"Today’s tech oligarchs are worse than the robber barons"

[LA Ute]

What do you all think?


There is a rising tide of concern, including from such progressive icons as former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, about the extraordinary market, political, and culture power of the tech oligarchy. But so far, the oligarchs have played a brilliant double game. They have bought off the progressives with contributions and by endorsing their social liberal and environmental agenda. As for the establishment right, they are too accustomed to genuflecting at mammon to push back against anyone with a 10-digit net worth. This has left much of the opposition at the extremes of right and left, greatly weakening it.

Yet over time grassroots Americans may lose their childish awe of the tech establishment. They could recognize that, without some restrictions, they are signing away control of their culture, politics, and economic prospects to the empowered “tools.” They might understand that technology itself is no panacea; it is either a tool to be used to benefit society, increase opportunity, and expand human freedom, or it is nothing more than a new means of oppression.

[U-Ute]

I think that it is not far off the mark as I think that there are moments of concern by those who identify on both sides about the power of the tech elites. But overall I think what is happening in technology is a Good Thing. Their maverick attitudes keep these technologies from being immediately co-opted by the existing power structure allowing things like mass public encrypted communication to happen and allowing social change to happen. The "cultural conservatives" don't appreciate the openness technology changes have brought and the "techno liberals" feel uneasy about any of these companies cozying up to the government, but overall I think these are Good Things.

Frankly, I think most of the discomfort stems from the fact that most of these guys who became instant [m|b]illionaires are unaccustomed to being in positions of political power. Guys like Mark Cuban who would throw temper tantrums on the sidelines of Maverick basketball games. I think you're seeing a lot of that right now with Zuckerberg. He's not sure who he is right now so he isn't sure how to wield his power.

So yeah, there is a lot of awkwardness by these people which makes them unpredictable by the power structure, which makes them feel uncomfortable. I don't necessarily see that as a negative though.

[Rocker Ute]

This may be a sidebar to all of this, but I've always chuckled at people concerned about the NSA and government surveillance but who at the same time freely give this information to Facebook, Apple, Google etc., all of whom have a privacy policy that contains a version of this phrase, "We reserve the right to change this policy at any time, for any reason, without notice."

Don't get me wrong, government intrusion into our privacy is very concerning to me, but I think the era of true privacy is largely over.

[LuckyUte]

There is a Supreme Court case coming up about someone who was convicted because of cell phone location data. They were able to prove that he was in the area at the time of the crime. The defendant is claiming that acquiring the cell phone location data requires a warrant before they could get that data.

https://www.aclu.org/news/supreme-court-hear-first-cell-phone-location-data-case-0

[Diehard Ute]

There is a Supreme Court case coming up about someone who was convicted because of cell phone location data. They were able to prove that he was in the area at the time of the crime. The defendant is claiming that acquiring the cell phone location data requires a warrant before they could get that data.

https://www.aclu.org/news/supreme-court-hear-first-cell-phone-location-data-case-0

Utah already requires a warrant, other than for exigency circumstances. And cell companies are often reluctant even in a life or death situation to give a single last known location, let alone location history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

There is a Supreme Court case coming up about someone who was convicted because of cell phone location data. They were able to prove that he was in the area at the time of the crime. The defendant is claiming that acquiring the cell phone location data requires a warrant before they could get that data.

https://www.aclu.org/news/supreme-court-hear-first-cell-phone-location-data-case-0

Yeah, that information is not publicly available, so it should be behind a warrant. Similar phone records.

[LA Ute]

Trump Damaged Democracy, Silicon Valley Will Finish It Off

Joel Kotkin always writes sober, thoughtful and well-sourced stuff. This is worth a read.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-damaged-democracy-silicon-valley-will-finish-it-off

[Ma'ake]

Trump Damaged Democracy, Silicon Valley Will Finish It Off

Joel Kotkin always writes sober, thoughtful and well-sourced stuff. This is worth a read.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-damaged-democracy-silicon-valley-will-finish-it-off

Working in Info Tech and having a BA in Economics from the U, I have a conflicted view of technology.

On the one hand, the Information Revolution put unimaginable amounts of information at everyone's fingertips.

But without any doubt, technology also widens economic inequalities.

This article is slamming US tech giants, but the troubling reality is technology is widening economic inequality... even in the Scandinavian nations. Finland had Nokia, formerly a giant in the cell phone industry. Canada had Blackberry. Both made enormous amounts of money for a few, and both are now long gone, the worker bees in those enterprises displaced and doing something else, now.

In the late 90s I had a short stint at Microsoft, and I was blown away at how much raw brainpower I interacted with, and even more so, how hard those folks worked. It was crystal clear to me that Novell and WordPerfect were going to be demolished, and that's exactly what happened.

One of my colleagues I'll never forget. He taught calculus at Texas A&M, at 19. When I worked with him he was in his late 20s, would get up at 6:00 am, worked until about 8:00pm, went home and studied until about midnight. No kids, wife was also a high end consultant. Legitimate photographic memory. This guy alone was probably more productive than 20-50 Novell engineers... combined, due to his ability to compound his intellect widely, with a drive / stamina that wasn't possible for the family guys at Novell & WordPerfect. It was spooky.

Technology amplifies the value added by extremely smart people, in ways we've never seen before, in Economics. Think about the algorithms that sift through the mountains of information to get a bead on your preferences and place ads conveniently where they're likely to lure you, online. Those algorithms weren't created by thousands of people, yet they produce many $Billions in value. Think teams of 5-10 *extremely* bright people, like my former colleague.

The winners get rich beyond their wildest imaginations, and the losers find something else to do.

The inequalities prompted by technology helped lay the foundation for Trump, without a doubt. And we'll be tempted as a society to push back, as the Luddites tried. Which will only hurt our nation, in the longer run.

[LA Ute]

Working in Info Tech and having a BA in Economics from the U, I have a conflicted view of technology.

On the one hand, the Information Revolution put unimaginable amounts of information at everyone's fingertips.

But without any doubt, technology also widens economic inequalities.

This article is slamming US tech giants, but the troubling reality is technology is widening economic inequality... even in the Scandinavian nations. Finland had Nokia, formerly a giant in the cell phone industry. Canada had Blackberry. Both made enormous amounts of money for a few, and both are now long gone, the worker bees in those enterprises displaced and doing something else, now.

In the late 90s I had a short stint at Microsoft, and I was blown away at how much raw brainpower I interacted with, and even more so, how hard those folks worked. It was crystal clear to me that Novell and WordPerfect were going to be demolished, and that's exactly what happened.

One of my colleagues I'll never forget. He taught calculus at Texas A&M, at 19. When I worked with him he was in his late 20s, would get up at 6:00 am, worked until about 8:00pm, went home and studied until about midnight. No kids, wife was also a high end consultant. Legitimate photographic memory. This guy alone was probably more productive than 20-50 Novell engineers... combined, due to his ability to compound his intellect widely, with a drive / stamina that wasn't possible for the family guys at Novell & WordPerfect. It was spooky.

Technology amplifies the value added by extremely smart people, in ways we've never seen before, in Economics. Think about the algorithms that sift through the mountains of information to get a bead on your preferences and place ads conveniently where they're likely to lure you, online. Those algorithms weren't created by thousands of people, yet they produce many $Billions in value. Think teams of 5-10 *extremely* bright people, like my former colleague.

The winners get rich beyond their wildest imaginations, and the losers find something else to do.

The inequalities prompted by technology helped lay the foundation for Trump, without a doubt. And we'll be tempted as a society to push back, as the Luddites tried. Which will only hurt our nation, in the longer run.

Thoughtful post. Thanks.

I kind of see the tech giants as the modern equivalent of the robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I wonder iif they'll be broken up like the robber barons of old were?

[Ma'ake]

Thoughtful post. Thanks.

I kind of see the tech giants as the modern equivalent of the robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I wonder iif they'll be broken up like the robber barons of old were?

There has been a lot of debate in IT about this, but, for example, when it appeared Microsoft had achieved monopoly status in a broad range of IT areas, the whole landscape shifted rapidly, to the Internet, to Google, Apple made a big comeback with personal systems, iPods, iPads, iPhones, and Facebook capitalized on a new paradigm of what Internet customers wanted. Microsoft very quickly looked like it's better days were behind it, no longer a serious monopoly threat.

All of this happened too quickly for regulators and lawyers to address the previous monopoly situation. Though Silicon Valley has some of the markings of the Robber Barons, things change so fast that by the time actions are taken to address monopoly power, the entire landscape is completely new.

The Europeans are much more aggressive in trying to hold dominant Tech companies to account (Microsoft, Apple, Google), but there's very little evidence it's having the desired impact.

At least that what it looks like to me.

[LA Ute]

A leading Google critic’s firing from a Google-funded think tank, explained

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/30/16226616/barry-lynn-google-new-america

[U-Ute]

One could argue that this is the reason reason tech giants are in the crosshairs now that the Republicans are in charge.


What makes Google somewhat unusual for such a big company is that it’s fairly closely aligned with the Democratic Party. Dozens of people moved from jobs at Google to jobs in the Obama administration, and vice versa, over its eight-year span. Schmidt was a major Hillary Clinton donor. More tellingly, Schmidt owns a company called Civis Analytics that does an enormous amount of behind-the-scenes data work for Democratic Party campaigns. This alignment grows out of both cultural affinity between Democrats and Google on social issues, and also years of regulatory struggle that often saw Google, Democrats, and consumer groups on one side pitted against telecommunications industry incumbents.

[LA Ute]

One could argue that this is the reason reason tech giants are in the crosshairs now that the Republicans are in charge.

If it is true that Google has aligned itself with the Democrats the way that article says it has (making the entire company a Democrat activist, in effect), then they've been foolish, IMO.

[LA Ute]

Great read:

A Serf on Google’s Farm

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-serf-on-googles-farm

[U-Ute]

The story behind "Project Alamo" and how Silicon Valley is available to the highest bidder.

