The disclosure follows a report by Gizmodo, which said the artificial intelligence tech was being used to analyse drone footage.

The news site said that many of the search giant’s workers only learned of the collaboration last week via internal emails.

It added that some were “outraged”.

A spokeswoman for Google said that the tie-up involved the provision of software tools to let the US Department of Defense (DoD) make use of its TensorFlow machine learning code.

“The technology flags images for human review, and is for non-offensive uses only,” she added.

“Military use of machine learning naturally raises valid concerns.

“We’re actively discussing this important topic internally and with others as we continue to develop policies and safeguards around the development and use of our machine learning technologies.”

Although Google’s former chairman Eric Schmidt became an advisor to the Pentagon in 2016, the firm has otherwise been cautious about being linked to the US military.

It previously pulled one of its robots from a Pentagon-organised competition, despite it being the favourite to win, in part because of such concerns.

Data glut
Gizmodo identified the drone initiative involved as being Project Maven – a scheme announced last July to use computer algorithms to identify objects of concern from “massive amounts of moving or still imagery”.

The idea is to focus human efforts on sections of footage flagged for further analysis and avoid them having them having to wade through all the other hours of recorded material.

The DoD said that its immediate focus would be 38 classes of objects related to the fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.

“There is no ‘black box’ that delivers the AI system the government needs, at least not now,” said Colonel Drew Cukor at the time.

“The only way to do that is with commercial partners alongside us.”

Google declined to discuss its involvement further.

But the BBC understands that the algorithms it has shared were not designed for face detection, but were instead developed to identify generic objects including cars, birds and trees. It is believed that they are not being used to fly or otherwise operate the drones themselves.

Google is not the only US firm to be involved.

Chip-maker Nvidia has previously blogged about Project Maven and is also understood to be working with the DoD on the effort.

One expert said the relatively cheap cost of operating drones such as the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper had led to a glut of video material.

“The vast quantities of data produced by the US Air Force and CIA – as well as allies like the UK who operate these [drones] in conflict zones like Iraq and Afghanistan – have long outstripped the processing and exploitation capacity of the traditional human-centric intelligence processing organisations within these countries,” commented Justin Bronk, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think tank.

“As a leading developer of AI technology, Google is an obvious choice for the DoD to partner with, albeit one whose employees and shareholders might be less than 100% enthusiastic about the prospect of working with the military.”

Mr Bronk added that the UK’s Royal Air Force had an even more acute shortage of imagery intelligence analysts, and would probably wish to share access to Google’s AI tech if that became possible.

The BBC has asked the Ministry of Defence for comment.

–

Source: BBC

The post Google tech used by Pentagon ‘to analyse drone videos’ appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

He is challenging Google’s decision not to remove a criminal conviction he has from the 1990s from search results.

People can ask for online information to be removed from searches if they feel it is outdated or irrelevant.

Google said it would “defend the public’s right to access lawful information”.

“We work hard to comply with the right to be forgotten, but we take great care not to remove search results that are clearly in the public interest and will defend the public’s right to access lawful information,” the firm said in a statement.

The search giant has been asked to delist nearly two million search results in Europe, and has removed more than 800,000 of them.

The right to be forgotten is a legal precedent set by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2014, following a case brought by Spaniard Mario Costeja Gonzalez, asking Google to remove information about his financial history.

The UK case revolves around a businessman who wants Google to delete links to a criminal conviction for false accounting in the late 1990s. His conviction is deemed spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The man cannot be named due to reporting restrictions surrounding the case.

The man is being represented by law firm Carter-Ruck, which has yet to respond to requests for comment.

The General Data Protection Regulation, a sweeping change of EU data rules, is due to come into force in May and aims to extend the law to make it easier for citizens to have content removed.

The current case is being heard by Mr Justice Warby and is expected to last several days.

A similar case is due to be heard next month.

–

Source: BBC

The post Google in historic ‘right to be forgotten’ challenge appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

In 2017, Getty Images complained to the European Commission, accusing Google of anti-competitive practices.

Google said it had removed some features from image search, including the “view image” button.

Getty Images said it was a “significant milestone” but critics said the move was “a step backwards”.

Why did Getty Images complain?

Getty Images is a photo library that sells the work of photographers and illustrators to businesses, newspapers and broadcasters.

