For people who signed up for FB, yes, I agree. And they are fucking idiots, the lot. However, the problem is those idiots give FB information on their friends who never signed up for FB, so you can't totally stay out of their clutches."
I disagree on both counts. Non-technical people can't be expected to know the ramifications of putting their information on Facebook. Even among those who know it's going to be used for targeted advertising, the many other ways this data can be used is not generally understood.
Are people who don't know that getting an auto loan from a company that calculates interest based on the rule of 78s idiots, too?
It's odd that the Oxford scholars didn't mention the toxicity of hydrogen sulfide, but mention suffocation from inhalation of methane and the effects of low temperatures. Although the odor can be detected at very minute concentrations, (around 0.000047 ppm) it's about as poisonous as cyanide at about 360 ppm. Suppression of the sense of smell doesn't happen instantaneously, and many deaths have occurred because victims who noticed the odor thought the gas had dissipated when they could no longer smell it.
It's frustrating to realize how many Slashdot readers actually believe that Google collects all of the data it does simply for the purpose of targeted advertising. Consider the fact that they have algorithms to read every message that goes through Gmail. They combine this with data they gather in following almost everyone as they surf across the web. The emails provide loads of personal, and personally identifiable information about anyone using the service, as well as anyone replying to those who do.
Keeping this in mind, why do you think they are trying so hard to be the foremost developers of AI? To do targeted advertising?
They've been releasing bits and pieces of information on what they can already do for several years. How many here have read about it and been concerned? What will happen when their AI gets several magnitudes of order better?
To a somewhat lesser extent this applies to MS, Facebook and Amazon, and many lesser known information warehouses. None of them have shown any indication that their applications will continue to be considered to be benign, even by those who can't yet even imagine that all of this is taking place.
This is at least part of the reason that Elon Musk is pushing for government regulation of AI.
They must attempt to monitor one computer at a time per power station, after convincing the rest of the population to turn off all electrical equipment for the duration. And at a max data rate of 1 Kbps. Right. Someone alert DHS.
Excellent point, rsilvergun. That's certainly a plausible explanation. Still, reason leads me to believe that in most cases the questioners weren't feigning ignorance.
They were certainly briefed on the issues, but I didn't get the impression that many--if any--had much real understanding of the topic. Especially when it comes to the ramifications of AI working with the data.
On the subject of third party icons, I was specifically referring not to the 'like' buttons, but those offering to log-in new users via a Facebook link to their identities. I expect that these transmit a lot more data in both directions. (Then again, I certainly could be wrong. The 'like' button may do more than I have assumed.) It would be very interesting to know if any/. folks have examined the operation of these things and what was found.
"These people's ignorance is not a reason to blame Facebook for anything."
Yes it is! Facebook victimizes people who don't understand the technology. It's not realistic to believe that everyone even has the capability of understand this kind of thing, especially since there's precious little mainstream discussion. There are a lot of technical people who don't understand the issues. I will admit that there's some precedence that's been set in holding people responsible for understanding legal jargon, but I believe it only stands because lawyers make the laws. A lot of what's done on this basis is morally reprehensible, and the same is true of many Facebook activities. Would you defend payday lenders?
AI is not yet smarter than people in every respect, but it certainly excels in producing results using huge data sets. No human could do that.
"The information they keep about people was given to them voluntarily — either by users themselves, or by their friends and acquaintances. And what they now know, they are free to share — sell, give away, publicize, it is up to them."
I disagree. Most of the people who provided the data to Facebook had no idea that it could be used in the way it is. Most Facebook users still don't know what's being done with their data, and that's exactly the way Facebook wants it. To say that these people willingly handed it over is like saying people scammed during the savings and loan scandals should have known better. When is the last time you read three or four pages of fine print legalese before signing up to use a website, or when applying for a mortgage? Even if you're determined to read it, you won't fully understand it unless you're a lawyer.
