Slashdot Mirror


Twitter Hits Back Again at Claims That Its Employees Monitor Direct Messages (techcrunch.com)

From a report on TechCrunch: Twitter is pushing back against claims made by conservative activist group Project Veritas that its employees monitor private user data, including direct messages. In a statement to BuzzFeed News, a Twitter representative said "we do not proactively review DMs. Period. A limited number of employees have access to such information, for legitimate work purposes, and we enforce strict access protocols for those employees." Last week, Project Veritas, which produces undercover sting operations that purportedly expose liberal biases at media companies and other organizations, posted footage that appeared to show Twitter engineers claiming that teams of employees look at users' private data. One engineer seemed to say that Twitter can hand over President Donald Trump's data, including deleted tweets and direct messages, to the Department of Justice.

83 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. No shit by Sneeka2 · · Score: 1

    Is the data on their servers? Do they have access to their own servers? Ergo, they have Trump's toots and could hand them over.

    I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that anybody is shocked about this.

    --
    Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
    1. Re:No shit by bobbied · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Veritas is a master of the obvious truth hidden in plain sight. Of course folks at Twitter filter stuff...

      The issue here though is by what standard they filter? Personally I don't care what Twitter does but the fools who are on the video explaining their personal bias presumably used in their filtering of Twitter feeds do make Twitter look bad in the eyes of some.

      What we have here is a PR war with Veritas, which generally doesn't work out well for Veritas' targets. We are in full damage control mode by Twitter while Veritas sits back with who knows what kind of additional footage to prove anything Twitter's PR department puts out to fix this is a lie. My advice to Twitter is to shut up, make sure these folks on the video don't actually do what they claim and let it run it's course. It will pass in 2 weeks or less if you shut up.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:No shit by jedidiah · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This isn't a "PR war". It's a disclosure. It's cluing the rubes into what the implications of all of this are. A lot of them don't get it. They aren't informed enough to consent to the anal cavity search you seem so fond of.

      It doesn't even matter if the interviews are real or not.

      People don't realize that they have to consider this in terms of the worst case scenario. That's the problem with ALL of this. This is why device manufacturers have started to lock down their devices more.

      They left things open and governments decided to abuse the situation in the worst ways possible.

      If you don't think that corporations aren't doing the same, you're a child.

      It's funny how people excuse corporations they would normally eviscerate.

      The fact that you dislike the messenger is really quite irrelevant. That doesn't alter the implications of any of this.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:No shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Veritas is a bullshit factory, and media reporting on them as if there's any doubt to that does the public a great disservice.

    4. Re:No shit by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      If the story has legs then Twitter will sue, get the unedited footage and take them to the cleaners.

      That's what usually happens with Veritas stuff, the full story comes out and it becomes clear that the video was carefully edited to give a false impression. If it wasn't they would simply post the unedited footage for all to see, and not put cuts in the middle of sentences etc.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:No shit by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Ergo, they have Trump's toots and could hand them over."

      Are you saying they monitor all the stable geniuses only?

    6. Re:No shit by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Link? The full video isn't on the story page on their web site, only the edited one.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:No shit by BlueStrat · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's the same scaremongering editing they used in their previous videos...

      Since the full unedited videos were also posted, I'm sure you can point out precisely where and how they were "deceptively edited"....right?

      [crickets]

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    8. Re:No shit by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      " It's just unethical propagandists engaged in scaremongering . . ."

      But when it's your side doing it, it's A-okay, right? I see a ton of it from BOTH sides, but only one side gets villified by the press and slashdot. Wonder why that is . . . .

    9. Re:No shit by tbannist · · Score: 1

      {sarcasm}Thanks for making it easy by providing direct links to the unedited videos...{/sarcasm}

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    10. Re:No shit by tbannist · · Score: 1

      But when it's your side doing it, it's A-okay, right?

      My "side" is truth and reason. I don't know what side you think I am on, but I don't appreciate anyone trying to manipulate me.

      I see a ton of it from BOTH sides, but only one side gets villified by the press and slashdot. Wonder why that is . . . .

      You are apparently talking about American politics, ever bother to actually check if one side is more truthful than the other? I did and it's why I am no longer a conservative.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    11. Re:No shit by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      {sarcasm}Thanks for making it easy by providing direct links to the unedited videos...{/sarcasm}
      Flag as Inappropriate

      I'm sorry, I mistakenly assumed you knew what Google was and that you could spell "Project Veritas".

      https://www.projectveritas.com...

      https://www.projectveritas.com...

      https://www.projectveritas.com...

      My bad. I'll not assume that level of competence from you again.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    12. Re:No shit by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      You can't prove a negative.

    13. Re:No shit by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You know.. Your partisan perspective is just as bad as O'Keefe's.

      Veritas obviously edits their video for running time constraints, after all we are in the age of the 30 second sound byte, but when they are pressed on "you edited this out of context!" they usually cough up the unedited video in all it's glory. In both the ACORN and PP videos, they had ostensibly relayed the content accurately and didn't misrepresent what the unedited video showed. If Twitter wants to make the claim that these videos are deceptively edited, have them make the PR release and I'll wager Veritas dumps the raw unedited video onto U-Tube as is their custom. But so far, I don't think Twitter is making that claim.

      Of course, the media made a huge deal out of both ACORN's and PP's claims of editing and out of context, but then didn't follow though and actually make as much noise about how right or wrong ACORN and PP where in their claims once the full video source was released. This leaves the public (and the willfully ignorant) with the impression that Veritas did do deceptive editing, when they really didn't. Go back, everything you need to verify this is on U-Tube if you have the hours and hours to burn watching all the mind numbing video.

      Then there is all the deceptive editing the media does..... I remember some ABC news audio from the Travan Martian killing where they made some stunningly deceptive edits to 911 audio to make something seem racist, when it wasn't at all. But you don't hear about this because it doesn't play into the narrative. But my point is that the media edits things down too, with an eye to project the news as they want to depict it, why shouldn't these guys? After all, they are nothing more than investigative reporters, carrying hidden cameras and audio recorders around to catch people candidly admitting to shocking things. Isn't that what the media does when they shove a microphone into a neighbors face and ask "So did you know the killer next door sir?"

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    14. Re:No shit by tbannist · · Score: 1

      My bad. I'll not assume that level of competence from you again.

      How about you just try not to be a jackass in the future, ok?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    15. Re:No shit by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      You know.. Your partisan perspective is just as bad as O'Keefe's.

      I would consider myself center generally, even center-right on some issues. I just dislike liars. The media, including O'Keefe's org, seem into be in a race to one-up each other with how much they can bamboozle and trick the public. As long as a narrative is crafted for 'your side,' it's a-ok to be dishonest! Everyone goes in to these stories with their conclusions already drawn, and then try to craft a narrative to validates that conclusion, however you can do it.

      Yes, O'Keefe posts raw video of many interviews, but most people don't watch them -- they watch the edited video and that's what most people make their conclusions on. Especially in the early days, the raw video could only be analyzed after the media brouhaha over the edited video and story was generated. This gives Veritas a clever shield -- deceive, while claiming openness since the original video, which often counteracts the narrative Veritas is pushing, is available. Like I said before, they're Michael Moore imitators, and that's not a compliment.

      I thought the person who misedited the George Zimmerman tape should have been fired, or at least suspended. And yes, I heard about it, it was top news the whole week when it happened. I seethed when Farenheit 9/11, a pure propaganda film, won a documentary Oscar. And I disliked the same tricks that O'Keefe pulled in his ACORN video, like how he's presented as visiting the office and talking to employees in a pimp outfit, with the implication be "this is something these idiots do all the time -- help pimps with child prostitution. They're even falling for his flamboyant disguise." But the pimp outfit came later -- all the interviews he did earlier, wearing a simple business suit. And the ACORN folks answered his questions, and then reported the entire encounter to the police, something O'Keefe usually doesn't talk about, possibly because he lost a court case brought by the employee who contacted the police, yet was fired for the narrative presented in the video.

      As far as I can tell, O'Keefe's first recordings, of Planned Parenthood volunteers offering to help an underage girl avoid having to notify police about her pregnancy, are the most damaging he's released, ones showing actual wrong-doing. Hooray for him! I just wish his followup efforts were better. He hit an incredible low a few months ago with his failed sting of the Washington Post, something that ended up turning most conservative media against Project Veritas.

    16. Re:No shit by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      How about you just try not to be a jackass in the future, ok?

      {sarcasm}Thanks for making it easy by providing direct links to the unedited videos...{/sarcasm}

      I wasn't the one who started out being a jackass, jackass.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    17. Re:No shit by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you were and are still a jackass, none of those links actually go the videos that you claimed they went too.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  2. Are you going to believe us or your lying eyes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Doubling down when they've been caught red-handed is not a wining strategy in this case.

    1. Re:Are you going to believe us or your lying eyes? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Doesn't lose them anything either.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Are you going to believe us or your lying eyes? by bobbied · · Score: 1, Troll

      Twitter has already lost this.. They need to shut up and let Veritas take their short lived victory lap... They are in a no win situation, not knowing what other video Veritas has and can release to counter what ever PR spin they try. Best to let the story die a natural death...

      The only exception to this is if they KNOW more video is on it's way, in which case, they are playing a game of chicken with an opponent who has nothing to lose. Personally, unless the damage coming is dire and you know it, it's best not to play this game.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  3. Which would still be true ... by El+Cubano · · Score: 2

    a Twitter representative said "we do not proactively review DMs. Period. A limited number of employees have access to such information, for legitimate work purposes, and we enforce strict access protocols for those employees."

    Which would still be 100% true if they just sent it all to the government. Just saying.

  4. Hold on by Orgasmatron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Project Veritas doesn't make claims. They secretly film other people making claims. In this case, it is 8 or 9 Twitter employees (some of them apparently not junior flunkies) claiming that they can and do read your private messages.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:Hold on by Train0987 · · Score: 4, Informative

      He doesn't do anything differently than any other news org by editing content for time, except OKeefe always releases the full unedited footage (which the other outlets never do).

    2. Re:Hold on by ichthus · · Score: 1, Troll

      You mean this?. You call that a debunking? It's a DC-based reporter playing the part of Twitter apologist, and is nothing more than his opinion on the published video. Yeah, watch this... I just debunked the debunking.

      --
      sig: sauer
    3. Re:Hold on by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Project Veritas doesn't make claims. They secretly film other people making claims. In this case, it is 8 or 9 Twitter employees (some of them apparently not junior flunkies) claiming that they can and do read your private messages.

      Precisely. "How dare you quote me!"

    4. Re:Hold on by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The full footage in previous cases only came out due to lawsuits filed against him, which he lost.

      If he edits for time then he is very bad at it, because the resulting video tends to portray people as saying and doing things that they didn't say or do.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Hold on by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Settling for $100k sounds like losing to me. You don't just give someone $100,000 because you are going to win the lawsuit.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Hold on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > previous cases

      Name two.

    7. Re:Hold on by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not a loss. He got hit with a privacy violation because the law required "notification of recording" failing to do that meant that they were guilty of a privacy violation. It doesn't disprove the videos as being true.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:Hold on by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Which lawsuit was lost? Try again.

    9. Re:Hold on by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      It is difficult to say what it means. I'd go with the winning side. I am not familiar with the ACORN situation nor the outcome but if I could make my point and the public saw to shutting them down as a result I'd consider it a win even if I had to pay up.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    10. Re:Hold on by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      There is more then one video. You can watch all the unedited videos right there. You sure you want to argue that it was bullshit again? Those are the words of their own people.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    11. Re:Hold on by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Those videos are all less than 10 minutes long. They are not the unedited, raw footage of the meetings.

      Did you really think I wouldn't check the link?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. No mention of shadow banning? by poity · · Score: 1

    Have they also pushed back against claims arising from video of an employee suggesting that there is politically motivated shadow banning?

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  6. Project Veritas is anything but by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Informative

    Veritas means truth. In that context, it is worth keeping in mind that this is James O'Keefe who runs it, a man who has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to edit videos and take anything out of context http://www.cracked.com/article_20369_5-major-news-stories-that-forgot-to-tell-you-best-part.html https://www.npr.org/2011/03/14/134525412/Segments-Of-NPR-Gotcha-Video-Taken-Out-Of-Context are two detailed examples. This is a man who literally lied about who he was as part of an attempt to bug a US Senator's phone http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/acorn_gotcha_man_arrested_for.html. Pretty much anything he says should be assigned zero credibility. It may well be that Twitter employees are reading direct messages routinely, or even doing so for political aims, but anything by Project Veritas should not be taken as serious evidence for such a claim.

    1. Re: Project Veritas is anything but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stupidest post of the day

      Evidence has its own credibility completely separate from its source. You judge evidence on its own quality. Any other metric is political gerrymandering.

    2. Re:Project Veritas is anything but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Project Veritas releases the unedited raw videos of all of their undercover operations. Critics like yourself can only point to the ACORN videos from 7 years ago and shoot the messenger rather than debate any of the content at hand. Which parts of the Twitter videos were edited?

