The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
[Cambridge Analytica], [Facebook], and Data Security.
Posts
VoteBuilder is also regulated by the DNC to prevent abuse. As you may recall, there was a big scandal about that during the 2016 primary.
All well and good until Republicans find out how to use traffic data to cheat in elections. Perhaps by figuring out how to place polling stations in Democrat areas inconveniently, so you can't just stop by after work, but must take a special trip down a congested highway with a toll road.
He also admitted to being a conduit between the Trump campaign and its super pacs, which is illegal.
Those are just protections against the government doing that. Much like the first amendment, they have nothing to do with interactions between you and another person or corporation. As far as I'm aware, the need to consent to have your data mined isn't really a legal requirement and there isn't a law stating what can and can not be captured. As far as I can tell (IANAL), it seems like the thing holding up companies from fully data mining in secret is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act because secretly recording user information can be interpreted as intercepting electronic communications, but this theory hasn't been tested due to lawsuits being dropped, dismissed, or settled out of court instead of going to any kind of trial.
Just add this to the long list of things Congress needs to fix.
I expect the next time I see him on the news it'll be because he's in a non-extraditing country. Or maybe Assange might get a bunk-mate for his Ecuadorian getaway.
I would support an international movement to develop basic standards to data privacy and upheld in international courts. When people in the UK do this to US citizens, it's not illegal in the US, but it is in the UK, and that's great and we can bring charges etc. But when it's the other way around? That's not good. We need international cooperation on how we are going to deal with big data, tech giants, social media, data harvesting, digital privacy etc, because it's something that happens in a world where national borders don't really exist in the same way, if at all.
New York and Massachusetts have opened investigations into CA and Facebook.
We also need a tech industry that doesn't react to regulation much like a vampire reacts to sunlight as well. A lot of the problems we're seeing is in part due to the tech industry's refusal to consider regulation.
It all comes back to the same people, doesn't it?
More then that what we need is a tech industry that uses a different business model because there's no way to solve this issue while basically every major new platform that comes out depends on harvesting people's private data and selling it to survive.
This Reuters story has an image slideshow and one of them is of giant storage crates being wheeled in and out of their offices en mass.
And driven away in rental vans.
Which totally doesn’t look like destroying evidence.
The Information Commissioner couldn’t get their warrant signed off on last night after all and still doesn’t have one.
To somebody closer to the company (lots of friends and acquaintances there, haven't worked there myself) it's not very surprising. All that shit is marketing.
Whereas a lot of Google employees take the "Don't be evil." mantra seriously, and Amazon is too focused on implementing the Dark Enlightenment by the book to do something this risky. Facebook (and to a lesser extent Twitter) have always been my bets because they foster an internal company culture that's all about "disrupting" because you're a privileged white tech bro and fuck the long term consequences we're changing the world man.
What was the motto? "Move fast and break things"?
Of course, now that le merde is meeting la ventilateur, Zuckerberg is nowhere to be found.
It's "la merde" and "le ventilateur"!!!
It's a hack but not the way people have come to think of them. It's not a technical exploit but it's definitely exploiting processes and behaviors. Social engineering at scale with a bunch of maths behind it. Calling it a breach was wrong on the part of the NYT though.
The most viable one I've seen proposed is using something like crypto currency miners instead of ads. Time spent on the page running the code results in a fungible resource. The only thing that makes me say it's a horrible idea is how environmentally harmful it'd be; but OTOH, more than the Trump admin?
Literally nowhere to be found:
Honestly. In my personal opinion, I remember reading a lot of editorial about how SV was the future and how it was totally A-OK that Dems got cozy with Big Data, even though many people warned "If is free, YOU are the product". Nobody gave a shit that FB and Co. were selling their data to the highest bidder until it suddenly become important. And even now, what is FB's complaint now? That CA managed to get to a bunch of data without paying them. Well, maybe they shouldn't be collecting all that data on the first place.
All of this is just the chickens coming home to roost.
It's important but it also seems to be showing a bit of a double standard.
Is a complete double standard. But someone has to take the blame of the right wing suddenly winning elections so here we go. I mean, Facebook ran out of good will a while ago, so is not like anybody is going to defend them. Anything to not feel powerless, I guess.
Which, ultimately, comes back to regulation.
I work in healthcare IT, and the existence of HIPAA changes how we perceive user medical data on a fundamental way. Even a single nonintentional breach can cost $10k, so protected health information (PHI) is treated carefully. Moreover, because the potential for breaches increases with reuse of data, we're incentivized to avoid replication wherever possible, to make sure that PHI stays secure. The lack of such regulation for user data outside of the medical arena incentivizes being loose with data, because there's no real penalty for doing so. Make some regulations where user data breaches will cost real money, and you'll see all these companies start looking at the data they harvest in a very different light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation
Yet when I tried to talk to anyone about this, or explain it; people looked at me like I was some nutty conspiracy theorist, so I eventually shut up about it.
It is a really long documentary though so sadly most people just don't have either the time or attention spans anymore.
It's good (and I am sooo glad) that CA are now getting the karmic retribution/ass-kicking they so richly deserve.
I can't vouch for the documentary, but the less sensationalistic bits are old news, yeah.
Jon Snow
Is an English journalist and television presenter, currently employed by ITN. He is best known as the longest-running presenter of Channel 4 News, which he has presented since 1989.
Meanwhile, loads of files are being carted away
George Bowden,
Reporter at HuffPost covering UK politics and news, concerned about poverty and the real world impact of policy
Is some fucking corrupt piece of shit is slowing it down so they can destroy evidence?
Sure looks like it
If hypernormalization is anything it’s another propaganda piece from the right wing.
“Both sides are bad don’t bother to vote it’s all controlled by the rich who don’t want you to wake up”. Horseshit. There is propaganda but the entire world isn’t a conspiracy to put you to sleep. It exists because governance is hard.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/20/how-cambridge-analytica-poisoned-kenyas-democracy/
Kenya
This is insane, several days, they could have time to wipe every single piece of evidence.
That seems unacceptable.
Cambridge Analytica is partially owned and was heavily funded by the Mercer family and Steve Bannon helped found it and was its vice president for a while, so yes.
One small silver lining that could come out of this is the practice of SV IPOs creating a special tier of stock designed to keep the founders in control dying a deservedly ignoble death. Several big SV firms issued their founders a special tier of stock that grants them greater vote power than common stock, giving them full control of the company. But after this fiasco among others, I could see investors getting nervous about IPOs structured like this.
I'm ok with lawsuits for what should be illegal activity and coverup
Agreed!
But complaining about losing share value after 3 days is what I have issue with. The other stuff, that's fine. It shouldn't matter if the price went down or up due to the illegal activity.
I'm not an econ professorial, but my understanding is that 1 the value continues to drop, and that 2 a 20 point drop is... quite sizeable.
But they're not just suing over losing share value. Their investors didn't have all the information they needed. Fucking up privacy concerns is an investment risk, and one that was highly unlikely to have been communicated beforehand.
If this was how corporate corruption always went down I'd be happy.
Also in order to prove standing for a lawsuit you need to show that you were harmed.