And when they scrape copies of every text message you sent with your cell phone, back when they could do it without asking; when they collected the names and phone numbers of all of your contacts; when they kept logs of who and when you call; when they keep logs of where you've been day after day out using location data from your phone--when they store all of this information, combined it with data from your Facebook profile, then put AI engines to work on it--I would say that those actions were all illegal invasions of privacy. Zuckerberg and friends should be tried for illegal eavesdropping.
And when that's done, they should start on Google and Microsoft . . .
Some people worry about what will happen when computers get smarter than people. They don't realize that it's already happened. AI can process huge volumes of data that humans could never hope to handle. The insights/information that can be derived from the kind of data that Facebook and Google keep boggles the mind. But don't believe me. Google it for yourself and you'll see. Maybe start with 'psycho-analytics'.
Zuckerberg took maximum advantage of the fact that the questions came from people mostly lacking the technical knowledge to judge his responses. For example, when asked if Facebook could track users across devices, he acted as though he didn't know. Is there anyone here who believes that? I wish we could ask him a few questions on Slashdot!
Zuckerberg also said that Facebook doesn't share user data, just uses it to predict which advertisements users are likely to respond to. In that case I'd really like to see what gets sent when someone uses Facebook to sign into a third party website.
Of course you're technically right, there's no getting around the fact that the whole discussion is by definition political. But what I mean is that it doesn't need to go the route of us vs them / red vs blue. In my opinion it's not a partisan issue, it effects all of us, and no ones hands are clean. My hope was that we can all see that.
"In short, if Hillary had won, nobody would know or care about this. Clearly this is political.
"Am I wrong about that? "
I hope so. I wouldn't put it past either political party to misuse the Facebook data, similar, or just about any other dirty trick. It seems to me that the main reason this has become a disagreement between right and left wingers is because both parties would rather divert attention from the erosion of Constitutional rights that is happening so rapidly in this country. Personally, I'm more concerned that Facebook or Google may know more about me than I know about myself then I am over which political party got caught in a dirty trick.
That isn't to say that I don't prefer one over another because of the "lesser of two evils" philosophy, but would rather not bring that into the discussion.
How did this conversation devolve into an emotional political debate?
I posted, "I don't think people are surprised that Facebook has the data, but many still aren't really aware what can be done with it. It's this dawning realization that causes most of the concern."
This had nothing to do with politics, at least not directly, rather (implicitly) on the fact that data like that recovered from Facebook could be used in combination with AI to reliably infer ways in which people can be influenced. The technology can be applied to advertising and politics, certainly, but just as much so to medicine, psychology and many other areas of research. (Like most science, it can be used for good or evil.) Scientific references to this are widespread, can easily be found using Google, and most have nothing to do with the possibility that the last US presidential election was manipulated in this way.
Many people are just becoming aware of the powerful uses to which the technology can be applied, and some are starting to fear it.
I don't think people are surprised that Facebook has the data, but many still aren't really aware what can be done with it. It's this dawning realization that causes most of the concern.
On their website, Cloudflare makes a big deal out of the privacy their DNS service provides--even citing the probability that ISPs collect and store data from those who use their (ISPs) DNS. Yet, as others have pointed out in this thread, the ISP can still log all of the IP addresses their customers connect to. What could really be gained, in terms of privacy, by using 1.1.1.1 or any other DNS service?
"The thing we have to remember is we cook food with this wavelength all that differs is the wattage and time it takes to do the cooking. Yikes!"
Give me a break! We cook with microwaves focused in a small chamber at ~1,000 Watts. Wifi transmitters typically produce 5 milli-Watts, and microwave power drops off with the square of the distance from the antenna.
We also cook with fire at around 3,500 degrees F. Do we just cook more slowly if we're standing 50 feet away from the flame? Does an oven door provide sufficient protection?
The Trump campaign didn't use the data that was handed over by Facebook because it was useless in and of itself. According to the story it was "every friendship formed in 2011 in every country in the world at the national aggregate level". What does that mean? Read on in the Guardian article and you find, “The data that was shared was literally numbers – numbers of how many friendships were made between pairs of countries – ie x number of friendships made between the US and UK,” Facebook spokeswoman Christine Chen said by email.
