Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Cambridge Analytica

Off-Topic discussions about science, technology, and non Debian specific topics.
Message
Author
Wheelerof4te
Posts: 1454
Joined: 2015-08-30 20:14

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#21 Post by Wheelerof4te »

^I agree with you, Mark is the bigger problem and the US media is just using this story to blast the current US president instead of focusing on Mark.

User avatar
Lysander
Posts: 643
Joined: 2017-02-23 10:07
Location: London
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#22 Post by Lysander »

debiman wrote:this is not about trump or any one particular politician or party in any one particular country.
hell, it's not even about mark zuckerberg.
of course facebook was the platform and willingly turned a blind eye, but really it's about the people who are willing to pay for services like this (yes, the same ones that promise YOU that they have your best interests in mind) and those willing to provide them.

i truly hope we get more news like this, because as long as companies abuse it like they do, the internet needs more rules
Indeed, though I do question if these latest events will make any difference to peoples' usage of SM. People are addicated and though some will delete their FB accounts in protest, many just find themselves literally unable to leave SM, which is its raison d'etre. It is designed to suck the user in and have them disclose as much about themselves as possible.
n_hologram wrote:My point was that the same issue was present before possible election meddling -- the writing has been on the walls for years, dating back to the 2010 xkcd comic I posted earlier. It usually takes mishandling or outright breakage for the public to even listen, and even then, action isn't promised.
Yes, further to my above point, election-fiddling has been part of the agenda for years, it's not going to change anytime soon. The Russian elections, the Turkish ones, the US ones and even the last UK election was won by questionable means. Attaining power is - if I can make such a generalisation - done by manipulation, stealth, cheating and screwing people over.
ticojohn wrote:I have been previously chastised about making political comments on this board. I thinks this post has gotten too political and posters should refrain from linking political figures to the obvious abuse of power/wealth by Mr. Zuckerberg and company.
Facebook is only as important as its influence. It was very likely able to influence the outcome of a national election, so it's relevant - and important - to discuss it. Ultimately though, I expect the whole thing to blow over with very little resultant impact.

User avatar
bw123
Posts: 4015
Joined: 2011-05-09 06:02
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#23 Post by bw123 »

What I don't understand is why this has a sudden presence all over the media? Also I don't understand the logic of people who give their "private" information to someone, and then act surprised that it's not "private" anymore, wtf?

I think fb has a right to use whatever info is voluntarily provided to them anyway they want, as long as it is legal? Anything that someone posts, routes through, or otherwise puts on MY system I will use anyway I see fit. That's the way it always has been, things you post on the internet are *not* private.

I haven't seen any evidence yet that any harm was done? They targeted some ads to people, goes on all the time...
resigned by AI ChatGPT

User avatar
ticojohn
Posts: 1284
Joined: 2009-08-29 18:10
Location: Costa Rica
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#24 Post by ticojohn »

Lysander wrote: Facebook is only as important as its influence. It was very likely able to influence the outcome of a national election, so it's relevant - and important - to discuss it. Ultimately though, I expect the whole thing to blow over with very little resultant impact.

I agree that we should discuss the aspects of the influence of these companies, and how they can affect our way of life. Just saying that referring to specific political figures and how they may or may not have used data mining to achieve their specific objectives may not be appropriate. But I am not the one monitoring posts on this board. So have at it!
I am not irrational, I'm just quantum probabilistic.

User avatar
Lysander
Posts: 643
Joined: 2017-02-23 10:07
Location: London
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#25 Post by Lysander »

bw123 wrote:What I don't understand is why this has a sudden presence all over the media? Also I don't understand the logic of people who give their "private" information to someone, and then act surprised that it's not "private" anymore, wtf?
Who is surprised? As far as I understand it, everyone now knows this is the case, grudgingly accepts it and then the posting continues. Everyone knows their data is mined these days, but they don't care enough to do anything about it.
bw123 wrote:I think fb has a right to use whatever info is voluntarily provided to them anyway they want, as long as it is legal?
You have to remember that rights are not naturally existent, they are enforced. Also legality crosses over with morality. So this is not only about whether something is legal, but about whether it should be legal.
bw123 wrote:I haven't seen any evidence yet that any harm was done? They targeted some ads to people, goes on all the time...
Hmm, many would say the election of Donald Trump was pretty harmful.