896752720522100742


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

Why governments should protect us from barely-taxed tech monopolies

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/19/surveillance-capitalism-government-big-tech-privacy

[U-Ute]

Related podcast from Freakanomics: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/thinking-expensive-who-pay/

[Ma'ake]

Apple caught up in a second big disclosure of tax havens: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41889787

What are the chances of money being repatriated from tax havens? If so, how many high paying blue collar manufacturing jobs will blossom with lower tax rates for the corporations? (Or will the money simply be moved around between tax havens?)

[U-Ute]

Apple caught up in a second big disclosure of tax havens: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41889787

What are the chances of money being repatriated from tax havens? If so, how many high paying blue collar manufacturing jobs will blossom with lower tax rates for the corporations? (Or will the money simply be moved around between tax havens?)

I don't think they will repatriate the money until tax laws are changed. Why pay a 35% tax on the money when you can just keep it wherever it is tax free?

But even after we change the tax laws to 0%, repatriating the money won't turn into jobs. It'll turn into stock buybacks to inflate stock prices (similar to what you are seeing now) or other giveaways to stockholders.

[LA Ute]

Really interesting Maureen Dowd piece in the NY Times today:


Mr. Lanier believes that Facebook and Google, with their “top-down control schemes,” should be called “Behavior Modification Empires.”

“The whole internet thing was supposed to create the world’s best information resource in all of history,” he says. “Everything would be made visible. And instead we’re living in this time of total opacity where you don’t know why you see the news you see. You don’t know if it’s the same news that someone else sees. You don’t know who made it be that way. You don’t know who’s paid to change what you see. Everything is totally obscure in a profound way that it never was before.

“And the belief system of Silicon Valley is so thick that my friends at Facebook simply still really believe that the answer to any problem is to do more of what they already did, that they’re optimizing the world.

Soothsayer in the Hills Sees Silicon Valley’s Sinister Side (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/style/jaron-lanier-new-memoir.html?_r=0)

[LA Ute]

Very interesting piece. I think she is right:

The Internet Had Already Lost Its Neutrality

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-internet-had-already-lost-its-neutrality

[Applejack]

Very interesting piece. I think she is right:

The Internet Had Already Lost Its Neutrality

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-internet-had-already-lost-its-neutrality

I'm confused (I read the article): she is arguing that the internet is already effectively controlled by a small number of companies (I agree) and therefore we should let ISPs filter however they want to (I STRONGLY disagree)?

What did you agree with? The premise or the conclusion?

[NorthwestUteFan]

No kidding. Internet service is monopolistic to the extreme already. Most Americans have only one or two choices in most cases, or if they are lucky three.

Perhaps if they really want to be given the freedom to eliminate Internet Equality, then they should be forced to accept fixed profit margins (say, 9% over true costs) with 100% open financials, and have their rates set and controlled by LOCAL elected boards and be subject to watchdog groups just like any utility.

Maybe somebody can attach an amendment banishing the FCC people from ever working in the Telecom industry in any capacity ever again, after this debacle.

This is a screw job of the highest order. Somebody needs to also tell Ted Cruz that his porn consumption will become more expensive, and that his hated Huffington Post will always be fast because it is part of the Verizon family.

[LA Ute]

I'm confused (I read the article): she is arguing that the internet is already effectively controlled by a small number of companies (I agree) and therefore we should let ISPs filter however they want to (I STRONGLY disagree)?

What did you agree with? The premise or the conclusion?

Only that the internet is already effectively controlled by a small number of companies. In fairness to her, she mentions the ISP issue only in passing, and I wasn’t really looking at that at all

[Applejack]

Only that the internet is already effectively controlled by a small number of companies. In fairness to her, she mentions the ISP issue only in passing, and I wasn’t really looking at that at all

:confused:

I think her whole article is how regulation won't work so might as well turn over the keys to the same people she's criticizing.

[LA Ute]

:confused:

I think her whole article is how regulation won't work so might as well turn over the keys to the same people she's criticizing.

I post too quickly sometimes. I meant to quote this part of her piece, which I first read in a blog post elsewhere. (In my mind I actually thought I had posted it.) In this section I think she is right:


The internet will be filled today with denunciations of this move, threats of a dark future in which our access to content will be controlled by a few powerful companies. And sure, that may happen. But in fact, it may already have happened, led not by ISPs, but by the very companies that were fighting so hard for net neutrality.Consider what happened to the Daily Stormer, the neo-Nazi publication, after Charlottesville. One by one, hosting companies refused to permit its content on their servers (https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/21/16180614/charlottesville-daily-stormer-alt-right-internet-domain). The group was forced to effectively flee the country, and then other countries, too, shut it down.

Now of course, these are not nice people. Their website espoused vile hate. But the fact remains that what they were publishing was not illegal, merely immoral, and their immoral speech was effectively shut down by a small number of private companies who decided to exercise their considerable control over what we’re allowed to read. And what is to stop them from expanding this decision to other categories, forcing the rest of us to conform to Silicon Valley’s idea of what it is moral and right for us to see?

Fifteen years ago, when I started blogging, it was common to hear that “the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” You don’t hear that so often anymore, because it’s not true. China has proven very effective at censoring the internet, and as market power has consolidated in the tech industry, so have private firms.

Meanwhile, our experience of the internet is increasingly controlled by a handful of firms, most especially Google and Facebook. The argument for regulating these companies as public utilities is arguably at least as strong as the argument for thus regulating ISPs, and very possibly much stronger; while cable monopolies may have local dominance, none of them has the ability that Google and Facebook have to unilaterally shape what Americans see, hear, and read.

In other words, we already live in the walled garden that activists worry about, and the walls are getting higher every day. Is this a problem? I think it is. But that doesn’t mean that the internet would get better if Google and Facebook and Apple and Amazon were required to make every decision with a regulator hanging over their shoulder to decide whether it was sufficiently “neutral.”

The fact that these firms were able to cement their power at the moment when regulators were most focused on keeping the internet open tells you just how difficult it is to get that sort of regulation right; while you are looking hard at one danger, an equally large one may be creeping up just outside the range of your peripheral vision. Indeed, you may be making one problem bigger while trying to solve another. We may indeed be facing a future of less choice and less consumer power. But this decision is unlikely to be what brings us there.

I don't yet have an opinion on net neutrality, although I'm always suspicious of regulation.

[Applejack]

I post too quickly sometimes. I meant to quote this part of her piece, which I first read in a blog post elsewhere. (In my mind I actually thought I had posted it.) In this section I think she is right:



I don't yet have an opinion on net neutrality, although I'm always suspicious of regulation.

That's just my point: if you are suspicious of tech companies (as the author of that piece is) you should be even more suspicious of giving them the power to pick and choose which content gets throttled. The premise of you and author you cite are orthagonal to the conclusion that we should allow ISPs to pick winners and losers.

[LA Ute]

That's just my point: if you are suspicious of tech companies (as the author of that piece is) you should be even more suspicious of giving them the power to pick and choose which content gets throttled. The premise of you and author you cite are orthagonal to the conclusion that we should allow ISPs to pick winners and losers.

Maybe. I'm undecided on the issue still. I don't like what's happened with Facebook, Google and Amazon, and I don't want ISPs running our lives, but I don't know what the solution is. Maybe good old anti-trust law? That problem is what this thread is about.

[U-Ute]

Very interesting piece. I think she is right:

The Internet Had Already Lost Its Neutrality

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-internet-had-already-lost-its-neutrality

I'm not sure if this author is for or against Net Neutrality. Her position seems to be "we've already lost it, so we don't need to do anything."

If anything, her argument that Facebook and Google already control the majority of internet content is an argument FOR net neutrality.

That being said, Facebook and Google don't control content as much as shape the conversation around topics. They don't have direct control as much as indirect control. Allowing ISP's to choose winners and losers (as determined by how much money content providers give them) is much more insidious.

Imagine if Wal Mart owned the freeways we drove on, and they could control who was able to move products and who couldn't. That's the level of control we're talking about here.

[LA Ute]

I'm not sure if this author is for or against Net Neutrality. Her position seems to be "we've already lost it, so we don't need to do anything."

If anything, her argument that Facebook and Google already control the majority of internet content is an argument FOR net neutrality.

That being said, Facebook and Google don't control content as much as shape the conversation around topics. They don't have direct control as much as indirect control. Allowing ISP's to choose winners and losers (as determined by how much money content providers give them) is much more insidious.

Imagine if Wal Mart owned the freeways we drove on, and they could control who was able to move products and who couldn't. That's the level of control we're talking about here.

She leans libertarian so I’m betting she is opposed to net neutrality. I’m still making up my mind.

[Rocker Ute]

I’ve found people are very confused about what net neutrality really is. My nephew had a long Facebook post about how he believed free market forces would regulate and prevent ISPs from actually throttling traffic. His think was that if your ISP did that you’d just join one that doesn’t and there would inevitably be one or more that do.

The problem is when you request a website it is likely coming to you across multiple competing ISPs. So even if you are a centurylink customer, you are frequently using Comcast’s network.

For example when I traceroute my servers for my business I’ll see hops across Comcast, centurylink and Cox. My home ISP is centurylink. If Comcast wants to throttle my server traffic without net neutrality they could even though I have no relationship to them.

So you can see how market forces really can’t regulate this and reward the good actors.

Conservative or liberal there is no reason to not support net neutrality as it really is what is best for consumers and actually all businesses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

I’ve found people are very confused about what net neutrality really is. My nephew had a long Facebook post about how he believed free market forces would regulate and prevent ISPs from actually throttling traffic. His think was that if your ISP did that you’d just join one that doesn’t and there would inevitably be one or more that do.

The problem is when you request a website it is likely coming to you across multiple competing ISPs. So even if you are a centurylink customer, you are frequently using Comcast’s network.

For example when I traceroute my servers for my business I’ll see hops across Comcast, centurylink and Cox. My home ISP is centurylink. If Comcast wants to throttle my server traffic without net neutrality they could even though I have no relationship to them.

So you can see how market forces really can’t regulate this and reward the good actors.

