Mark Zuckerberg was ready to pounce on Apple's data practices at Senate hearing

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 45
    asdasd said:
    kimberly said:
    I'm not a USA citizen so just interested to read about the negative views on congressional hearings generally from several other contributors rather than specific discussion about privacy breaches.  What I take from the posts is that there is a bunch of senators on one side of the 'table' that are calling out the 'contrite' person sitting on the other side of the table (but everyone knows which side of the table has the real power).

    Where real power sits at a table doesn't really change between countries ...
    Years ago, arguably the most powerful man in Australia, media mogul Kerry Packer was in the spotlight for the tax practices of his company, Australian Consolidated Press.  MPs could hardly contain themselves when they finally managed to get him to appear before a parliamentary committee (equivalent of a congressional committee).

    Mr Packer stared down committee member after committee member.  Not much about the tax practices of Australian Consolidated Press was elicited except Mr Packer's now infamous statement that "of course" he tried to pay less tax.

    "I don't know anybody that doesn't minimise their tax.  I'm not evading tax in any way shape or form.  Of course I'm minimising my tax.  If anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax they want their head read.  As a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be paying extra."

    I still think that old media has far more power than FB, which is basically a collection of people individually posting stuff. Yes the data breach was bad, but CA had no measurable or provable  influence on the election or Brexit. 

    In fact the war against FB is part of a larger war against non MSM opinion in the West. A war against the internet in general. 

    Over a really long period of time, literally hundreds of years, rules around MSM behaviour were established. Limitations on cross media ownership, opinion pieces versus journalism , libel laws etc Not uniform globally , but most western democracies fell in to a band of these actual and defacto/convention limits on media power.

    Facebook, Google and modern social media are less than 20 years old - and that framework has not caught up with them yet. They are just as unruly as 19th century propaganda pamphlets , just as unregulated, but far more effective at reach and engagement. Facebook is barely 10 years old - it’s not crazy that it disappears - plenty of businesses fail, and Facebook is not too big to

    I don’t see it as a war on the internet, just on a few robber barons who are using the internet 
    brucemcGG1king editor the grate
  • Reply 22 of 45
    Bottom line is if Zuckerberg Goes against Apple for protecting customer data, facebook will lose big time and may get Apple to really lobby against the facebook model.

    Any attack against Apple's protection policies would be unwise as it could start a War that facebook cannot finish.
    Zuckerberg should  just answer questions like he has been doing and leave Apple out of it.
    edited April 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 45
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,823member
    The difference between data collected by Apple and the data collected by Facebook is Apple's data collection is anonymous and not traceable to a single person. Facebook can tie the data to a specific person.
    ...and their family, their friends, their partner(s), people they work with current and past, everyone they went to school/college/uni with and ALL of those people's data and their friends lists. Epic data.

    No one if forced to use FaceBook and its free.   Most people I know who use it post only a few things.   Some a lot.  Its a useful tool to stay informed.   Apple doesn't make a similar product.  
    asdasd
  • Reply 24 of 45
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,263member
    asdasd said:
    kimberly said:
    I'm not a USA citizen so just interested to read about the negative views on congressional hearings generally from several other contributors rather than specific discussion about privacy breaches.  What I take from the posts is that there is a bunch of senators on one side of the 'table' that are calling out the 'contrite' person sitting on the other side of the table (but everyone knows which side of the table has the real power).

    Where real power sits at a table doesn't really change between countries ...
    Years ago, arguably the most powerful man in Australia, media mogul Kerry Packer was in the spotlight for the tax practices of his company, Australian Consolidated Press.  MPs could hardly contain themselves when they finally managed to get him to appear before a parliamentary committee (equivalent of a congressional committee).

    Mr Packer stared down committee member after committee member.  Not much about the tax practices of Australian Consolidated Press was elicited except Mr Packer's now infamous statement that "of course" he tried to pay less tax.

    "I don't know anybody that doesn't minimise their tax.  I'm not evading tax in any way shape or form.  Of course I'm minimising my tax.  If anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax they want their head read.  As a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be paying extra."

