Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Exposing undemocratic disinformation tactics, Cambridge Analytica etc. data mining


LadySkinsFan

Recommended Posts

Facebook has a lot to answer for. It’s really hard to see them as a social media website when by all means they seem to be running a private surveillance campaign on behalf of whoever generates revenue for them. 

 

The website in general has taken such a sharp turn from what it used to be back in the early 2010s. There is literally nothing social left about it. My entire feed is garbage ads, news articles being pushed based on my interests and the occasional post by a friend. 

 

I really wouldn’t be on it anymore, except it does offer some value to those of us who are part of social groups and have to plan events frequently.

 

I would strongly recommend to everyone to go through your privacy settings and see which third party apps you have authorized or linked to your account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worth reading the Wikipedia, just for the quick recap of who they are and what they do. "Audience segmentation", "Psychographic analysis", "Behavioral microtargeting"... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

 

Also, this is good to check in on: https://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/

 

From this http://www.colangelopr.com/2018/02/everything-not-seems-social-media-bot-takeover/ :

"There are three categories of bots recognized today. A scheduled bot is one that sends time-based messages periodically throughout the day. A watcher bot sends messages whenever something drastically changes online, for example a natural disaster. An amplification bot is one that follows, retweets, and likes content by profiles who have paid for the service.", Amplification bots don't have to be paid for through some service, from what I've seen. Russia runs their own bot army.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More stuff, Corporate Media really failed on this story. This stuff was out there months ago:

 

A groundbreaking case may force controversial data firm Cambridge Analytica to reveal Trump secrets
 

 

Quote

Just a month after filing the initial request, Carroll, to his surprise, received a letter signed by a chairman of London-based “behavioral research and strategic communication” firm SCL, the parent company to Cambridge Analytica, with a file of his personal data, including a set of political predictions about Carroll made by the firm. It rated Carroll a “very unlikely Republican” (this is true; Carroll voted for Democrats in the 2016 general and primary elections) and assigned him scores on various political issues: He scored a 3/10 on “gun importance,” a 7/10 on “national security importance,” and a 9/10 on “traditional social and moral values.” He tweeted, “I’d rank this somewhat differently but feels roughly accurate. Could be worse.”

 

The results were unsettling for Carroll and also for his thousands of Twitter followers, who he had been updating on his data-request efforts. It turned out a wide expanse of personal information about Carroll’s behavior was being connected to his voter file and shared with “commercial entities,” “research partners,” “political campaigns,” and other groups, according to the letter he received. “People were kind of terrified that this information was accurate,” Carroll says. “People had a visceral reaction that their voter files aren’t being protected like they ought to be.” While some of his followers said what he got was “typical data for the industry” or “no big surprise,” others called it “scary” and “deeply disturbing.”

 

But what was particularly problematic for Carroll was that, he believes, the profile the company sent him wasn’t nearly comprehensive. Nix and other Cambridge Analytica executives have boasted that the company has up to a startling 5,000 data points on each of the 230 million voters in the US. What Carroll received in March, according to his tweet at the time, was about 200 data points, and, even then, it wasn’t clear how or where the company got the data or who it was shared with, beyond the vague descriptions in the letter.

What’s more, the response came from someone at a British company, SCL, which suggested to Carroll that his data, and presumably the rest of Americans’ data, was in fact processed in the UK, just as Dehaye thought. And if the data had been processed in the US, Carroll suggests, there would be little incentive for them to share it given the restrictive data laws in America.

 

But according to the 1998 British Data Protection Act, any company that receives a personal data request is required to provide a “description of the personal data,” state their purpose of processing it, and disclose any people and countries, outside Europe, the data were shared with.* Carroll argues that Cambridge Analytica failed to share the necessary information when he asked. To get the rest of his data—if there was in fact more, as Nix had bragged—Carroll would have to sue.

 

In April, Carroll and a group of an unspecified number of Americans who have remained anonymous to protect their privacy hired a British solicitor recommended by Dehaye, Ravi Naik, to launch the first-of-its-kind legal battle against the company.

