Uber's version of "rational self-interest" has led to further accusations of covert activity and unfair competitive behaviour. Rival ride company Lyft is suing Uber in the Californian courts, claiming that Uber used a secret software program known as "Hell" to invade the privacy of the Lyft drivers, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and Federal Wiretap Act.
This covert activity, if proven, would go way beyond normal competitive intelligence, such as that provided by firms like Slice Intelligence, which harvests and interprets receipts from consumer email. (Slice Intelligence has confirmed to the New York Times that it sells anonymized data from ride receipts from both Uber and Lyft, but declined to say who purchased this data.)
It has also transpired that Apple caught Uber cheating on the iPhone app, including fingerprinting and continuing to identify phones after the app was deleted, in contravention to App Store privacy guidelines. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick got a personal reprimand from Apple CEO Tim Cook, but the iPhone app remains on the App Store, and Uber continues to use fingerprinting worldwide.
Uber continues to be massively loss-making, and the mathematics remain unfavourable. So the critical question for the service economy is whether firms like Uber can ever become viable without turning themselves into defacto monopolies, either by political lobbying or by covert action.
Megan Rose Dickey, Uber gets sued over alleged ‘Hell’ program to track Lyft drivers
(TechCrunch, 24 April 2017)
Mike Isaac, Uber's CEO plays with fire
(New York Times, 23 April 2017)
Andrew Liptak, Uber tried to fool Apple and got caught
(The Verge, 23 April 2017)
Andrew Orlowski, Uber cloaked its spying and all it got from Apple was a slap on the wrist
(The Register, 24 Apr 2017)
Olivia Solon and Julia Carrie Wong, Hell of a ride: even a PR powerhouse couldn't get Uber on track
(Guardian, 14 April 2017)
Related PostsUber Mathematics
(Nov 2016) Uber Mathematics 2
(Dec 2016) Uber Mathematics 3
(Dec 2016)Uber's Defeat Device and Denial of Service
As the situation in Syria goes from worse to worser, the word "deconfliction" has reappeared in the press. On Friday, following a chemical attack on the Syrian population apparently by the Syrian government, the USA bombed a Syrian government airbase.
"Russian forces were notified in advance of the strike using the established deconfliction line. US military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield," said a Pentagon spokesperson.
A few hours later, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced it was suspending the deconfliction agreement, accusing the Americans of "a gross, obvious and unwarranted violation of international law".
The normal purpose of deconfliction is to avoid so-called "friendly fire". But in the case of the deconfliction line in Syria, a more practical objective would be to avoid minor incidents that might escalate into major war. (Anne McElvoy quotes a senior former British commander in Iraq talking about the jeopardy of the next crucial months in Syria: "powers tripping over each other – or America hitting the Russians by accident".) We might fondly imagine that the Pentagon and the Russian Foreign Ministry still share this objective, and will continue to share a limited amount of tactical information for that purpose, despite public disavowals of coordination. Deconfliction as minimum viable coordination.
Much less serious, and therefore more entertaining, is the "friendly fire" that has meanwhile broken out within the White House. Gun metaphors abound (cross-hairs, opened fire). Successful businessmen understand the need to establish clear division of responsibilities and loose coupling between different executives - otherwise everyone needs to consider everything, and nothing gets done. But this is not a simple matter - excessive division of responsibilities results in organizational silos. Large organizations need just enough coordination - in other words, deconfliction. It is not yet clear whether President Trump understands this, or whether he thinks he can follow President Roosevelt's approach to "creative tension".
Bethan McKernan, Syria air strikes: US 'warned Russia ahead of airbase missile bombardment'
(Independent, 7 April 2017 11:42)
May Bulman, US air strikes in Syria: Russia suspends agreement preventing direct conflict with American forces
(Independent, 7 April 2017 15:39)
Matt Gertz, Breitbart takes on Jared Kushner: Steve Bannon is shielded as Trump’s son-in-law is in the crosshairs
(Salon, 6 April 2017)
Matt Gertz, To Defend Bannon, Breitbart Has Opened Fire On The President's Son-In-Law
(Media Matters, 6 April 2017)
Anne McElvoy, Washington is confused by Trump’s act. What became of America First?
(Guardian, 9 April 2017)
Reuters, Kushner and Bannon agree to 'bury the hatchet' after White House peace talks
(Guardian, 9 April 2017)
Related PostsWhat is Deconfliction?
(March 2008)Update on Deconfliction
(November 2015)The Art of the New Deal - Trump and Intelligence
One of the interesting dynamics of the service economy lies in the dialectic opposition between open and proprietary. I have mentioned some useful conceptual models in previous posts: Amin and Cohendet have proposed a model that classifies capabilities/services according to the dimensions of knowledge intensity and trust; meanwhile, Max Boisot's iSpace model traces the dynamics of knowledge from proprietary to open.
In my post on the New Economics of Manufacturing (Nov 2015), I described some of the economic forces behind the shift away from manufacturing products (including spare parts) and towards services.
Instead of trying to sell you overpriced tyres, the car manufacturer must make sure that only its accredited partners have the software to balance the wheels properly. In other words, not just architecting the product or even the process, but architecting the whole ecosystem.
But consumers (and regulators) are fighting back. Car owners in the USA have already won the right to repair, and now the farmers of Nebraska are now fighting a similar battle against the tractor manufacturers. True openness would force the manufacturers to publish the repair manuals as well as the interfaces, and allow independent repair shops and knowledgeable consumers to repair their own equipment without relying upon some dodgy download or counterfeit component.
This matches the Boisot model of stuff flowing from the proprietary world into the open world. I'm sure there will be more examples of this to come ...
Jason Koebler, Five States Are Considering Bills to Legalize the 'Right to Repair' Electronics
(Motherboard 23 Jan 2017)
Jason Koebler, Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware
(Motherboard, 21 March 2017)
Gabe Nelson, Automakers agree to 'right to repair' deal
(Automotive News, 25 January 2014)
Olivia Solon, A right to repair: why Nebraska farmers are taking on John Deere and Apple
(Guardian, 6 March 2017)
Related postsKnowledge and Culture
(April 2006) Tesco outsources core eCommerce
(March 2009)Ecosystem SOA
(October 2009) The New Economics of Manufacturing
The TotalData™ value chain is about the flow from raw data to business decisions (including evidence-based policy decisions).
In this post, I want to talk about an interesting example of a flawed data-driven policy. The UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, is determined to reduce the number of international students visiting the UK. This conflicts with the advice she is getting from nearly everyone, including her own ministers.
As @Skapinker explains in the Financial Times, there are a number of mis-steps in this case.
- Distorted data collection. Mrs May's policy is supported by raw data indicating the number of students that return to their country of origin. These are estimated measurements, based on daytime and evening surveys taken at UK airports. Therefore students travelling on late-night flights to such countries as China, Nigeria, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and Singapore are systematically excluded from the data.
- Disputed data definition. Most British people do not regard international students as immigrants. But as May stubbornly repeated to a parliamentary committee in December 2016, she insists on using an international definition of migration, which includes any students that stay for more than 12 months.
- Conflating measurement with target. Mrs May told the committee that "the target figures are calculated from the overall migration figures, and students are in the overall migration figures because it is an international definition of migration". But as Yvette Cooper pointed out "The figures are different from the target. ... You choose what to target."
- Refusal to correct baseline. Sometimes the easiest way to achieve a goal is to move the goalposts. Some people are quick to use this tactic, while others instinctively resist change. Mrs May is in the latter camp, and appears to regard any adjustment of the baseline as backsliding and morally suspect.
If you work with enterprise data, you may recognize these anti-patterns.
David Runciman, Do your homework
(London Review of Books Vol. 39 No. 6, 16 March 2017)
Michael Skapinker, Theresa May’s clampdown on international students is a mystery
(Financial Times, 15 March 2017)International students and the net migration target: Should students be taken out?
(Migration Observatory, 25 Jun 2015) Oral evidence: The Prime Minister
(House of Commons HC 833, 20 December 2016)
TotalData™ is a trademark of Reply Ltd. All rights reserved
Last week was not a good one for the platform business. Uber continues to receive bad publicity on multiple fronts, as noted in my post on Uber's Defeat Device and Denial of Service
(March 2017). And on Tuesday, a fat-fingered system admin at AWS managed to take out a significant chunk of the largest platform on the planet, seriously degrading online retail in the Northern Virginia (US-EAST-1) Region. According to one estimate, performance at over half of the top internet retailers was hit by 20 percent or more, and some websites were completely down.
What have we learned from this? Yahoo Finance tells us not to worry.
"The good news: Amazon has addressed the issue, and is working to ensure nothing similar happens again. ... Let’s just hope ... that Amazon doesn’t experience any further issues in the near future."
Other commentators are not so optimistic. For Computer Weekly, this incident
"highlights the risk of running critical systems in the public cloud. Even the most sophisticated cloud IT infrastructure is not infallible."
So perhaps one lesson is not to trust platforms. Or at least not to practice wilful blindness when your chosen platform or cloud provider represents a single point of failure.
One of the myths of cloud, according to Aidan Finn,
"is that you get disaster recovery by default from your cloud vendor (such as Microsoft and Amazon). Everything in the cloud is a utility, and every utility has a price. If you want it, you need to pay for it and deploy it, and this includes a scenario in which a data center burns down and you need to recover. If you didn’t design in and deploy a disaster recovery solution, you’re as cooked as the servers in the smoky data center."
Interestingly, Amazon itself was relatively unaffected by Tuesday's problem. This may have been because they split their deployment across multiple geographical zones. However, as Brian Guy points out, there are significant costs involved in multi-region deployment, as well as data protection issues. He also notes that this question is not (yet) addressed by Amazon's architectural guidelines for AWS users, known as the Well-Architected Framework.
Amazon recently added another pillar to the Well-Architected Framework, namely operational excellence. This includes such practices as performing operations with code:
in other words, automating operations as much as possible. Did someone say Fat Finger?
Abel Avram, The AWS Well-Architected Framework Adds Operational Excellence
(InfoQ, 25 Nov 2016)
Julie Bort, The massive AWS outage hurt 54 of the top 100 internet retailers — but not Amazon
(Business Insider, 1 March 2017)
Aidan Finn, How to Avoid an AWS-Style Outage in Azure
(Petri, 6 March 2017)
Brian Guy, Analysis: Rethinking cloud architecture after the outage of Amazon Web Services
(GeekWire, 5 March 2017)
Daniel Howley, Why you should still trust Amazon Web Services even though it took down the internet
(Yahoo Finance, 6 March 2017)
Chris Mellor, Tuesday's AWS S3-izure exposes Amazon-sized internet bottleneck
(The Register, 1 March 2017)
Shaun Nichols, Amazon S3-izure cause: Half the web vanished because an AWS bod fat-fingered a command
(The Register, 2 March 2017)
Cliff Saran, AWS outage shows vulnerability of cloud disaster recovery
(Computer Weekly, 6 March 2017)
More Recent Articles