    I still think that old media has far more power than FB, which is basically a collection of people individually posting stuff. Yes the data breach was bad, but CA had no measurable or provable  influence on the election or Brexit. 

    In fact the war against FB is part of a larger war against non MSM opinion in the West. A war against the internet in general. 

    Yes, individual people DO post stuff on FaceBook.
    But so do Russian bots and trolls who are directed on what to attack and how...

    Facebook was used as a weapon of war...   Cyberwar...
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 45
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,257member
    asdasd said:
    kimberly said:
    I'm not a USA citizen so just interested to read about the negative views on congressional hearings generally from several other contributors rather than specific discussion about privacy breaches.  What I take from the posts is that there is a bunch of senators on one side of the 'table' that are calling out the 'contrite' person sitting on the other side of the table (but everyone knows which side of the table has the real power).

    Where real power sits at a table doesn't really change between countries ...
    Years ago, arguably the most powerful man in Australia, media mogul Kerry Packer was in the spotlight for the tax practices of his company, Australian Consolidated Press.  MPs could hardly contain themselves when they finally managed to get him to appear before a parliamentary committee (equivalent of a congressional committee).

    Mr Packer stared down committee member after committee member.  Not much about the tax practices of Australian Consolidated Press was elicited except Mr Packer's now infamous statement that "of course" he tried to pay less tax.

    "I don't know anybody that doesn't minimise their tax.  I'm not evading tax in any way shape or form.  Of course I'm minimising my tax.  If anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax they want their head read.  As a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be paying extra."

    I still think that old media has far more power than FB, which is basically a collection of people individually posting stuff. Yes the data breach was bad, but CA had no measurable or provable  influence on the election or Brexit. 

    In fact the war against FB is part of a larger war against non MSM opinion in the West. A war against the internet in general. 

    Yes, individual people DO post stuff on FaceBook.
    But so do Russian bots and trolls who are directed on what to attack and how...

    Facebook was used as a weapon of war...   Cyberwar...
    Can't all media be used as weapons of war in some manner? Facebook isn't unique in that regard.  There are liberal outlets, conservative outlets, state-run "official" outlets, special-interest outlets.... The exact same event or comments end up reported sometimes very differently, even polar opposites, depending on what war the outlet is waging. 

    In the case of Presidential elections every one of them is influenced by wrong portrayal of facts, unfounded rumors, supposition, selective reporting, pictures meant to elicit positive or negative emotion, character attacks, whispers that someone did this or that and more. That's the way it has always been, long before the internet was even a thing. The US planted false stories in Nicaragua to influence their elections. Same in Chile. Russia was buying news stories back during the Cold War to influence US events. Heck even I try to influence elections when talking with friends and business associates. So do you.

    For as long as humans have been able to communicate with each other there's been efforts to influence events and planting fake news can be part of it. Even the apes lie to get what they want. It's not the fault of the internet. 
    edited April 2018 SpamSandwichasdasdicoco3
  • Reply 26 of 45
    Sanctum1972Sanctum1972 Posts: 94unconfirmed, member
    Bottom line is if Zuckerberg Goes against Apple for protecting customer data, facebook will lose big time and may get Apple to really lobby against the facebook model.

    Any attack against Apple's protection policies would be unwise as it could start a War that facebook cannot finish.
    Zuckerberg should  just answer questions like he has been doing and leave Apple out of it.
    Bottom line is if Tim continues to open his mouth, Zuck can and will derail everything Tim has virtue-signaled on. Tim made a big mistake in a recent interview because FB is not Apple's competitor. In fact, Apple doesn't do social media and has FAILED in that with Ping. Remember that one? 