It complained that Google’s image search made it easy for people to find Getty Images pictures and take them, without the appropriate permission or licence.

Google’s image search feature had a button labelled “view image” that would open an individual picture in the web browser, making it easy to download.

People could find and take images – albeit not in high quality and usually watermarked – without visiting the Getty Images website.

How has Google responded?

As part of its agreement with Getty Images, the “view image” button has been removed.

While it is still easy for people to download an image, people are now encouraged to trawl through the website it appears on to find it.

Google said the change would “help connect users and useful websites”.

Critics said the change made Google Images harder to use
It also removed the “search by image” button, which was an easy way of finding larger copies of photographs.

Getty Images said Google had also agreed to display image copyright information more prominently next to results.

‘Terrible idea’

“For those asking, yes, these changes came about in part due to our settlement with Getty Images this week,” Google said.

“They are designed to strike a balance between serving user needs and publisher concerns, both stakeholders we value.”

But critics said the changes were “awful”, “user-unfriendly” and “degraded the product”.

“This is a terrible idea… you find an image on Google Images only for the image to be nowhere in sight,” said one user on Twitter. “Talk about destroying your own successful service.”

Many suggested people should try rival image search engines such as Bing, which still have a “view image” button.

Others pointed out that right-clicking an image in Google’s Chrome browser, and clicking “open image in new tab” replicated the missing function.

In a statement, Getty Images said: “We are pleased to announce that after working cooperatively with Google over the past months, our concerns are being recognised and we have withdrawn our complaint.”

–

Source: BBC

The post Anger at Google image search ‘peace deal’ appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Ride-sharing firm Uber is being sued by Waymo, the self-driving company spun out of Google.

Uber is accused of stealing and using trade secrets relating to Lidar (light detection and ranging) – one of the technologies that enables an autonomous car to understand what is happening around it.

While bitter and expensive legal disputes between tech companies are common, it’s rare for these tussles to be played out in public and in front of a jury – and that’s what we’ll see over the next three or so weeks.

At stake is a potential damages payout of hundreds of millions of dollars. Or, perhaps worse, an injunction to halt, or at least hinder, Uber’s self-driving research. This would be a big blow to the company, which once said leading the way in self-driving tech was critical to its survival.

Waymo will make its case first, and then it will be up to Uber to defend itself.

What is the accusation?
The row centres around a man named Anthony Levandowski, a former Google employee considered a leading mind in autonomous research.

He worked on Google’s self-driving programme before leaving in January 2016. It is alleged that when he left, he took with him more than 14,000 confidential documents, which were blueprints and other technical information about Lidar.

He then founded Otto, an autonomous trucking company, which after less than a year was acquired by Uber for $680m (£481m). It formed the basis of Uber’s self-driving division, and Mr Levandowski was at the helm.

Waymo alleges this whole process was an elaborate charade, and that Uber, specifically then-chief executive Travis Kalanick, was in talks with Mr Levandowski before he left Google.

Otto was merely a front for Uber’s plan to pinch their technology, Waymo claims.

Uber denies this version of events, though not entirely. It’s not disputing the documents were taken, but insists it didn’t gain anything whatsoever from them.

The crucial point Waymo will need to prove is that not only did Uber have the documents, but that it used them to gain an advantage of some kind.

What are the trade secrets?
In the original filing, Waymo cited 121 secrets and patents Uber was said to have stolen. That number has since been reduced to eight.

The significance of this reduction depends on which company’s spin you want to follow. In background briefings, Uber said the fact so many of the claims were dropped from the case proved they were flimsy.

Waymo said it was forced to select a handful of the most significant claims in order to have a trial that didn’t last months, or even years.

Judge William Alsup’s comments, it has to be said, seem more closely aligned with Uber’s interpretation.

He described at least one of the dismissed “secrets” as “Optics 101” – meaning, the very basics of the technology, not the kind of insight that would justify calling it a secret.

Either way, the jury will be asked to rule individually on the eight secrets. Discussions about the specifics will be off limits to press, but the jury will see each secret in detail in order to make its decision.

Part of that process will be determining whether the information could be considered a secret in the first place.

Key to Waymo’s strategy will be convincing the jury that secrets can cover failure as much as success.

