it: chaos is bad for business in aggregate, even if specific businesses thrive on it.
To give but one example, when the article boldly asserts:
"Detecting false advertisements, bullies, and bots - all of these can be done with machine learning. It can even be applied to a politician's tweets - to find out if they’ve been fibbing about where they’ve been, and when."
...then that's fake news. In most cases, even human beings can't agree on whether "fake news" stories are fake or not. It is clearly beyond current "machine learning" to do so. Can we just put all this AI/ML crap back in the bin from where it was pulled by a bored journalist a year or so ago?
Fake news abounds but what most of the hand wringing is about that many are ignoring "our fake news" for "their fake news". If we are honest there is tons of fake news produced daily for various reasons but mostly ignorance and incompetence. Most medical and science reporting in the mass media is just pure garbage. For example, the recent Sarin gassing in Syria has created much finger pointing. But none of the "reporters" have bothered to find out how easy/difficult Sarin is to produce. This would require talking to an organic chemist and possibly doing some real research. Something many are too lazy to do. Based on the Tokyo subway Sarin attacks in the mid 90s my suspicion is the precursors to Sarin relatively easy to get and that Sarin itself is not very difficult to make by a competent organic chemist (I am an electrochemist originally). So what does the media do, report what are effectively hotel bar rumors as fact; something they have a long history of doing.
Anytime I read the word "lazy" used in criticism of journalism, I laugh. A deep, bitter and hugely mirthless laugh, because I've actually worked in the media, and know what a slave mine it is, with a three rule business model - suck 'em in, chew 'em up, spit 'em out.
Usually such criticism involves some jumped up academic proclaiming expertise of some sort, without bothering to even research their own media criticism.
So, sigh, below are some news stories on Sarin production related to the Syria attack, which took about five seconds to find. Are they definitive? Of course not, and never will be until refusing comment, lying and secrecy laws are punishable by death.
Until then, even a well resourced investigative unit can take years of digging to uncover the truth, whatever that may be. This is different from the world that Yanks are raised in, when yowling cop shows proclaim we won't get fooled again - and still solve cases within half an hour.
Back in the real world , "lazy" might better describe claims from someone using evidence they probably scraped from Wikipedia about a 22 year old attack and faking relevance to today.
Meantime, here's some headlines:
Assad Personally Oversaw the Development of Nerve Gas for Use on His Own People
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/.premium-1.793269
Money stolen by Russian mob linked to man sanctioned for supporting Syria's chemical weapons program
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/16/politics/russian-mob-syria-chemical-weapons/index.html
Could Britain have sold sarin chemicals to Assad's regime?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/08/could-britain-have-sold-sarin-chemicals-assad-syria
Assad linked to chemical attacks in Syria
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/assad-linked-to-chemical-attacks-in-syria-7401003
Mark,
On the internet, everyone can know you are a fraud, and that is why systems admins are in terrified crisis and terrorising all and sundry around them, in their own little compartmented spaces with limited place and a distinct lack of novel vital intelligence.
The BBC has lost the global plot and the lead initiative, has it not? What a sad relic and blunt useless lick spittle tool it has become.
J'accuse.
amfM, I know I can't speak for anybody but myself, but speaking as a sysadmin I'm not "in terrified crisis", nor am I "terrorising all and sundry" around me. Perhaps you could elucidate why you feel this way?
I think most of us, if pressed, would cop to "in their own little compartmented spaces with limited place and a distinct lack of novel vital intelligence." ... at least to one degree or another.
As for: "The BBC has lost the global plot and the lead initiative, has it not? What a sad relic and blunt useless lick spittle tool it has become."
Oh, I dunno ... With all the advertising revenue they get from BBC America, I rather suspect they are a pretty happy and sharp organization, overall. They are certainly paying their own way, and probably turning a handsome profit!
True story, posting anonymously to protect the guilty: The wife & I over here in the US of A opened accounts in a local Credit Union. To fund, we wrote a check on our account at the other Big Bank in town. Check was flagged by Big Bank's fraud unit. .... !!! Can you see how it will work in the future? All statements coming out of the White House will auto-flagged as False ... or, all statements coming from the White House being auto-flagged as 100% true ... depending on the political persuasion of the organization responsible for categorizing. And so it will go, until the swirl goes down the drain...
"A statement coming out of the White House" should give rise to the following news story:
"The White House today issued a statement that..."