Conservative or liberal there is no reason to not support net neutrality as it really is what is best for consumers and actually all businesses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Beyond that, most people are lucky to have 2 ISP choices. And often that’s not even a choice my old house my choice was Comcast or Centurylink...but only one provided high speeds, the other was very limited.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

This guy (AG of Missouri) won’t be the last politician to push this issue:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/conservative-backlash-a-missouri-republican-is-investigating-google/

[LA Ute]

A libertarian view on net neutrality.

Why Net Neutrality Was Mistaken from the Beginning

http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/26/why-net-neutrality-was-mistaken-from-the?utm_medium=email

What interests me about this issue is that I have Republican friends on both sides of the issue, and Democrat friends on both sides of the issue. That suggests to me that perhaps ultimately the best solution is going to be some kind of compromise.

[Ma'ake]

A libertarian view on net neutrality.

Why Net Neutrality Was Mistaken from the Beginning

http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/26/why-net-neutrality-was-mistaken-from-the?utm_medium=email

What interests me about this issue is that I have Republican friends on both sides of the issue, and Democrat friends on both sides of the issue. That suggests to me that perhaps ultimately the best solution is going to be some kind of compromise.

This is a tangent to the NN discussion, but I don't think people realize just how fragile the wild-west, unregulated Internet world really is. I'm spending more & more of my time with ITSec issues, which is becoming not just expensive, but rendering the technology itself as less effective / valuable.

Here's an example everyone can relate to: How many of us answer our phones like we used to? How many times have you answered the phone, it looked like a local number, maybe somebody you know, and it turned out to be just another sales pitch from India, or the Philippines, or wherever? I don't answer my phone, 95% of the time, unless it's somebody in my Contacts.

All the noise and hassle make phones are less valuable than they used to be.

On NN, if there was a way to immediately punish abusers of throttling - did-incentivize the behavior - then we wouldn't need NN rules. But just as crooked stock brokers sense it's open season to prey on seniors under the Trump regime, those who are ready to jettison NN are either naïvely dogmatic against any regulation, or they stand to benefit from a more chaotic Internet world of predators and victims.

[LA Ute]

This fall, Facebook, Google and Twitter executives were hauled before a Congressional committee after being asked to investigate allegations of Russian meddling. Facebook admitted that 126 million of their users may have seen content produced and circulated anonymously by Russian operatives. Twitter admitted to working with 2,752 Russian accounts, and that 36,000 Russian bots tweeted 1.4 million times during the election. Google testified that 1,108 videos with 43 hours of content related to the Russian effort were uploaded on YouTube, and that Russians placed $4,700 worth of search and display ads on its network.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the kind of meddling the social media giants tolerated. And getting a grip on how to address these issues will be no small feat. The social media business model itself is flawed and unethical; the tech giants have usurped the role of traditional news media—without assuming any historic social responsibilities.

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/11/27/tech-giants-must-reined/

[U-Ute]

Comcast removed their "no paid prioritization" pledge the day after the new FCC director announced that he is rethinking the FCC's stance on net-neutrality

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-deleted-net-neutrality-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/

[NorthwestUteFan]

Huh. Imagine that.

Perhaps the nation and all local governments can send Comcast a bill for all of the tax breaks and incentives they were given to install the backbone, and also get them to pay for the real estate for rights-of-way they were essentially gifted without going through the normal condemnation process. Those alone have to approach a trillion dollars.

[Rocker Ute]

Comcast removed their "no paid prioritization" pledge the day after the new FCC director announced that he is rethinking the FCC's stance on net-neutrality

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-deleted-net-neutrality-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/

This is what I love about all online terms and policy statements, they’ll go on and on about protecting your data or not selling to third parties or pledging no paid prioritization or whatever else a consumer might be concerned about. They all also contain a statement along the lines of “we reserve the right to change this policy at any time for any reason without notice” basically voiding any promise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

A free market analysis:

Should Platforms Like Google and Facebook Be Regulated?

http://pointsandfigures.com/2017/12/02/should-platforms-like-google-and-facebook-be-regulated/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

This doesn’t have to do with net neutrality but in my mind emphasizes its importance:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-pulls-youtube-from-amazon-devices-saying-it-isnt-playing-fair-1512516707

It doesn’t really matter who the bad actor(s) in this are it demonstrates that tech companies can shut each other off at expense of the consumer.

We’ve talked about for profit issues of no net neutrality but what about the vengeance side? What if Comcast decides Netflix is a competitor and just refuses to serve them up to their clients?

If you previously thought that wouldn’t happen, this dispute between two tech giants show it IS happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

The funny thing about the internet is this: it routes around censorship.

Someone will find a way to crack the Kindle and get the app back on just like someone will build a bridge between Comcast and Netflix if that happened.

[sancho]

The funny thing about the internet is this: it routes around censorship.

Someone will find a way to crack the Kindle and get the app back on just like someone will build a bridge between Comcast and Netflix if that happened.

Yeah, but only 1% of Kindle owners will be able to follow the instructions to get the hack to work. Tech savvy people have no idea how wide the gulf is between them and the rest of the world.

[LA Ute]

This is slightly off-point but still relevant here. Also disturbing.

Review: Social Media, Weaponized

Excerpt:


“Our information environment is sick,” warns David Patrikarakos. “We live in a world where facts are less important than narratives, where people emote rather than debate, and where algorithms shape our view of the world.” Even in war.

Mr. Patrikarakos’s “War in 140 Characters” details a new kind of conflict that puts traditional military dominance at risk by weaponizing social media in ways that Silicon Valley’s digital optimists never imagined. The author, a London-based journalist, realized a few years ago that the wars he was covering in the Middle East and Ukraine were fought through social media as much as through physical warfare.

The book offers vivid profiles of individuals on both sides of the online battlefield. One of them is a young Russian journalist who was out of work after Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea in 2014 and occupied Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine following the ouster of Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s pro-Russian president. Vitaly Bespalov was offered a high-paying job at a digital publisher. He was suspicious but joined the staff of the website worldukraine.com.ua anyway. He discovered that his job was to outrage Russian speakers in Ukraine and keep them on Mr. Putin’s side.

[LA Ute]

End of Net Neutrality: What It Means for Consumers

FCC’s rollback of telecom rules could raise prices, but nothing is certain

Supporters of net neutrality warn that the end of the Obama-era rules will spell doom for internet freedom. Rather than treat all web traffic equally, telecom companies will be free to carve up the web into slow and fast “lanes,” costing consumers more time and money, they say.

Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has played down the fears and said there are still rules in place to punish companies which harm consumers.

The truth may be somewhere in the middle. Much is still unknown about how this will play out now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality.

While the debate rolls on, here are some ways the FCC’s vote could impact you:

Will consumers have to pay more for internet service or content?

Don’t expect any immediate changes to your wireless bill or web subscriptions. But over the coming months and years, there are two ways the internet could become more expensive.

In the near term, internet-service providers, or ISPs, could charge content providers like Netflix and Spotify for the privilege of streaming their videos and music over internet “fast lanes,” free of interruption. Those services could in turn pass on the added cost to consumers by raising their subscriptions a few bucks a month.

So-called “paid prioritization” deals could be challenged by antitrust regulators if they are done to limit competition, rather than to pay for the cost of managing high-speed connections.

Further out, the removal of net neutrality in theory could inhibit competition for services. With fewer companies competing to offer broadband and fewer websites delivering content, prices for all of these things could go up.

Can service providers like Comcast and Verizon slow down video streaming?

The largest ISPs say they have no plans to throttle website speeds. But they have before.

In 2008, the FCC ruled that Comcast had slowed access to BitTorrent because the peer-to-peer downloading site had “become a competitive threat to cable operators.” Comcast sued and had the order overturned, but the event created the impetus for the drafting of net-neutrality rules to prevent throttling.

Will ISPs be able to censor content they don’t like?

The biggest telco companies also own TV studios, websites and other businesses that compete for the attention of web users. Without net-neutrality protections, they could try to tip the playing field to their advantage by blocking access to sites with which they compete.

This happened last year in Morocco, where telecommunications companies worked together to block access to web-calling services like Skype because it competed with their phone businesses.

In the U.S., such a brazen move could provoke intervention by the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission, which both police unfair and anticompetitive business practices.

What measures can people take to try to avoid having their internet slowed or censored?

Read the fine print on user agreements. The FCC will require service providers to notify users if they block, slow down or give preferential treatment to any services.

Are there any ways consumers might benefit from the rollback of net-neutrality rules?

Some services have already become cheaper to consumers through so-called “zero rating” deals offered by wireless carriers. These deals include free access to high-bandwidth apps and sites like Netflix and HBO that don’t count toward a user’s mobile-data plan.

Though critics say these deals violate the principles of net neutrality because they let carriers give preferential treatment to some services, the FCC said earlier this year that it wouldn’t target companies making such offers, especially because low-income people could benefit.

Write to Douglas MacMillan at douglas.macmillan@wsj.com

https://www.wsj.com/articles/end-of-net-neutrality-what-it-means-for-consumers-1513275987



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

The bottom line is that there is little or no competition in the ISP space.

We don’t know for sure what will happen, but we do no for sure that companies do not behave when there is no competition. Especially companies that already have a history of bad behavior (looking at you Comcast).




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

If we were to look into a crystal ball on this, some factors to consider:

Comcast is one of the largest ISPs in the nation with more than half of the US as subscribers.

Netflix represents nearly 40% of the nation’s bandwidth. I couldn’t find great info other than one article that said steaming services represent 70% of all bandwidth today.

People cutting the cord is happening exponentially and that isn’t good at all for Comcast’s other core business.

Do we really expect them to sit by as their other business erodes? Do we really expect them to be good players and not force these streaming services to pay more just because?

If you do I have some beachfront property on Arizona to sell you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mUUser]

....... I have some beachfront property on Arizona to sell you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IT'S A DEAL!!

https://www.nauticalbeachfrontresort.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Hotel_Policies_1.png

[sancho]

I couldn’t find great info other than one article that said steaming services represent 70% of all bandwidth today.


I only believe that number if pornography is included.

