Popcorn
In 3,2,1.....
Controversial data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica has been hit with an emergency data seizure order in England following an extraordinary series of events Monday night that revolved around a TV undercover expose. Following a day in which the company became the focus of attention online, in print, and in the UK Parliament …
Keep dreaming...
Look, lets break this down.
What are the facts...
1) Did CA snarf the data? Or did the buy it from the Cambridge professor who wrote the app that collected the data and snarfed the friends data that wasn't locked down. (And friends of friends?)
2) Trump's Campaign may have used the data and services which were paid for , to CA. So what is Trump's culpability / liability? The answer is none. Of course you should talk to a lawyer because 90% of the news on Trump is negative (which shows bias) . So Trump is clear.
The issue is how did they get the data? Facebook allowed the research to occur and what you have is a breach of contract by the professor who sold his code and the data to CA.
So, depending on the contract, CA could be guilty of somethings (IANAL and don't know UK law) but in the US, could just be forced to delete the data. The Cambridge University Prof? He's in a lot of hot water
CA? Some. Trump? None.
As to candidates using analytics and data? Started with Obama. (In Chicago BTW...) Oh and of course FB was happy to share w Obama...
Just keeping it real.
I agree, if Trump ended up benefiting from this data he's not to blame. While his campaign was obviously willing to accept help they knew was illegal (they wouldn't have gone to so much trouble to lie and cover up all their Russian contacts, deals with Wikipedia etc. if they didn't know it was wrong) they had no way of knowing Cambridge obtained this data improperly.
Even if they had tried to do everything on the up and up and asked point blank "where did you get this data?" Cambridge wasn't likely to admit "if anyone ever founds out we got this, it will be a huge scandal and our business will be bankrupt within weeks".
Victoria Beckham's five minutes in a memorabilia shop at the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent could cost her dear, after three appeal court judges yesterday opened the way for the shop's owners to sue her for £500,000 for slander.
The owners claim damages for loss to their business after media reports of Mrs Beckham's "loud and unreasonable" outburst, accusing them of selling fake autographs of her husband, England captain David Beckham, and "ripping off" customers.
Libel covers just about everything though.
Facebook posts, twitter tweets, etc, they are all covered by libel.
Fake news websites, blogs, etc, they are all covered by libel.
Anything broadcast on TV or printed in a news paper, that's covered by libel.
A verbal statement made by someone at a rally that isn't televised or published on YouTube etc, that would be covered by slander rather than libel, but it wouldn't reach a lot of people.
"Don't think so. You can sue for libel, you can't sue for slander."
Slander has been assimilated into the law of libel. Hence there is no specific law of slander. Both libel and slander are now referred to collectively as "defamation". However it is possible and reasonable to sue for slander. It's certainly untrue to claim that "you can't sue for slander". There are specific instances of slander:
for which it is possible to sue for slander without any proof of damage.
[1] Mostly diseases of the nether bits.
Meanwhile Facebook were over at CA's HQ ahead of the Chocolate Fireguard's publically broadcast intention to raid the premises.
The interesting thing is that CA are only behaving as a state actor's equivalent State Security organisation would behave, without oversight, all of the time.
Meanwhile Facebook were over at CA's HQ ahead of the Chocolate Fireguard's publically broadcast intention to raid the premises.
If we assume for a second that this company are neck deep in nefarious purpose, surely they have taken basic precautions against raids on corporate offices and data discovery by our overweight sleepy watchdog the ICO.
I actually don't have any dodgy data to hide, but a search of my house isn't going to yield any of the good stuff - thats all very encrypted in the cloud on drives I only mount when I need the data. Yes, I get that forensic tools might recover some of it in temp files, disk controllers etc, but as I said - I'm not taking any countermeasures.
Certainly if it was me, I'd SECRETLY get a warrant. for CA *AND* Facebook (Irish cooperation etc)
Claim it involves terrorism & spying (UK Plod does that sometimes even when it isn't).
Arrest everyone likely to have passwords at 3am.
Go in with huge team of experts and military and special branch.
In UK law you go to jail, do not pass go, if you do not give access / passwords.
Copy/decrypt everything.
Seize all the computing devices after changing the cloud passwords.
It's been ineptly managed.
Certainly if it was me, I'd SECRETLY get a warrant
BBbbbbbut sir - you are assuming that the powers that be WANT things to be found. What on earth drove you to that assumption? Can you please share it, we will gladly smoke it with you provided that there are not too many Phosphorus and Fluorine atoms in the formulae.
"The interesting thing is that CA are only behaving as a state actor's equivalent State Security organisation would behave, without oversight, all of the time."
There is no "only" about it. It's a private firm, not a state organisation.
State organisations may look like they have no oversight, but there is internal accountability running to the government. (Flawed, of course, but at least it's supposed to be there.)
Entities like CA are more dangerous than state organisations (assuming we are talking about those of democracies).
Nothing nefarious...
Facebook announced that wanted to ensure that the data has been deleted in terms with both the T&Cs and the undertaking(pinkie swear) CA made 2 years ago. Had I been FB I would have done the same.
Given that people willingly handed over FB data ...
The Facebook staff members involved in the visit should now consult a lawyer on a personal basis about exactly what happened on this visit. If there is any hint that they've been involved in a clean up operation that could be construed as destruction of evidence, it's their own personal arses on the line for that.