User avatar
bw123
Posts: 4015
Joined: 2011-05-09 06:02
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#26 Post by bw123 »

Lysander wrote:
bw123 wrote:I haven't seen any evidence yet that any harm was done? They targeted some ads to people, goes on all the time...
Hmm, many would say the election of Donald Trump was pretty harmful.
Where's the evidence that any election results anywhere was actually "influenced" by this technology? I watch ads all day long about JG Wentworth, it drives me crazy with that stupid song, but I'd never don't have a structured settlement and I don;t need cash now, so it does no harm.
resigned by AI ChatGPT

Wheelerof4te
Posts: 1454
Joined: 2015-08-30 20:14

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#27 Post by Wheelerof4te »

^Mainstream media generally don't need evidence, as long as the story sells. This one does sell, so they go at it knowing that most of the public doesn't care. "Bread and games", as the saying goes.
Just look at the headlines from a few days ago, it's the same. No evidence needed.

User avatar
alan stone
Posts: 269
Joined: 2011-10-22 14:08
Location: In my body.

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#28 Post by alan stone »

debiman wrote:... the internet needs more rules.
Some food for thought about the impact of technology.

So how about, instead:

(1) refuse to consent to, and boycot predatory, crony people and organisations?
(2) stop whining when getting the consequences of not doing (1)?
(3) learn from mistakes and do better next?

No initiation of coercion, force or violence needed to solve a problem.

Bulkley
Posts: 6383
Joined: 2006-02-11 18:35
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#29 Post by Bulkley »

n_hologram wrote:My point was that the same issue was present before possible election meddling -- the writing has been on the walls for years . . .
Correct. Here's Eben Moglen in 2012. "Eben Moglen is a professor of law and legal history at Columbia University, and is the founder, Director-Counsel and Chairman of Software Freedom Law Center, whose client list includes numerous pro bono clients, such as the Free Software Foundation." Eben Moglen on Facebook, Google and Government Surveillance

n_hologram
Posts: 459
Joined: 2013-06-16 00:10

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#30 Post by n_hologram »

ticojohn wrote:I agree that we should discuss the aspects of the influence of these companies, and how they can affect our way of life. Just saying that referring to specific political figures and how they may or may not have used data mining to achieve their specific objectives may not be appropriate.
I don't see how you can have a discussion about the internet without even unintentionally discussing politics, which shape the way we [are allowed or not allowed to] use it; laws are a huge factor behind censorship (or lack thereof) and surveillance (or lack thereof). I always thought the two unspoken boundaries were 1) passing judgment on a particular candidate, or 2) allowing a thread to break from the technology side so far that it is only about politics (or political opinions), not computers. Could be wrong though.
Wheelerof4te wrote:the US media is just using this story to blast the current US president instead of focusing on Mark.
It depends on your source. Lots of them have been ripping Zuckerberg apart since the original privacy breach, when everyone learned that the "privacy settings" did literally nothing, and the courts gave him a slap on the wrist.
Lysander wrote:
bw123 wrote:I think fb has a right to use whatever info is voluntarily provided to them anyway they want, as long as it is legal?
You have to remember that rights are not naturally existent, they are enforced. Also legality crosses over with morality. So this is not only about whether something is legal, but about whether it should be legal.
Interestingly enough, because the information was trafficked through third-parties, there's a potential loophole that could classify all user data as "campaign donations," and would, therefore, violate some pretty well-known federal policies concerning the way candidates are allowed to receive campaign donations. If the courts determine this, there will be some interesting outcomes looking forward, including the potential for new laws (hopefully salient ones) regarding ways to interpret political data online, regulations on data collection and distribution, and the future of targeted, politically-charged advertisement.

(Edited for clarity.)
Last edited by n_hologram on 2018-03-21 16:58, edited 2 times in total.
bester69 wrote:There is nothing to install in linux, from time to time i go to google searching for something fresh to install in linux, but, there is nothing
the crunkbong project: scripts, operating system, the list goes on...

User avatar
acewiza
Posts: 357
Joined: 2013-05-28 12:38
Location: Out West

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#31 Post by acewiza »

It's all just marketing. The marketing people have been going insane for years over how much money they can collect with widely-cast Internet campaigns. It's not just politics either - anything bought or sold (including politicians) is now subject to media amplification on an unprecedented scale. The money-grubbers are like kids in a candy store with all sorts of media networked in the wild-west Internet setting these days. There's nothing that cannot be sold online to the highest bidder and anything can be sold to the people stupid enough to believe a scammer. Easily and quickly - online.
Nobody would ever ask questions If everyone possessed encyclopedic knowledge of the man pages.

