LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 03-20-2018, 01:58 PM   #16
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170

People are recklessly embracing things like facial recognition cameras (on ordinary streets and sidewalks, and in their iPhones) with utterly no regard as to how deadly such information could turn out to be thanks to "data mining" and an utter disregard for information security. They willingly put devices into their homes so that they can speak to them – not comprehending that the device is capturing every word.

According to present-day American law, it's "wiretapping" if a person listens in on a telephone conversation. But what if the telephone network, itself, is doing it, without a human being directly listening? Well, this is presently not considered to be wiretapping. And exactly the same thing is true if the phone is analyzing the speech that it is hearing while you are talking!

All of these things are patently absurd, and fly directly in the face of what people assume as they blithely use this technology. But I have seen a demonstration where a camera was pointed at a crowd in Times Square and within a matter of seconds the picture started filling up with little balloons that followed each person down the street. Click on any balloon to learn a truly astonishing amount of information about that person, who of course presumed that he was "just another face in the crowd." He had no idea just what that meant.

I am truly astonished that the Internet has existed for nearly 20 years without strictly enforced laws concerning data collection and privacy. (Or consistency: why is it not "personal health information (PHI)," for the purposes of America's draconian HIPAA law, that your phone measures your footfalls, your heartbeats, and your precise location ... and that vendors sell that information?!)

Why isn't the Internet classified as a "common carrier," as telephones, telegraphs and teletypes are?

George Orwell really only missed his date by less than 20 years. But, when he wrote 1984, even he could not imagine that his dystopian vision would actually be implemented – and called "grand."
 
Old 03-20-2018, 01:59 PM   #17
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: Debian, Crux, LFS, AntiX
Posts: 2,368
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044
I use gmail for mailing lists (including LQ) and Yahoo as a honeypot for those companies that insist on having an email address. There's nothing there that will tell people anything about me except that I am a well-known Linux user. My personal mail goes through the mailbox that my (rather obscure) isp gave me. And I don't have and have never had a Facebook account.
 
Old 03-20-2018, 02:29 PM   #18
Turbocapitalist
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Distribution: Linux Mint, Devuan, OpenBSD
Posts: 3,521
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567
The ruckus is about what Christopher Wylie verified in his interview the other day:

‘I created Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare tool’: meet the data war whistleblower

How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of Millions

As you say this is not about us but instead it is about breaking the surface of what can be dismissed as "IT news" by deliberately ignorant fb-lusers. They are locked away, mostly out of reach. They'll hear the periphery of the noise and log in to Facebook in their active ignorance to look for "news" there and Facebook will have been filtered to hell and back as usual. So people will see nothing there except maybe some calming plattitudes and then conclude nothing is wrong, write to the other Facebook lusers who will, having seen the same absence of information, reinforce the conclusion. Thereafter they will return to football or cats or whatever and forget there was even a rumor of trouble.

Notice that Wylie's account was banned almost immediately after the news hit the mainstream media. FB is serious about maintaining control over as much private, written communication as it can. It is darn near able to close the lid on it and slide a batten through the handle.

Last edited by Turbocapitalist; 03-20-2018 at 02:32 PM. Reason: fixed link
 
Old 03-21-2018, 08:45 AM   #19
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170
When I see the way that some people use Facebook, I frankly consider it to be "obsessive-compulsive behavior." If you're eating dinner, or meeting friends (real ones, y'know, "face to face"), then it should be that "the Internet can damned well wait a while." Instead, people photograph their dinners and glance surreptitiously at their phones, even if they've put them on "silent" so that they don't incessantly go bling!

Nevertheless, "the Internet" is enormously bigger than that. It has always been the case that two computers can communicate directly, with no central broker in the way. We've always had "Internet Relay Chat (IRC)," long before one clever soul simply re-branded the thing as Twitter,® leaving its peculiar message-size limit. (Bonus points if you know where that limit actually came from – I must disqualify myself because I know one of the inventors.)

I know that politicians right now are using this, and "Blame the Russians™" in general, to both soothe the pain and point the blame for why certain people who were supposed to win instead lost badly. They're very, very afraid of any form of communication which allows people to talk directly among themselves and to form opinions without those opinions being fed to them by billionaires. If they try to turn this into censorship, that would be very bad. But if they would instead focus on privacy, what can be collected and how it can be used, and clearly establishing the Internet as a "common carrier," that would be – oh – about twenty years or so overdue.
 