If the ICO gets their teeth into that line of enquiry, the staffs' best hope for staying out of trouble is early legal consultation, and early disclosure of events to the ICO / police. This kind of thing goes from doing the company's bidding to breaking the law and taking the rap on behalf of the boss very quickly.
Keeping quiet, staying a loyal member of the team, is stupid; there's a good chance that a criminal investigation will get to the bottom of the chain of events anyway, or someone else will crack first. Volunteering information right now is going to count quite strongly in ones favour in the only place that may end up mattering - in the court room.
As a general rule, if your boss ever asks you to "pop round there and clean it up", or, "can't you just massage those data a little bit in the emissions tests?", your employment has in effect just been terminated and you are in line for a stretch in jail. Certainly never comply without written instructions to do so, and make damn sure you have a copy of the emails stashed off-site. Recognise those signs and act quickly to involve the police or appropriate authorities, and its your boss who goes to jail. Your out of a job regardless, but you're also out of jail.
I'm sure it's nothing to do with Facebook allegedly being there or not, but major press coverage that a search warrant is going to be applied for does give the searchee plenty of time to start covering their tracks (if there are any tracks to be covered, obvs) The trick to seizing potential evidence of an alleged offence is to do it before the alleged offender has time to shred/burn the allegedly incriminating stuff.
There will possibly be thick clouds of smoke rising above CA as the server room suffers an unexplained fire...(allegedly)
"can anyone explain why a team from Facebook were in the offices of Cambridge Analytica shortly after the story broke ?"
I think you have that backwards. A team from Facebook were in the offices of CA, before the story broke. Since CA are accused of holding data in breach of Facebook's T&Cs, the reason for their auditors to be there are fairly obvious. They left pretty sharpish after this new story broke, again for what should be rather obvious reasons.
Facebook needs to explain why hadn't it hadn't done anything in the two years since it was first made aware of the allegations against CA.
Then, why Facebook didn't follow the spirit of the DPA and inform the IC and users that there may have been a breach of privacy.
Sadly, GDPR doesn't take affect for another month yet.
That legislation already exists. The police can do a proper data freeze raid already. What is needed is a search warrant.
The issue here is different. The powers that be deliberately turned a blind eye on the activities of a company because it has been repeatedly useful to "us" in influencing public opinion in various places where we would like to interfere in the democratic process. They conveniently forgot that CA are a private company and will tout for and get business in addition to the government approved election interference contracts.
While the US and UK governments were turning a blind eye (they could have found a reason for a search warrant ten times by now), the journalists did their job. They actually did some proper investigative journalism of value to the society as a whole. Hallelujah, the profession and the idea of free press are not fully dead yet. There is some twitching observed in the rotting corpse and let's hope it is not the putrification gas escaping from it.
As a result the CPS, the Data Protection commissioner and everyone else got caught bang in the middle of turning a blind eye on CA activities. This is the reason for all the panicky motions by each and every one of them. They are pretending to do something while ensuring that CA has enough time to get rid of any incriminating evidence.
There is a lesson in this - there is sh*t which you do not outsource. Ever. If you do it is guaranteed to hit the fan later on. Similarly, an information "soldier of fortune" is a soldier of fortune none the less. We have been through this during the "private run" wars in Africa and Latin America in the 70-es and 80-es. We should have learned the lesson (and applied it).
Is what did they deliver for Heir Trump?
I suspect politicians on both sides of the pond will try to bury this into a very deep and dark cesspit, along with the rest of their sordid back-handers and dealings... but once they start scrambling to protect their own hides and the the back stabbing begins, hopefully the truth will come out.
This post has been deleted by its author
Apparently they're using the plausible deniability gambit, as in their criminal suggestions were supposedly just "a tactical ploy to see if the potential client was ethical".
That might work ... without forensic evidence that proves they've already employed those criminal tactics in the past.
Hence why it's so vital to recover their computer records, preferably unscathed.
My gut feeling: I hope Nix and his pals like porridge.
My gut feeling: I hope Nix and his pals like porridge.
Maybe. Served on a silver plate on a superyacht in the Mediterranean. There is no way in hell they will get any punishment for this. The amount of kompromat they hold on the powers that be will prevent it.
The only worry is that I was tangentially connected to an investigative TV exposure once, and while there had undoubtedly been unethical stuff going on, the extent to which a well known program from an advertising free broadcaster massaged the evidence and edited interviews to make things look way worse than they really were was quite astonishing. If you want to make someone look bad, for instance, its amazing how effective editing silence *into* an interview is. Makes straightforward answers look hesitant and devious.
I think this might mean the collapse of Facebook in the style of Enron
Don't get your hopes up. The lizards want to be able to abuse the data of billions of people so FB are safe, but in any event its Cambridge Dodgylitics who are going to implode, given that they didn't have the rights to use the FB data, and their other activities appear to be illegal.
> I'm assuming you're being ironic, but just to clarify for the casual
> reader: Cambridge Analytica is not related to Cambridge University.
That’s true, yes - but who cares about truth any more? My point really is that (a) the “casual reader” won’t see your disclaimer, and (b) Facebook is too big to fail.
> Who's going to get hurt if (Facebook) vanishes overnight?
Who? Seriously? BILLIONS of people.
