The Great Hack

[fragger]

Hey guys,

I know we agreed to confine politics to its own room, and I'm still fully in agreement with that accord, but I really think this documentary, The Great Hack, is a must-watch, if you can find it (I saw it on Netflix). It's not really a political thing anyway, although inevitably it has to at least touch on the dirty subject given the matter in question, which is the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal and how intrusive data-stealing in general has become, raising serious questions about just how much right - or not - you have to your own information. Mostly it focusses on Cambridge Analytica and how that company got brought down. It's not sensationalist (quite low-key in fact), it's objective and it doesn't take sides politically - it's about how widespread the despicable practice of data-theft and subsequent behavioural manipulation of people based on their data has become, and who is, or has been, involved. It's quite an eye-opener.

After seeing this, I'm doubly glad that I never had anything to do with FB. My advice to anyone would be to stay as far away from that damned site as possible, and to anyone who already has an account, to get rid of it, now, whether you use it much or not. I know there are plenty of other ways your data can be gotten at, and you can't stop them all unless you live in a cave on a desert island, but you can at least try not to make it easy for nefarious types to get hold of your stuff. Better than just handing all your info over to that venal bastard Zuckerberg on a silver platter so he can sell it to whoever wants it. Don't give that grubby data-merchant anything.

[Art Blade]

I think it's OK, fragger. Privacy, social media, security.. that's not politics in the first place.

Well, I have never been on any so-called social media so.. no problem for me

Without having to look for that documentary right away, here's a related recent article.. you may have heard that Zuckerberg just shrugged off a $5B penalty. Wait.. not he did, FB did. The top managers are not being held accountable..

"It doesn't fix the incentives causing these repeat privacy abuses. It doesn't stop $FB from engaging in surveillance or integrating platforms. There are no restrictions on data harvesting tactics — just paperwork," Chopra said on Twitter. "Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, and other executives get blanket immunity for their role in the violations. This is wrong and sets a terrible precedent."

https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2019/07/24/ftc-tk-in-5b-facebook-settlement-1117909

[BinnZ]

Interesting article indeed, underlining what is becoming more and more clearly; these international companies are becoming more powerful than nations, even as big as the States. It's a nasty development that was made possible by the lawlessness of internet. And capitalism as a whole. No wonder politics are being dominated by right wing conservatives, although that won't solve the problem. It will only make it worse.

[fragger]

Good article, Art. It infuriates me that Zuckerberg was able to skate over it all personally and financially unscathed. He lied his arse off when he testified before Congress (with that smug "you can't touch me" smirk barely hiding behind his face) and the "contrition" he expressed about having "done the wrong thing" was only because he'd been called out on it. Like so many other wrongdoers these days who have been caught out, it was the usual "I made a mistake" BS That *bleep* cuts no mustard with me, I'm afraid.

You make a mistake when you pick up the wrong variety of butter from the supermarket. You make a mistake when you burn your toast. Handing over the personal data of millions of your social platform's users to a company that you know full well uses that data to manipulate people online for the gain of certain political parties, and doing so for a span of well over two years, is not "making a mistake" Zuckerberg should have been taken to the cleaners for what he did, then given a good long stretch in the joint. Unfortunately, and as is pointed out in that doco, there are presently no laws on the books that address the type of personal-data abuse that CA/FB were engaged in. Not yet, anyway, but there bloody well should be, and the penalties need to be very substantial.

Because as it stands, you do not in fact have any rights to your own personal online information. Part of that doco revolved around the legal efforts of one American, an associate professor named David Carroll, as he tried to get his personal data back after it had been passed on to Cambridge Analytica by FB. Eventually, the conclusion was reached that he couldn't have it back. His own data.

But anyway. I'm not going to make this political, and I don't want it to become a political discussion - we have our space for that already. I brought all this up because I'm motivated by concern, not just for myself, but for all my friends. I think we need to be aware of this. It's not crackpot conspiracy theory - it's real, it's important, and the implications are very serious, for all of us as individuals, for our societies, and for the preservation of the democratic process as we'd like it to remain (such as it may be). I'd like to get everybody the hell off the popular social media platforms if I could - but that's not my call to make, even if I could do it. That would make me a despot, wouldn't it? All I can do is suggest.