If Waymo spent millions of dollars and hundreds of hours discovering that something didn’t work, is Uber capitalising on that trade secret by saving itself the effort?

Who will appear in court?
While Mr Levandowski is on the witness list, don’t expect much if he appears.

Throughout this case, he has “pleaded the Fifth” – the protection afforded by the American constitution to not say anything that could incriminate oneself. Because of this, Uber has since fired him.

Should Waymo call Mr Levandowski to the stand, we can assume it’s theatre – the man at the centre of the row refusing to speak a peep is not a great look for Uber.

We expect, within the first few days, to hear from Mr Kalanick. The controversial co-founder of Uber was forced to step down as chief executive last year following a string of scandals of which this case is but one.

We are also likely to see Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founders.

Google’s co-founders are expected to be called to the stand
Less glamorous but perhaps more useful will be the numerous Uber engineers who will be rigorously questioned about how they were directed by Mr Levandowski, and whether those stolen documents and secrets ever surfaced in Uber’s work.

Overseeing the proceedings is Judge Alsup, a favourite among journalists for his highly-quotable courtroom quips, but not a person either legal team will be looking forward to dealing with.

Judge Alsup is a force to be reckoned with: he famously learned some coding skills in order to have a better grasp on a different trial between Google and database specialist Oracle.

What are the strategies and risks?
Jury trials bring about a whole new psychology to how lawyers must approach a case. Attacks and rebuttals must be thorough but not overwhelming; simplified but not patronising.

Uber knows it could face a jury which, being from San Francisco, may already hold a negative view of the company.

During the selection process, Uber asked potential jurors if they were, had been, or just knew a taxi driver – such is the animosity over Uber’s impact on traditional business. It also asked if anyone had deleted Uber’s app in protest at various ethical decisions the company has made in recent times.

Uber’s baggage in front of the five man, five woman jury can’t be understated: Mr Kalanick has a reputation as a hard, cut-throat operator – and that’s just to his friends.

Given a past of covering up a security breach, surveilling journalists, and using secret software to evade government officials, it will hardly be a huge leap for the jury to believe Mr Kalanick wasn’t above tapping up a rival’s star employee.

Privately, Uber accuses Waymo of wanting to dumb down the jury’s technical expertise in the hope of getting jurors who know less about sophisticated technology. Waymo strongly denies this, and if it is to win it will need to do a lot more than paint Uber as some kind of tech bogeyman.

We can expect Judge Alsup to have little patience for anything that strays far from the intricate facts of the trade secrets in question.

Ultimately, it’s up to Waymo to draw a clear line, from stolen documents, to Uber’s self-driving work.

What are the potential outcomes?
Let’s consider the jury decides that Uber stole and used all the trade secrets of which it’s accused. That could mean it would have to pay more than $1bn in damages.

Calculating such an amount could be difficult, though. It’s hard to measure the real cost to Waymo given the technology is yet to be commercialised, at least in the ways these companies envision.

More straightforward would be an injunction that would stop Uber’s self-driving programme altogether.

That would be an extreme outcome – it’s more likely that any injunction would just apply to whichever trade secrets the jury decides were infringed.

As I see it, there is a scenario would allow both companies to claim a moral victory, even if, technically, the decision goes Waymo’s way.

If a jury decides Uber did steal and use trade secrets and an injunction is handed down, Uber will immediately brush it off by claiming it doesn’t use the secrets anyway.

Indeed, the company has already outsourced its Lidar needs to San Jose-based Velodyne. At most, an injunction might impact Uber’s plans to make the technology in-house.

Another outcome, of course, is that Waymo fails to convince the jury that any trade secrets were stolen, and that’s the end of that.

What is the bigger picture?
This case is being so keenly watched because it already represents an enormous argument in Silicon Valley, one about the cross-pollination of ideas and expertise.

When extraordinary brains do incredible work at powerful companies, what right do they have to take those ideas with them?

Uber unquestionably benefitted from Mr Levandowski’s expertise. But is that because of trade secrets, or simply because of who he is?

The jury won’t be asked that question, but the outcome of this case will be seen by many as providing an answer.

–

Source: BBC

The post Uber v Google: Self-drive tech clash heads to court appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The change will affect the boxed text that often appears at the top of results pages – known as a Snippet – which contains a response sourced from a third-party site.