[LA Ute]

From ProPublica:

Dozens of Companies Are Using Facebook to Exclude Older Workers From Job AdsAmong the companies we found doing it: Amazon, Verizon, UPS and Facebook itself. “It’s blatantly unlawful,” said one employment law expert.
https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-age-discrimination-targeting (https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-age-discrimination-targeting)

[U-Ute]

Big Tech: The New Predatory Capitalism

http://prospect.org/article/big-tech-new-predatory-capitalism

[U-Ute]

Monopolies as a form of lawlessness - Matt Stoller at Harvard Law Forum.

xM9GMGDsKUU

[LA Ute]

NYU business prof, writing in Esquire:

SILICON VALLEY’S TAX-AVOIDING, JOB-KILLING, SOUL-SUCKING MACHINE


Four companies dominate our daily lives unlike any other in human history: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. We love our nifty phones and just-a-click-away services, but these behemoths enjoy unfettered economic domination and hoard riches on a scale not seen since the monopolies of the gilded age. The only logical conclusion? We must bust up big tech.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a15895746/bust-big-tech-silicon-valley/

I think it’s inevitable that something will be done about this. I hope it will be bipartisan.

[Ma'ake]

NYU business prof, writing in Esquire:

SILICON VALLEY’S TAX-AVOIDING, JOB-KILLING, SOUL-SUCKING MACHINE



http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a15895746/bust-big-tech-silicon-valley/

I think it’s inevitable that something will be done about this. I hope it will be bipartisan.

Just as Energy and Defense align with the Trump/GOP tribe, Tech aligns with Democrats, on culture, politics, womens rights, diversity. (It's ironic that tribalism frequently boils down to a binary view of the world, because the underlying structure of tech is binary, technologically, zeroes and ones.)

I think Trump would move to not just breakup the Tech Oligarchs, but seize control of I.T. companies and invite external powers to help maintain control.

[LA Ute]

Just as Energy and Defense align with the Trump/GOP tribe, Tech aligns with Democrats, on culture, politics, womens rights, diversity. (It's ironic that tribalism frequently boils down to a binary view of the world, because the underlying structure of tech is binary, technologically, zeroes and ones.)

I think Trump would move to not just breakup the Tech Oligarchs, but seize control of I.T. companies and invite external powers to help maintain control.

Seems like a standard antitrust suit would do the trick. It would take commitment because the defendants have money and clout and staying power. Congressional action would be harder because the tech giants own both parties — Democrats probably a little more than the Republicans, but not enough of a difference to allow either party to be the champion of reform.

Deposit $.02.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

My guess is the Dems would threaten to break up the banks if the Repubs go after tech companies.

Maybe we need a massive bloodletting in this regard.

[LA Ute]

Interesting piece here in The Economist.

The techlash against Amazon, Facebook and Google—and what they can do

https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21735026-which-antitrust-remedies-welcome-which-fight-techlash-against-amazon-facebook-and

[LA Ute]

The Dangers of Amazon’s Dominance

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/02/20/dangers-amazons-dominance/

[U-Ute]

A different perspective on tech companies.

https://eand.co/why-breaking-up-big-tech-isnt-the-best-way-to-stop-it-blowing-society-apart-5aeec2efe225

[Rocker Ute]

This whole Facebook data issue is fascinating. A few years back when people were freaking out post Snowden about what the NSA was monitoring I’d say, “You give all of that and more freely to companies (Facebook, Google, Apple) that have no laws governing how that data can be used!”

It is time that changed. It also reminds me of this Onion classic:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/google-responds-to-privacy-concerns-with-unsettlingly-s-1819571369/amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

This whole Facebook data issue is fascinating. A few years back when people were freaking out post Snowden about what the NSA was monitoring I’d say, “You give all of that and more freely to companies (Facebook, Google, Apple) that have no laws governing how that data can be used!”

It is time that changed. It also reminds me of this Onion classic:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/google-responds-to-privacy-concerns-with-unsettlingly-s-1819571369/amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Google knows more about you than any government agency. Even if you turn off the ability for google to track you, they still do. I’ve been shown proof of it. It’s crazy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

One of the problems with big data is that they can choose to allow certain people to use their data, while not allowing others. That’s what this account says, anyway:

https://ijr.com/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign-director-fb/

I don’t mean this as a partisan jab, it’s just what can happen when information that significant is in private hands and unregulated.

[sancho]

975885381412454400

My thoughts exactly.

[UTEopia]

Google knows more about you than any government agency. Even if you turn off the ability for google to track you, they still do. I’ve been shown proof of it. It’s crazy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess that is why the ads that pop up most frequently for me have to do with erectile enhancement/disfunction and stool softening.

[U-Ute]

I guess that is why the ads that pop up most frequently for me have to do with erectile enhancement/disfunction and stool softening.

My condolences.

[LA Ute]

I’m sorry to see this being depicted as a political/ideological issue now.

1B]New Foils for the Right:
Google and Facebook[/B]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/business/media/paul-schweizer-google-facebook.html

I mean, really? Isn’t everyone concerned about Big Data? If the issue starts to be considered an attack on the heroes of the digital industry by the mean old right wing, then that’s going to muddle up the discussion. I wouldn’t be surprised if big data‘s PR people are pushing this narrative..

[U-Ute]

I’m sorry to see this being depicted as a political/ideological issue now.

1B]New Foils for the Right:
Google and Facebook[/B]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/business/media/paul-schweizer-google-facebook.html

I mean, really? Isn’t everyone concerned about Big Data? If the issue starts to be considered an attack on the heroes of the digital industry by the mean old right wing, then that’s going to muddle up the discussion. I wouldn’t be surprised if big data‘s PR people are pushing this narrative..

The right complaining about censorship from private companies is hilarious.

What happened to the free market?

[LA Ute]

WhatsApp Co-Founder Joins #DeleteFacebook Movement

https://www.pcmag.com/news/359969/whatsapp-co-founder-joins-deletefacebook-movement

[LA Ute]

This is an interesting piece about how Russia, China and North Korea control the Internet in their countries, and how we stack up against them.

Controlling the Web Is the Dream (and the Nightmare)


In the U.S., we like to pretend we’re better than all that. But of course we’re not. True, we don’t shut down the entire internet. We just restrict access to sites with the wrong politics -- sort of like China. The only difference is that we leave the decision about what information should be available to private corporations rather than government bureaucrats. Internet companies are (on this issue anyway) liberal heroes. In contemporary entertainment, an entire genre -- the New York Times memorably calls it “Yay, rich jerks!” -- is devoted to the idea that billionaire techies really ought to be making behind-the-scenes decisions.

If we had genuine competition in search or social networking, this state of affairs might constitute an improvement. As a practical matter, however, ideologically driven choices by dominant internet corporations offer little improvement on ideologically driven choices by government agencies. That internet companies suffer no significant market costs for their decisions about whom to serve and whom not to suggests that the public nowadays has little taste for free speech. But that’s exactly when protecting speech assiduously is most important.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-22/russia-china-and-silicon-valley-have-censorship-in-common

[U-Ute]

This is an interesting piece about how Russia, China and North Korea control the Internet in their countries, and how we stack up against them.

Controlling the Web Is the Dream (and the Nightmare)



https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-22/russia-china-and-silicon-valley-have-censorship-in-common

Straw man.

The government doesn't control access like those other countries do. They are controlled by private entities who are influenced by the free market. If the folks on the right don't like it, they're more than free to start their own company.

[LA Ute]

Straw man.

The government doesn't control access like those other countries do. They are controlled by private entities who are influenced by the free market. If the folks on the right don't like it, they're more than free to start their own company.

I was thinking the same thing. Why do people go along with Facebook and Twitter et al. making decisions for them?


That internet companies suffer no significant market costs for their decisions about whom to serve and whom not to suggests that the public nowadays has little taste for free speech. But that’s exactly when protecting speech assiduously is most important.

Part of the reason (I think) is that people see those outlets as entertainment rather than serious news or opinion sources. Or maybe people are generally dumber than I give them credit for being. The last thing we need is a conservative version of social media. Then everyone would retreat into their own bubbles (think Fox News vs. CNN) more than ever before.

[U-Ute]

I was thinking the same thing. Why do people go along with Facebook and Twitter et al. making decisions for them?



Part of the reason (I think) is that people see those outlets as entertainment rather than serious news or opinion sources. Or maybe people are generally dumber than I give them credit for being.

I think it is less about "dumb" and more about "lazy".

I read an interesting book named Influence by Robert Cialdini. In it, he discusses how we make decisions and how people are able to influence those decisions. One of the takeaways I got from the book (outside of the list of traditional sales techniques: Reciprocation, Social Proof, etc), is that people rely on a lot of short cuts to make decisions because trying to evaluate all of the data before making a decision is hard. It takes a lot of thinking, and people don't want to have to think. So people rely (too much IMO) on the shortcuts to make decisions for them.


The last thing we need is a conservative version of social media. Then everyone would retreat into their own bubbles (think Fox News vs. CNN) more than ever before.

You hit the nail on the head here. I posted a link recently about a possible future for journalism and one of the comments in that link specifically calls out the fact that if we get to a point where we are able to pick and choose our news/information sources, we will become more polarized. When we only had 3 stations and 2 newspapers, you would at least get some semblance of a contrarian view to things. That has gone away with the 24 hour news cycle.

[Ma'ake]

The right complaining about censorship from private companies is hilarious.

What happened to the free market?

What happened to government being the be-all, end-all of entities that are a threat? We've been so fixated on government that private corporations have run amok.

Europe has some robust privacy laws - not the "better read the fine print - three times - if you want to opt out" system we have. They have some new regulations coming that will be a challenge for US companies to meet.

[U-Ute]

https://www.utahby5.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2359&stc=1

[LA Ute]

This is both eye-opening and disturbing.

Are you ready? Here is all the data Facebook and Google have on you

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/28/all-the-data-facebook-google-has-on-you-privacy

[Rocker Ute]

This is both eye-opening and disturbing.

Are you ready? Here is all the data Facebook and Google have on you

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/28/all-the-data-facebook-google-has-on-you-privacy


Add apple to the list (and microsoft etc)...