Old 03-21-2018, 08:56 AM   #20
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: Debian, Crux, LFS, AntiX
Posts: 2,368
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044
I was talking today to a friend who has an iPhone and an iPad and takes a lot of photos. She also has a tracker app on her phone so that she always knows where she is and how far she has walked. Of course all this is uploaded regularly to the cloud. She is also on Facebook and posts a lot of her photos there, mostly of dogs.

I pointed out to her that other people could track her too and learn a lot about her. She said she doesn't care because she doesn't have any secrets to hide. I think that is quite a common attitude nowadays, although it makes me shudder.
 
Old 03-21-2018, 11:19 AM   #21
Myk267
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2012
Location: California
Posts: 398
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Wherein we brandish our eternal scorn and general superiority to people who like to stay connected with their families on the net.
 
Old 03-21-2018, 11:23 AM   #22
Turbocapitalist
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Distribution: Linux Mint, Devuan, OpenBSD
Posts: 3,521
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myk267 View Post
Wherein we brandish our eternal scorn and general superiority to people who like to stay connected with their families on the net.
That's a false dichotomy. There are many ways to stay in touch with people that do not involve the klunky UI that is Facebook. There are also many ways for other people to stay in touch with you that do not involve them ratting you out in harmful ways.

I do agree fully with Zuckerberg's assessment of Facebook users. :>
 
Old 03-21-2018, 12:02 PM   #23
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: Debian, Crux, LFS, AntiX
Posts: 2,368
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044
Someone recently carried out a survey on the emotional state of Facebook users and found that the more they used FB, the more likely they were to be depressed!
 
Old 03-21-2018, 02:07 PM   #24
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,966

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
I pointed out to her that other people could track her too and learn a lot about her. She said she doesn't care because she doesn't have any secrets to hide. I think that is quite a common attitude nowadays, although it makes me shudder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
this is about breaking the surface of what can be dismissed as "IT news" by deliberately ignorant fb-lusers and touches on a sensitive nerve - the democratic election.
that's why i'm all over this, it strengthens my argument against social media with those friends and colleagues that don't really care about it ("yeah, i'm vaguely aware of privacy issues, but FB & gmail is for free, and all my friends are on it, so of course i'm using it, it's not like i'm posting anything sensitive").
even more, they might already have heard about it from elsewhere but me
btw, the story goes on.
i listen to various talk radios and they all had features about it, or related background.
i am positive this will go to court both in the US and the EU, likely also against facebook.

Last edited by ondoho; 03-21-2018 at 02:10 PM.
 
Old 03-22-2018, 12:17 PM   #25
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,151
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1201Reputation: 1201Reputation: 1201Reputation: 1201Reputation: 1201Reputation: 1201Reputation: 1201Reputation: 1201Reputation: 1201
So the PR dept finished their deliberations: https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...idge-analytica

This is just one aspect however.

The other more pressing issue here, which is becoming increasingly clouded as the "blame game" and damage control efforts continue, is that a British company which is part of SCL Group - and involves such people as Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer (of the far-right Breitbart website) was involved in these (dirty) dealings.

Mercer and Cambridge Analytica were involved in the Trump and Brexit campaigns:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7600041.html

(but forget all that: it was the Russians I tell you...)

SCL/CA/Mercer has a history of getting involved with and funding US presidential campaigns: https://www.politico.com/story/2015/...or-data-119813

An ex facebook exec warned about the nature of social media, in particular facebook of course, a few months ago:

Quote:
"a dopamine hit and a social validation feedback loop, that exploited a vulnerability in human psychology."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-42322746.

And riding on the backs of this - a shady social engineering/targeted propaganda global 'industry'.

But scapegoats have been lined up, people quickly forget and these people won't be deterred: http://uk.businessinsider.com/cambri...merdata-2018-3

These people all piss in the same pot.

Last edited by cynwulf; 03-22-2018 at 12:18 PM.
 
Old 03-31-2018, 12:12 PM   #26
Soadyheid
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2010
Location: Near Edinburgh, Scotland
Distribution: Cinnamon Mint 17.3 (Netbook) and 18.3 (Desktop)
Posts: 1,408

Rep: Reputation: 334Reputation: 334Reputation: 334Reputation: 334
@sundialsvcs
Quote:
I am truly astonished that the Internet has existed for nearly 20 years without strictly enforced laws concerning data collection and privacy.
And whose law would this be exactly?

The Internet is Global, it doesn't "belong" to any one country, To govern it would need International agreements in a World where the pendulum is swinging back from Globalisation to Nationalism. The Cloud uses servers in data centres all over the World, where's your data stored? What data protection laws are in force there?