    So in short, Tim should answer questions truthfully and leave FB and his politics out of it. He may have a right to be concerned with today's politics in the United States and abroad, but it doesn't mean he should be playing politician and CEO in the same time. That's asking for trouble. If Zuck goes down, he will bring Tim ( Apple ) down to hell with him because he knows their dirty secrets ( after all, he privately dined with Steve Jobs years ago before he did. True story ). 
  • Reply 27 of 45
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,540member
    sflocal said:
    ...
    This was just a pony show to make Congress look like they were actually doing something.  They're making it sound like Facebook was sharing my ATM Pin, Birthdate, SSN#, and bank account numbers, when all they really know about most people is what kind of cute kitten videos we've seen.  I really don't care.
    ...
    If you truly believe what I have underlined, then you are seriously naive.  You think FB's only data is what people directly share or like?  That might have been true back in 2008, but it is far from the truth know.  FB of course has all the data that people willing supply - or what their "friends" willingly supply about them (many would select to upload their "contact" info to FB from computer or phone, which has phone numbers (work, home, mobile), addresses, etc).  FB knows lots about people that aren't on FB...

    Data that FB gets "from its users" on you (remember it can get it from you, contacts that others have on you, what is written in comments, infer by social graph, etc):
    - Where you live, who you work for, email addresses, phone numbers...
    - What you look like, family members, hobbies, where you go on vacation, when you go on vacation...
    - What you like, don't like, sexual orientation, social beliefs, political views, ...
    - It can infer how much you earn, spouse earns,

    The mother load for FB came with mobile (as many are not careful with such location settings)
    - They know where you go throughout the day, often at all times.

    But FB is not limited to their own data - they purchase data from 3rd party sources - many, many sources.  
    - For example credit card information - all the CC firms sell this.  It is "anonymized" in that your name and card number of course are not shared, but it includes data just beyond "person X bought this" so that it is valuable to advertising firms - like zip/postal code, income range.  So a firm could see what people in a certain city / neighbourhood spend money on.
    - I read one article, where a researcher estimated the number of 3rd parties that FB was purchasing information from, as being "in the hundreds".

    Now couple what FB natively gleans from you/friends, together with knowing your "exact" location, with the above.
    - It is possible to determine which CC information belongs to you - it knows where you live (so in that general zip/postal code domain), and it knows where you go (near / into what stores), and so it can infer locations with purchases and say -> this is you.
    - Why would they do this?  It is very powerful from an advertising perspective - if they can reliably say that a digital ad resulted in an off-line purchase, then the value of that targeting advertising is huge.

    This is only one example.  FB knows more about (some of) its users than any other company in the world - and perhaps more than government agencies.  It is true that they do not know your SSN or bank account info...they don't need to...but they know just about everything else.

    FB is correct when they say "we do not sell your data"...it is far too valuable to sell to anyone else.  It is for their own targeted advertising business.




    GeorgeBMacMacsplosionwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 45
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,493member
    Bottom line is if Zuckerberg Goes against Apple for protecting customer data, facebook will lose big time and may get Apple to really lobby against the facebook model.

    Any attack against Apple's protection policies would be unwise as it could start a War that facebook cannot finish.
    Zuckerberg should  just answer questions like he has been doing and leave Apple out of it.
    Bottom line is if Tim continues to open his mouth, Zuck can and will derail everything Tim has virtue-signaled on. Tim made a big mistake in a recent interview because FB is not Apple's competitor. In fact, Apple doesn't do social media and has FAILED in that with Ping. Remember that one? 

    So in short, Tim should answer questions truthfully and leave FB and his politics out of it. He may have a right to be concerned with today's politics in the United States and abroad, but it doesn't mean he should be playing politician and CEO in the same time. That's asking for trouble. If Zuck goes down, he will bring Tim ( Apple ) down to hell with him because he knows their dirty secrets ( after all, he privately dined with Steve Jobs years ago before he did. True story ). 
    I believe you are referring to Jobs’ walk in the woods with Zuckerberg where he told him to never allow others to control his company.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 45
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,000member
    ireland said:
    So he’s apologising but still thinks he’s right. Which is it Zuck. He’s extremely arrogant.
    Now we know why Steve Jobs basically called him a fucking asshole. I think he's a little too big for this britches. I think in the end he doesn't give two shits about people's privacy. He just wants to make FaceBook successful at any cost which probably isn't the best thing for the company in the end. Time will tell. 