Most people don't realize that your iPhone logs everywhere you go unless you disable it. Wanna see? Go to Settings > Privacy > Location Services > System Services (you have to scroll allllll the way to the bottom) > Significant Locations (another bit of a scroll). Scroll down to see the history. That's right LA, it recorded that visit to the BYU bookstore and even took note that you bought a few items.

We surrendered our privacy to private corporations a looooong time a go.

[LA Ute]

Add apple to the list (and microsoft etc)...

Most people don't realize that your iPhone logs everywhere you go unless you disable it. Wanna see? Go to Settings > Privacy > Location Services > System Services (you have to scroll allllll the way to the bottom) > Significant Locations (another bit of a scroll). Scroll down to see the history. That's right LA, it recorded that visit to the BYU bookstore and even took note that you bought a few items.

We surrendered our privacy to private corporations a looooong time a go.

I purchased only a caffeine-free Diet Coke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisrenrut]

Add apple to the list (and microsoft etc)...

Most people don't realize that your iPhone logs everywhere you go unless you disable it. Wanna see? Go to Settings > Privacy > Location Services > System Services (you have to scroll allllll the way to the bottom) > Significant Locations (another bit of a scroll). Scroll down to see the history. That's right LA, it recorded that visit to the BYU bookstore and even took note that you bought a few items.

We surrendered our privacy to private corporations a looooong time a go.

In my experience, Apple keeps very little data. They take their customer’s privacy and security very seriously. If you enable Location Services for an app, that app developer might be collecting data.

We we recently completed a project with Apple. We were a bit shocked at what Apple couldn’t provide us in terms of customer identity, geolocation, etc. (we weren’t using our own app, we were using one of Apples native apps.

[Diehard Ute]

Add apple to the list (and microsoft etc)...

Most people don't realize that your iPhone logs everywhere you go unless you disable it. Wanna see? Go to Settings > Privacy > Location Services > System Services (you have to scroll allllll the way to the bottom) > Significant Locations (another bit of a scroll). Scroll down to see the history. That's right LA, it recorded that visit to the BYU bookstore and even took note that you bought a few items.

We surrendered our privacy to private corporations a looooong time a go.

Apple keeps far less, even their message system isn’t accessible.

But you’re naive if you think turning off location actually turns it off.

Google tracks you regardless of those settings, and it’s extremely accurate. (10-15 feet) Google spends more time and money fighting to keep hidden what they know than any other company....because people have no clue how much they really know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

Apple keeps far less, even their message system isn’t accessible.

But you’re naive if you think turning off location actually turns it off.

Google tracks you regardless of those settings, and it’s extremely accurate. (10-15 feet) Google spends more time and money fighting to keep hidden what they know than any other company....because people have no clue how much they really know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You really think Apple keeps less data? Who is being naive?

The point of my post is that all of these tech companies big and small are keeping tons of data about you and it is a bell that can't be un-rung.

[Diehard Ute]

You really think Apple keeps less data? Who is being naive?

The point of my post is that all of these tech companies big and small are keeping tons of data about you and it is a bell that can't be un-rung.

From actual experience I know they keep less.

Of course there’s the other end of the spectrum as well. People who think the phone companies have copies of every text you’ve sent, when some have no copies and others delete them after 3 days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sullyute]

Add apple to the list (and microsoft etc)...

Most people don't realize that your iPhone logs everywhere you go unless you disable it. Wanna see? Go to Settings > Privacy > Location Services > System Services (you have to scroll allllll the way to the bottom) > Significant Locations (another bit of a scroll). Scroll down to see the history. That's right LA, it recorded that visit to the BYU bookstore and even took note that you bought a few items.

We surrendered our privacy to private corporations a looooong time a go.

Thanks, I just cleared that location history and turned off most of the location services.

[Rocker Ute]

From actual experience I know they keep less.

Of course there’s the other end of the spectrum as well. People who think the phone companies have copies of every text you’ve sent, when some have no copies and others delete them after 3 days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are in infosec?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

You are in infosec?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some parts of my job require some special training....from the really smart tech guys from
Quantico


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

Some parts of my job require some special training....from the really smart tech guys from
Quantico


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180402/17b0aef262315b27867c3bc78554b558.jpg

People have a lot of misunderstandings about this stuff, and often confuse cell carriers with cell makers, etc.

But most iPhone users use iCloud backup which contains EVERYTHING... stuff not even Google has, and yes even all of their iMessages. (I recently had to do a full restore from cloud backup when I accidentally submerged my phone - my text messages were all restore dating back go when iMessages first came out). So not only can Apple access where you are and what you are searching and emailing but also what apps you use and that related data. Worse, it is a closed system so we really don’t know all they are doing.

Yes, blah blah, encryption, anonymization. I have some beachfront property to sell anyone who believes there is no backdoor and even IF that is true my whole life in tech I’ve heard about “uncrackable” encryption and the seemingly unfathomable computing power it would require to decrypt things, only to have that hurdle cleared in a matter of years.

If I was Apple I would also claim to encrypt like they do because I wouldn’t want a revolving door from the government asking for requests to access client data and showing exactly what they know.

So yes, perhaps when it comes to subpoenas and police investigations it may be easier to get info from Google but let’s not pretend like Apple isn’t on equal footing regarding privacy challenges with Google and Facebook. At best they are merely sitting on a mountain of data waiting to be compromised, at worst (and most likely) they know exactly what they are looking at.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

This is both eye-opening and disturbing.

Are you ready? Here is all the data Facebook and Google have on you

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/28/all-the-data-facebook-google-has-on-you-privacy

Good thing I have all my tracking turned off.

[LA Ute]

Trouble in paradise, er, Silicon Valley:

Zuckerberg to 'Frenemy' Tim Cook: You're 'Extremely Glib'

http://www.newser.com/story/257341/zuckerberg-to-frenemy-tim-cook-youre-extremely-glib.html

[LA Ute]

Among all the concern about the big tech companies, I don’t really see Amazon as the threat others see. I think it is simply a disruptive technology-based company that is making life easier for people and creating jobs. Am I missing something? I don’t see the same problem with Amazon that I see with Big Data.

I do hope that there’s an effective market response to Amazon via some kind of healthy competition. Right now Amazon seems to be driving a lot of companies out of business. (I miss book stores.) I hope some others will learn to fight back. It won’t be pretty if Amazon ends up as the only serious retail option. So far that doesn’t really seem to be happening. (I think Trump is attacking Amazon simply because he doesn’t like Jeff Bezos owning the Washington Post, which attacks him. Dumb reason. A POTUS shouldn’t be scapegoating a private company.)

[Rocker Ute]

Among all the concern about the big tech companies, I don’t really see Amazon as the threat others see. I think it is simply a disruptive technology-based company that is making life easier for people and creating jobs. Am I missing something? I don’t see the same problem with Amazon that I see with Big Data.

I do hope that there’s an effective market response to Amazon via some kind of healthy competition. Right now Amazon seems to be driving a lot of companies out of business. (I miss book stores.) I hope some others will learn to fight back. It won’t be pretty if Amazon ends up as the only serious retail option. So far that doesn’t really seem to be happening. (I think Trump is attacking Amazon simply because he doesn’t like Jeff Bezos owning the Washington Post, which attacks him. Dumb reason. A POTUS shouldn’t be scapegoating a private company.)

Well... an Echo is an Amazon device in your home that is listening and logging what you say at all times. If you have one you can actually go back and listen to the actual recording of each thing you ask it. It also tracks your shopping and search behavior and tracks similar info.

They absolutely belong on the list, and I happen to be a big fan of Amazon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Well... an Echo is an Amazon device in your home that is listening and logging what you say at all times. If you have one you can actually go back and listen to the actual recording of each thing you ask it. It also tracks your shopping and search behavior and tracks similar info.

They absolutely belong on the list, and I happen to be a big fan of Amazon.

I think they belong on the list but maybe at the bottom. I don't have an Echo (I do have Fire TV). You can choose to get an Echo. With an iPhone it's less of a choice -- I can't function without my iPhone, and I did not consciously sign up for the data mining Apple does. Same for GMail. Google is even worse. It's virtually impossible to use the internet today without using Google.

I'd rank the companies this way:

1. Google
2. Apple
3. Facebook
4. Amazon

Facebook and Amazon are lower on the list because we have to choose to use them. (They're still too powerful.) Amazon is last because it is actually tied into the existing economy and traffics in goods and services, not just information.

[SeattleUte]

It turns out the Left is more conservative than Republicans. They hate tech; I’m hearing on NPR daily that Facebook should be nationalized. Democratic politicians are hailing Zuckerberg before Congress for a flogging. It’s leftist teachers who tell my kids it’s best to take notes by hand.

But no, I’m not a red state republican. True progrssives are smart enough to know that tech has done nothing but make our lives better. Tech has led to a world where except for localized conflicts essentially about religious disputes that are ages old there is no more war, women’s rights are ascenteant, we have same sex marriage legalized and mainstreamed, Ebola killed a few thousand people instead of 500 million as the Spanish Flu epidemic did in the twentieth century, except for political gamesmanship there is no reason anybody starves, and violence from crime and wars has plummeted. Religion is irrelevant because tech has made the three horseman of all scriptural narratives—war, epidemics and famine— obsolete. (This has all happened of course because of the partnership between science and capitalism we call tech.)

The latest thing is that tech is responsible for giving us Donald Trump. But guess what. Donald Trump is turning out to be a great president for far Leftist ideals. Tariffs, tech bashing, nativism, these are all traditional paleo left causes that were championed by none other than Bernie Sanders.

People who are afraid of Facebook becoming Big Brother need to do more reading. Facebook just wants to make profits. It doesn’t want to take away our liberty. I’ll take that motivation any day over the impulses of government overreach. Indeed, it’s the success of the business community that is our surest fire weall against totalitarianism. It’s tech that beat the Soviet Union and has improved the lives of billions of Chinese (as well as Americans) and made them our military allies and trading partners. I’m not afraid of Facebook. But the response to fake news is more speech, not less. To quote Rousseau, “To burn is not to anwer.”

[Two Utes]

It turns out the Left is more conservative than Republicans. They hate tech; I’m hearing on NPR daily that Facebook should be nationalized. Democratic politicians are hailing Zuckerberg before Congress for a flogging. It’s leftist teachers who tell my kids it’s best to take notes by hand.

But no, I’m not a red state republican. True progrssives are smart enough to know that tech has done nothing but make our lives better. Tech has led to a world where except for localized conflicts essentially about religious disputes that are ages old there is no more war, women’s rights are ascenteant, we have same sex marriage legalized and mainstreamed, Ebola killed a few thousand people instead of 500 million as the Spanish Flu epidemic did in the twentieth century, except for political gamesmanship there is no reason anybody starves, and violence from crime and wars has plummeted. Religion is irrelevant because tech has made the three horseman of all scriptural narratives—war, epidemics and famine— obsolete. (This has all happened of course because of the partnership between science and capitalism we call tech.)

The latest thing is that tech is responsible for giving us Donald Trump. But guess what. Donald Trump is turning out to be a great president for far Leftist ideals. Tariffs, tech bashing, nativism, these are all traditional paleo left causes that were championed by none other than Bernie Sanders.

People who are afraid of Facebook becoming Big Brother need to do more reading. Facebook just wants to make profits. It doesn’t want to take away our liberty. I’ll take that motivation any day over the impulses of government overreach. Indeed, it’s the success of the business community that is our surest fire weall against totalitarianism. It’s tech that beat the Soviet Union and has improved the lives of billions of Chinese (as well as Americans) and made them our military allies and trading partners. I’m not afraid of Facebook. But the response to fake news is more speech, not less. To quote Rousseau, “To burn is not to anwer.”

Preach on Seattle. Agree.

[LA Ute]

Really? (This article is not really about Apple.)

Apple’s Siri: the only search engine you’ll need (https://www.computerworld.com/article/3267993/apple-ios/apple-s-siri-the-only-search-engine-you-ll-need.html)

"Is Apple about to get into search? Probably not in the conventional sense, but Apple’s successful hire of Google’s John Giannandrea, shows there’s a new kid in town."



The writing’s been on the wall for a very long time.

Consumers are sick of being exposed to endless marketing, they don’t like their data being mined to provide advertisers and crafty political operators with tools they use to try to manipulate them.

They’ve read the stories about Cambridge Analytica and they are beginning to grasp what’s sexy about privacy and the need to make sure the sites, services and solutions providers they use are truly protecting the customer data they gather.

In other words, they want search services with new business models. Ad-blockers in Safari, the ultra-private Duck Duck Go search engine, and Mozilla’s Facebook Container Extension all reflect this emerging need.

This growing understanding will (I predict) eventually create a consumer blowback against firms that have not protected customer data responsibly – we’ve already seen the impact of that shift hit the fan to blow down the value of Facebook stock.

[LA Ute]

Preach on Seattle. Agree.

I am beginning to see that a free market will solve the privacy issues. People aren't going to put up with what Google et al. have been doing, and alternatives will emerge. If Big Data falls into the same trap that Standard Oil did back in the last century, then maybe antitrust remedies or regulation will be necessary. But i doubt it.

I hadn't realized that technology had made religion obsolete, as SU suggests, but maybe I just haven't gotten up to speed on that development. :rolleyes:

[sancho]

I am beginning to see that a free market will solve the privacy issues. People aren't going to put up with what Google et al. have been doing

I'm not so sure. People have been putting up with it for a while. Memories are short, especially when there's no harm involved. Privacy is the topic of the week, but next week will bring a new topic.

I guess, if privacy solutions are cheap and easy, they have a chance to succeed. But if they are expensive and require sacrifice...I think people would rather give up privacy than their smartphone.

[LA Ute]

I'm not so sure. People have been putting up with it for a while. Memories are short, especially when there's no harm involved. Privacy is the topic of the week, but next week will bring a new topic.

I guess, if privacy solutions are cheap and easy, they have a chance to succeed. But if they are expensive and require sacrifice...I think people would rather give up privacy than their smartphone.

We will see.

[Rocker Ute]

I'm not afraid of tech either, nor of these big companies that I've been harping about, or at least I don't really care. I sit here on my Macbook, with my iPhone by my side and Apple Watch on my wrist that all are connected. I haven't walked in a store beyond a grocery store in probably 5 years because I shop exclusively on Amazon. I host my sites on AWS. I have Echo and Echo dots throughout my house. My house is automated and tied into Alexa and Apple's Homekit. I use many G Suite services and have used them throughout my business, I buy Adwords and use Chrome. I scroll through Facebook once a day, and also buy advertising there.

I'm obviously not scared of them or what they'll do because as SU mentioned, their motivation is to make money and answer to shareholders. Plus I find protection and security in obscurity. Meaning I'm playing the odds of the other millions (and billions) using the same services I am. However, I talk about privacy because while those companies may not be bad actors things like Cambridge Analytica expose what can be done when bad actors get access to mountains of data they are sitting on. Do we even flinch anymore when we hear of huge corporations being hacked and our data compromised? Further what is enemy governments get hold of that data, and what about if our own government gets access to that data?

I think there is far more at risk and I also think much of what SU posted about demonstrates the bubble he lives in. Tech overall is good, and has done many of the things that SU described, but it has also accelerated a lot of crime and hate. Sex trafficking of children, drug cartels and even the fact that I can drive a group of teenagers to school each morning who have no idea how to talk to each other.

This is going to sound like a jerk thing to say, but spend an evening in a Walmart and watch what people are using tech and info for. It isn't for the betterment of themselves or for enlightenment. Its used to look at pictures of cats and funny videos and to argue with people online. Well that is what I use it for anyway.

[SeattleUte]

I'm not afraid of tech either, nor of these big companies that I've been harping about, or at least I don't really care. I sit here on my Macbook, with my iPhone by my side and Apple Watch on my wrist that all are connected. I haven't walked in a store beyond a grocery store in probably 5 years because I shop exclusively on Amazon. I host my sites on AWS. I have Echo and Echo dots throughout my house. My house is automated and tied into Alexa and Apple's Homekit. I use many G Suite services and have used them throughout my business, I buy Adwords and use Chrome. I scroll through Facebook once a day, and also buy advertising there.

I'm obviously not scared of them or what they'll do because as SU mentioned, their motivation is to make money and answer to shareholders. Plus I find protection and security in obscurity. Meaning I'm playing the odds of the other millions (and billions) using the same services I am. However, I talk about privacy because while those companies may not be bad actors things like Cambridge Analytica expose what can be done when bad actors get access to mountains of data they are sitting on. Do we even flinch anymore when we hear of huge corporations being hacked and our data compromised? Further what is enemy governments get hold of that data, and what about if our own government gets access to that data?

I think there is far more at risk and I also think much of what SU posted about demonstrates the bubble he lives in. Tech overall is good, and has done many of the things that SU described, but it has also accelerated a lot of crime and hate. Sex trafficking of children, drug cartels and even the fact that I can drive a group of teenagers to school each morning who have no idea how to talk to each other.

This is going to sound like a jerk thing to say, but spend an evening in a Walmart and watch what people are using tech and info for. It isn't for the betterment of themselves or for enlightenment. Its used to look at pictures of cats and funny videos and to argue with people online. Well that is what I use it for anyway.

I think what you’re saying is that as long as you stay away from involvement with governments and don’t make yourself notorious, nobody cares what you do on the web. That’s clearly correct.

[tooblue]

I think what you’re saying is that as long as you stay away from involvement with governments and don’t make yourself notorious, nobody cares what you do on the web. That’s clearly correct.

It's all a matter of perspective. As Merleau-Ponty stated: "Is not to see, to see from somewhere?" And as far as relevance is concerned, your generation has never been more irrelevant. All that "freedom" you and your peers ushered in was for naught:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...ife-after-life (http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/millennials-do-you-believe-in-life-after-life)

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/23/millennials-are-less-religious-than-older-americans-but-just-as-spiritual/

[LA Ute]

Largest Black Lives Matter page on Facebook was a scam: report.

“The page had accrued 700,000 Facebook followers — almost double the amount of the official Black Lives Matter Facebook page — and is linked to several online fundraisers which garnered $100,000 in donations, according to CNN. At least some of the money was reportedly transferred to Australian bank accounts. CNN reported that Facebook only deleted the page a week after the news outlet reported it to the company.”

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/382365-largest-black-lives-matter-facebook-page-is-fake-report

[LA Ute]

If the tech oligarchs can’t beat the bad press, they’ll just buy it

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/07/if-the-tech-oligarchs-cant-beat-the-bad-press-theyll-just-buy-it/

[SeattleUte]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-zuckerberg-effigy-1523399143

[tooblue]

Just to help Seattle and Two Utes out of their bubbles ...


Technology's role in human trafficking cannot be ignored

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/334732-technologys-role-in-human-trafficking-cannot-be-ignored



Hate speech thrives underground - The EU is failing to engage with platforms where the most hateful and egregious terrorist content lives.

https://www.politico.eu/article/hate-speech-and-terrorist-content-proliferate-on-web-beyond-eu-reach-experts/



Mexico's Drug Cartels Love Social Media

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/znwv8w/mexicos-drug-cartels-are-using-the-internet-to-get-up-to-mischief



Teenagers 'more confident talking to each other via smartphones than face-to-face' – study

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/10793984/Teenagers-more-confident-talking-to-each-other-via-smartphones-than-face-to-face-study.html



What have we taught artificial intelligence through our use of tech: how to screw us both literally and figuratively:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/04/09/bots-rampant-twitter-study-says-network-tries-thwart-devious-tweets/492536002/



And what does the inventor of HTML/CSS (the world wide web) as we know it think:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/tim-berners-lee-tech-companies-regulations

[sancho]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-zuckerberg-effigy-1523399143

I can't get through the pay wall, but it sounds like this is Zuckerberg friendly?