Do you actually ever go outside? I see FAR MORE Facebook adicts now than nicotine, let alone illegal drugs. Take away Facebook and there would be a revolution - people would be literally building baracades and burning down government buildings all round the world.
(Not joking.)
AC is correct, despite this being the "wrong crowd".
Yes, many of you don't use facebook. Meanwhile practically everyone else has an account, with a massive amount having it in front of them almost 24/7. There are people being tretaed for addiction!
I know many here scoff and don't quite believe it, but peopple even call the police when FB goes down.
Reports from 2014-2107 inclusive. i'm sure we will get the 2018 one when they have an outage next.
http://time.com/3071049/facebook-down-police/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/facebook-goes-down-users-call-6544890
https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/dont-call-911-if-facebook-is-down-tweets-this-police-department-1762940
Each from different areas of the world/areas of america. Each form different years.
Do you actually ever go outside?
Who has to go outside [to see Facebook addicts]?
Just have an account and watch your email spammed by the FB junkies in your family over every micro incident in their lives.
I know at least two terminal addicts - seemingly all but visits to the lav are documented, and three other serious addicts who post on every minor social occasion.
They all have Google Plus accounts, maybe they will start using them. Or, other social networks exist. People don't use them right now because nobody else uses them, but that could change. Facebook will become the next MySpace, the only question is when it will happen.
"other social networks exist"
Yes, we could, for example, create a social network of peer-to-peer servers with no one organisation in charge of everything. It would be supported and standards policed by the users providing a demonstration of practical anarchy. Individuals would be permitted anonymous access and no one would have to state their demographic data to get access. We could call it by a name that reflects this user-centric view of social networking, say "Usenet". That's rather catchy.
and there's a chance humanity will actually turn out the first productive work in a day. Hurrah for the business owners!
But then: a worldwide tsunami of suicides...
And yet: cure for cancer, end to all wars, breakthrough in faster than light travel... OK, I'll go with the suicides...
btw, is twitter still up? I must...
"... (b) Facebook is too big to fail."
I think you mean too Rich to be caught !!! :)
It is very unlikely that Facebook will fail, they have the means to keep all this bouncing through the courts for years.
I fully expect that Facebook will be 'Not Implicated' and Cambridge Analytica will 'fail for them' !!!
One Bad Guy is much like another when you are trying to appear to be in control. (Re: ICO)
The ICO will take Cambridge Analytica rather than fail trying to get Facebook.
The Govt can then 'crow' how they are tough on the 'Bad Guys' out there on the 'Interwebs' and hope to steamroller through some ill thought out knee jerk legislation to plug the holes in the law.
Most Non-EU/UK companies will generally ignore them anyway !!!
As an aside, of MUCH greater concern is a report of 1.4Kg of Californium being found in the back of a Car in Turkey. see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43463195
Crude 'Dirty Bomb' anyone !!!???
FFS, where is the world going to ?
Again 'something' that can only be sourced from USA or Russia ...... something else that 'could' of been 'misplaced' in the recent past perhaps ????
[Something about a 'Handcart' comes to mind !!! :) :) ]
"Again 'something' that can only be sourced from USA or Russia ...... something else that 'could' of been 'misplaced' in the recent past perhaps ????"
Should be:
"Again 'something' that can only be sourced from USA or Russia ...... something else that 'could' have been 'misplaced' in the recent past perhaps ????"
Somehow mangled the edit of the sentence to end up with " ...could of ...".
I think you mean too Rich to be caught !!! :)
It is very unlikely that Facebook will fail, they have the means to keep all this bouncing through the courts for years.
I fully expect that Facebook will be 'Not Implicated' and Cambridge Analytica will 'fail for them' !!!
Don't count on that. Given the nature of Cambridge Analytica's operations (seemingly, tampering with elections), there's a good chance that the ICO will be instructed by the UK government to really take them (where "them" = Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and literally anyone else who might be doing anything like this) to pieces on this one.
The ICO (and similar bodies around the world) already has all the powers it needs; no new laws are required. What might be needed is more staff. So the ICO might be asked by government, "Need a bigger budget to take on enough staff to do a full tear down on a huge operation like Facebook?", "Yes please", "No problems, here you go.".
That'll take time, and any interim hint of the case being real and having anything to do with elections could easily result in interim court orders being issued. That would have an immediate impact on Facebook's business.
Electoral tampering is about the worst possible thing that can happen in a democracy, as it can push a country in a direction from which there is no quick recovery (e.g. leaving the EU, electing a ruinous leader, etc). The merest hint that this is the kind of thing that has been going on and governments (presumably not the current US administration) will be all over it.
The significance of the Press / Broadcast Journalism
I have to say, this is one of the most significant pieces of investigative journalism I've seen in recent decades. This is why you need a free press / tv news journalism, and a corp of properly trained journalists. AI generated news feeds on Facebook, Google are not the same thing. Can you imagine an investigative journalist being able to get such a story distributed on line by, say, Facebook? No.
AC:"there's a good chance that the ICO will be instructed by the UK government to really take them (where "them" = Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and literally anyone else who might be doing anything like this) to pieces on this one."
There's a better chance a sitting brexiteer UK gov will find not revealing details of the Leave campaigns use of CA is more important than exposing the truth and any demolition will be purely superficial.