Continue reading the Guardian story and you see there was more to it than what was handed over by Facebook: "Between June and August of that year, [2014] GSR paid approximately 270,000 individuals to use a Facebook questionnaire app that harvested data from their own Facebook profiles, as well as from their friends, resulting in a dataset of more than 50 million users. The data was subsequently given to Cambridge Analytica, in what Facebook has said was a violation of Kogan’s agreement to use the data solely for academic purposes."
It was this data that could have allowed the Trump campaign to sway public opinion using a variety of methods. The (reported) fact that it wasn't used past late September or early October of 2016 doesn't mean it hadn't already been used. The Trump campaign paid $5.9 million to it. Do you really think they just changed their minds and threw it away?
Having worked around ozone producing electronics most of my life, it's really a stretch to believe that a minuscule 10 ppb increase could possibly cause a 5.5 percent decrease in productivity. Ozone is known to cause irritation to the lungs and mucous membranes in concentrations above 100 ppb, but having done it's damage to these tissues it seems logical that very little of it would make it into the blood as O3. What could possibly be the mechanism for the effects found by this research?
Since ozone found at ground level is largely produced by automobile emissions, isn't it more likely that the drop in productivity is due to another byproduct of petroleum combustion?
That's very odd. Obviously, NSA has "deviated" from the usual accusations of sexual perversions / child abuse. Yeah, that's been getting a lot of use lately, and they probably decided the method was too worn out to use again so soon. But Russian involvement? For what would they have been needed? Hmmm. I guess it could be that it took two people to carry the pen drive with all that data on it.
What information??? I'm still trying to figure out what information he revealed (admittedly, I haven't followed enough of it). But I should fall right into his wheelhouse. I care a lot about privacy. I'm educated. But, I'm also busy. His first revelation was that the government was tracking all the metadata for my calls... which was already a public secret. Since then, I pay attention from time to time to try to get more details about things that would startle me. Tor being compromised or RSA would have been... not shocking (they are smart) but new info.
It's quite possible I missed something, so this is a real request for an answer.
But if all he talked about was telephone metadata... well, it would be like a whistleblower saying Israel or Taiwan have nukes. I mean, duh. But we all agreed not to talk about it.
I'm thankful that ahodgson was kind enough to give you a partial list. I'm afraid I would have instead had to point out that it's this 'give a shit' attitude that got us where we are in the first place. The politicians--choose your flavor--tell us what to believe and too many just take the disinformation and run with it, never stopping to think for themselves. Too busy, right? In good hands with Allstate?
There's been so much written about this that anyone remaining uninformed must be trying to stay that way. It's sad to say that I'm afraid we're going to have to pay some serious dues before things get better.
No need to remind me how dispicable Americans are. As a member of that group I'm well aware, and don't forget. The same is true of most every developed country. I shudder to think what's coming.
In that regard and a bit off topic, I've wondered lately if we'll ever discover life on other planets. Assuming it's this dog-eat-dog mentality that has allowed us to evolve this far, and assuming that's the only way intelligent life can arise in the first place, the whole thing may be self limiting. A snake swallowing it's own tail.
Edward Snowden knowingly gave the world this information at enormous personal cost. Only if enough of us stand up, stop debating minutiae, and demand that it stop will Mr. Snowden's sacrifice have been worth it.
It's been found that rare earth metals like neodymium are highly effective as shark deterrents. No other fish are effected except skates, and the reaction of sharks to the metal is dramatic and instantaneous. The effect has something to do with a unique quality of shark skin, which when brought into the vicinity of neodymium produces an electric charge that sharks don't like at all.
The only liability to this approach is that the metals are gradually depleted and must be replaced, but depending upon how much it's costing to maintain the fiber without it, it may be well worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
"You GAVE Facebook that information on yourself.
For people who signed up for FB, yes, I agree. And they are fucking idiots, the lot. However, the problem is those idiots give FB information on their friends who never signed up for FB, so you can't totally stay out of their clutches."