    Regardless...people will forget about this and just keep using FaceBook. It's what he's betting on and it will probably work out like this in the end. It always does. 
    jbdragonwatto_cobracornchip
  • Reply 30 of 45
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,019member
    First off I am baffled by what Cook said "best regulation is no regulation,". Seriously things always get regulated because time an time again people will misuse their product or service in a predatory, monopolistic, abusive way. Facebook and other tech companies willingly "shared" as in sold access to it's users' information way beyond web stats from years ago. Regulations are needed because a lot of people are not thoughtful about what a free product or service is really about, how it survives with charging its users means money has to come from some where. Regulations are needed in every industry otherwise the general public along with our economy and rights will be abused. There are countless examples how a capital society evolves into monopolies which is bad for consumers and that industry as well. I often bring up the breakup of Microsoft and it's monopolistic control of the 90% of the world's desktops and browsers. There would not be an Apple Inc today if the DOJ has not brought this suit against Gates and company. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 31 of 45
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,521member
    gatorguy said:
    asdasd said:
    kimberly said:
    I'm not a USA citizen so just interested to read about the negative views on congressional hearings generally from several other contributors rather than specific discussion about privacy breaches.  What I take from the posts is that there is a bunch of senators on one side of the 'table' that are calling out the 'contrite' person sitting on the other side of the table (but everyone knows which side of the table has the real power).

    Where real power sits at a table doesn't really change between countries ...
    Years ago, arguably the most powerful man in Australia, media mogul Kerry Packer was in the spotlight for the tax practices of his company, Australian Consolidated Press.  MPs could hardly contain themselves when they finally managed to get him to appear before a parliamentary committee (equivalent of a congressional committee).

    Mr Packer stared down committee member after committee member.  Not much about the tax practices of Australian Consolidated Press was elicited except Mr Packer's now infamous statement that "of course" he tried to pay less tax.

    "I don't know anybody that doesn't minimise their tax.  I'm not evading tax in any way shape or form.  Of course I'm minimising my tax.  If anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax they want their head read.  As a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be paying extra."

    I still think that old media has far more power than FB, which is basically a collection of people individually posting stuff. Yes the data breach was bad, but CA had no measurable or provable  influence on the election or Brexit. 

    In fact the war against FB is part of a larger war against non MSM opinion in the West. A war against the internet in general. 

    Yes, individual people DO post stuff on FaceBook.
    But so do Russian bots and trolls who are directed on what to attack and how...

    Facebook was used as a weapon of war...   Cyberwar...
    Can't all media be used as weapons of war in some manner? Facebook isn't unique in that regard.  There are liberal outlets, conservative outlets, state-run "official" outlets, special-interest outlets.... The exact same event or comments end up reported sometimes very differently, even polar opposites, depending on what war the outlet is waging. 

    In the case of Presidential elections every one of them is influenced by wrong portrayal of facts, unfounded rumors, supposition, selective reporting, pictures meant to elicit positive or negative emotion, character attacks, whispers that someone did this or that and more. That's the way it has always been, long before the internet was even a thing. The US planted false stories in Nicaragua to influence their elections. Same in Chile. Russia was buying news stories back during the Cold War to influence US events. Heck even I try to influence elections when talking with friends and business associates. So do you.

    For as long as humans have been able to communicate with each other there's been efforts to influence events and planting fake news can be part of it. Even the apes lie to get what they want. It's not the fault of the internet. 
    I think the point is this: mind control targeted to individuals based on their unique “psychographic” data is qualitatively more dangerous than broadcast or mass-media propaganda. 

    It’s like the difference between coventional explosives and nuclear fission or fusion explosives: a quantum leap in power.

    The Russian bots/Cambridge Analytica type of attacks deserve the appellation “cyber war.” The most you can say about old style analog propaganda is that it is “psychological warfare.” 