At present, Google provides only a single box but it will sometimes show multiple Snippets in the future.

The change could help Google tackle claims it sometimes spreads lies.

But one expert warned the move introduced fresh risks of its own.

Google introduced Snippets into its search results in 2014, placing the boxed text below paid listings but above other links.

The idea is to provide information that users want without them having to click through to another page.

Google acknowledged at the time that “fact quality” would vary depending on the request.

But it has been accused of providing “shockingly bad” information in some cases, including Snippets that suggested:

• women were evil
• the food additive monosodium glutamate caused brain damage
• anti-fascist campaigners held an overly simplistic view of the world

Google offered a less controversial example of a problem, in a blog detailing its new approach.

It said that when users asked if reptiles made “good pets” they were given several reasons why the answer was yes, but if they asked if the animals made “bad pets” they were given contradictory advice.

It said this happened because its system was designed to favour content that aligned with the posed question, and suggested that offering different viewpoints would therefore be a better option.

“There are often legitimate diverse perspectives offered by publishers, and we want to provide users visibility and access into those perspective from multiple sources,” wrote Matthew Gray, Google’s Snippets chief.

But one company-watcher has doubts.

“Both Google and Facebook are trying to address claims that they played a part in disseminating misinformation,” said Joseph Evans, digital media analyst at the consultancy Enders Analysis.

“Google is addressing one of its most controversial products in this context.

“But it still looks like a refusal of responsibility to say that, ‘Sometimes we’re wrong, but we can solve the problem by offering multiple viewpoints.'”

He added Google now faced the challenge of when to present more than one point of view, as it was nearly always possible to find a source that contradicted conventional wisdom but not always wise to present it.

–

Source: BBC

The post Google Search results to give ‘diverse’ answers appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

As noted earlier today by Android Police, Google has stopped selling the Pixel C through its online store. It’s a quiet and not unexpected end for the company’s well-received tablet, designed to make room for Google’s latest and greatest.

The company confirmed with TechCrunch that the end of sale also represents the end of life for the device, though Google added that it plans to continue supporting the hardware moving forward.

“As is common when a device has been out for a few years, we’re now retiring Pixel C and it is no longer available for sale,” the company said in a statement. “However, we are committed to updating and supporting it, including the recent update to Android 8.0, so customers can continue to get the best out of their device.”

And, of course, the statement wouldn’t be complete without a plug for its new premium Chromebook. “Our newly launched Google Pixelbook combines the best parts of a laptop and a tablet for those looking for a versatile device.”

Frederic gave the tablet good marks in a review back in 2015, but noted, “There is a market for the C, but I think it’ll be a small one.” That seems to be the case with many of the Google-branded devices, which means the company is essentially competing against itself for a relatively small slice of market share.

The shift from the C to Pixelbook does represent something of a larger trend for the industry in recent years, as many have moved from slates to convertibles. The Pixelbook isn’t as slim as a standalone tablet, and there are certain sacrifices when shifting between any form factors, but it’s a pretty solid tablet replacement for most instances. It’s also a much more well-rounded computing device.

The one big caveat here, however, is the price. The Pixel C started at $599 (plus keyboard); the Pixelbook’s lowest SKU is $999. The tablets of the future are going to be much more versatile than their predecessors — and it’s definitely going to cost you.

The post Google retires the Pixel C tablet as it shifts focus to the Pixelbook appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Google is exploring the idea of physical stores after finding an encouraging response to more than a dozen pop-up stores opened in malls across the country to showcase the second generation Pixel phones, the newspaper reported.

Google responded to a Reuters query saying that it does not comment on rumors or speculations.

India is the world’s second biggest wireless market with 1.2 billion mobile subscribers, which is currently dominated by South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (005930.KS), and Chinese players including Xiaomi, Oppo and Vivo.

–

Source: Reuters

The post Google looking to launch stores in India to boost Pixel sales appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Amazon said it removed them to end customer confusion about which services were available on which device.

Analysts said it was because they let people watch services that competed with Amazon’s Prime Video.

Google retaliated by blocking access to YouTube on some Amazon gadgets and threatening further restrictions.

In September, Google stopped YouTube playing on the Amazon Echo Show. It said it took the step because the way Amazon got the video-sharing service working on the device was “broken”.