See the form? "X said Y". All the algorithm has to do is look at the White House news page (here, if you're interested) and see if the statement is there or not. If it is, then it's Real.
Determining the veracity of 'Y' - that is a whole different project, and the algorithm shouldn't be attempting it.
Any story that takes any form other than "X said Y" IS NOT NEWS, either fake or real. The sooner we all grasp that, the sooner we can start parsing the real news from the fake.
>See the form? "X said Y".
Wasn't this what CNN did, reporting what Buzzfeed had reported, but omitted all the caveats and buzzfeed's "we think this isn't actually true" statements?
You don't need to tell untruths to lie.
@P.Lee's "You don't need to tell untruths to lie."
Exactly!
"[some] people are saying..." is one of those weasely little phrases that journalists and others prefix opinions or editorial lines with to create the illusion of false consensus. Some people say that the Register is the only tech news site worth reading. People are saying that Corbyn is unelectable. etc. etc.
It's a surprisingly effective way of spreading lies, because these 'framing devices' are not direct lies. The most effective lies are ones that are difficult to check, such as "an intelligence agency spokesman who declined to be named said that they are convinced that Y has happened, that Z is responsible, and alternative explanations P and Q are not even worth discussing". And we're even invited to go to war on the basis of such fragments! It's not Macedonian kids chasing click bait dollars that are pushing this stuff, it's the most hallowed names in mainstream media.
"some people are saying..." is also a variant of X said Y. The reputation and identity of X (i.e. X's "ethos") has a direct bearing on the plausibility of the news. We'd do well to remember that even those with good reputations, such as Amnesty International or Medecins Sans Frontieres, have been known to peddle falsehoods.
If we could point at the mainstream media and say "Behold! What an impressive record of truth-telling! Your puny fake news site can't begin to compete with the ethos of those guys!" But we can't. Too many lies have spewed out. Too few retractions have occurred. It's business as usual. There's close to zero fact-checking performed on press releases, and there's close to zero recognition on the part of mainstream news organs that there is even a problem with their own editorial approaches. I put the blame squarely at the door of the news editors, PR specialists and intelligence experts who have systematically corrupted the so-called liberal media for decades. (That's 'liberal' in the classical sense btw, not the US journalistic idiom).
This problem is at least as old as Aristotle, who defined rhetoric not as "the art of persuasion", but as "the art of seeing the persuasive in any situation". The difference is important because it implies that some times you just have to accept that the other guy/journalist has a better argument/story. And not necessarily because they're right.
(And perhaps change tactic as a result).
Friend of mine, Nicholas S.J. Davies, who is author of a work on the Iraq War, points us to the analysis by retired Col. Patrick Lang (formerly of the US DIA - he was a whistle-blower on Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran when he worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1980s.) If you Google for Col. Lang and Syria and "analysis" it should give you the link to the piece he wrote about this whole episode.
I had heard something about uncertainty that the poisonous gas was sarin. Col. Lang writes: "We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called 'first responders' handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through 'Live Agent' training at Fort McClellan in Alabama."
The rest of the article is convincing enough (to me) to create doubt that the US is telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The so-called 'first responders' handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died.
The Sarin, if it had been on the victims for more than 30 minutes might no longer be toxic.
That throws some doubt on the uncertainty
I did that search, and it led me to gosint.wordpress.com.
Which is a very interesting blog, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. But I don't see any indication that it's, itself, a trustworthy source. Retired military officers, analysts, diplomats etc. have a valid point of view, and I'm sure it's worth listening to them - but they don't have a hotline to absolute truth.
What gets my suspicions up slightly is that the whole blog has a distinctly pro-Putin slant. It doesn't wear it on its sleeve, but you can detect it in, e.g., the uncritical reporting of Putin's own statements, as opposed to the deeply sceptical view of everyone else's. (For instance: check out this story about "the Kremlin's information war". Note how it leads off with a Russian government statement, and every specific allegation against the Russians is followed by a parallel counter-allegation against someone else. That's - a lot of trouble someone is going to, to present the Russian point of view "fairly".)
I would urge scepticism, even when reading sceptics.
No one in their right minds would use poison gas in Syria except as a false flag operation.
Its tactically almost useless and strategically a disaster.
It has marginal use as a terrorist weapon.
who deployed it and what their purpose was depends on which tinfoil hat you choose.