[Art Blade]

crazy. And sad.

What I find amazing and absurd is that Zuckerberg is still greedy despite the fact that he and his company earn so much money that having to pay a five billion dollar penalty resembles a tap, not even a slap, on the wrist. Like, they may have made enough money by using their own customers' data to custom-tailor advertisements, which I find is OK given that said customers don't have to pay for the services, so it's literally a give-and-take joint venture while Zuckerberg clearly is better off because he really rolls in money generated by slipping advertisements to his customers while all they get is a chat app on their smart phone. Zuckerberg could have lead by example by investing at least some of the money into security and safety of his company's services, making sure that his source of income, his customers and subsequently, their personal data, will never get abused by third party clients. Now that the FTC called him out on that subject (it's not much more than that, is it) he has the cheek to say that he wants FB to be "a model for the industry."

[fragger]

This is a short clip from The Great Hack. It shows a "sales presentation" that was taken from the computer of former CA executive-turned-whistle-blower Brittany Kaiser and shows just what kind of stuff CA was engaged in.

This is pretty alarming stuff, not just because of the content, but of the rather amused, light-hearted and cavalier attitude of those doing the presenting. You'd think they were flogging a new line of sportswear instead of how they'd proudly messed with the minds of the young people of a third-world country and engineered the outcome of that country's election.

Incidentally, the pleased-as-Punch-with-himself guy making the sales pitch is Alexander Nix, CA's former CEO.

[Art Blade]

this really is frightening. It looks a lot like a conspiracy theory. But if it is true, we're all screwed.

[BinnZ]

Along the line of this, I read an article about the concerns regarding another Zuckerberg company, WhatsApp, which seems to have obtained such a high level of transcription that it has become a very favorable medium for criminals/terrorists for hidden communication.

Not long ago the only real-time way of communicating over distance accessible to the public was the phone. And police could always tap those phone lines in case of criminal investigations, however not without an explicit approval by a judge (at least that's how it works in the Netherlands)

Now we have a situation where that same police needs an explicit approval of Mark Zuckerberg!!! WHAT THE F***!???!!!

here's an article about a meeting the 'Five Eyes' just had about it

And that's only just WhatsApp. How many more ways are there now to stay out of reach of governmental control? This really is demonstrating the dark side of the internet moon.

It is ironic actually if you realize, each time a government tries to get easier access to (online) whereabouts of people everybody is screaming PRIVACY!!! but in the mean time we hand it over amass to those shady trillionairs.
In fact, the only countries that still have the same type of control as before internet are countries like Russia and China. I'm not saying their way of controlling things is favorable, absolutely not. But at least lord Zuckerberg doesn't have anything to say there.

[Art Blade]

it is important to keep privacy. Only if there's solid proof or probable cause, security agencies (like police, secret service) should be allowed to tap those sources belonging to suspects or criminals.

Giving easy access to security-related agencies reminds me of the American NSA. They're so overdoing it that they, I am exaggerating a bit now, keep tapping in every conceivable communication service, requiring tens of thousands of employees to do so, creating an insurmountable mass of data that they fail to see the actual criminal activity which simply gets lost in that mass of collected data. But they breach every person's right of privacy listening in just because there might be something sinister going on. They don't know whether or not there is but just in case, they tap all communications anyway. That is not what we consider privacy. That is the means of a surveillance state. And at that, the USA don't differ much from China and Russia.

[BinnZ]

Indeed and that's why we have an independent judge decide on each individual case whether there's reason to tap communication.  But that same judge doesn't have the power to order Zucky's network to be accessed. That is quite troubling.

[mandru]

The mere tip of the iceberg gents.

My understanding is that the FB stock values under Zuckerberg shot up as the result of the fine to a point that surpassed any financial loss.