I disagree on both counts. Non-technical people can't be expected to know the ramifications of putting their information on Facebook. Even among those who know it's going to be used for targeted advertising, the many other ways this data can be used is not generally understood.
Are people who don't know that getting an auto loan from a company that calculates interest based on the rule of 78s idiots, too?
Truly shocking! Have they not considered the impact this could have on investment bankers' bonuses--in this year alone?
"But I guess saying Uranus smells like a bag of farts is more entertaining than actual science."
Agreed. I smell fake news.
It's odd that the Oxford scholars didn't mention the toxicity of hydrogen sulfide, but mention suffocation from inhalation of methane and the effects of low temperatures. Although the odor can be detected at very minute concentrations, (around 0.000047 ppm) it's about as poisonous as cyanide at about 360 ppm. Suppression of the sense of smell doesn't happen instantaneously, and many deaths have occurred because victims who noticed the odor thought the gas had dissipated when they could no longer smell it.
It's frustrating to realize how many Slashdot readers actually believe that Google collects all of the data it does simply for the purpose of targeted advertising. Consider the fact that they have algorithms to read every message that goes through Gmail. They combine this with data they gather in following almost everyone as they surf across the web. The emails provide loads of personal, and personally identifiable information about anyone using the service, as well as anyone replying to those who do.
Keeping this in mind, why do you think they are trying so hard to be the foremost developers of AI? To do targeted advertising?
They've been releasing bits and pieces of information on what they can already do for several years. How many here have read about it and been concerned? What will happen when their AI gets several magnitudes of order better?
To a somewhat lesser extent this applies to MS, Facebook and Amazon, and many lesser known information warehouses. None of them have shown any indication that their applications will continue to be considered to be benign, even by those who can't yet even imagine that all of this is taking place.
This is at least part of the reason that Elon Musk is pushing for government regulation of AI.
They must attempt to monitor one computer at a time per power station, after convincing the rest of the population to turn off all electrical equipment for the duration. And at a max data rate of 1 Kbps. Right. Someone alert DHS.
So we do have free will after all.
Excellent point, rsilvergun. That's certainly a plausible explanation. Still, reason leads me to believe that in most cases the questioners weren't feigning ignorance.
They were certainly briefed on the issues, but I didn't get the impression that many--if any--had much real understanding of the topic. Especially when it comes to the ramifications of AI working with the data.
On the subject of third party icons, I was specifically referring not to the 'like' buttons, but those offering to log-in new users via a Facebook link to their identities. I expect that these transmit a lot more data in both directions. (Then again, I certainly could be wrong. The 'like' button may do more than I have assumed.) It would be very interesting to know if any /. folks have examined the operation of these things and what was found.
"These people's ignorance is not a reason to blame Facebook for anything."
Yes it is! Facebook victimizes people who don't understand the technology. It's not realistic to believe that everyone even has the capability of understand this kind of thing, especially since there's precious little mainstream discussion. There are a lot of technical people who don't understand the issues. I will admit that there's some precedence that's been set in holding people responsible for understanding legal jargon, but I believe it only stands because lawyers make the laws. A lot of what's done on this basis is morally reprehensible, and the same is true of many Facebook activities. Would you defend payday lenders?
AI is not yet smarter than people in every respect, but it certainly excels in producing results using huge data sets. No human could do that.
Can I interest you in a game of Go?
"The information they keep about people was given to them voluntarily — either by users themselves, or by their friends and acquaintances. And what they now know, they are free to share — sell, give away, publicize, it is up to them."
I disagree. Most of the people who provided the data to Facebook had no idea that it could be used in the way it is. Most Facebook users still don't know what's being done with their data, and that's exactly the way Facebook wants it. To say that these people willingly handed it over is like saying people scammed during the savings and loan scandals should have known better. When is the last time you read three or four pages of fine print legalese before signing up to use a website, or when applying for a mortgage? Even if you're determined to read it, you won't fully understand it unless you're a lawyer.