The only thing that is near certain is that whatever ever we are being told is not the truth.
"No one in their right minds would use poison gas in Syria except as a false flag operation."
Don't assume everyone who uses poison has is in their right mind. Plus, what if it's being used strategically on the assumption it will be interpreted as a false flag attack when it's really not? "I know you I know," eh?
"Its tactically almost useless and strategically a disaster."
Please specify why, particularly in regards to a target population/area the user cares little about, meaning indiscriminate casualties don't matter.
"It has marginal use as a terrorist weapon."
But what about as a state weapon? Again, against a target the leader doesn't care about.
"No one in their right minds would use poison gas in Syria except as a false flag operation."
I agree. It's possible some military commander, or even Assad's government, went mad but I think it's more likely that the whole thing was arranged in order to manipulate public opinion or justify some action. People suspecting that it's a false flag operation only slightly weakens the effect on public opinion. Most people prefer to believe the official story because it takes less effort and is less depressing.
"Its tactically almost useless"
What? Seriously? It is the chemical equivalent of a neutron bomb. It kills the people and leaves their stuff: buildings, personal wealth, etc.. Tactically, it is the PERFECT weapon. Too perfect, in fact. That is why it was outlawed. That is why the neutron bomb was not pursued. It is too easy/ tempting to kill all of the people and take everything that is their's.
They do not think deeply or with critical thinking. They do not question the evidence presented.
They are sheep who actively seek out confirmation bias of their poorly considered opinions.
Click bait and fake news is what they love. Its a multi billion dollar revenue stream for google and facebook.
It will get worse not better because most people are idiots.
It's all relative...
Welders know little of the physics of welding and those who study physics can't weld for shit.
A "fake news" filter could easily be installed client-side to filter out anything in direct conflict with the users bias and it would be 99% accurate. To cite the current example in this thread, I'll venture that a vanishingly small number of us have even been to Syria, let alone seen any of the conflict first-hand. Therefore we all spout our opinions based solely on what we've been fed by our sources of choice. Were any of the reporters even there, or are they just relaying third-hand information to us after writing in their own editorial spin?
Also wise to remember that the "stupid" people you talk down about here (those who don't confirm your current views on what makes a human intelligent) not only vastly outnumber you, but also perform tasks of equal or greater value than you and won't even notice if your contributions as a highly evolved paragon of humanity cease to exist tomorrow.
Unless you're the guy who fixes potholes in the road. They are a blessing upon this earth and should be appreciated as such.
This is probably mostly about human decisions here being assisted by machine ones, though the fully machine decisions also matter, e.g. what is the probability this email came from a spammer, or what is the probability this prospective customer will pay ?
Verification of what to believe first and foremost depends upon who said something. If it's said by someone you've never heard of, do cryptographically verifiable assurances exist from trustworthy assurers that the person who said this is generally honest ? E.G. Has the Guardian's/BBC's/Telegraph's/(choose your media poison) known key signed that this person is on their staff ? Or is this person a friend of a friend known to have good judgement about choice of friends ?
If assertions of fact e.g. in Wikipedia have verifiable chains of trust to more than one strong trust source, these assertions are likely to be considered as more reliable than assertions with only 1 chain to a weaker source. Trusting a key holder to be a good verifier of one variable which matters, (e.g. identity or veracity or honesty ) doesn't automatically make it a good verifier of other variables.
Building this key infrastructure is something the social networks which already know about who knows whom or who reads what will have a natural advantage. And it's an inherently Metcalfe Law monopoly position liable to be exploited in ways which probably aren't in all of our best interests - if we think a little about what the banks have done to everyone else historically. Privacy requires we are able to speak with different digital personae in different contexts each of which may have its own reputation as perceived and verified by others.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Shannon clearly denoted equivocation as the basis for security, but this is ignored by mathematical cryptographers. Shannon defined security as the state when AFTER a brute-force attack, there are two or more viable messages."
Did Shannon ALSO consider the kind of "brute force" that involves a wrench?
Hyper encryption? You mean "perpetual encryption"? Sounds about as plausible as a perpetual motion machine. After all, how do you encrypt something such that it continually updates itself even if it's frozen in time? Sorry, but my BS sense is off the charts with your talk, especially since no web searching whatsoever (not even privacy-hardered searches or using darknets) has uncovered any kind of independent verification of your techniques.