User avatar
debiman
Posts: 3063
Joined: 2013-03-12 07:18

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#32 Post by debiman »

i don't know what triggered it originally - i think a combination of ongoing investigations into trump's campaign AND christopher wylie deciding to finally blow the whistle, but i could be wrong - but by now this is clearly a global issue, totally independent from US politicks.
i actually think the outrage is much greater in the UK and Europe.
And yes, it's been going on for years. brexit, obama, etc. etc. and that's only cambridge analytica - there's of course other companies who "haven't been caught yet" i hope.

i have been following news stories from at least 3 countries, and it is pretty clear:
a) the "general public" finally starts noticing and is upset
b) this will very likely go to court both in the EU and the US, and not only against cambridge analytica but also against facebook itself.

i think this is a good thing. i personally - and we linux forum dwellers - have of course known and seen the writing on the wall for years, but now more people than ever see it, and maybe start realising that the old "i-have-nothing-to-hide" argument is backfiring.

User avatar
bw123
Posts: 4015
Joined: 2011-05-09 06:02
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#33 Post by bw123 »

debiman wrote:i don't know what triggered it originally - i think a combination of ongoing investigations into trump's campaign AND christopher wylie deciding to finally blow the whistle - but this is clearly a global issue.
<snip>
I think the trigger is the desire by governments to regulate (censor) the internet as a whole for content, either through taxation or some other means... The press is obviously not a disinterested party, because they make a lot of money using the internet (and from direct subsidy/bribes by govt), and have a lot of skin in the game.

p.s. I didn't say I was for or against, just setting out some parameters for a discussion of, "... if ; then"
resigned by AI ChatGPT

Wheelerof4te
Posts: 1454
Joined: 2015-08-30 20:14

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#34 Post by Wheelerof4te »

I think the reason for getting firmer grip on the Internet in the West (also in the East, example China) is even more dire. But I'm not going to speculate it here, since it's not allowed.
When you look at everything that's being broadcasted through media, you see fear and war morgering left and right. We are heading for some dark times, I'm afraid.
EDIT: OT:
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/101 ... nref=story
Mark finally responds.
I've been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again. The good news is that the most important actions to prevent this from happening again today we have already taken years ago.
Yeah, keep patting yourself on the back, Mark.

User avatar
debiman
Posts: 3063
Joined: 2013-03-12 07:18

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#35 Post by debiman »

I've been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again. The good news is that the most important actions to prevent this from happening again today we have already taken years ago.
idk wtf that's even supposed to mean.
according to various articles facebook knew exactly what cambridge analytica (amongst others, i presume) were doing, and decided to turn a blind eye.
of course now this is all going south, they are more than willing to turn on their former partners in crime.

User avatar
bw123
Posts: 4015
Joined: 2011-05-09 06:02
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#36 Post by bw123 »

debiman wrote:
I've been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again. The good news is that the most important actions to prevent this from happening again today we have already taken years ago.
idk wtf that's even supposed to mean.
according to various articles facebook knew exactly what cambridge analytica (amongst others, i presume) were doing, and decided to turn a blind eye.
of course now this is all going south, they are more than willing to turn on their former partners in crime.
1) what exactly "happened?"
2) what exactly do we want to "prevent from happening again?"
3) what exactly do you mean by "...facebook knew exactly what cambridge analytica (amongst others, i presume) were doing?"
4) what do you mean by, "...facebook... decided to turn a blind eye?" BLIND EYE ABOUT WHAT?
5) What crime was commited that they are, "...willing to turn on their former partners in crime?"

I'm not a lawyer, but you can't just acccuse people of crimes, can you? I am not fan of facebook, I have never used it, but this is insane. Check the logic.

This kind of crap is a prime example. Anybody who thinks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... the-victim is a credible source of anything is an idiot. These people are WAY plugged into goverernment, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_News

IMO, what you are seeing is a political effort to sway public opinion in favor of allowing govt to regulate the internet.
One [unnamed facebook] employee told a [also unnamed] Bloomberg Businessweek reporter that the only time he’d felt as uncomfortable at work, or as responsible for the world’s problems, was the day Donald Trump won the presidency.
Is this kind of statement credible journalism?
resigned by AI ChatGPT

User avatar
debiman
Posts: 3063
Joined: 2013-03-12 07:18

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#37 Post by debiman »

bw123 wrote:1) what exactly "happened?"
2) what exactly do we want to "prevent from happening again?"
3) what exactly do you mean by "...facebook knew exactly what cambridge analytica (amongst others, i presume) were doing?"
4) what do you mean by, "...facebook... decided to turn a blind eye?" BLIND EYE ABOUT WHAT?
5) What crime was commited that they are, "...willing to turn on their former partners in crime?"
i cannot answer the first 2 because mr zuckerberg uttered these words, not me.
what i wrote, is a summary of what i've been listening to on various talk/news radio stations (german, US american and british to be precise).
since their articles largely tell the same story, i think it's a fair assumption that the truth lies somewhere in that vicinity. and i can vouch for at least 2 of those stations for providing credible journalism.
and yes, crime. this is being treated as a crime as we speak. maybe not condemned and judged yet, but definitely in the process. scroll back to my previous posts.

it appears you are not in the habit of listening/reading/watching news regularly (that's ok, i don't always do that either), so i suggest you start doing that and then answer your own questions.
(instead of accusing me of distributing unfounded FUD, as you no doubt will do now)

User avatar
Lysander
Posts: 643
Joined: 2017-02-23 10:07
Location: London
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#38 Post by Lysander »

bw123 wrote: I think the trigger is the desire by governments to regulate (censor) the internet as a whole for content, either through taxation or some other means... The press is obviously not a disinterested party, because they make a lot of money using the internet (and from direct subsidy/bribes by govt), and have a lot of skin in the game.
This is a highly pertinent comment and worthy of further discussion. The internet is far more regulated than most people realise. If you think about it, most people tend not to visit more than ten websites daily and mostly the same ones. Gmail, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and probably two or three websites related to their hobbies/work platforms. Most people just go round in loops on the internet. If you use a service like StumbleUpon, you'll see just how much of the internet you're missing and how much has been kept from you by consolidation.

Now, most of us in this forum are lucky enough to remember the internet in the late 90s/early 2000s when there were far more websites we visited. The search engine was key. Now it's all about bookmarks, app shortcuts or speeddials. What these tools do, through supporting routine, is to regulate the course of people's interests on the internet, and in doing so their internet practices become predictable and controllable. Also sites like Facebook try - with great success - to be a "one-stop shop" and gather and link to all peoples' interests and friends groups. Now, some people say that the argument of "I only use FB to keep in contact with friends" holds no water but this isn't totally true. You'll find that if you do delete your account, the large majority of your FB friends will never contact you again. Yes, your very best friends and family can keep in contact through other means, but people have become so addicted to the site that communication has become about platforms rather than individuals. We don't care who we're talking to, as long as our brain is being fed enough dopamine to keep us occupied.

The result is a global generation who is addicted to social media. FB has its fingers in two other major pies - Whatsapp and Instagram. When FB bought WA for billions of dollars, many were left scratching their heads over the deal. It's clear now why they bought it. But most people have decided - through act or omission - that the benefits of these programs far outweigh their disadvantages. The only way that people will leave FB en masse is if it gets shut down, but FB is, at this point, far too lucrative and powerful for that. Alternatively, another way the site could meet its end is if its advertising firms leave. As much as I would like to see it happen, I imagine this whole issue will be dragged through the press and maybe the courts to little end.
Wheelerof4te wrote:I think the reason for getting firmer grip on the Internet in the West (also in the East, example China) is even more dire. But I'm not going to speculate it here, since it's not allowed.
Is there an anti-speculation policy? Please speculate away.

User avatar
pawRoot
Posts: 603
Joined: 2016-12-28 18:26
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#39 Post by pawRoot »

debiman wrote: what i wrote, is a summary of what i've been listening to on various talk/news radio stations (german, US american and british to be precise).
Most of these media spread the same bollocks.

User avatar
bw123
Posts: 4015
Joined: 2011-05-09 06:02
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Cambridge Analytica

#40 Post by bw123 »

debiman wrote: <snip>
it appears you are not in the habit of listening/reading/watching news regularly (that's ok, i don't always do that either), so i suggest you start doing that and then answer your own questions.
(instead of accusing me of distributing unfounded FUD, as you no doubt will do now)
I like to try and understand, that's all. No, I don't think this is FUD, but I am always suspicious when the wolves and billionaires attack each other openly in the press. People put on staged arguments/disagreements all the time for different reasons. I used to like talk radio myself, but gave it up because all they do now is talk about what they read on the internet, and heck I can read.

I saw a man this morning on TV (journalist) say that the people are outraged by this, that using their personal info in politics is the line that shouldn't be crossed. People have been using the press to manipulate elections/public opinion in the US since Geo. Washington was President, Hamilton and Adams in particular were both invloved in mudslinging through their friends using pseudonyms in the newspapers of the day to argue back and forth. They staged arguments at public dinners, etc... it's theater of a sort.

Thanks for posting the topic, and thanks for the info you posted, but I still don;t see what was the crime?
Last edited by bw123 on 2018-03-22 11:18, edited 1 time in total.
resigned by AI ChatGPT

Post Reply