And when they scrape copies of every text message you sent with your cell phone, back when they could do it without asking; when they collected the names and phone numbers of all of your contacts; when they kept logs of who and when you call; when they keep logs of where you've been day after day out using location data from your phone--when they store all of this information, combined it with data from your Facebook profile, then put AI engines to work on it--I would say that those actions were all illegal invasions of privacy. Zuckerberg and friends should be tried for illegal eavesdropping.
And when that's done, they should start on Google and Microsoft . . .
Some people worry about what will happen when computers get smarter than people. They don't realize that it's already happened. AI can process huge volumes of data that humans could never hope to handle. The insights/information that can be derived from the kind of data that Facebook and Google keep boggles the mind. But don't believe me. Google it for yourself and you'll see. Maybe start with 'psycho-analytics'.
Zuckerberg took maximum advantage of the fact that the questions came from people mostly lacking the technical knowledge to judge his responses. For example, when asked if Facebook could track users across devices, he acted as though he didn't know. Is there anyone here who believes that? I wish we could ask him a few questions on Slashdot!
Zuckerberg also said that Facebook doesn't share user data, just uses it to predict which advertisements users are likely to respond to. In that case I'd really like to see what gets sent when someone uses Facebook to sign into a third party website.
Of course you're technically right, there's no getting around the fact that the whole discussion is by definition political. But what I mean is that it doesn't need to go the route of us vs them / red vs blue. In my opinion it's not a partisan issue, it effects all of us, and no ones hands are clean. My hope was that we can all see that.
"In short, if Hillary had won, nobody would know or care about this. Clearly this is political.
"Am I wrong about that? "
I hope so. I wouldn't put it past either political party to misuse the Facebook data, similar, or just about any other dirty trick. It seems to me that the main reason this has become a disagreement between right and left wingers is because both parties would rather divert attention from the erosion of Constitutional rights that is happening so rapidly in this country. Personally, I'm more concerned that Facebook or Google may know more about me than I know about myself then I am over which political party got caught in a dirty trick.
That isn't to say that I don't prefer one over another because of the "lesser of two evils" philosophy, but would rather not bring that into the discussion.
Thanks for the reasoned reply.
How did this conversation devolve into an emotional political debate?
I posted, "I don't think people are surprised that Facebook has the data, but many still aren't really aware what can be done with it. It's this dawning realization that causes most of the concern."
This had nothing to do with politics, at least not directly, rather (implicitly) on the fact that data like that recovered from Facebook could be used in combination with AI to reliably infer ways in which people can be influenced. The technology can be applied to advertising and politics, certainly, but just as much so to medicine, psychology and many other areas of research. (Like most science, it can be used for good or evil.) Scientific references to this are widespread, can easily be found using Google, and most have nothing to do with the possibility that the last US presidential election was manipulated in this way.
Many people are just becoming aware of the powerful uses to which the technology can be applied, and some are starting to fear it.
I don't think people are surprised that Facebook has the data, but many still aren't really aware what can be done with it. It's this dawning realization that causes most of the concern.
On their website, Cloudflare makes a big deal out of the privacy their DNS service provides--even citing the probability that ISPs collect and store data from those who use their (ISPs) DNS. Yet, as others have pointed out in this thread, the ISP can still log all of the IP addresses their customers connect to. What could really be gained, in terms of privacy, by using 1.1.1.1 or any other DNS service?
NR
"The thing we have to remember is we cook food with this wavelength all that differs is the wattage and time it takes to do the cooking. Yikes!"
Give me a break! We cook with microwaves focused in a small chamber at ~1,000 Watts. Wifi transmitters typically produce 5 milli-Watts, and microwave power drops off with the square of the distance from the antenna.
We also cook with fire at around 3,500 degrees F. Do we just cook more slowly if we're standing 50 feet away from the flame? Does an oven door provide sufficient protection?
The Trump campaign didn't use the data that was handed over by Facebook because it was useless in and of itself. According to the story it was "every friendship formed in 2011 in every country in the world at the national aggregate level". What does that mean? Read on in the Guardian article and you find, “The data that was shared was literally numbers – numbers of how many friendships were made between pairs of countries – ie x number of friendships made between the US and UK,” Facebook spokeswoman Christine Chen said by email.