Face facts. EVERYTHING made by man can be UNmade. Not even the one-time pad is bulletproof (that's why I mentioned the wrench, as evoked by the famous xkcd comic #538). How do you beat "Rubber-Hose Cryptanalysis" other than being a masochist or a wimp?
Its obvious you have no understanding of military cryptography or equivocation. Don't be upset, most security "experts" don't either.
Let me educate you. Hyper encryption is encryption with three or more independent encryption algorithms.
"Perpetual encryption" is just a name created for it, because the encryption keys are updated in a perpetual manner. The OTP key creation entropy and the encrypted message are sent at the same time.
The message is constant. But the key used to encrypt the message is dynamic and changed with every encryption block. So the same message if encrypted with the same key, will produce a different ciphertext. There is no relationship between ciphertext and message, given the same key.
Let me explain. Encryption is usually message M + key K = cyphertext C. We use an additional variable so that M + K + R(Random) = C. So using the same message and key will produce a different ciphertext because of the random sequence R. Usually, M(1) + K(2) will always = C(3). In our case, M(1) + K(2) + R(?, say 7) will produce C(?10). Note that a different M and K may produce the same C M(3) + K(7) + R(0) will also = C(10).
The point is this stuff can be graphically depicted. One can visualize information security, by plotting the message and key equivocation of a cipher. A cipher with no equivocation graph, is really just snakeoil and has not been properly analysed. In military cryptography, we create equivocatiuon graphs for all ciphers since it tells us how much ciphertext we need to break the cipher. AES 256 is snakeoil, it's pseudo security, incapable of securing any message beyond 40 characters (assuming all languages have similar redundancy).
So, one does not encrypt something such that it continuously updates itself. Once encrypted the cyphertext is frozen in time as you say. However, the random entropy used to update the encryption process can be extracted in reverse.
At the time you responded, we were still working in secret, and no public information on the cipher was available. However, the cipher has been subsequently approved for patenting by WIPO and our US patent has been approved. Look up "Equivocation Augmentation".
The other thing I wanted to mention, is that people's opinions are in general BS. Science does not depend on people's opinions. Either the cipher holds up to scientific experimentation or its does not. Note that current crypto has no scientific basis for credibility, just the opinions of mathematicians that some maths problems are "hard". This condition is about to be blow completely out of the water.
You really think that it's impossible to break RSA 1024 quickly? That's the same mistake the Germans made during the war.
Your facts suck. Don't confuse physical reality with digital reality. Some maths problems cannot be solved (why the one-time pad works). Take a number between 1 and 64. All you know is that the number is divisible by 8. Exactly which number is it? Unmake that problem. Oh, and I don't know which one it is either. so keep your hose where you keep it.
Jesus buddy, did you go to school? Because my ignoramous meter has just gone 720. Please tell me that you purpose to life is greater than just talking rubbish.
And let me put it this way. We're not in a Ghost in the Shell world where the human body can directly grok encrypted data. Meaning in order to properly process the data, it MUST be presented to our eyes, ears, etc. in an unencrypted form. This is what's known as being outside the encryption envelope, and this is a pepretual weak link in any encryption system. Transitively proven:
a. Human-readable data must be unencrypted to be understood.
b. Unencrypted data can be read (aka stolen) by someone else.
c. Therefore, human-readable data can be read (aka stolen) by someone else.
So, no encryption system known to man can fully stop "rubber-hose cryptanalysis", or as xkcd so concisely condenses it, "the wrench". Only two types of people I can see can defeat the wrench: masochists who get off on pain, and wimps who faint at the mere threat of violence. But even that can be blunted by threatening people the victim holds dear (and it's a rare person to NOT have someone he or she holds dear).
Happened ages ago. About 6 years ago, our website was attacked by a botnet, which ran hack attempt scripts 24/7. Since it was impossible to block its attempts by hand, I wrote an IDS/IPS, which would analyse the content of every connection, identify possible hack attempts, and add a firewall rule, blocking the IP address. It would then look up the owner of the address, and send an email which included the log file extract containing the hack query. The ISP would then cancel the zombie account.
Over the last 6 years, this system has been running unattended, swatting incoming hacks from zombie machines running automated hack scripts, and removing these parasites from the internet.
Everyone should do this - I might even give away the source code to encourage it...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