I don't really like Zuckerberg - partly because the awful, boring Facebook movie got so much ridiculous praise - but it's a little disappointing to see everyone calling for his head. I think we love to pin blame onto one person, but in this case, the blame is one everyone who signed up for Facebook and repeatedly gave privacy permissions to various apps. Facebook from the start was very openly a way to give privacy away.

[Rocker Ute]

I can't get through the pay wall, but it sounds like this is Zuckerberg friendly?

I don't really like Zuckerberg - partly because the awful, boring Facebook movie got so much ridiculous praise - but it's a little disappointing to see everyone calling for his head. I think we love to pin blame onto one person, but in this case, the blame is one everyone who signed up for Facebook and repeatedly gave privacy permissions to various apps. Facebook from the start was very openly a way to give privacy away.


That's the last we'll see of sancho.

[U-Ute]

I don't completely disagree with the point you're trying to make, but in order to facilitate a less futile discussion, let me offer you a different spin on some of these headlines:


Just to help Seattle and Two Utes out of their bubbles ...


Cars role in human trafficking cannot be ignored

Hate speech thrives on the telephone - The EU is failing to engage with platforms where the most hateful and egregious terrorist content lives.

Mexico's Drug Cartels Love Cars

And what does the inventor of the Internal Combustion Engine as we know it think:


All technology can be weaponized.

[U-Ute]

I can't get through the pay wall, but it sounds like this is Zuckerberg friendly?

I don't really like Zuckerberg - partly because the awful, boring Facebook movie got so much ridiculous praise - but it's a little disappointing to see everyone calling for his head. I think we love to pin blame onto one person, but in this case, the blame is one everyone who signed up for Facebook and repeatedly gave privacy permissions to various apps. Facebook from the start was very openly a way to give privacy away.

3ohc0Rdid53DnVfWQ8

[tooblue]

I don't completely disagree with the point you're trying to make, but in order to facilitate a less futile discussion, let me offer you a different spin on some of these headlines:



All technology has been and will be weaponized.

Fixed it for you. In fact the oldest technology we have, language, is repeatedly weaponized (see: Donald Trump). Per your notion above, any futility in this discussion lies in making comparisons. It's more than just comparing apples to oranges. Your spin above is attempting to compare rocks to oranges.

Cars and the telephone did not re-wire the human brain. In contrast, the internet is doing just that:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri4_CW9P41s


Greenfield suggests that 'mind change', brought on by increasing internet use and the popularity of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, will be the new climate change.

[Ma'ake]

Zuckerberg: It's inevitable that social media be regulated.

Ranking Dem Frank Pallone said he's been working on legislation, but is pessimistic that Congress will pass anything. "I've seen it over & over - we have hearings, and nothing happens".

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900015510/zuckerberg-regulation-of-social-media-firms-is-inevitable.html

Congress is not just extremely dysfunctional, many have no idea how technology works, or the business model that drives it.

How to take on the task of breaking up the 21st century robber barons if so few in power understand what's happening?

[SeattleUte]

I can't get through the pay wall, but it sounds like this is Zuckerberg friendly?

I don't really like Zuckerberg - partly because the awful, boring Facebook movie got so much ridiculous praise - but it's a little disappointing to see everyone calling for his head. I think we love to pin blame onto one person, but in this case, the blame is one everyone who signed up for Facebook and repeatedly gave privacy permissions to various apps. Facebook from the start was very openly a way to give privacy away.

Since college the New York Times has been my foundational news source. I have a hoodie I wear on weekends that has “The New York Times” in the iconic lettering emblazoned on it. Unfortunately, among the very worst things about Trump is his enemies’ reactions to him. Since Trump, the New York Times has gone of the rails and become Fox of the Left, though better written and more comprehensive and at least including some token opposing voices, to be sure. Now The Wall Street Journal and Andrew Sullivan are the rational center. I’ve started paying more attention to the WSJ for that reason. I hope that this gets straightened out after Trump.

[LA Ute]

Since college the New York Times has been my foundational news source. I have a hoodie I wear on weekends that has “The New York Times” in the iconic lettering emblazoned on it. Unfortunately, among the very worst things about Trump is his enemies’ reactions to him. Since Trump, the New York Times has gone of the rails and become Fox of the Left, though better written and more comprehensive and at least including some token opposing voices, to be sure. Now The Wall Street Journal and Andrew Sullivan are the rational center. I’ve started paying more attention to the WSJ for that reason. I hope that this gets straightened out after Trump.

My experience has been the same.

[LA Ute]

Palantir Knows Everything About You

Peter Thiel’s data-mining company is using War on Terror tools to track American citizens. The scary thing? Palantir is desperate for new customers.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel/


Founded in 2004 by Peter Thiel and some fellow PayPal alumni, Palantir cut its teeth working for the Pentagon and the CIA in Afghanistan and Iraq. The company’s engineers and products don’t do any spying themselves; they’re more like a spy’s brain, collecting and analyzing information that’s fed in from the hands, eyes, nose, and ears. The software combs through disparate data sources—financial documents, airline reservations, cellphone records, social media postings—and searches for connections that human analysts might miss. It then presents the linkages in colorful, easy-to-interpret graphics that look like spider webs. U.S. spies and special forces loved it immediately; they deployed Palantir to synthesize and sort the blizzard of battlefield intelligence. It helped planners avoid roadside bombs, track insurgents for assassination, even hunt down Osama bin Laden. The military success led to federal contracts on the civilian side. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services uses Palantir to detect Medicare fraud. The FBI uses it in criminal probes. The Department of Homeland Security deploys it to screen air travelers and keep tabs on immigrants.

[Diehard Ute]

Palantir Knows Everything About You

Peter Thiel’s data-mining company is using War on Terror tools to track American citizens. The scary thing? Palantir is desperate for new customers.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel/

Palantir is only what’s put into it.

We use Palantir in Utah....as a data mining source of police reports. There are dozens of report systems, so people were easily able to avoid issues in Salt Lake because no one could access Murray’s reports.

Palantir allows access to those reports....but that’s all we can access.

Maybe the FBI’s version knows everything about you, but the local one just knows what you’ve told the police in a report


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

A security guy at JPMorgan spied on employees emails and phone calls using the secretive software tool Palantir

http://www.businessinsider.com/security-pro-at-jpmorgan-spied-on-employees-using-palantir-2018-4

Interesting story.

[tooblue]

Alexa and Siri can hear hidden commands. You can’t

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/an-eerie-new-study-says-alexa-and-siri-can-hear-secret-commands-you-cant

"Over the past two years, researchers in China and the United States have begun demonstrating that they can send hidden commands that are undetectable to the human ear to Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa and Google’s Assistant. Inside university labs, the researchers have been able to secretly activate the artificial intelligence systems on smartphones and smart speakers, making them dial phone numbers or open websites. In the wrong hands, the technology could be used to unlock doors, wire money or buy stuff online — simply with music playing over the radio.

A group of students from University of California, Berkeley, and Georgetown University showed in 2016 that they could hide commands in white noise played over loudspeakers and through YouTube videos to get smart devices to turn on airplane mode or open a website.

This month, some of those Berkeley researchers published a research paper that went further, saying they could embed commands directly into recordings of music or spoken text. So while a human listener hears someone talking or an orchestra playing, Amazon’s Echo speaker might hear an instruction to add something to your shopping list."

[U-Ute]

Alexa and Siri can hear hidden commands. You can’t

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/an-eerie-new-study-says-alexa-and-siri-can-hear-secret-commands-you-cant

"Over the past two years, researchers in China and the United States have begun demonstrating that they can send hidden commands that are undetectable to the human ear to Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa and Google’s Assistant. Inside university labs, the researchers have been able to secretly activate the artificial intelligence systems on smartphones and smart speakers, making them dial phone numbers or open websites. In the wrong hands, the technology could be used to unlock doors, wire money or buy stuff online — simply with music playing over the radio.

A group of students from University of California, Berkeley, and Georgetown University showed in 2016 that they could hide commands in white noise played over loudspeakers and through YouTube videos to get smart devices to turn on airplane mode or open a website.

This month, some of those Berkeley researchers published a research paper that went further, saying they could embed commands directly into recordings of music or spoken text. So while a human listener hears someone talking or an orchestra playing, Amazon’s Echo speaker might hear an instruction to add something to your shopping list."


https://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?2483-Digital-Security-thread

[U-Ute]

There is an alt-right friendly version of Twitter and it is as awful as you’d think.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/conspiracy-theories-are-eating-this-alt-right-friendly-site-from-the-inside


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

There is an alt-right friendly version of Twitter and it is as awful as you’d think.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/conspiracy-theories-are-eating-this-alt-right-friendly-site-from-the-inside


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, social media. The digital two-edged sword of our era.

[sancho]

Ah, social media. The digital two-edged sword of our era.

How is it not a one-edged sword?

[LA Ute]

How is it not a one-edged sword?

It makes both good things and bad things possible. Maybe more bad than good.

[sancho]

It makes both good things and bad things possible. Maybe more bad than good.

I only see the bad, but I'm an old crank.

[Ma'ake]

Am I the only who thinks the US-based social media & the "opt out" orientation of our businesses toward privacy have made much of the technology we use to interact with each other (Facebook, Google, etc) and use in our everyday lives a fairly serious privacy risk?

Working in IT Sec, the more I read about GDPR and it's requirements to ensure privacy - think of it as HIPAA for everyday life - the more I realize the privacy of Americans was either mostly ignored, or more blatantly, we've been sold to the highest bidder or worse (Cambridge Analytica).

I basically stopped using FB when the CA story came out.

There's still a demand for the connectivity that Facebook provides, but they're so far behind the curve on security I don't think it's recoverable, and for completely different reasons, youngsters are going away in masses. Looking for a EU-based alternative that will take privacy seriously, which I think a lot of Americans would be interested in hoping onto.

This all reminds me it was the Germans who discovered Google was capturing information on home WiFi networks via Google Maps' and their Streetview rolling cameras.

I wish I had confidence America had the political will to address privacy. I just don't think it exists, and leadership on IT Sec for the masses will have to come from outside the US.