Continue reading the Guardian story and you see there was more to it than what was handed over by Facebook:
"Between June and August of that year, [2014] GSR paid approximately 270,000 individuals to use a Facebook questionnaire app that harvested data from their own Facebook profiles, as well as from their friends, resulting in a dataset of more than 50 million users. The data was subsequently given to Cambridge Analytica, in what Facebook has said was a violation of Kogan’s agreement to use the data solely for academic purposes."
It was this data that could have allowed the Trump campaign to sway public opinion using a variety of methods. The (reported) fact that it wasn't used past late September or early October of 2016 doesn't mean it hadn't already been used. The Trump campaign paid $5.9 million to it. Do you really think they just changed their minds and threw it away?
Netflix has servers in strategic positions within most ISPs, or in some cases just outside. Please see:
https://media.netflix.com/en/c...
In addition, Netflix automatically adjusts the video resolution depending upon the bandwidth of the connection.
Having worked around ozone producing electronics most of my life, it's really a stretch to believe that a minuscule 10 ppb increase could possibly cause a 5.5 percent decrease in productivity. Ozone is known to cause irritation to the lungs and mucous membranes in concentrations above 100 ppb, but having done it's damage to these tissues it seems logical that very little of it would make it into the blood as O3. What could possibly be the mechanism for the effects found by this research?
Since ozone found at ground level is largely produced by automobile emissions, isn't it more likely that the drop in productivity is due to another byproduct of petroleum combustion?
NR
That's very odd. Obviously, NSA has "deviated" from the usual accusations of sexual perversions / child abuse. Yeah, that's been getting a lot of use lately, and they probably decided the method was too worn out to use again so soon. But Russian involvement? For what would they have been needed? Hmmm. I guess it could be that it took two people to carry the pen drive with all that data on it.
What information??? I'm still trying to figure out what information he revealed (admittedly, I haven't followed enough of it). But I should fall right into his wheelhouse. I care a lot about privacy. I'm educated. But, I'm also busy. His first revelation was that the government was tracking all the metadata for my calls... which was already a public secret. Since then, I pay attention from time to time to try to get more details about things that would startle me. Tor being compromised or RSA would have been... not shocking (they are smart) but new info.
It's quite possible I missed something, so this is a real request for an answer.
But if all he talked about was telephone metadata... well, it would be like a whistleblower saying Israel or Taiwan have nukes. I mean, duh. But we all agreed not to talk about it.
I'm thankful that ahodgson was kind enough to give you a partial list. I'm afraid I would have instead had to point out that it's this 'give a shit' attitude that got us where we are in the first place. The politicians--choose your flavor--tell us what to believe and too many just take the disinformation and run with it, never stopping to think for themselves. Too busy, right? In good hands with Allstate?
There's been so much written about this that anyone remaining uninformed must be trying to stay that way. It's sad to say that I'm afraid we're going to have to pay some serious dues before things get better.
No need to remind me how dispicable Americans are. As a member of that group I'm well aware, and don't forget. The same is true of most every developed country. I shudder to think what's coming.
In that regard and a bit off topic, I've wondered lately if we'll ever discover life on other planets. Assuming it's this dog-eat-dog mentality that has allowed us to evolve this far, and assuming that's the only way intelligent life can arise in the first place, the whole thing may be self limiting. A snake swallowing it's own tail.
Edward Snowden knowingly gave the world this information at enormous personal cost. Only if enough of us stand up, stop debating minutiae, and demand that it stop will Mr. Snowden's sacrifice have been worth it.
It's been found that rare earth metals like neodymium are highly effective as shark deterrents. No other fish are effected except skates, and the reaction of sharks to the metal is dramatic and instantaneous. The effect has something to do with a unique quality of shark skin, which when brought into the vicinity of neodymium produces an electric charge that sharks don't like at all.
For more information see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The only liability to this approach is that the metals are gradually depleted and must be replaced, but depending upon how much it's costing to maintain the fiber without it, it may be well worth it.
NR