One of the good things about the internet is that it isn't regulated by the State though there are some exceptions, North Korea springs to mind, where it IS regulated and the citizens only have the information the State allows them to have.

If any State did implement controls, what's to stop them from bending democracy to their World view and feeding their propaganda to the populous? Pretty scary in a World now suffering from "Fake News."

All Verrrry complicated! The Internet's great because it's open and people can communicate freely over it. One could argue that Open source software and Linux only exist because of it.

The Internet's bad because terrorists can freely communicate over it and organise atrocities and foreign powers can tamper with democracy.

Anything which has been invented and has a great benefit to mankind also has a downside which must be managed. In a fractious World, who's in charge of the managing?

My

Play Bonny!

 
Old 04-01-2018, 06:11 AM   #27
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,966

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452
a day or so after my last post this finally broke surface for even the most ignorant (meaning not interested in news) people.
of course the big buzzword was "Facebook". "Cambridge Analytica" only came up once for every ten facebooks or so.
Christopher Wylie strangely is hardly ever mentioned at all; I guess he's not so exiting because his whistleblowing doesn't involve any "state secrets".

AFAICS, the trials are taking their course now, but the world has moved on to the next news topic.
Facebook will definitely make some changes, and by god i hope they have to pay for all this and don't manage to look like the good guys.
 
Old 04-01-2018, 07:55 AM   #28
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: Debian, Crux, LFS, AntiX
Posts: 2,368
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044Reputation: 1044
Are people aware that, in addition to their official Facebook profile, they have an unofficial or "shadow" profile? It is based on information about them gleaned from other people. For example, all FB users who have smartphones or tablets (and that means most users!) have their address books harvested. So FB can link your name to your current email address and many of your past ones, your telephone numbers, your friends, and a great deal more. Even people like me who are not Facebook users still have a shadow profile.

Shadow profiles were a complete secret until 2016, when they became known only because of a bug that exposed their content to their subjects. Zuckerberg apologised for the bug but not for the existence of the profiles themselves.

People have some control over their official profile: what goes into it and how much of it other people can see. They have no control at all over their shadow profile. They can't check what is in it or ask for any of it to be deleted. That is because legally the information belongs to the people it was harvested from and not to the data subject. They gave permission for the harvesting. You have no rights at all in the matter.
 
Old 04-01-2018, 01:06 PM   #29
Myk267
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2012
Location: California
Posts: 398
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbocapitalist View Post
That's a false dichotomy. There are many ways to stay in touch with people that do not involve the klunky UI that is Facebook. There are also many ways for other people to stay in touch with you that do not involve them ratting you out in harmful ways.

I do agree fully with Zuckerberg's assessment of Facebook users. :>
Would you mind listing a few?

I can't really think of anything I could suggest to a family member to use in place of Facebook. It's not that I can't come up with replacements: bang rocks together in morse code, use GPG email, etc., it's just that most of those I'm going to say aren't reasonable replacements.

Someone elsewhere on the web said that privacy is dead. I don't agree, yet, but it does seem to have quite a limp and lacking in allies. It bums me out. :/
 
Old 04-02-2018, 02:57 AM   #30
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,966

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452Reputation: 2452
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
Are people aware that, in addition to their official Facebook profile, they have an unofficial or "shadow" profile?
vaguely, yes.
i'm seriously considering shutting my facebook account completely; i hear it's possible, but requires quite many key clicks, and waiting for a reply from facebook.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myk267 View Post
Would you mind listing a few?
you know them, they're called email, SMS, phone, even meeting people face-to-face.
yes, the problem is that everyone else uses it (facebook, whatsapp), and it's a walled garden; you will always push yourself to the fringe by renouncing it, or receive less updates. the best you can do is make people aware that you are NOT using it, in the hope that they remember conatcting you in different ways.

i am considering to use a "virtualised" whatsapp or facebook account, but i do not yet know how to do that. TOR doesn't cut it because most sites reject it.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cambridge Audio DAC TNTTNT Linux - Hardware 1 10-15-2014 04:47 PM
a few hiccups with Cambridge baerb8 Linux - Newbie 4 11-29-2008 12:03 PM
Cambridge Area-Physically Challenged Andavane LinuxQuestions.org Member Intro 4 04-01-2007 05:21 PM
hi all - Cambridge UK newbie here droyoliver LinuxQuestions.org Member Intro 1 03-29-2007 09:09 AM
hello from Cambridge MA jnorvell LinuxQuestions.org Member Intro 2 08-01-2005 05:29 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration