"You read slate that is why you believe the wrong things.
Cut the crap. Unlike you, apparently, I get my information from a lot of sources. This includes conservative publications.
If you can dispute any of the information I provided above, do so...specifically.
Your link is worthless, as you know. It goes to the entire Federal Election Commission site. If you think I'm going to waste time crawling through the whole thing attempting to substantiate your claims, you're sadly mistaken.
Not that simple. The ads were targeted very specifically. A large number were "narrowcast" at certain geographic areas...perhaps even down to the district level. It is very likely US citizens helped the Russians with this.
US law is very clear about foreign interests spending money to influence a US election. It is illegal. Good luck dragging a Russian military intelligence expert into court to face charges, though. However, anybody in the US who actively assisted, for example by providing granular data on where and to whom ads should go, is aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime.
Can you think of anybody who might have done such a thing? (cough) Trump (cough).
I think I can help Huawei move past Samsung into first place. All they need is a friendly, catchy slogan...something that will really speak to people. How about...
Huawei: at least you know our back door is for more than batteries.
One hundred thousand dollars in ad spending might not sound like a lot of money, but it is a big deal for at least five reasons.
First, it confirms that Facebook was one of the pathways by which Russian operatives sought to influence the U.S. election.
Second, it raises the question of how those Russian operatives knew which U.S. voters to target, and whether the Trump campaign might have played any role.
Third, it casts a new light on Facebook's "fake news" problem, which looks more sinister if some of the misinformation spread on the platform in the run-up to the U.S. election was fueled by Russian-funded ad dollars or troll networks.
Fourth, it suggests that Facebook may have a more widespread oversight problem in its ad sales. As the Post's story notes, it is illegal for foreign nationals or governments to buy ads or spend money aimed at influencing a U.S. election. It now seems clear they have been using Facebook to do just that.
Finally, while $100,000 amounts to a miniscule fraction of U.S. election spending, it could go a long way in amplifying posts among a targeted audience. Facebook said only about 25 percent of the ads were geographically targeted. But it's worth remembering that the company has a history of not being forthcoming when it comes to the scale and mechanisms of misinformation on its platform. It's possible that the activities the company has uncovered and disclosed so far represent only a small part of a larger problem.
"Our analysis suggests these accounts and Pages were affiliated with one another and likely operated out of Russia," Alex Stamos, Facebook's chief security officer, wrote in a blog post. Facebook said it's continuing to investigate the issue and reported its findings to U.S. authorities.
What the poor jerk doesn't want to acknowledge is that thanks in part to Facebook, the US authorities he's reporting his results to are now controlled by Russia.
When captains of industry are talking about cancer treatment in terms of "establishing dominance in a multibillion-dollar market", does any rational person believe we're going to have an actual cure for cancer any time soon?
"Facebook higher-ups, Gizmodo reports, 'were briefed on a planned News Feed update that would have identified fake or hoax news stories,' but the update was scrapped when it was discovered that it would have 'disproportionately impacted right-wing news sites by downgrading or removing that content from people's feeds"
There are many, many reliable sources for this, so don't bother pulling the usual, sneering, "Oh, THAT site" nonsense.
And I bet you've forgotten Peter Thiel is on Facebook's board, and has huge influence there.
Perhaps Your Honour would please explain the mystery of why a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a right-leaning judicial system with a glut of far-right state and federal prosecutors all failed to challenge President Obama's "unconstitutional" action using the myriad tools they had at their disposal to do so.
Will you cite case law to support your opinion, or should we accept, "Because I say so" as sufficient proof of your expertise?
Facebook's failure to deal with the flood of far right fake news stories it spread during the campaign certainly contributed to Trump's election. Whether it was decisive or not is another question, but the only thing open for debate is how much fake news came from the Kremlin's propagandists and how much came from home-grown alt-right spinmeisters.
Now Zuckerberg is upset?
Sorry, kid. You made your bed. Now you have to lie in it.
It is different, no question. I have certainly made use of Google Maps. My GPS is generally better suited to my travel needs, though. And my home entertainment situation is simple and direct.
Just as an example of different solutions to similar problems, though, I'll tell you what I find preferable to location tracking (especially the history part). When I travel, I like to spend a few minutes at the end of each day writing a summary of what we did and where we went. Along with photos, I have found over the years that it makes for a really good record of our trips. I have considered allowing the EXIF data to include location, but so far have not found it necessary.
I'm aware of that. But Apple has either been getting away with clandestine tracking for years, or they truly do quit tracking when asked to do so (beyond what's inescapable due to the very nature of cell phones). Anything beyond a dot on the map isn't going to happen without data transfer, and that very definitely is discoverable.
