A study by the University of Copenhagen and Roskilde University has revealed that computer problems are responsible for us wasting between 11 and 20 per cent of our time.

How The Study Worked 

The study involved 234 participants, in varying jobs (and education) including students, accountants, consultants and IT workers who spent between six and eight hours in front of a computer in their day-to-day work. The researchers told them to report the situations in which the computer would not work properly, or where they were frustrated about not being able to perform the task they wanted.

The Results 

The results showed that on average, we waste between 11 and 20 per cent of our time in front of our computers on systems that do not work or that are so difficult to understand that we simply cannot perform the task we want to.

Some of the problems most often reported by participants included: “the system was slow,” “the system froze temporarily,” “the system crashed,” “it is difficult to find things.”

The two biggest categories of problems revealed by the study were insufficient performance and lack of user-friendliness. Also, the participants in the survey said that 84 per cent of the episodes had occurred before and that 87 per cent of the episodes could happen again.

The Reasons? 

According to Professor Kasper Hornbæk, one of the researchers, one the main reasons they still malfunction so much (even though computers are now better than 15 years ago), is “ordinary people aren’t involved enough when the systems are developed”. 

Professor Morten Hertzum, the other researcher behind the study, also highlights that some issues seem to keep occurring, saying: “The frustrations are not due to people using their computers for something highly advanced, but because they experience problems in their performance of everyday tasks. This makes it easier to involve users in identifying problems. But it also means that problems that are not identified and solved will probably frustrate a large number of users.” 

Also, the Professor points out, user-expectations play a part in their experience of computer issues. For example, the professor says that although “Our technology can do more today, and it has also become better” it seems that “at the same time, we expect more from it”. He cites the example that, “Even though downloads are faster now, they are often still experienced as frustratingly slow. ” 

Lost Productivity 

With 88 per cent of Danes using computers, laptops, smartphones, tablets, or other mobile devices at work (2018), the results of the study show that computer problems could be having a massive impact on productivity, perhaps a half to an entire day of a normal working week may be wasted on computer problems.

Also, as Professor Hornbæk points out, daily computer problems cause “a lot of frustrations for the individual user.”  

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

If the UK businesses experience similar levels of computer problems as those suggested by this study, many may be losing money daily from the negative effects on productivity. There’s clearly room for improvement and, as highlighted by the researchers suggest, “there are no poor IT users, only poor systems” and that IT developers involving users more when designing the systems to make them as easy to use and understand may go some way towards reducing time lost through computer problems.

As the researchers highlighted, making users look at an incomprehensible box with commands or a frozen computer screen when problems occur may likely cause frustration and stress. Instead, if the computer could solve the problems without displaying commands/boxes while providing a back-up version of the system for users, this could help by enabling users to continue their work. Those designing computer systems / operating systems therefore need to take account not just of modern demands and expectations of computers, but should also focus on maximising user-friendliness, addressing common problems, and providing simple backup / workaround routes that could keep work and productivity flowing and save businesses money.

This may be an area of opportunity where AI could help in designing systems, monitoring, and diagnosing problems, ironing-out faults as they occur, and in providing help and directions to users.

FORTRAN Developed : 20th September

Q. Why Do Python Programmers Wear Specs?

A – Because they don’t see sharp!

That’s a programming humour for you. And talking of programming, there’s currently an explosion of code being auto-generated by AI and before long, human-coders may go the way of the early switchboard operators. Hmm, possibly!

Yet can you imagine painstakingly programming computers, line-by-line with assembly language, punched-cards and needing almost infinite patience? Yet that’s what life was like before “High-Level” languages came along and compiled the assembly language to make life easier.

69 Years Old This Week

One such language was reportedly first run this week in September, 1954 – 69 years ago. It was called “FORTRAN”, short for Formula Translating (depending on whom you ask) and developed for an early IBM machine (which still used vacuum tubes). The contemporary coding community were sceptical it would actually be any good, yet it quickly took off like wildfire. So if you’ve ever programmed in a language like BASIC or PASCAL at school (i.e. before all the web languages came along), you can thank FORTRAN as an early pioneer.

It was adopted enthusiastically largely because 20 lines of code in assembly language could be accomplished in just one line with Fortran. In fact, John Backus, the inventor of it reportedly said “Much of my work has come from being lazy“, during a interview with IBM’s ‘Think’ magazine.