"a report of 1.4Kg of Californium being found in the back of a Car in Turkey."
The BBC says it's Californium-252 - which has a half-life of 2.6years and it's a _very_ strong neutron emitter
Wikipedia says: "Only two sites produce californium-252: the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the United States, and the Research Institute of Atomic Reactors in Dimitrovgrad, Russia. As of 2003, the two sites produce 0.25 grams and 0.025 grams of californium-252 per year, respectively"
If it was really that much in that small a space, then there are going to be a lot of dead journalists and police in a short period of time and we have a lot more to worry about than people running around with 1.4kg of the stuff - like where 1.4kg of the stuff was MADE.
Quote from the grauniad:
Aleksandr Kogan, the Cambridge University academic who orchestrated the harvesting of Facebook data, had previously unreported ties to a Russian university, including a teaching position and grants for research into the social media network, the Observer has discovered. Cambridge Analytica, the data firm he worked with – which funded the project to turn tens of millions of Facebook profiles into a unique political weapon – also attracted interest from a key Russian firm with links to the Kremlin.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-academic-trawling-facebook-had-links-to-russian-university
Hell, I've just realized I also HAVE LINKS TO a Russian university,
Check your LinkedIn account, the way the stupid site spams you every time some person you 'linked with' for lack of topic of conversation and a few drinks at an obscure conference or failed project wrap-up X number of years ago and not worked/seen/contacted since, you are probably only a connection or two away from being implicated with links too....bloody anything potentially illegal.
> Re: Collapse of Facebook
he IS being ironic and / or baiting. And what is truly ironic is the amount of downvotes he received. The register's been facebooked, we're doomed :/
I saw him as just using a cute twist on 'when hell freezes over', and didn't mean for him to be down voted.
The share price has dropped $37billion, which is a big hint that investors have been spooked. Given that Facebook have probably used their own shares as collateral or as a alternative to cash in one way or other, that's probably not good news for the company.
No Trump wants everyone to believe he won all on his won. He won't even give credit to his campaign staffers, and every time one of them is indicted or otherwise tarnished, he has Sarah Huckabee go out there and claim "he played a very minor role in the campaign" - even for people who used to RUN his campaign!
He would never give Cambridge Analytica any credit, even if their name was unsullied. I doubt he'd even give his family any credit, if anyone tried to claim that Don Jr, Melania or Ivanka played a role in his victory.
> No Trump wants everyone to believe he won all on his won.
Generally speaking, Trump supporters don't believe that. Like Brexit in the UK, Trump was the only option for US voters to express their fury at the polls. The Nuclear Option. Literally the "go fuck yourselves" candidate. He did the ranting and trolling. Memers, youtubers, commentards, offline word of mouth, pathetic opposition candidates and their self-defeating propaganda machine did the rest.
Scenario : Over-hyped over-priced IPO.
Problem : How to justify the price.
Solution : Monetise FB.
Q1 : How to monetise?
Q2 ; What assets does FB have?
A1 : Punters? Forget it. They are tight-fisted bastards who want to use a free service.
A2 : A-ha! Punters' data!!
Q3 : How to monetise user data?
A3 : Any and every which way you can.
Phew - Job done.
Chapter II - Cue media exposes.
Chapter III - Everybody acknowledges the Era of Zero Privacy* and moves on.
*Zuck mantra : E-Z-P-Z (using the American "zee")
"Chapter III - Everybody acknowledges the Era of Zero Privacy* and moves on."
A lot of younger "adults" have already stated that they don't care. They are addicted to social platforms and all kinds of privacy intruding services, and don't care how this is used to bend their feeble minds.
We need laws and enforcement of the laws before we have these morons completely in the hands of the likes of Nix (or Trump, or Bannon).
I.e. , talking about it on the telly, not posting on it : "We should all be shocked and very concerned"
Right, maybe you should have dropped by places like The Register to see what IT people think of Facebook. Then you might not have been so shocked. You should have been concerned a lot earlier though - I'm guessing that's kind of your job. And you seem to have revealed that you are very, very unsuitable for the job to which you have been appointed. And all the politicians who went "Oooh Facebook have opened a big offce in London! Look everybody I know about the internet!" Don't try the "If only we knew then what we know now" excuse - plenty of people could have warned you before you hopped on the bandwagon trying to look "with it".
In further news right now (which admittedly may be ancient history in a very short period of time the way this seems to be developing) :
"Facebook shares ended trading 6.7% lower at $172.56, wiping almost $37bn off the social network's market value."
Beers all round, I feel.
what IT people think of Facebook
IT doesn't matter. What matter is what "the politicians" think of facebook, because the politicians make decisions, like "we don't give a flying monkey" (for years), but as the mood swings, suddenly they're all concerned about the (facebook-fed) "Public" - and the politicians tell ICO (and police): GO, AFTER THEM, NOW!!!! And ICO suddenly sprint into action, even though no law's changed overnight to make them so agile...
Marcus000,
That loud noise you have been hearing all morning ........ is the sound of 'Pennies Dropping' much like your epiphany !!!
Hence, my comment re: "too rich to fail".
(Might still be time to 'short' Facebook stock BUT I suspect that the money has already been made by the 'ususal suspects' that 'bounce' the market for profit after every high profile event in the news.)
That reminds me, we are due another Bitcoin 'bounce' as the news has been quiet for a while and there is still more money to be made from the 'Mug Punters' !!!