My friend, you might want to hop over to this Slashdot summary on Uber's latest efforts to "secure your privacy" (there's never a sarcasm emoji around when you need one).
Uber has been caught more than once abusing their clients' privacy, yet they're still incredibly popular, and will probably remain so. I might have installed the app myself if I didn't already have so many friends using it. Our local cab companies are predatory and expensive, and Uber provides a viable alternative.
I realize this may be straying a bit, since we were talking about smart devices in the home, not cell phone apps in public. I think the point about the lure of gathering metadata holds, though. We've already seen how much personal information people are willing to give up for trivial reasons. As we get accustomed to the convenience of offloading our decision-making and home environment to apps and devices that generally get it right, the whole idea of what kind of data-gathering is acceptable is bound to change.
I understand what you're saying, and recognize that you and others may find this useful. I am, however, unconvinced that devices that wake up only for a "hot word" will always be devices that wake up only for a "hot word". The lure of all that lovely, profitable private information is just too strong.
Look at how sites like Facebook and LinkedIn have become increasingly aggressive in their data collection. I suspect that as you become accustomed to the functions you mention, you will be asked to give up more and more privacy either to maintain what you have or to take advantage of new utilities.
I would never attempt to make my standards yours, and I thank you for extending the same courtesy to me.
If you happen to catch my response to this guy, you'll notice that we're pretty much the same. I can't take the battery right out, but all my location stuff is turned off. So is the phone, for that matter. Not that it would have much luck spying on me from the glove box out in the car.
When I'm out, I would leave it in the garage if I cared that it could give away my location.
Slashdot Mirror
"You read slate that is why you believe the wrong things.
Cut the crap. Unlike you, apparently, I get my information from a lot of sources. This includes conservative publications.
If you can dispute any of the information I provided above, do so...specifically.
Your link is worthless, as you know. It goes to the entire Federal Election Commission site. If you think I'm going to waste time crawling through the whole thing attempting to substantiate your claims, you're sadly mistaken.
Not that simple. The ads were targeted very specifically. A large number were "narrowcast" at certain geographic areas...perhaps even down to the district level. It is very likely US citizens helped the Russians with this.
US law is very clear about foreign interests spending money to influence a US election. It is illegal. Good luck dragging a Russian military intelligence expert into court to face charges, though. However, anybody in the US who actively assisted, for example by providing granular data on where and to whom ads should go, is aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime.
Can you think of anybody who might have done such a thing? (cough) Trump (cough).
I think I can help Huawei move past Samsung into first place. All they need is a friendly, catchy slogan...something that will really speak to people. How about...
Huawei: at least you know our back door is for more than batteries.
What are you missing? Among other things, this:
One hundred thousand dollars in ad spending might not sound like a lot of money, but it is a big deal for at least five reasons.
First, it confirms that Facebook was one of the pathways by which Russian operatives sought to influence the U.S. election.
Second, it raises the question of how those Russian operatives knew which U.S. voters to target, and whether the Trump campaign might have played any role.
Third, it casts a new light on Facebook's "fake news" problem, which looks more sinister if some of the misinformation spread on the platform in the run-up to the U.S. election was fueled by Russian-funded ad dollars or troll networks.
Fourth, it suggests that Facebook may have a more widespread oversight problem in its ad sales. As the Post's story notes, it is illegal for foreign nationals or governments to buy ads or spend money aimed at influencing a U.S. election. It now seems clear they have been using Facebook to do just that.
Finally, while $100,000 amounts to a miniscule fraction of U.S. election spending, it could go a long way in amplifying posts among a targeted audience. Facebook said only about 25 percent of the ads were geographically targeted. But it's worth remembering that the company has a history of not being forthcoming when it comes to the scale and mechanisms of misinformation on its platform. It's possible that the activities the company has uncovered and disclosed so far represent only a small part of a larger problem.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/09/06/why_russian_operatives_buying_american_political_ads_on_facebook_is_such.html
"Our analysis suggests these accounts and Pages were affiliated with one another and likely operated out of Russia," Alex Stamos, Facebook's chief security officer, wrote in a blog post. Facebook said it's continuing to investigate the issue and reported its findings to U.S. authorities.
What the poor jerk doesn't want to acknowledge is that thanks in part to Facebook, the US authorities he's reporting his results to are now controlled by Russia.
Thanks, Facebook, for your timely investigation.
I hope you're right. I am afraid, though, that this is one of the times where corporations will look at long-term trillions over short-term billions.
That's a genuinely interesting point of view.