He went on to say “I didn’t like writing programs, and so, when I was working on the IBM 701, writing programs for computing missile trajectories, I started work on a programming system to make it easier to write programs.”

Still In Use Today

And while it’s relatively ancient, it’s still in use today! Primarily crafted for engineers and scientists, it continues to be employed in areas such as fluid dynamics calculations, economic modelling, computational physics, climate simulations, computational chemistry and astronomy.

The next time you’re having to shout due to a poor signal on your mobile-phone, spare a thought for lonely NASA probes Voyager 1 and Voyager 2. The first one is now around 15 billion miles away and the signal takes over 22 hours to reach back to earth, yet it still functions after approaching fifty years in space and it was originally programmed in FORTRAN.

Not bad for something originally created by a “lazy” programmer!

In an apparent admission of defeat, the UK government has conceded that requiring scanning of platforms like WhatsApp for messages with harmful content, as required in the Online Safety Bill, is not (currently) feasible.

The ‘Spy Clause’ 

Under what’s been dubbed the ‘spy clause’ (Clause 122) in the UK’s Online Safety Bill, the government had stated Ofcom could issue notices to messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal (which use end-to-end encryption) that would allow the deployment of scanning software. The reason given was to scan for child sex abuse images on the platforms. However, the messaging apps argued that this would effectively destroy the end-to-end encryption, an important privacy feature valued by customers. This led to both WhatsApp and Signal threatening to pull their services out of the UK if the Bill went through with the clause in it.

Also, some privacy groups, like the Open Rights Group, argued that forcing the scanning of private messages on apps amounted to an expansion of mass surveillance.

Climbdown 

However, in a recent statement to the House of Lords junior arts and heritage minister Lord Stephen Parkinson announced that the government would be backing down on the issue. Lord Parkinson said: “When deciding whether to issue a notice, Ofcom will work closely with the service to help identify reasonable, technically feasible solutions to address child sexual exploitation and abuse risk, including drawing on evidence from a skilled persons report. If appropriate technology which meets these requirements does not exist, Ofcom cannot require its use.” 

In other words, the technology that enables scanning of messages without violating encryption doesn’t currently exist and, therefore, under the amended version of the bill, WhatsApp and Signal will not be required to have their messages scanned (until such technology does exist).

This is a significant climbdown for the government which has been pushing for ‘back doors’ and scanning of encrypted apps for many years, particularly since it was revealed that the London Bridge terror attack appeared to have been planned via WhatsApp.

Victory – Signal & WhatsApp 

Writing on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter), Meredith Whittaker, the president of Signal, said the government’s apparent climbdown was “a victory, not a defeat” for the tech companies. She also admitted, however, that it wasn’t a total victory, saying “we would have loved to see this in the text of the law itself.”

Also posting on ‘X,’ Will Cathcart, head of WhatsApp said that WhatsApp “remains vigilant against threats” to its end-to-end encryption service, adding that “scanning everyone’s messages would destroy privacy as we know it. That was as true last year as it is today.” 

Omnishambles 

Following the news of the government’s ‘spy clause’ climbdown, privacy advocates the Open Rights Group’ (ORG) highlighted the fact that on the one hand, the government had conceded that the technology that would have been needed to scan messages didn’t exist, while on the other hand appeared they to say they hadn’t conceded.  Describing the matter as an “omnishambles,” the ORG highlighted how during an appearance on Times radio, Michelle Donelan MP said that, “We haven’t changed the bill at all” and that “further work to develop the technology was needed.” 

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

For apps like WhatsApp and Signal, this is not only a victory against government pressure but is also good news for business as, presumably, they will continue to operate in the UK market.

This is also good news for many UK businesses that routinely use WhatsApp as part of their business communications and won’t need to worry (for the time being) about having their commercially (and personally) sensitive messages scanned, thereby posing a risk to privacy and security, and perhaps increasing the risk of hacks and data breaches. It appears that the UK government has been forced to admit the technology does not yet exist that can scan messages on end-to-end encrypted services and maintain the integrity of that end-to-end encryption at the same time. It also appears that it may realistically take quite some time (years) before this technology exists, thereby making the victory all the sweeter for the encrypted apps.