Do you have a live mic snitch in your home?  Google, FB, Amazon, and a host of others (even Nest thermostats with a longtime hidden microphone) have openly stated that they want to re-Terra-form the world into an environment that suits their political preferences.

It has been revealed that there are living humans monitoring much of the vocal traffic being gathered by these marketed as "convenience" devices.

Youtube is like minded in the re-Terra-forming effort with those mentioned above but their practices vary to match the nature of their platform format but they are every bit part of the Leftist social media loop.

I hope that was tame enough. 

[Art Blade]

so tame I barely noticed it at all.

hey, your post reminded me of those roundish box things with a microphone in it (I believe one of those is called "Alexa") which you can put on a table or sideboard and talk to them so they dim the light, switch on the TV and stuff. Those are all recording devices, your conversations being recorded even if you don't know about it, and what really happened, those voice recording files can (even if mistakenly) end up in the hands of someone else, a random other user, and of course, be skimmed by the respective companies (I think it's amazon, and others) in order to tailor advertisements "for you."

I will NEVER get any of those. I never considered it before I knew about the aforementioned but even less so after.

You also reminded me of your little story about looking for some kitchen device but the one you were eyeballing required an app so of course you didn't acquire it. Indeed, those are so-called "smart" devices, same goes for "smart" television sets and the likes, they've all got microphones in them and, that's the point, IF there's WiFi or, IF they're (somehow) connected to the internet, THEN someone else can listen in on what you're doing at home, listen to your PRIVATE conversations with friends and whatnot.

Bloody hell. I'm happy to say that I don't have any of those. I even unplug my headset unless I play a coop game with friends. My monitor doesn't have a mic nor a camera. Cool as it may be, a "smart home," but it also means, Big Brother has moved in with you as soon as you participate in that smart nonsense.

[Dweller_Benthos]

It's a lot like all those features I turned off in my install of windows 10, some of them sounded cool, even useful, but I knew that there was too much of a chance of them being misused, so I turned them off. Would I like to have a "personal assistant" device that I can tell to remind me to buy milk on the way home, turn the lights off, change the TV channel? Maybe, it might come in handy some time, and I can see it really being useful for elderly people who might need help some time and the only way they have to get it is to speak aloud. But for me, no, I never even thought about using one of those devices, I knew there would be too much chance for misuse.

I remember back in the 70s as a kid, there was a rumor going around that had no basis in fact, that the GOVERNMENT could listen to everything said in your house by "reversing the TV and using the speaker as a microphone and transmitting the signal back up your antenna to a waiting receiver" so that everything said in your home could be monitored. This is of course, complete hogwash, and not possible with TV sets available in the 70s. But people were panicked about it, even unplugging their TVs when not in use and facing them towards the wall. Now, people are willingly buying and installing listening devices in their homes, and not thinking twice about it.

[BinnZ]

Yep. I disabled Siri when I noticed he knew what time my alarm should be put on a regular Wednesday. The little bugger knows everything I'm doing on my phone and even listens to me, hoping I will say "Hey Siri!"

[mandru]

An interview I watched had a clip of a Google exec who said something along the lines of "We want our information collection to be so encompassing that our algorithms on your behavior lets us know what you want or what you're going to do before you know it yourself."

By choice I have no in home mics, and no connected WiFi.  I don't even own a cell phone. 

Here's something to consider.  How a bout a refrigerator in your kitchen that tracks what's inside it including brand names.  Then you can vocally command the fridge to place a grocery order or depending on the priorities you have assigned certain items it can observe that something is low or missing and then it can use an app to place a text message order and pay for it with your preferred market who in turn will contact you to set a time for delivery.

Big brand names will pay your delivering market to claim that your desired ordered (generic or competitor's) product is out of stock but the big brand name is being substituted at no additional cost in the hopes that you will select the big name company's product for future orders.

It's yet another way your purchasing (or if you are involved with any social media) and lifestyle habits are being nudged and manipulated.