    3. Re:Project Veritas is anything but by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The anonymous cowards are out to get you, so you just might be on to something...

    4. Re: Project Veritas is anything but by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      The validity of an argument is in general independent of its source. Evidence is not- in particular, if a source of evidence has shown a pattern of lying and taking things out of context, that's something that should be taken into account. Or are you arguing that if you knew someone who lied repeatedly you wouldn't be more skeptical when they tell a story than when a friend who hasn't been caught lying does?

    5. Re:Project Veritas is anything but by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      This. His clever resourcefulness is exceeded only by his mendacity.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Project Veritas is anything but by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      he always posts full unedited videos as well. not everyone wants to watch 4 hours of babble for 3 minutes of dirt though.

      they have tried many times to tear him down and skirt the issues. take for example his abortion videos. no one can (or does)dispute that they do in fact sell dead baby body parts. but everyone attacks him for other reasons in an attept to ignore those harsh truths.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:Project Veritas is anything but by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      It really is amazing how quickly such posts get down-modded to oblivion while still labeled "Informative".

    8. Re:Project Veritas is anything but by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I thought that was NBC.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    9. Re:Project Veritas is anything but by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      It's named Veritas in exactly the same way that the Russian propaganda media giant is named "Pravda", the Russian word for "truth". Conservatives, they read Orwell's 1984 as an instruction manual, and they are currently implementing neocon Newspeak. Libtards double plus ungood!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    10. Re:Project Veritas is anything but by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      No. Project Veritas claims to release all the videos. You have no idea how many videos they have that they didn't release. That videos are in large chunks doesn't mean there isn't released videos. And given that they never released any video with their attempted sting on the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.ed859f92fdc9, the idea they are releasing all their videos seems at best to be questionable.

    11. Re:Project Veritas is anything but by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Your sources are Cracked and NPR, two liberal strongholds? lol Can't take your comment serious anymore.

      Can you refute what they're saying, or are you just loling because it's not coming from your fiction media?

      How about The American Conservative, which cautioned conservative doners to stop donating money to Project Veritas?
      Or the National Review, which wrote in an editorial that James O'Keefe does a disservice to the conservative movement?
      Or Commentary Magazine, which said that O'Keefe is exploitative of its audience.

    12. Re:Project Veritas is anything but by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Yes, raw two-hour video that contradicted his "selective edits." The cut-down video ignores important context, as if context doesn't actually matter.

  7. The gubmint, of course, ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... doesn't have any technology that compares with Twitter DM, so there's no real choice, is there?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  8. Claim not backed by evidence by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One engineer seemed to say that Twitter can hand over President Donald Trump's data, including deleted tweets and direct messages, to the Department of Justice.

    All that says is that Twitter stores the data, not that they are reading it. I see no problem there. Also, shouldn't Trump tweets be considered official correspondence and statements from the administration (I believe the White House has even stated this at some points) and therefore be illegal for Trump to delete anyway?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Claim not backed by evidence by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...shouldn't Trump tweets be... illegal for Trump to delete anyway?

      My understanding is that there's a requirement that a copy be saved, but not necessarily ON Twitter. All of his Tweets are being preserved whether he deletes them or not. Saying that Twitter can recover those Tweets seems silly since I assume there are several complete archives. If CNN doesn't have one I'd be shocked. If the DOJ doesn't, I'd be disappointed and concerned.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:Claim not backed by evidence by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Also note that when asked to access PMs they said that there is a legal process (subpoena) for that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Debate fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can't refute the videos he posted, could you?
    So you attack the person who put them up.

    I guess you failed in debating because I just called you out on your piss poor debating ability.
    Looks like liberals are perfectly comfortable with censorship, reading private messages, and other crap Twitter does. Instead of attacking Twitter for being unethical, they attack the person who pointed it out with PROOF.

    Good job letting us know liberals don't care about civil liberties.

  10. End-to-end encryption by DrYak · · Score: 2

    Is the data on their servers? Do they have access to their own servers?

    Which is yet again an example of why you should only use end-to-end encryption for personal communications.
    Everything else will eventually get read.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:End-to-end encryption by Sneeka2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If anyone thinks any communication on Twitter or Facebook or anything like it is private in this sense, they need to reevaluate their head.

      --
      Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
    2. Re:End-to-end encryption by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      End to brand encryption does not work as the brand has the keys too.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  11. "purportedly"? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    They do expose such biases, full stop.

  12. Patriot Act by PPH · · Score: 1

    Some DMs are probably being watched, subject to the delivery of a National Security Letter. Some Twitter employees probably do have access to message contents in order to set this up. Although I'd imagine that they just pipe them straight to the applicable TLA that requested them most of the time.

    claims made by conservative activist group Project Veritas

    If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. And it's your side that keeps renewing these surveillance acts anyway. So why are you surprised?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Patriot Act by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what Twitter does internally, but we do know what they *should* do. There should be an audit log with tamper protection which means that employees who have reason to access data can do so, but they know that their actions are logged and if the access is improper they will be terminated. This means somebody has to monitor the logs and they have to have actual policy enforcement. If they are lax in any of these areas than there very well may be the equivalent of unfettered access.

  13. Did anyone watch the video? by dave420 · · Score: 1

    There doesn't seem to be anything suspicious in the video. One guy admits to DMs being analysed by software, one guy admits to reviewing reported DMs and Tweets, one guy admits to tracking cookies, one guy admits to being able to fire (or even sue) members of staff for violating privacy rules. It's full of quick-cuts, of statements without context, with dubious edits in the middle of sentences. This is hardly a smoking gun.

    1. Re: Did anyone watch the video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What do you expect Twitter to do? Provide a completely free (directly) instant message platform to hundreds of millions of people and NOT have some kind of machine analysis of messages? NOT try to get ahead of abusive or threatening messages? NOT have a process by which some people have access to private messages?

      I watched the video. I bet every single thing they said is covered by their terms of service. You just have a few drunk engineers saying it in plain terms.

    2. Re: Did anyone watch the video? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      As soon as you starting monitoring and interfering with the messages, you are no longer a common carrier, and you become LIABLE for the content of all the messages... legally, it's better to turn a blind eye to what is being said and insure your positive deniability.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re: Did anyone watch the video? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      What do you expect Twitter to do? Provide a completely free (directly) instant message platform to hundreds of millions of people and NOT have some kind of machine analysis of messages?

      Why not? Skype does that - and they funded themselves with premium accounts and add-on telecom interconnectivity.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  14. Re:How does someone "seem to say" something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Considering O'Keefe is noted fraudster and Project Veritas has been caught faking their videos, I'm surprised that ANY outlet is willing to touch him. He's a Breitbart guy, after all, and they're about as fake news as they get.

  15. Gullability may be yours by Track07 · · Score: 1

    Veritas' true gift is that of gullibility. Are the people being interviewed allowing themselves to be entrapped? Or do they have to manipulate the results to have you believe it? Either way, it is useless and requires them to have the outcome of their "investigation" before it starts.

    1. Re:Gullability may be yours by Track07 · · Score: 1

      Sure bub. If PV was a left wing outfit, you'd be defending them to the hilt.

      Give the partisanship a rest please.

      Silly AC. They picked partisanship, not me.

  16. Re:How does someone "seem to say" something? by Train0987 · · Score: 2

    How many times are you going to repeat that lie? They've never faked a single video.

  17. End-to-end by DrYak · · Score: 2

    Technically speaking, if you use a decent end-to-end encryption,
    e.g.: using Pidgin/Adium, using OTR encryption plugin, and using one of the libpurple plugins (you need a plugin using Facebook's JSON API, as they've shut down their XMPP Gateway)

    then there isn't that much that Facebook can spy.

    They can see that you *are* chatting. They can see *whom* you're chatting, and that's about it.
    Given that you use OTR, they might deduce you're probably more on the nerd/geek side of things,
    but it's near(*) impossible for them to guess *WHAT* your chat messages contain.

    Same applies to Skype (using the SkypeWeb plugin that uses the same XML/JSON api as the new beta Linux application and as the web.skype.com website).
    Same applies to Google Talk (using the buil-in XMPP plug-in, but you're limited to what's supported on Google's XMPP gateway, so no full Google Hangout feature-set, and no server-to-server XMPP/Jabber).

    And if there's a useful Twitter libpurple plugin that allows private messages, you would get similar privacy too.

    The main advantage is that OTR is pretty simple and mostly works out-of-the-box (as far as I know it's even pre-installed with Adium, and if both end points have OTR, it automatically kicks in).

    The main disadvantage is that nowadays, most people tend to prefer web-apps instead of stand alone clients, and there getting encryption requires special plugins to work (Mailveloppe is such a plugin, to do GPG on webmail's TEXTAREA boxes).

    So instead most people send clear text message over web apps, and that's something that's trivial for company to read (and therefore mine for advertising profits).

    ---

    (*): the thing is that the length of the encrypted result is partially influenced by the clear-text input.
    So Facebook might guess if you're giving a short reply (e.g.: "Yes/No") or writing a long story.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:End-to-end by Sneeka2 · · Score: 1

      Sure, it’s perfectly technically possible to create an end-to-end encrypted chat service. But you’re a fool if you think Twitter and co. are doing any of that implicitly, when their entire shtick is public message exchange. And even DMs are just "Direct", nobody said anything about Private.

      --
      Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
  18. "Hits Back" by sycodon · · Score: 1

    And what the fuck is up with all this High School verbiage?

    "Hits Back", "Claps Back", "Burns", etc. This shit is showing up all over the place in the media.

    Is the national media now just a bunch of fucking High School kids and their school paper?

     

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:"Hits Back" by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      You just needed "Throws shade" and you'd have the high school trifecta*.

      *High schoolers can't count now, either.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:"Hits Back" by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Whenever I read, "Claps Back", immediately a visage of a McDonald fight appears.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:"Hits Back" by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I think you are seeing the results of the highest level of functional education that people in the media have attained.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  19. O'Keefe "losing" sounds a lot like winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    O'Keefe destroys ACORN, one of the most powerful leftist organizations in American history, and it only cost him $100K.

    And you call that O'Keefe losing? If that's the case, I hope O'Keefe keeps "losing" against Twitter, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo and the NYT!

  20. The real story by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    "A limited number of employees have access to such information, for legitimate work purposes."
    They employ Anita Sarkeesian, no I am not joking.

  21. Ain't nobody got time for that! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, the single most important thing protecting my privacy is that it isn't worth paying someone even minimum wage to monitor my boring conversations... and by the way, I have 3 Google Home Assistants and 2 Amazon Echo Shows always listening in my house, so it would be trivially easy to "bug" me.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  22. Re:Douchebag Central... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    What exactly is Twitter's business model? Do they make money off of selling advertising, like Google does? I think I created a Twitter account several years ago, but I haven't logged in since... so it's about as active as my MySpace account is.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  23. Re:They read them, have backups by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Actually deleted message take up less storage space. But I agree, "deleting" messages in no way removes them from the old backup tapes, for several obvious reasons.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  24. If Project Veritas is saying it... by Macdude · · Score: 1

    If Project Veritas is saying someone is doing something, they are doing the opposite. Their SOP is to secretly record someone then take what they say out of context or otherwise edit the recording to make them appear to say what PV wants them to say.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  25. clear contradiction by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    This is obviously a clear contradiction to what Twitter employees said and said spontaneously.

    This has some serious ramifications. This could easily be misused by Twitter and/or Twitter employees to create a portfolio that could be used to blackmail so many, many that had no idea and trusted their personal communications to Twitter. Obviously we have all been told to not put on the internet what we don't want in the public, however that is just us geeks talking to each other. As far as other people go they don't understand the consequences of failing to adhere to that.

    This isn't the first series of videos that have shown Twitter's legally questionable behavior, such as the "shadow banning" videos that recently made it to the public forums. Obviously when we see a multitude of Twitter employees making these types of statements we have to lend them more credence than some official denial that obviously is a clear contradiction to what so many have said.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  26. Re:How does someone "seem to say" something? by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    Provide us proof. I'd like to see it.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  27. I really... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    don't care. Come at me bro!

  28. Message vs Broadcast by DrYak · · Score: 1

    But you’re a fool if you think Twitter and co. are doing any of that implicitly, when their entire shtick is public message exchange.

    Twitter's entire business is built around public broadcasting of short messages (micro-blogging), so indeed, one would not expect them to care implementing secure private messaging, "direct messages" are more an after-though bolted-on.

    But, all the other actors : Microsoft's Skype, Google's Talk/Hangout/whatever they'll call it in the next beta cycle. Facebook's Messenger, Facebook's WhatsApp... are all about direct message between people, about having one-to-one conversations.

    Of them, only WhatsApp (and to some extent upcoming in some future Messenger) makes any attempt at end-to-end encryption (Axolotl) which is anyway happening inside an opaque blob (so you can't even audit it they are implementing it correctly, or whether they don't upload back the cleartext to Facebook).

    So most of the tool commonly used for one-to-one communication nowadays offer very few guarantees that indeed the communication stays between you.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]