    We should keep this distinction clear. It’s not just the same old weaponizing. 
    edited April 2018 propodGeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 45
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    normm said:
    The media covers this moronic non-story that is a bunch of politically overblown hype, meanwhile Congress has done exactly nothing over the Equifax hack which affected half the country in a very real way.
    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is running that investigation, but these days it's being run by its biggest critic, and has completely stopped all actions.  Its head, Mick Mulvaney, requested a budget of $0 for the agency, which returned about $12 billion to consumers for illegal and fraudulent activities in 2016.
    Mulvaney is another of the criminal sacks of turds "running" the government. Doesn't give a shit for anyone by himself.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 45
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    kimberly said:
    I'm not a USA citizen so just interested to read about the negative views on congressional hearings generally from several other contributors rather than specific discussion about privacy breaches.  What I take from the posts is that there is a bunch of senators on one side of the 'table' that are calling out the 'contrite' person sitting on the other side of the table (but everyone knows which side of the table has the real power).

    Where real power sits at a table doesn't really change between countries ...
    Years ago, arguably the most powerful man in Australia, media mogul Kerry Packer was in the spotlight for the tax practices of his company, Australian Consolidated Press.  MPs could hardly contain themselves when they finally managed to get him to appear before a parliamentary committee (equivalent of a congressional committee).

    Mr Packer stared down committee member after committee member.  Not much about the tax practices of Australian Consolidated Press was elicited except Mr Packer's now infamous statement that "of course" he tried to pay less tax.

    "I don't know anybody that doesn't minimise their tax.  I'm not evading tax in any way shape or form.  Of course I'm minimising my tax.  If anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax they want their head read.  As a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be paying extra."

    Congressional GOP tit suckers have power, but as long as they're paid in full they don't give a crap.  Everything to corporations and the 1% and nothing to everyone else, including privacy.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 45
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Apple should remove the Facebook integration from their products, say they're doing it out of privacy concerns.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 45
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,330member
    uroshnor said:
    asdasd said:
    kimberly said:
    I'm not a USA citizen so just interested to read about the negative views on congressional hearings generally from several other contributors rather than specific discussion about privacy breaches.  What I take from the posts is that there is a bunch of senators on one side of the 'table' that are calling out the 'contrite' person sitting on the other side of the table (but everyone knows which side of the table has the real power).

    Where real power sits at a table doesn't really change between countries ...
    Years ago, arguably the most powerful man in Australia, media mogul Kerry Packer was in the spotlight for the tax practices of his company, Australian Consolidated Press.  MPs could hardly contain themselves when they finally managed to get him to appear before a parliamentary committee (equivalent of a congressional committee).

    Mr Packer stared down committee member after committee member.  Not much about the tax practices of Australian Consolidated Press was elicited except Mr Packer's now infamous statement that "of course" he tried to pay less tax.

    "I don't know anybody that doesn't minimise their tax.  I'm not evading tax in any way shape or form.  Of course I'm minimising my tax.  If anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax they want their head read.  As a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be paying extra."

    I still think that old media has far more power than FB, which is basically a collection of people individually posting stuff. Yes the data breach was bad, but CA had no measurable or provable  influence on the election or Brexit. 

    In fact the war against FB is part of a larger war against non MSM opinion in the West. A war against the internet in general. 

    Over a really long period of time, literally hundreds of years, rules around MSM behaviour were established. Limitations on cross media ownership, opinion pieces versus journalism , libel laws etc Not uniform globally , but most western democracies fell in to a band of these actual and defacto/convention limits on media power.

    Facebook, Google and modern social media are less than 20 years old - and that framework has not caught up with them yet. They are just as unruly as 19th century propaganda pamphlets , just as unregulated, but far more effective at reach and engagement. Facebook is barely 10 years old - it’s not crazy that it disappears - plenty of businesses fail, and Facebook is not too big to

    I don’t see it as a war on the internet, just on a few robber barons who are using the internet 
    The media is totally partisan, utterly concentrated,  and run by the very type of robber barons who you think run the internet, of which FB is just a part. I am not on FB as it happens, but the vast majority of its posts are  by normal users. This contrasts with the mainstream media who are run by and for an oligarchy, 
    patchythepirate
  • Reply 36 of 45
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,330member

    flaneur said:
    gatorguy said:
    asdasd said:
    kimberly said:
    I'm not a USA citizen so just interested to read about the negative views on congressional hearings generally from several other contributors rather than specific discussion about privacy breaches.  What I take from the posts is that there is a bunch of senators on one side of the 'table' that are calling out the 'contrite' person sitting on the other side of the table (but everyone knows which side of the table has the real power).

    Where real power sits at a table doesn't really change between countries ...
    Years ago, arguably the most powerful man in Australia, media mogul Kerry Packer was in the spotlight for the tax practices of his company, Australian Consolidated Press.  MPs could hardly contain themselves when they finally managed to get him to appear before a parliamentary committee (equivalent of a congressional committee).

    Mr Packer stared down committee member after committee member.  Not much about the tax practices of Australian Consolidated Press was elicited except Mr Packer's now infamous statement that "of course" he tried to pay less tax.

    "I don't know anybody that doesn't minimise their tax.  I'm not evading tax in any way shape or form.  Of course I'm minimising my tax.  If anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax they want their head read.  As a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be paying extra."

    I still think that old media has far more power than FB, which is basically a collection of people individually posting stuff. Yes the data breach was bad, but CA had no measurable or provable  influence on the election or Brexit. 

    In fact the war against FB is part of a larger war against non MSM opinion in the West. A war against the internet in general. 

    Yes, individual people DO post stuff on FaceBook.
    But so do Russian bots and trolls who are directed on what to attack and how...

    Facebook was used as a weapon of war...   Cyberwar...
    Can't all media be used as weapons of war in some manner? Facebook isn't unique in that regard.  There are liberal outlets, conservative outlets, state-run "official" outlets, special-interest outlets.... The exact same event or comments end up reported sometimes very differently, even polar opposites, depending on what war the outlet is waging. 

    In the case of Presidential elections every one of them is influenced by wrong portrayal of facts, unfounded rumors, supposition, selective reporting, pictures meant to elicit positive or negative emotion, character attacks, whispers that someone did this or that and more. That's the way it has always been, long before the internet was even a thing. The US planted false stories in Nicaragua to influence their elections. Same in Chile. Russia was buying news stories back during the Cold War to influence US events. Heck even I try to influence elections when talking with friends and business associates. So do you.

    For as long as humans have been able to communicate with each other there's been efforts to influence events and planting fake news can be part of it. Even the apes lie to get what they want. It's not the fault of the internet. 
    I think the point is this: mind control targeted to individuals based on their unique “psychographic” data is qualitatively more dangerous than broadcast or mass-media propaganda. 

    It’s like the difference between coventional explosives and nuclear fission or fusion explosives: a quantum leap in power.

    The Russian bots/Cambridge Analytica type of attacks deserve the appellation “cyber war.” The most you can say about old style analog propaganda is that it is “psychological warfare.” 

    We should keep this distinction clear. It’s not just the same old weaponizing. 
    Sounds like preaching to the converted to me. People seem to forget that CA worked for Cruz. If it were so powerful he would be president, or Hilary would if Cruz had just won the republican nomination.

     The idea that CA is terribly important though is a mainstream media concoction, delivered by the every increasingly Neo-conservative Guardian newspaper group by a technical illiterate. 
    patchythepirate
  • Reply 37 of 45
    JinTechJinTech Posts: 400member
    The difference between data collected by Apple and the data collected by Facebook is Apple's data collection is anonymous and not traceable to a single person. Facebook can tie the data to a specific person.
    Not to mention, like Google, the data (it's users) collected by Facebook is used for financial gain. 
    jbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 45
    This was a blatant, sham grilling on the part of congress, with several members meeting with Zuckerberg privately before the hearing.

    It seems pretty clear that while these issues are being debated by Zuckerberg and Tim, they are being controlled by people with a larger scope of influence. 

    It’s absurd that facebook is not only monitoring texts, but also passive microphone data. I’ve received targets ads based on both sources. Eg I was talking to a friend about turtles, and the same day I got an ad on Facebook to buy pet turtles. This happened twice, months apart. There’s no way that could have been a coincidence.