[LA Ute]

Am I the only who thinks the US-based social media & the "opt out" orientation of our businesses toward privacy have made much of the technology we use to interact with each other (Facebook, Google, etc) and use in our everyday lives a fairly serious privacy risk?

Working in IT Sec, the more I read about GDPR and it's requirements to ensure privacy - think of it as HIPAA for everyday life - the more I realize the privacy of Americans was either mostly ignored, or more blatantly, we've been sold to the highest bidder or worse (Cambridge Analytica).

I basically stopped using FB when the CA story came out.

There's still a demand for the connectivity that Facebook provides, but they're so far behind the curve on security I don't think it's recoverable, and for completely different reasons, youngsters are going away in masses. Looking for a EU-based alternative that will take privacy seriously, which I think a lot of Americans would be interested in hoping onto.

This all reminds me it was the Germans who discovered Google was capturing information on home WiFi networks via Google Maps' and their Streetview rolling cameras.

I wish I had confidence America had the political will to address privacy. I just don't think it exists, and leadership on IT Sec for the masses will have to come from outside the US.

I agree. Although I still use Facebook I’m much more careful about it than I used to be. I’m also not sure that makes any difference.

[Rocker Ute]

Am I the only who thinks the US-based social media & the "opt out" orientation of our businesses toward privacy have made much of the technology we use to interact with each other (Facebook, Google, etc) and use in our everyday lives a fairly serious privacy risk?

Working in IT Sec, the more I read about GDPR and it's requirements to ensure privacy - think of it as HIPAA for everyday life - the more I realize the privacy of Americans was either mostly ignored, or more blatantly, we've been sold to the highest bidder or worse (Cambridge Analytica).

I basically stopped using FB when the CA story came out.

There's still a demand for the connectivity that Facebook provides, but they're so far behind the curve on security I don't think it's recoverable, and for completely different reasons, youngsters are going away in masses. Looking for a EU-based alternative that will take privacy seriously, which I think a lot of Americans would be interested in hoping onto.

This all reminds me it was the Germans who discovered Google was capturing information on home WiFi networks via Google Maps' and their Streetview rolling cameras.

I wish I had confidence America had the political will to address privacy. I just don't think it exists, and leadership on IT Sec for the masses will have to come from outside the US.

I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle on this one.

Aside from social media it is over two decades in of global and widespread use of email and it is STILL not even remotely secure and no viable options are getting support or adoption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

I agree. Although I still use Facebook I’m much more careful about it than I used to be. I’m also not sure that makes any difference.

Unless you're only using FB from a single computer and never uploading any photos to it or commenting on anything, your information is leaking.

[sancho]

Unless you're only using FB from a single computer and never uploading any photos to it or commenting on anything, your information is leaking.

How bout if you don't have a facebook? Of course, my information is probably leaking in other places. Like here.

[Rocker Ute]

How bout if you don't have a facebook? Of course, my information is probably leaking in other places. Like here.


U-Ute has been selling your info to the highest bidder, which strangely enough is Mary Kay.

[sancho]

U-Ute has been selling your info to the highest bidder, which strangely enough is Mary Kay.

Hmm. Any way I get a pink cadillac out of this?

[Ma'ake]

Here's some really encouraging news - California passed the most robust online privacy law in the nation: https://slate.com/technology/2018/06/california-just-passed-the-strictest-online-privacy-bill-in-the-country.html

All the big Tech giants opposed the measure (presumably because they'll need to find alternate sources of revenue).

[tooblue]

Not oligarchs exactly, but rather the people who invest in tech ... a fascinating article:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/23/tech-industry-wealth-futurism-transhumanism-singularity

How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse

"Taking their cue from Elon Musk colonizing Mars, Peter Thiel reversing the ageing process, or Sam Altman and Ray Kurzweil uploading their minds into supercomputers, they were preparing for a digital future that had a whole lot less to do with making the world a better place than it did with transcending the human condition altogether and insulating themselves from a very real and present danger of climate change, rising sea levels, mass migrations, global pandemics, nativist panic, and resource depletion. For them, the future of technology is really about just one thing: escape."

[LA Ute]

This is wonky but interesting. It’s behind The NY Times paywall but if you have enough free reads left I recommend it.

Amazon’s Antitrust Antagonist Has a Breakthrough Idea

With a single scholarly article, Lina Khan, 29, has reframed decades of monopoly law.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/technology/monopoly-antitrust-lina-khan-amazon.html

[U-Ute]

Alex Jones begging the government to fix his problem for him is some funny irony.

[LA Ute]

Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/19/donald-trump-roosevelt-monopoly-antitrust-facebook-apple-netflix-google-column/2049321002/

[LA Ute]

This is interesting.

European privacy search engines aim to challenge Google

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/11/25/european-privacy-search-engines-google/

[U-Ute]

This is interesting.

European privacy search engines aim to challenge Google

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/11/25/european-privacy-search-engines-google/

There is an American company that has tried the same thing: https://duckduckgo.com/

It is hard to change the behavior of the average person who doesn't understand what is going on though.

[LA Ute]

Hmmm.


Facebook has said it will end a controversial market research program in which the company paid users to install a mobile app that tracked their activity and data.

In a statement given to TechCrunch and other websites, the company said that its "Facebook Research" app, which paid volunteers between the ages of 13 and 35 up to $20 a month to access nearly all their data, would no longer be available on iOS.

The news came just hours after TechCrunch's exposé on the Facebook app, which used an enterprise certificate on iPhones to get people to sideload the app and skirt Apple's App Store rules. In the same announcement, the company also took issue with the way its "Project Atlas" program had been reported, claiming:

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/01/30/facebook-to-shut-down-ios-market-research-app/

Then this:


Facebook is facing the wrath of Apple today for misusing an enterprise certificate meant for internal use to get Facebook users to sideload a data harvesting "Facebook Research" app that violates App Store policies, and as it turns out, Google has been doing the exact same thing.

According to TechCrunch, Google has been distributing an app called "Screenwise Meter" using the enterprise certificate installation method since 2012.

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/01/30/google-exploiting-apple-enterprise-certificate/

[Ma'ake]

Hmmm...

There's a great documentary at Sundance about what Cambridge Analytica did, based on data from Facebook.

The Internet giants absolutely need much more regulation. The comparison to the Robber Barrons is apt.

[Irving Washington]

This editorial makes me think that we need to have more Bill and Melinda Gates in the world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/opinion/melinda-gates-microsoft-feminist.html
I used to think Bill was a pretty evil guy.

[U-Ute]

Evidence Contradicts Right Wing Narrative Of Tech Censorship And Bias

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/440703-evidence-contradicts-right-wing-narrative-of-tech-censorship-and-bias



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

Facebook/Instagram nuke a few accounts.


Instagram and its parent company Facebook announced Thursday that they were banning conspiracist Alex Jones and other far-right users under the platforms' policies against dangerous individuals and organizations (https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/dangerous_individuals_organizations). The Silicon Valley giant removed several accounts aligned with the far-right mediasphere: former Breitbart figurehead Milo Yiannopoulos; white nationalist personality Laura Loomer; former congressional candidate and anti-Semite Paul Nehlen; and Paul Joseph Watson, one of Jones’ proteges at the conspiracy site Infowars. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s account was also nixed.


https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/gy4vbx/facebook-and-instagram-just-banned-alex-jones-and-a-bunch-of-other-far-right-people

[Ma'ake]

Facebook/Instagram nuke a few accounts.

Maybe this should be in the Political chit-chat forum, but the social media giants have a big role to play if we are to avoid getting manipulated from abroad, and if we can bring our national discourse back toward a reasonable tone.

I don't know how much faith I have in Facebook's pivot toward privacy, but with GDPR and other nations leading the way on this issue, the big US social media titans need to start taking privacy and guardrails of social decency seriously, and stop allowing their platforms to be used in the decline of our national cohesion.

[UTEopia]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-san-francisco-broke-americas-heart/2019/05/21/ef9a0ac0-70ea-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html?fbclid=IwAR0mPh_sutWFKc6Ny YP41mFRjl0BmKSknyvTTc0cwL_G_tey0z7q-krDMV0&utm_term=.55579c7172bd

This probably fits here.

[U-Ute]

Along the same lines:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-05-21/silicon-valley-s-shame-living-in-a-van-in-google-s-backyard

[LA Ute]

I hadn't realized the extent of their acquisitions.


In total, Wu reports, “Facebook managed to string together 67 unchallenged acquisitions, which seems impressive unless you consider that Amazon undertook 91 and Google got away with 214 (a few of which were conditioned). In this way, the tech industry became essentially composed of just a few giant trusts: Google for search and related industries, Facebook for social media, Amazon for online commerce.” And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation – which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics – also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

https://www.amazon.com/Social-Media-Upheaval-Encounter-Intelligence/dp/164177083X/ref=as_li_ss_tl_nodl?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=7S348WT4JJWWGXVX9E0T&linkCode=sl1&tag=insta0c-20&linkId=a1b12aa9f69e1b48a6ba99ad2e1aa96a&language=en_US

[LA Ute]

What Do the Oligarchs Have in Mind for Us?

https://quillette.com/2019/06/19/what-do-the-oligarchs-have-in-mind-for-us/

[U-Ute]

I was listening to a podcast recently and learned that the "23AndMe" business model has nothing to do with finding your ancestry or medical conditions.

No, they want to make the largest genetic database they can sell to companies.

[U-Ute]

The White House is reportedly moving to regulate “anti-conservative” social media (https://qz.com/1685704/trump-draft-order-targets-anti-conservative-social-media/?utm_source=reddit.com)

This seems to run counter to the belief of corporations as people who have a first amendment right in a post Citizens United world.

[U-Ute]

Tech has learned from finance (initially pioneered by aerospace?) how to use the revolving door between the public and private sectors to secure lucrative contracts.

Inside Amazon And Silicon Valley's JEDI Mind Trick On The Pentagon (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-29/inside-amazon-and-silicon-valleys-jedi-mind-trick-pentagon)