When captains of industry are talking about cancer treatment in terms of "establishing dominance in a multibillion-dollar market", does any rational person believe we're going to have an actual cure for cancer any time soon?
If they'd tried to take on President Obama in his own area of expertise, he'd have eaten them alive...and they know it.
Threats are cheap, especially when you set a deadline months after the author of the situation has left the scene.
"Facebook higher-ups, Gizmodo reports, 'were briefed on a planned News Feed update that would have identified fake or hoax news stories,' but the update was scrapped when it was discovered that it would have 'disproportionately impacted right-wing news sites by downgrading or removing that content from people's feeds"
There are many, many reliable sources for this, so don't bother pulling the usual, sneering, "Oh, THAT site" nonsense.
And I bet you've forgotten Peter Thiel is on Facebook's board, and has huge influence there.
Thank you for your opinion, Your Honour.
Perhaps Your Honour would please explain the mystery of why a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a right-leaning judicial system with a glut of far-right state and federal prosecutors all failed to challenge President Obama's "unconstitutional" action using the myriad tools they had at their disposal to do so.
Will you cite case law to support your opinion, or should we accept, "Because I say so" as sufficient proof of your expertise?
Facebook's failure to deal with the flood of far right fake news stories it spread during the campaign certainly contributed to Trump's election. Whether it was decisive or not is another question, but the only thing open for debate is how much fake news came from the Kremlin's propagandists and how much came from home-grown alt-right spinmeisters.
Now Zuckerberg is upset?
Sorry, kid. You made your bed. Now you have to lie in it.
Alternate version (purely for your edification, of course):
The cabin boy, the cabin boy,
The dirty little nipper;
He lined his bum with bubble gum
And vulcanized the Skipper.
We knew this charming little ditty as "The North Atlantic Squadron
Working Title
"Cabin Boy 2: The Dirty Little Nipper"
The Russians ran Mir for over a decade I'm sure they can handle the ISS for a few days.
Well, so far they're not doing such a great job of running the US government. ;-)
There's definitely a problem here.
It is different, no question. I have certainly made use of Google Maps. My GPS is generally better suited to my travel needs, though. And my home entertainment situation is simple and direct.
Just as an example of different solutions to similar problems, though, I'll tell you what I find preferable to location tracking (especially the history part). When I travel, I like to spend a few minutes at the end of each day writing a summary of what we did and where we went. Along with photos, I have found over the years that it makes for a really good record of our trips. I have considered allowing the EXIF data to include location, but so far have not found it necessary.
I thought it was weird that he'd post a link to such a famous, easy-to-find story.
Thank you.
...whenever I read about a nova and how people perceived it in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_%28Clarke_short_story%29
I'm aware of that. But Apple has either been getting away with clandestine tracking for years, or they truly do quit tracking when asked to do so (beyond what's inescapable due to the very nature of cell phones). Anything beyond a dot on the map isn't going to happen without data transfer, and that very definitely is discoverable.
My friend, you might want to hop over to this Slashdot summary on Uber's latest efforts to "secure your privacy" (there's never a sarcasm emoji around when you need one).
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/08/30/220211/uber-says-itll-stop-tracking-riders-after-theyre-dropped-off
Uber has been caught more than once abusing their clients' privacy, yet they're still incredibly popular, and will probably remain so. I might have installed the app myself if I didn't already have so many friends using it. Our local cab companies are predatory and expensive, and Uber provides a viable alternative.
I realize this may be straying a bit, since we were talking about smart devices in the home, not cell phone apps in public. I think the point about the lure of gathering metadata holds, though. We've already seen how much personal information people are willing to give up for trivial reasons. As we get accustomed to the convenience of offloading our decision-making and home environment to apps and devices that generally get it right, the whole idea of what kind of data-gathering is acceptable is bound to change.
I especially like your model for using the Cloud without necessarily allowing the Cloud to use you.
I understand what you're saying, and recognize that you and others may find this useful. I am, however, unconvinced that devices that wake up only for a "hot word" will always be devices that wake up only for a "hot word". The lure of all that lovely, profitable private information is just too strong.
Look at how sites like Facebook and LinkedIn have become increasingly aggressive in their data collection. I suspect that as you become accustomed to the functions you mention, you will be asked to give up more and more privacy either to maintain what you have or to take advantage of new utilities.
I would never attempt to make my standards yours, and I thank you for extending the same courtesy to me.
If you happen to catch my response to this guy, you'll notice that we're pretty much the same. I can't take the battery right out, but all my location stuff is turned off. So is the phone, for that matter. Not that it would have much luck spying on me from the glove box out in the car.
When I'm out, I would leave it in the garage if I cared that it could give away my location.