    Zuckerberg's antagonism towards Apple, so specifically, doesn’t make sense, and doesn’t seem genuine. Seems pretty clear Zuckerberg is being used as a proxy to defend ongoing privacy invasion and mass surveillance.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 45
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,257member
    flaneur said:
    gatorguy said:
    asdasd said:
    kimberly said:
    I'm not a USA citizen so just interested to read about the negative views on congressional hearings generally from several other contributors rather than specific discussion about privacy breaches.  What I take from the posts is that there is a bunch of senators on one side of the 'table' that are calling out the 'contrite' person sitting on the other side of the table (but everyone knows which side of the table has the real power).

    Where real power sits at a table doesn't really change between countries ...
    Years ago, arguably the most powerful man in Australia, media mogul Kerry Packer was in the spotlight for the tax practices of his company, Australian Consolidated Press.  MPs could hardly contain themselves when they finally managed to get him to appear before a parliamentary committee (equivalent of a congressional committee).

    Mr Packer stared down committee member after committee member.  Not much about the tax practices of Australian Consolidated Press was elicited except Mr Packer's now infamous statement that "of course" he tried to pay less tax.

    "I don't know anybody that doesn't minimise their tax.  I'm not evading tax in any way shape or form.  Of course I'm minimising my tax.  If anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax they want their head read.  As a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be paying extra."

    I still think that old media has far more power than FB, which is basically a collection of people individually posting stuff. Yes the data breach was bad, but CA had no measurable or provable  influence on the election or Brexit. 

    In fact the war against FB is part of a larger war against non MSM opinion in the West. A war against the internet in general. 

    Yes, individual people DO post stuff on FaceBook.
    But so do Russian bots and trolls who are directed on what to attack and how...

    Facebook was used as a weapon of war...   Cyberwar...
    Can't all media be used as weapons of war in some manner? Facebook isn't unique in that regard.  There are liberal outlets, conservative outlets, state-run "official" outlets, special-interest outlets.... The exact same event or comments end up reported sometimes very differently, even polar opposites, depending on what war the outlet is waging. 

    In the case of Presidential elections every one of them is influenced by wrong portrayal of facts, unfounded rumors, supposition, selective reporting, pictures meant to elicit positive or negative emotion, character attacks, whispers that someone did this or that and more. That's the way it has always been, long before the internet was even a thing. The US planted false stories in Nicaragua to influence their elections. Same in Chile. Russia was buying news stories back during the Cold War to influence US events. Heck even I try to influence elections when talking with friends and business associates. So do you.

    For as long as humans have been able to communicate with each other there's been efforts to influence events and planting fake news can be part of it. Even the apes lie to get what they want. It's not the fault of the internet. 
    I think the point is this: mind control targeted to individuals based on their unique “psychographic” data is qualitatively more dangerous than broadcast or mass-media propaganda. 

    It’s like the difference between coventional explosives and nuclear fission or fusion explosives: a quantum leap in power.

    The Russian bots/Cambridge Analytica type of attacks deserve the appellation “cyber war.” The most you can say about old style analog propaganda is that it is “psychological warfare.” 

    We should keep this distinction clear. It’s not just the same old weaponizing. 
    Mind control? MIND CONTROL? That sounds waaay over the top. Everyone tends to seek out what they want to believe, look no further than AI. Seems akin to claiming that DED is using mind control to target already susceptible individuals. Yeah, he can plant an idea just as the Russians might, but it's hardly forcing anyone to believe something they don't want to.

    Geesh, mind control... Psychographic data... too much SyFy watching may not be a good thing.... :neutral: 
    edited April 2018 SpamSandwich
  • Reply 40 of 45
    horvatichorvatic Posts: 132member
    Apple has the best data practices of any company when it comes to privacy. He could lie a lot and put himself into even more hot water but that's about it. Apple did not fight the FBI on encryption for no reason. And even today will not make any back doors period. When I buy something from Apple I do not get commercials popping up everywhere about products unlike anywhere else.
    anton zuykovwatto_cobra
This discussion has been closed.