 

 

 

This tidbit is interesting

Quote

American laws are much less forgiving. “If a [British] company has information about you, you have the right to access it, and if you ask for it, they have to give it to you,” Carroll tells Mother Jones. “We don’t have that right in the United States.” In the US, companies don’t need consent to collect its citizens’ data and aren’t legally obligated to share it with them. In fact, Carroll wouldn’t even have a case if the company processed its data in the United States (and won’t, if that turns out to be true). As Naik told the Guardian earlier this year, “It’s this fascinating situation because when it became apparent that Cambridge Analytica had processed Americans’ data in Britain, it suddenly opened up this window of opportunity. In the US, Americans have almost no rights over their data whatsoever, but the data protection framework is set up in such a way that it doesn’t matter where people are: it matters where the data is processed.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What CA does is really not that sophisticated and most data analytics firms who work with commercial brands etc are doing the exact same thing.

 

The issue here is really the methods they used at acquiring the data, and a question of how Facebook wants it’s platform to be utilized for political microtargeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

What CA does is really not that sophisticated and most data analytics firms who work with commercial brands etc are doing the exact same thing.

 

The issue here is really the methods they used at acquiring the data, and a question of how Facebook wants it’s platform to be utilized for political microtargeting.

More than anything, Russia and Trump campaign used the data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an important distinction made in the video Benning posted in the Russia thread. The pink haired whistle blower noted the difference in persuasion and manipulation. 

 

If you are watching a political ad on TV, that is an attempt to persuade you. Everybody sees the same ads. 

 

In this scenario, you are being specifically targeted with customized ads after being essentially psychoanalyzed though your internet history. They are specifically designed to make you react in the desired way unbeknownst to you. The entire thing has been customized to an extent. 

 

I work in a marketing field so data mining and targeted/customized advertising isn't going away. I'm not sure how to even monitor or prevent something like this happening again outside of legally holding these companies like facebook accountable for their customer information. We say that we do but clearly we don't 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm...

it's almost as if people have been warning about this for years....

 

"i wouldn't put that on there"

"I wouldn't install that app on your phone"

"i'd stop using it wirelessly, it's transmitting your password and conversations in clear text"

"if you're not paying for it, you're the thing being sold"

 

there's a lot more of those.

 

most people just rolled their eyes. now they want to be upset.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

most people just rolled their eyes. now they want to be upset.

 

 

Dude I have been explaining this **** to my girlfriend all morning and she's on FB right beside me right now. Most people are going to be so addicted and blissfully ignorant that they won't care. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Llevron said:

 

Dude I have been explaining this **** to my girlfriend all morning and she's on FB right beside me right now. Most people are going to be so addicted and blissfully ignorant that they won't care. 

 

i'm sure lots of them still think it's "just facebook"

 

they don't know that if a random website contains a like button, and you use that browser to use facebook, facebook now knows you were on that site whether you pressed the button or not.

 

then you have people who have the facebook app on their phone :rofl89: suckers.

 

the depths at which facebook has been able to get into people's lives/personality is quite impressive. the technology is impressive, the sheer number of people they've managed to get to use their services is impressive, and their ability to get people to not care (except now apparently people care, lol) is impressive.

 

i definitely miss random conversations with people i was friends with 10-15 years ago, and seeing how they're doing in life. i enjoyed that. but somewhere around 2008-2009 facebook went off the rails, and it's only gotten worse since then.

 

i quit when they started releasing new Terms of Service ever 2-3 months, and every time they'd reset your privacy settings. The justifiation was that there was a "platform update" and the old settings were not compatible with the new ones, so everyone was "reset to default" (which happened to be - no privacy.) It was bull**** then, just like their feigned outrage over their platform being used for nefarious purposes is bull****, just like their outrage over this will be/is bull****.

 

question is whether enough people will actually care this time. I'm willing to bet the answer is no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CA stuff is not a data breach, it's data misuse. It was a feature of this personality testing app, not a bug, and agreed to upon by the end users. Only thing is, you didn't necessarily have to agree to it, just someone in your circle of friends did, and poof, your info was CA's to do with what they wanted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I had no idea what these "quiz apps" were being used for. I never took one and was almost kind of amused by people doing them and posting the results. Like anyone cares what Game of Thrones character you are. 

 

Now that I think of it, some of these data analytics companies must be psycho-analyzing the **** out of millions of bozos who have voluntarily forked over their personal info through this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...