:) ;)
When this story broke over the weekend as "Facebook confirms Cambridge Analytica stole its data" it sounded like spat among two equally creepy companies. Contemplating the political blowback, however, it seems they're arch-rivals.
FB, like Google, is a left-wing partisan company now loathed by the right for using its internet supremacy to suppress conservative / libertarian viewpoints. CA has (apparently exclusively) supported conservative / alt-right / nationalist causes. Both raise concerns about just who is pulling the strings.
One might say CA pulled one over on FB, using its own social-engineering weapons to score huge victories for the anti-establishment right. (Or for the new overlords...?)
Funny. That's some epic trolling there. You should start a YouTube channel.
I, on the other hand, am such a loser that 20+ people, such as the illustrious @USER100, registered on The Register today just to mass-downvote my comments and write stinging rebuttals. I can't take it anymore! I'm ragequitting and going back to my Breitbart safe space!!! You win!
Seriously, I don't get why they're downvoting some of my posts and mass-upvoting others. Blindly pushing a political agenda, I guess.
A disposable front / tool is deliberately exposed but the real power manipulating affairs remains assuredly in control. Public opinion is corralled into opposing groups who are preoccupied with wasting their energies fighting each other, while the real rulers are empowered.
"FB [is a] left-wing company"? What a load of bollocks.
All FB cares about, like any mega-company, is making money and nothing else. Sure, they might appeal to prog-lite 'values' like diversity, caring etc. blah blah... It's all window-dressing, like with all corporations.
Monday night's C4 expose showed CA execs boasting about swinging foreign elections for their client candidates/regimes, using propaganda and lies.
CA scoring "huge victories for the anti-establishment right"? What planet are you on?
It's the 'right', ie the ultra-capitalists - ie the corporation owners - who CONTROL the politicians/democracy/media. The result is wall to wall advertising and marketing, brainwashing people to consume not co-operate. Wake up, you idiot.
USER100,
So true !!!
I do tend to get confused with the use of 'Left-Wing' and "Right-Wing" in posts that originate from the US of A.
I am almost convinced that they are used in a different sense to what I understand and have asked in all seriousness for someone to explain what it means to them, perhaps I simply misunderstand what is meant. :)
Then again ........ perhaps not :) ;)
Maybe the Far-Right/Right call anyone they diagree with 'Left-Wing or commies' etc, and the Left call anyone they disagree with 'Right-Wing or Fascist' etc.
Some clarity would still be appreciated :)
Many Thanks.
> Monday night's C4 expose showed CA execs boasting about swinging foreign elections for their client candidates/regimes, using propaganda and lies.
What if the expose itself is propaganda? Why is the MSM suddenly airing these stories like a one-two punch after ignoring them for months? (Nobody say "Russia" :)
> The left vs right thing is a charade to hide the actual corporate vs individual thing.
America's bogus two-party establishment is corporate-authoritarian, but the left-right divide is very real. The left is more collectivist-globalist while the right is more individualist-nationalist. Corporations are collectivist organizations so their leftist political tendencies are only natural.
The two-party system dates back at least 4 centuries in Anglo-American politics; the names and ideals have shifted but the polarization is constant.
@troland
I thought I'd drop in on this discussion for some further insight, and some people are offering good arguments / ideas / counter-arguments, while others are at least being funny. Thanks, people.
Then I read posts like this and I despair. People taking their fears about the world and channeling projected blame through absurd, simplistic filters concocted from half-baked assumptions.
Now go on, say what you like about me. I can _guarantee_ that you'll be wrong. Because you won't take your blinkers off, will you?
I don't know you, even as a commenter, so I can't say much. At least you're not one of the people/bots who signed up today to make a few drive-by posts.
I really don't expect many people to agree with my worldview, especially on this forum. I certainly don't expect the typical tech geek to know much about history, politics, human nature, and other such bullshit. Well, it's the same shit over and over. It is absurd and tragic. Everything good turns to shit. But it can be entertaining when that shit hits the fan. :)
And remember, you can't despair if you never get your hopes up.
@Mycho
Left vs Right was created to arrange seating in 18th century France. It was never intended to be a decent representation of an individual's political views.
Very true, as we see when we notice the remarkable similarity between extreme Left and extreme Right - it's more of a circle. Could we start describing politicians and people as being 'at the five o'clock'?
Although perhaps you need 3 dimensions to allow for Greens, SNP, PC etc as they tend to be socially on the left but with policies that place them a world apart from Comrade Jeremy.
Pen-y-gors,
There is some validity to your 'Circle' idea :) :)
I could live with that although not sure what to label the 3rd dimension with.
Some of the Left and right extremes are in the 'Barking (as in Dogs) to Dangerously Delusional' spectrum.
Perhaps it should be labeled as 'Number of Sandwiches short of a Picnic' or similar, and denoted by a simple integer (1 to infinity-1) !!! :) :)
In fact I think I have just invented a new el Reg unit of measurement (Huzzah) ....... it shall be defined as a 'Farage' and equally recognised in the US & UK. :) :)
As a Canadian, in my 50s, the right are often described as, right-wing, Fascists, neo-nasi's and the left as, left-wing, commies, snowflakes etc..
What I find very interesting is the how far to the right both the right-wing and the left-wing have moved since the late 1970s. In Canada, there's some social justice issues being applauded, but the Union movement and middle class are being hammered. I thinks it's going to be harder for my children to have decent standard of living than it was for me.
prog-lite
Is that a new facet of neo-prog? I mean, bands like Marillion, Arena and Pendragon were accused for years of being insufficiently-prog..
Yes, yes, mines the one with the band patches for Yes, Genesis[1] and Wobbler..
[1] PG-era obviously. PC was OK and no, I don't blame him for the slow slide of Genesis into pop-prog..
Been following this for a very long time and nice to see it come to fruition.
Makes a change to see some not quite so Fake News make an appearance. Hope it gets the useless Beeb in a flap.
Congrats to https://mobile.twitter.com/carolecadwalla and all the other journos involved for doing what they do best... exposing the sleazy side of life and dragging some of the reptiles out from under their stones.
Just need to get a few of them behind bars where they really belong.
Now to see if 'Aggregate IQ' pop up somewhere. Be nice to see the smug grins wiped off a few familiar faces.
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/863716948357636097
FB announcement:
"Independent forensic auditors from Stroz Friedberg were on site at Cambridge Analytica’s London office this evening. At the request of the UK Information Commissioner’s Office, which has announced it is pursuing a warrant to conduct its own on-site investigation, the Stroz Friedberg auditors stood down."
In other words, they'd already finished the "auditing" job they were sent in to do.
From Guido Fawkes: "Cambridge Analytica’s poundshop Bond villain and bullsh*tter extraordinaire Alexander Nix says...."
Because some people would very much like Facebook to fail, they're rather too willing to believe the hype that Cambridge Analytica have spread about themselves. In both cases, these are marketing companies who desperately want everyone to believe they are more important than is in fact the case.
If you want a good measure of how important Facebook is, consider their rival MySpace.... miss them much? That's not to say Facebook doesn't occupy far too much of our time, or have more influence than it deserves - but as and when it gets replaced by the next thing, it won't leave much of a hole in our lives.
when they say Cambridge Analytica is not involved in any of this it may be as strictly true as the Russians don't hold any nerve agents. The use of front companies passes the deniability test as they are not directly involved (at least as a legal entity), as does the holding of binary precursors is not the same as holding nerve agents.
Years ago I signed on to it, realised it was an utter utter waste of time, and deleted the account.
Then the other day someone wanted me to communicate via whatsapp, so I installed it. The *very first thing it did* was to slurp all my contacts, send them back to its servers, present me with a list of them who were also users, and presumably also sent the whole lot to facebook (who I'd forgotten had bought whatsapp).
Bastards. Too late, I deleted it.
'The company said in a statement: "We entirely refute any allegation that Cambridge Analytica or any of its affiliates use entrapment, bribes, or so-called 'honey-traps' for any purpose whatsoever," adding that it "routinely undertakes conversations with prospective clients to try to tease out any unethical or illegal intentions."'
Remember, it doesn't have to be true, as long as it is believed...
Anyone want to guess the odds of whether Facebook still exists at the end of the year?
And no, I don't mean bad publicity alone will sink them. I mean a combination of lawsuits, criminal charges, investors pulling out, advertisers leaving in droves, etc.
Those odds seem to be getting worse for FB by the day... (Although not as bad as CA's, I'm guessing they're heading for 100% right now.)
"Anyone want to guess the odds of whether Facebook still exists at the end of the year?
And no, I don't mean bad publicity alone will sink them. I mean a combination of lawsuits, criminal charges, investors pulling out, advertisers leaving in droves, etc."
I wish. But I don't think this will happen. FB will paint this as themselves having been wronged by CA. Their complacency with GSR's usage/slurping of FB data will be portrayed as them having been hacked (with social engineering applied to some of FBs administrators).
Anyone want to guess the odds of whether Facebook still exists at the end of the year?
They'll still be there, like a lingering bad smell you can't find the source of.
However, when GDPR rolls round it will be interesting times for companies (such as FB and CA) that make your information their business.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'll certainly be sending subject access requests to several companies to find out exactly what information (they say) they hold about me. Probably followed by RTBF requests. It occurs to me that if too many people focus on companies like CA, the combined workload of servicing those requests might act like a perfectly legal DoS exploit. Either they commit resources to servicing those requests in a timely manner, or they get fined, and fined again...
"Few people are forced to deal with mainframes and COBOL and rarely anyone does so voluntarily; those subjecting themselves Microsoft and Facebook are far greater in number."
No one is *forced* to use either Facebook or Microsoft.
I've managed to be Facebook free since it was invented and haven't suffered an\y significant angst because of that.
As for Microsoft, even I have Linux and OpenOffice. You might make a case for gaming, but that world has moved solidly toward consoles anyway. Turnkey consoles are bought for game selection, not underlying O/S.
This from WhatsApp co-founder Brian Acton...
"We all moved on from MySpace. We can move on from Facebook too."
Yes, the labels 'right' and 'left' are not satisfactory really. Very broadly (and not including the extremes of either), 'right' could be said to mean those in favour of not changing things too radically, and of letting people live with minimal interference from the state, while 'left' might mean those in favour of changing things in order to achieve a more equal society (eg through the redistribution of wealth).
The problem is that corporations have now have such a grip that whichever candidate ('left' or 'right') gets in, THEY remain in control.
For example, Tony Blair was supposedly on the 'left' but look at his record - hugely wasteful PFI schemes, pointless wars, privitisations - all put public money into the pockets of corporations and arms manufacturers. Then again, the privately-educated (psychopath?) Blair had no left-wing leanings whatsoever.
Margaret Thatcher did much the same and worse, but made no attempt to appeal to the 'left' or 'centre'.
In the US, the media is even worse than it is here, to such an extent that the word 'socialist' is only ever used perjoratively.
Many in the UK pinned their hopes on John Smith, a true 'lefty', who died before he could be elected. He would have probably won, such was the dissatisfaction with the Conservative government at the time.
For a clearer picture, I recommend John Carpenter's film, 'They Live'. Also the Adam Curtis film 'The Trap'.
I don't know, the rot may even have started with Edward Bernays...
They could be said to be those people, but it would be inaccurate.
All I would say for sure is that the left doesn't trust corporations and the right doesn't trust government bureaucrats. Which leads to the bizarre situation in America where left wing Americans are demanding Trump control their free speech.
I trust neither. I do not believe they are out to get me personally but I do believe neither have my best interests at heart. From the 1950s and into the 1970s it could be thought that both might, in some jurisdictions.
Keep in mind that many of us were raised in a time when it was pre-supposed that the Government worked for the best interest of the Citizens. I no longer believe that to be true and haven't for many years.
Blair was Left compared to the other party. And right to a fair subset of his own party; just as John Major was Left of some of his own party.
And the voting public covers a spectrum from Left to Right if you want to reduce it to simple terms.
Blair was sufficiently Right to overlap substantial amounts of both the Right and the Left of the voters.
He was sort of between the two - shall we call it "Centre".
Labour or Conservative as party labels don't align well with the 4-dimensionality of actual political alignments. Nor do simple "left/right" labels.
The vast majority of voters are centrist, however whoever's actually _in_ government is controlled by a very small number of people in a very small number of seats - the "swing voters"
It's the swing group who have marched to the right/authoritarian/neoliberal policies. The question is whether they led or followed the political parties in that direction.
"For example, Tony Blair was supposedly on the 'left' but look at his record - hugely wasteful PFI schemes"
If you look at the record of the Blair government there's a consistent approach of taxing the future. PFI, student loans, Brown's stealth taxes. They look as if they're doing popular stuff but there were bills to become due in the future. We're now in that future.
As to whose side he was on, that's easy. His own.
We already know that CA are willing to use unethical/illegal means, by their own admissions, so who is to say that justice will be served, when the people behind this could very well blackmail/bribe the people who are going after them. They have data on millions of people, no doubt including people from the ICO, Judiciary, MPs and more!
Interestingly, Wikileaks was approached by CA (in an attempt to get at Wikileaks' data) in December last year, but Wikileaks said no.
Yeah, Cambridge Analytica could be the sacrificial pawns, but what about the people/governments who used their services? I'm not holding my breath that people that need to be imprisoned will ever see the inside of a jail cell...
HEY EVERYBODY!! THIS ONE EVIL COMPANY HIJACKED DEMOCRACY!!! The beeb and grauniad did nothing wrong...
I've never been to Britain, but everything I hear outside of the British MSM says: the majority voted for Brexit against overwhelming government and media pressure because it was the only meaningful option to express their genuine outrage at the way their country and the EU are being run.
I've never been to Britain, but everything I hear outside of the British MSM says: the majority voted for Brexit against overwhelming government and media pressure
It's quite clear you've never been to Britain if you think the overwhelming government and media pressure was against brexit. Our heavily biased print media, mostly owned by old rich tax exiles, was generally strongly pro-brexit (the Telegraph, Sun, Mail, Times, etc.). The state broadcaster, the BBC, was heavily biased towards the pro-brexit side of the spectrum, giving unequal air-time (and still doing so) to pro-brexit campaigners, for instance, heavily featuring NF alongside more mainstream participants in debates, with equal footing, despite him never having won a parliamentary election (7 tries and counting). The result in the end was marginal (51.8 to 48.2), but has repeatedly been misrepresented as an overwhelming majority...
The pro-brexit campaign was well organised (they'd been preparing for 30+ years), whilst the remain argument was critically weakened by being funnelled through the government. This led to many well funded groups independently campaigning to leave, and the people who wanted to remain, (the overwhelming attitude within science and industry, and amongst business leaders) being effectively stifled. Not to mention the fact that political parties other than the tories (who, apart from UKIP were all strongly remain) were being forced to use the tory party as their mouthpiece which is a clear conflict of interests.
Most of our media is so heavily biased in one direction or another, it is nigh on impossible to get an impartial viewpoint. Channel 4 is better than most, but is still biased towards sensationalism.
I could go on.
Your idea that the British are fed up with our government is pretty spot on. There may even be an element of truth to people being fed up with the EU, but mostly this consists of people being fed up with the distorted media representation of the EU which consists of outright lies (straight / curvy bananas, Turkey joining the EU, an EU army, enforced adoption of the Euro, etc. etc.) and blaming the EU for things that are actually the fault of the British government and opposed by the EU (such as agricultural subsidies not reaching farmers, increasing social inequality, increasing debt, erosion of human rights).
If you're right, the internet has been whitewashed. I can't find anything but "BBC biased against Brexit" except for a few extremely anti-Brexit sites screaming "that's all fake news!"
You have to remember that the pro-leave campaign is funded by some very rich people who have vested interests in the UK leaving the EU, most notably the tax regulations due to be brought in in 2020 (hence the 'must leave by 2019' rhetoric).
When I search for 'BBC bias', I too find lots of references to the BBC being 'biased against brexit'. When you look at who is saying this, though, it's the editorial of the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Sun, exactly the people you would expect to be saying this, and to be paying to have their results listed first on Google - those same rich tax avoiding ex-pats with a vested interest, and pockets that are plenty deep enough to afford some SEO to get their propaganda on the first page of results. When you look closely at these particular publications, it's pretty obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense that they are stuffed with sensationalist and heavily biased nonsense, often with small-print retractions at the bottom of a page in the middle somewhere which they have been ordered to make by the press regulator for printing lies.
On the other hand, if you actually watch BBC Question Time, it's so laughably biased towards being pro-brexit and pro-conservative that they have been caught out several times asking question from 'audience members' who just coincidentally happen to conservative party members, or brexit campaigners. Their audience selection is so laughably biased it doesn't remotely represent a cross-section of society, and their panel almost ALWAYS has a hard-brexit campaigner on it, often the likes of Nigel Farage, who seems to get a mysteriously large amount of air-time despite never having won a seat in parliament, and allegedly no longer even being involved in politics.
When I search for 'BBC bias', I too find lots of references to the BBC being 'biased against brexit'. When you look at who is saying this, though, it's the editorial of the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Sun, exactly the people you would expect to be saying this, and to be paying ... to get their propaganda on the first page of results.
I dug deeper, looking for allegations of 'BBC pro-leave bias' using an unbubbled search engine (as I always do). I found a few beyond result #30. Below #50 it's mostly accusations of bias in other issues. And it's all fucking clickbait. All fake news.
Anyway, I know what I saw in 2016 and followup campaign to undo Brexit... basically Nigel Farage vs anti-Brexit scaremongering. Always assumed they gave him airtime just for the ratings. He's a lightning rod. If they were trying to tear him down (like US media did to Trump) it backfired.
it would be hilarious to hear how concerned they are TODAY about "public data" and "public privacy" (what?!), if it wasn't so pathetic, given their attitude until now.
but hey, REGULATION is on their golden lips. More than that, "STRINGENT regulation". Who knows, perhaps we'll all get national IDs out of this ridiculous storm in a tea cup...
Another Facebook employee whose job it was to investigate data breaches also left. He went to somewhere where he could work with a clear conscience... Uber.
If Facebook is worse than Uber God knows what they get up to in there. No wonder they all walked, their job is completely pointless.
Facebook auditors asked to stand down so that ICO auditors can visit tonight? Wouldn't that have the unfortunate side affect of giving CA window to tidy their books if they were inclined to? ... hm.. I see..
Odd that this should come as a surprise to ministers as many of them were clients for Brexit and presumably the FO had an inkling of what they were up to?
@Dan, there's that interesting Norwegian anti-troll software available in openSauce that would ameliorate un-edified commentards, like me! (tho' I could smell the Camb.Anal. something of the night for about a year before the C4 exposé)
https://nrkbeta.no/2017/03/06/our-comment-quiz-module-is-now-open-source/
Meanwhile, the great Australian journo cartoonist FDoTM has done a valuable comparison here [huuuge jpg from Grauniad *]
* https://media.guim.co.uk/773a5b22f2bb98bf40a26a5fa0da2a76316d4833/0_0_3508_5745/1221.jpg
Yesterday, it seemed the story was about big data. But this wet-ware machine is bigger than just that. What happens when big data becomes AI, and AI starts to run these companies. How much more amoral or immoral will it become, when it's run by something inhuman? And, when they groom the political candidates--how much less will we know and understand the people running our countries? Time for the deluxe tin-foil hat.
Zwuramunga,
I did not realise that 'The Register' & Internet was available simultaneously in 'alternative worldlines' and exchanged data. !!!
Apparently 'your' SERN have got their 'Phone Microwave' working !!!
Welcome to Omega Attractor Field -.275349ω .......... I think !!!??? :) ;)
Aha! That explains so many posts I keep reading !!! :) :)
Just read the latest 'SANS NewsBites Vol. 20 Num. 022.'
It contains a link to:
Detecting Static Reverse Engineering (PDF)
http://www.countermeasure.ca/documents/2017/presentations/Collin-Mulliner-DetectingReverseEngineering.pdf
I Read page 75 to behold a quote from Alex Stamos (then of Yahoo now of Facebook ..... for now !!!).
“Non-obvious protections can increase the chance of catching an attacker in time.” --Alex Stamos (2014)
Apparently this was mis-heard by Facebook to mean 'Non-existent protections' and see where it got them !!! :) :)
[Badum Tish] :) ;)
Ay-Thang-Yaw ..... Ay-Thang-Yaw [Arthur Askey lives on !!!]
"senior executives from the firm were then shown on camera boasting about the use of dark methods, including honey traps, fake news and sub-contracting with ex-spies to entrap individuals."
All fair when dealing with politics, power, money and corruption! Would one expect anything different!?