HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ancianita » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 49 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: New England, The South, Midwest
Home country: USA
Current location: Chicago
Member since: Sat Mar 5, 2011, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 11,514

About Me

Human. Being.

Journal Archives

What happens if China becomes the next Cambridge Analytica? Make our Internet a national utility!

Enforcement against election fraud could be a lot easier.

Cambridge Analytica improperly obtained data of up to 87 million of its users who took a personality test through a third-party app — the app not only gathered the users’ Facebook data, but also gathered data on their Facebook friends.

Cambridge Analytica worked for the 2016 Republican presidential campaigns of both Donald Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

While Cambridge Analytica has since shut down, Wylie said the tactics it used could be deployed elsewhere, and that is why data privacy regulation needs to be dramatically enhanced.

“Even if the company has dissolved, the capabilities of the company haven’t,”

Wylie also said he believes that social media companies should, at a minimum, face regulation similar to water utilities or electrical companies -- "certain industries that have become so important because of their vital importance to business and people's lives and the nature of their scale."

In those cases, "we put in place rules that put consumers first," he added. "You can still make a profit. You can still make money. But you have to consider the rights and safety of people."


I hope Senator Klobuchar gets a campaign bump

for what Minneapolis' Mayor Frey announced. She deserves it.

Guessing they might have planned the Trump rally payment announcement together.

I hope Senator Klobuchar gets a campaign bump

for what the Minneapolis' Mayor Frey announced. She deserves it.

Guessing they might have planned the Trump rally payment announcement together.

Daniel Ellsberg: Ukraine Plot Shows Trump Now A 'Domestic Enemy' To The Constitution

Next Year's Recession Will Be Brought To Us by Vladimir Putin.

It's about Eurasian wealth vs Western wealth

First, to get the old news out of the way ...

-- no legitimate US banks have wanted to touch Trump for decades.
-- As Putin’s asset, Trump's massive money laundering, continued for years (probably not fully shown in his tax returns, either, but enough to add new articles of impeachment), will continue through other global banks as long as 45's moves keep to Putin's wealth war battle plan.
-- So 45, Wilbur Ross, McConnell and others have taken their cut while helping Putin's mafia launder his oil rouble.
— This is not about the “Democratic Primaries,” though it could help. This is less about politics, and more about humans' future.
— Climate doesn’t care.

Second, Putin's wealth war is on the West. His goal is to take the best and smash the rest.

Trump is one of his commanders running short plays; he's not a general who runs major game plans. He's a "need to know" guy, thus the frequent, secret calls and visits to leaders who hate being sidelined on the battleground.

Putin’s generals are located near global banks, extra-jurisdictional free ports of tangible "hedge wealth," and hybrid cyber command. Right now, they're running psyops and small insurgencies.

We see financials going down in not all, but important Western member countries. We see joblessness desperation high in many Western countries, not just America. American money disengages more from both 1st and 2nd tiers of our economy (unsure about financial centers like London and Hong Kong).

To Putin's generals, domestic politics attracts anxious publics toward noise -- race, rights, morality, surveillance, scandal, real and fake news, sports and apocalyptic dramas and documentaries, the drumbeat of tweets -- away from the signals of Putin’s destabilizations.

Not in all western countries, but enough to create mass anxiety, distrust in communications and governments. Whether the FBI’s foreign offices, under Chris Wray, might be misdirected by Wray to miss the big picture ... it's hard to know ... complicated by their oaths to the US Constitution.

We see that as long as the Saudi wealth world wants the West brought down for ideological reasons, it allies with Putin. For now. Muslim leaders know they’ll have to deal with Putin's anti-muslim ideology later; Israel sits tight, keeps intel score.

Again, one can see the wealthy of the West hunker down, disengage from market excitements, close off lending access for average folks, increase then hoard all the liquidity they can, to ride out US and EU government moves against Putin's march.

After the Western Recession hits in 2020; after controlling Ukraine, Iran, Syria and the Kurds, Putin's march moves toward Europe’s eastern buffer states. Vulnerable Western Europe man their stations. Control of Western communications and winning logistics take over from there. All that’s left is the Big Mop Up of fascist mafia governance and economics.

The War Plan:

Putin oil march —> Ukraine, Iran, Syria with US and Saudi help —> Putin Cyber Insurgencies
-->Wealth in the West Hunkers Down —> Putin Cyber Commands The West --> Putin Extorts Western Wealth Control Through Cyber-Shutdowns Of Essential Net Operations on Utilities —> Mop UP

The Counteroffensive:

New US and EU Forces (banking, corruption cleanup, trade, massive green projects, democratic voting and rule of law reforms) Push Back On Putin = Preserving the Petrodollar over the Rouble

Finally, winning 2020 might or might not win this "Putin vs West wealth war."

In 2020, if anyone has an economic and political plan to handle the upcoming Recession it will be Elizabeth Warren’s and Joe Biden’s.

If anyone can slow down or stop Putin’s moves, it will be “Big Picture Liz,” "Point Man Joe," and a Democratically controlled Senate.

Warren and Biden, to preserve the democratic way of life and business in the West, will
— "sell" the wealthy on the use of their hoarded wealth to literally fund this war or lose their wealth.
— Sell them on the fact that they all know where the best experts in the world are.
— Sell them on the fact that Putin cuts no win-win deals when he has land base and cyber control. He'll get their money. No use running or hiding.

Warren and Biden know the deal. They will ask :
"What’s it gonna be -- "Mafia rule or democratic rule?”
Which will you and your wealth not just feel, but BE safest under?

The West's wealthy will mobilize.

If they don't, Climate doesn’t even care that "winter is coming” for humans.

That’s the New news, like it or not.

Chief Justice Roberts, as presider over the Senate trial, NOT allow a motion to dismiss proceedings?

Does he have that power?

General Questions About The U.S. Senate Trial of Trump

Re the larger process, a lot of Senate trial details are up to Congress, but Congress is not letting the public know how the Senate will conduct that trial.

There's no public information on the procedure for
-- how the Chief Justice uses his role, and whether he decides how the trial is to be conducted
-- will the case be presented as The U.S. House of Representatives v. President Donald Trump?
-- will he allow the presentation the House's case, which can include evidence for the articles and argument for removal?
-- will he only allow the Articles and a vote?
-- will the vote for each Senator be public record?
-- will Justice Roberts sign and send the final decision in writing to the president?

If impeachment is political, is this trial NOT political?
-- How can Chief Justice Roberts advise on the votes?
Is the trial the constitutional equivalent of a real federal court room?
-- If so, can the House appeal the final Senate decision to the Supreme Court?
Does the Senate trial temporarily turn the Senate into the Third Branch?

Will Chief Justice Roberts actually address any of these questions to the American public?

Buzzfeed Links Bogus Net Neutrality Comments Directly To Broadband Industry

Why we need digital journalism.

Broadband For America, who we've discussed previously, pretends to be a coalition of "consumer groups" and other interests "dedicated to protecting a free and open internet for all Americans." But it's little more than a cut out for Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and other industry giants. Via a slow and painstaking FOIA process, Buzzfeed ultimately linked many of the stolen identities to major data breaches like the hack of modern business solutions by matching the fraudulent names via the hack database at HaveIBeenPwned.

Just in case the lede gets buried here: the broadband industry hired shady goons to use stolen data to create fake public support for anti-consumer tech policy. And nobody (especially the FCC) has done a damn thing about it.

Granted the net neutrality repeal is just one of many examples of lobbyists polluting regulatory comment periods (usually the only time consumers are allowed to give feedback on policy decisions) with fake people, and both Media Bridge and LCX Digital appear to have other clients beyond just the broadband sector:

"The anti–net neutrality comments harvested on behalf of Broadband for America, the industry group that represented telecommunications giants including AT&T, Cox, and Comcast, were uploaded to the FCC website by Media Bridge founder Shane Cory, a former executive director of both the Libertarian Party and the conservative sting group Project Veritas. Cory has claimed credit for “20 or 30” major public advocacy campaigns in recent years, including, he says, record-setting submissions to the IRS, Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and “probably a handful of others."

Classy! Given that both the DOJ and the NY Attorney General are (supposedly still) conducting ongoing inquiries into the fake net neutrality comments, this may not be the last time you'll see these lobbying shops' names in lights.

Meanwhile it's rather ironic that the same week a court ruling comes down supporting (mostly) the FCC's repeal, a big chunk of the "public support" for the repeal --

-- and the FCC's primary justification for it (that the rules stifled broadband investment) -- were clearly proven to be fraudulent.

So far, one gets the sneaking suspicion the US legal system may just be broken.


Barr Pushes Facebook for Access to WhatsApp Messages

Source: New York Times

Companies should not deliberately design their systems to preclude any form of access to content even for preventing or investigating the most serious crimes,” Mr. Barr, joined by his British and Australian counterparts, wrote in a letter to Mr. Zuckerberg that was reviewed by The New York Times and dated Friday. BuzzFeed News first reported on the letter.

Tech company officials have said that strong encryption is necessary to protect legitimate users of their platforms all over the world, including journalists and government critics. Facebook respects the role of law enforcement but believes people have a right to communicate privately online, said Andy Stone, a company spokesman.

“End-to-end encryption already protects the messages of over a billion people every day,” Mr. Stone said. “We strongly oppose government attempts to build back doors because they would undermine the privacy and security of people everywhere.”

With 1.5 billion users, Facebook’s WhatsApp is perhaps the world’s most commonly used encrypted communications platform. Privacy experts and tech company officials said that creating a back door would effectively destroy the secrecy of such platforms.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/barr-whatsapp-facebook-encryption.html

This article is on today's front page, above the fold.

Re Barr and allies' move, I prefer the word privacy to describe what tech is trying to protect, not "secrecy."

This could be the new globalism of government that Trump fecklessly tries to set up, along with the corporatists. It's one thing for big data to be drawn from our social media accounts, but it's another to be constantly surveilled by multiple governments.

Maybe it's not just Barr; maybe it's really that the Big Servers of central banks and finance want to keep scraping data from social media. Or both.

It's hard not to feel like a host to global parasites at this point. Hard to see where the dinosaurs (or elephants) are headed while we keep from being trampled.

DOJ Boss Joins UK, Australian Gov't To Ask Facebook To Ditch Its End-To-End Encryption Plan

Government back doors have always begun with "think of the children!" or "Evil porn!"

While I am the first to respect the work of the FBI, this situation shows a repeat of Big Players' history of privacy overreach with us tech consumers, only one of which is the "back door" to our privacy.

That same back door is the entry point for lots of criminal activity -- as we've seen since the last election, not from just scammers or spammers, but whole bot and hacker farms from other governments. Sure, big data of the U.S. has been hit, but so have the rest of us, whether it's voter rolls or our credit rating data. Yet, when it comes to children, Facebook's done most of the heavy lifting in enforcement.

Here is Techdirt's outraged take on Barr speaking for the U.S and allies.

from the letter, as first published by BuzzFeed.

TD: Now, multiple governments feel they can't solve crimes without on-demand access to people's communications -- something they have never had in the history of crime-solving and communications. But here we are, listening to Barr and his buddies make a pitch for encryption backdoors while standing on the backs of child porn victims.

Barr makes this pitch while acknowledging that Facebook probably does far more than all US and UK law enforcement agencies combined to combat child porn.

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg...

... Facebook currently undertakes significant work to identify and tackle the most serious illegal content and activity ... In 2018, Facebook made 16.8 million reports to the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) – more than 90% of the 18.4 million total reports that year. As well as child abuse imagery, these referrals include more than 8,000 reports related to attempts by offenders to meet children online and groom or entice them into sharing indecent imagery or meeting in real life. The UK National Crime Agency (NCA) estimates that, last year, NCMEC reporting from Facebook will have resulted in more than 2,500 arrests by UK law enforcement and almost 3,000 children safeguarded in the UK.

And yet, Barr wants to complain. Barr and his UK/Aussie counterparts want to claim this isn't enough. What's really needed is insecure communications on a platform used by billions. And to make this claim, Barr again points to something Facebook does as evidence that Facebook isn't doing enough.

While these statistics are remarkable, mere numbers cannot capture the significance of the harm to children. To take one example, Facebook sent a priority report to NCMEC, having identified a child who had sent self-produced child sexual abuse material to an adult male. Facebook located multiple chats between the two that indicated historical and ongoing sexual abuse. When investigators were able to locate and interview the child, she reported that the adult had sexually abused her hundreds of times over the course of four years, starting when she was 11. He also regularly demanded that she send him sexually explicit imagery of herself. The offender, who had held a position of trust with the child, was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Without the information from Facebook, abuse of this girl might be continuing to this day.

Here's what Barr thinks will happen if Facebook deploys end-to-end encryption. Facebook will no longer be able to "read" messages sent between users, which will result in an increase in abused children that authorities will be powerless to help.

Our understanding is that much of this activity, which is critical to protecting children and fighting terrorism, will no longer be possible if Facebook implements its proposals as planned. NCMEC estimates that 70% of Facebook’s reporting – 12 million reports globally – would be lost. This would significantly increase the risk of child sexual exploitation or other serious harms. You have said yourself that “we face an inherent tradeoff because we will never find all of the potential harm we do today when our security systems can see the messages themselves”. While this tradeoff has not been quantified, we are very concerned that the right balance is not being struck, which would make your platform an unsafe space, including for children.

"For children." That's the leverage. Barr wants Facebook to abandon its encryption plans to save children. Sure, that's admirable, if you're willing to overlook the considerable downside of creating a backdoor for governments or simply removing the encryption offer altogether.

Facebook's encryption plans offer a whole new layer of security for lawful users -- some of which are targeted by authoritarian/corrupt governments. Many governments around the world pose as much of a threat to their citizens as criminals do. And a great many people believe their communications should be private, which means not being read/scanned by Facebook, much less any government that happens to stroll by waving some paperwork.

All Barr wants is for Facebook to abandon its encryption plans ... He wants every government in the world to be able to access the content of users' messages.

He may only be aligned with three-fifths of the Five Eyes in this letter, but ensuring US/UK/Australian "lawful access" means giving every other two-bit dictatorship the same level of access to users' communications.

This isn't standard government bullshit. This is heinous, dangerous bullshit. This is a conglomerate of Western governments, on the eve of the deployment of a mysterious "data-sharing" agreement, portraying the implementation of encryption for communications as aiding and abetting the sexual abuse of children.

This is a not-very-subtle smearing of every tech company that deploys encryption to protect its users from criminals and governments that behave like criminals. This is the abuse of the phrase "lawful access" to portray the possession of a warrant as a golden ticket to everything law enforcement wishes to obtain.

To be historically clear, a warrant has NEVER guaranteed access to communications. It has only allowed law enforcement to search for them. The implementation of encryption doesn't change this equation.

But Barr and others keep pushing this in hopes of persuading the public -- and the tech companies they patronize -- that secret communications are something new and far more dangerous than anything law enforcement has ever encountered prior to the rise of social media and smartphones.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 49 Next »