It also threatened to stop Amazon Fire TV sticks getting access to YouTube from January 2018.

‘Productive discussions’

The search giant said it took the decisions because of a lack of “reciprocity” by Amazon.

In response, Amazon criticised Google saying its actions hurt customers of both firms.

The row is also believed to have been behind Amazon’s decision to stop selling Google’s smart home speakers last month.

Amazon’s decision to restock some Google products is believed to have emerged from “productive discussions” the two have had to end the dispute.

A Google statement said it hoped the dialogue would result in further co-operation with Amazon.

“We hope we can reach an agreement to resolve these issues soon,” the company told tech news site CNet.

No information was given about whether Google smart home products would go back on sale.

Earlier this week Amazon also started selling Apple TV devices – a move believed to be linked to Apple making Prime Video available via its platform.

–

Source: BBC

The post Amazon backs down in Google streaming spat appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Google said the facility will be the first its kind in Asia and will aim to employ local talent.

Silicon Valley is focusing heavily on the future applications for AI.

China has also indicated strong support for AI development and catching up with the US.

Research into artificial intelligence has the potential to improve a range of technologies, from self-driving cars and automated factories to translation products and facial recognition software.

In a blog post on the company’s website, Google said the new research centre was an important part of its mission as an “AI first company”.

“Whether a breakthrough occurs in Silicon Valley, Beijing or anywhere else, [AI] has the potential to make everyone’s life better for the entire world,” said Fei-Fei Li, chief scientist at Google Cloud AI and Machine Learning.

The research centre, which joins similar facilities in London, New York, Toronto and Zurich, will be run by a small team from its existing office in Beijing.

The tech giant operates two offices in China, with roughly half of its 600 employees working on global products, company spokesperson Taj Meadows told AFP.

But Google’s search engine and a number of other services are banned in China. The country has imposed increasingly strict rules on foreign companies over the past year, including new censorship restrictions.

China has for many years censored content it sees as politically sensitive, using an increasingly sophisticated set of filters that critics have called the “great firewall.”

At the same time, China has been expanding its push into artificial intelligence. In July, China announced its national plan for AI, calling for the country to catch up with the US.

–

Source: BBC

The post Google to open artificial intelligence centre in China appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Susan Wojcicki said some users were exploiting YouTube to “mislead, manipulate, harass or even harm”.

She said the website, owned by Google, had used “computer-learning” technology that could find extremist videos.

More than 150,000 of these videos have been removed since June, she said.

In March, the UK government suspended its adverts from YouTube, following concerns they were appearing next to inappropriate content.

And in a speech at the United Nations general assembly in September, UK Prime Minister Theresa May challenged tech firms to take down terrorist material in two hours.

The prime minister has repeatedly called for an end to the “safe spaces” she says terrorists enjoy online.

Ms Wojcicki said that staff had reviewed nearly two million videos for violent extremist content since June.

This is helping to train the company’s machine learning technology to identify similar videos, which is enabling staff to remove nearly five times as many videos as they were previously, she said.

She said the company was taking “aggressive action” on comments, using technology to help staff find and shut down hundreds of accounts and hundreds of thousands of comments.

And its teams “work closely with child safety organisations around the world to report predatory behaviour and accounts to the correct law enforcement agencies”.

Meanwhile, police in the UK have warned that sex offenders are increasingly using live online streaming platforms to exploit children.

Earlier this year, Google announced it would give a total of £1m ($1.3m) to fund projects that help counter extremism in the UK.

And, in June, YouTube announced four new steps it was taking to combat extremist content:

• Improving its use of machine learning to remove controversial videos
• Working with 15 new expert groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
• Tougher treatment for videos that are not illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of its policies on hate speech and violent extremism
• Redirecting people who search for certain keywords towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages

Calum Chace, author of Surviving AI and The Economic Singularity, said that machine learning is developing fast.

“People are often unduly cynical about the prospects for AI because they judge it by what is possible today,” he said.

“They forget that our machines are on an exponential growth curve: they get twice as powerful every 18 months or so. This means that we are just at the beginning of their story.

“Although YouTube’s automated systems are probably among the best in the world since it is a subsidiary of Google, they need human support. For now.”

–

Source: BBC

The post Google pledges 10,000 staff to tackle extremist content appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.