The government’s climbdown on ‘clause 122’ (the ‘spy clause’), is also being celebrated by the many privacy groups that have long argued against it on the grounds of it enabling mass surveillance.

In this insight, we look at how, according to an investigation by Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet (SvD), criminals may have been using Spotify to launder money since 2019.

How? 

The reported money laundering process, which was noticed by analysts from the National Operative Unit of the Swedish Police Force, involved a web of activities using a Facebook group, cryptocurrency payments and the encrypted app Telegram, the digital music streaming service Spotify, artists connected to criminal gangs and the setting up of a label.

The Process 

According to the SvD investigation, here’s an outline of how the criminal network’s money laundering process has been working:

– Bitcoin cryptocurrency is purchased (cash in hand) via a Facebook group.

– The bitcoin pays for fake streams / manipulated streams in order to make a song. For example, bots are used to simulate user behaviour by repeatedly streaming a song. The end-to-end encrypted app Telegram is used to organise the false streaming activities, e.g. using hijacked accounts, and other inauthentic methods (in addition to the bots). Possible other methods for fake streaming (some of which may be used) include click farms, VPN manipulation, algorithmic exploitation, collusive behaviour, paid services (paying others to use these methods), and more.

– The increased popularity / higher ratings of the songs as a result of the fake streams lead to more real plays / actual streams of the songs. With the artist and their labels both being linked to / owned by the criminal gangs, the laundered money then comes back as payouts via Spotify.

Only Worth It For Large Amounts 

Considering the relatively small amounts that artists receive via Spotify plays, it’s been reported that it would only have been worth operating such a process with sums exceeding several million Swedish krona (1mn SEK = approx. €84,000). This also gives an idea of how much money the criminal gangs are making before (allegedly) laundering and how much manipulation of Spotify streams may be taking place (according to reports of the SvD investigation).

How Was It Discovered? 

According to reports, the analysts at the National Operative Unit of the Swedish Police Force were actually listening to music by rappers who had published the music on Spotify since autumn 2021 in order to gather information about crimes from the lyrics. This led to the analysts noticing the unusual streaming patterns.

What Does Spotify Say? 

Spotify has acknowledged that “manipulated streams are an industry-wide challenge” but says it has not been contacted by law enforcement concerning SVD article outlining how Spotify may have been used by criminals for money laundering. Spotify also says that it hasn’t been provided with any data or “hard evidence” that its platform has been used in the way described.

How Many Fake Streams? 

Spotify says that only 1 per cent of its streams are deemed to be artificial, and its systems can detect anomalies before they reach a “significant” threshold.

However, it was recently reported (Financial Times) that there has been a suggestion by JP Morgan executives that as much as 10 per cent of all streams could be fake.

The 30-Second Track Trick 

Unfortunately for Spotify, it has also been in the news having to deny that users may have been fooling its royalty system to make money by using a ‘trick’ involving a 30-second track. It’s been alleged that users can simply repeatedly listen to their own uploaded 30-second track to make royalties. It’s been reported, for example, that analysts at JP Morgan have suggested that Spotify subscribers could make as much as £960 per a month by listening to their song on repeat, 24 hours a day.

Spotify has denied that the 30-second track money-making trick is possible on its platform saying that its royalty system doesn’t work that way.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

According to Spotify, the reports about how criminals may have been using its platform for money laundering have not been backed up with evidence and haven’t led to police enquiries. However, although Spotify suggests that fake streams only make up one per cent on its platform, it appears that others (JP Morgan analysts) suggest it could be at a much higher level. The story of the alleged money laundering and the 30-secong track allegations could also appear to suggest that Spotify’s systems may not be as good at spotting and preventing manipulation of the platform as the company thinks/says.

With AI now widely available, the potential for manipulation could be even greater and, no doubt, may be something that Spotify (and other platforms) are having to think about. Fake streaming can damage the music industry and distort ratings, thereby adversely affecting many artists.

It appears, however, that change is on the way, with Universal Music Group and Deezer announcing the joint launch of a music streaming model that’s designed to give more (royalty) money to the artists, which could put pressure on others like Spotify and Apple Music, to follow suit or at least re-examine how their owns systems work.