37 thoughts on “De Tuesday Papers

    1. some old queen

      Hi ho hi ho it’s off to court we go. But but but HILLARY .!. .!. .!.

      Makes you wonder what techniques were used to ensure Facebook turned a blind eye. They had to know that such large data transfers were occuring, otherwise they were negligent on a grand scale.

        1. Listrade

          Nah. As much as I hate Facebook, there was no negligence. All CA did was use well known technique (quiz) to determine various political and other leanings. It was within the Facebook T&Cs of the time. Facebook found out, immediately changed the T&Cs and told CA to destroy the data. CA said they had, but looks like they lied and continued to use the data.

          There’s been no breach and no hack. People were recruited (some paid) to take the quiz and it meant that any info they or their friends had open to public viewing was recorded. It was exactly how Facebook sold its advertising. The difference is rather than targeted ads for slippers, you got targeted ads for Trump and “news” stories favouring Trump.

          Not negligence, just a crappy privacy policy that favours Facebook (and Google etc) selling data for advertising.

          1. Clampers Outside!

            Ok, T&Cs changed… sounds about right to me.

            I thought the big issue was the entrapment tactics myself. Something not unheard of in politics since the beginning of democracy.

            With regard to advertising, the whistleblower’s claim that ads were ‘manipulative’ (as opposed to just ‘influence’ which all advertising seeks to do) seemed to me, from the CH4 interview, to be a difficult claim to prove. I may be wrong though, it may be easy to prove with the ‘sting’ recordings.

            I’d also add that, for advertisers to use ‘fear’ as a motivation in their advertising is also a difficult one to prove.
            And even if proven, it is my understanding that this would at worst come with a slap on the wrist from the ad industry as the ad industries in UK and US (and Ireland) are self regulated and breaking the rules of self-regulated industries are not “criminal” offences.

            As i watched the interview last night, I was thinking, if this guy is right, and there is a criminal offence then they’d have to lock up everyone in the ad industry, me included :)

          2. some old queen

            @ Lisrade. Cambridge Analytica profiled people on aggregated personality types. How did they then target them within Facebook? Surely they had to supply a list of profile names because these groups had little or nothing else in common. I suspect Facebook are involved in this a lot more than they are admitting.

            @ Clamps. The manipulation came from the fact that the people behind the ads were concealing their identity, which was their golden rule. If Bannon et al had to be up front, people would never have been ‘nudged’ because they could see the agenda behind the ads.

          3. Listrade

            All they did was got about 250k people to take their quiz. When you do any of those scam quizzes on FB it asks for access to certain things one of which is you friends lists. If any of your friends havent set their profile to private, then it will gather all their public data (likes, shares, comments on articles etc).

            So you taking the quiz (any of those quizzes!) And accepting the terms (of the time) will give that company access to your friends and all their data if public.

            What CA had is research that showed how FB likes could show with some accuracy personality traits. They worked that into political traits and used the data they got from 250k participants and all their public friends to sell a targeted political campaign.

          4. Clampers Outside!

            To add to Listrade’s info.
            From the 250k individuals who gave their info, they got profiles of 50m, and from that they were able to build psychological profiles via their algorithm, and target personality types that would be susceptible to their message.

            Having a baseline of 50m actual profiles is an absolutely huge database which they could then use to make ‘accurate’ estimates of what type of individuals – based on their likes, comments, age, gender, etc – could be segmented for targeting with different advertisement messages that the algorithm suggested they were most likely to react to.

            This is done everyday by ad agencies, using data collected with FB’s permission. The CA difference, if they are to be believed, is that their algorithm is better than any of the other API based platforms* used by ad agencies.

            Various API platforms* used by marketers include companies such as Hubspot, Marketo, Hootsuite, SEMRush, Buffer, Marketing Miner, Lykealyzer, Agropulse… etc. Some specialise in just Twitter or Facebook or Tumblr, some do them all, some are complete social CRM tools, incorporating email, display advertising, Search marketing, etc. And all are legitimate companies.

            Yes, the user does not know that it is CA who delivered those messages, but neither do users know when it is any of the other API platforms. I don’t believe that this is what CA will have any charges hung on, if any are brought forward for that element of the ‘problem’, for want of a better word.

            Again, I believe the major problem is the entrapment via bribes as per the sting operations that CH4 recorded. That’s the bit where CA will really get burned… charged with criminal activity. The whole data collection thing is secondary to that from what I’ve seen and read so far.

            Hiding the fact Bannon was part of it, was, from their, CA’s, point of view good sense strategically, as Bannon was already a dirty name and a true alt-right head the ball. (That’s not a defence of the fupper btw! Just in case someone thinks it is… >_< ).
            As you said yourself, and I agree completely… "If Bannon et al had to be up front, people would never have been ‘nudged’ because they could see the agenda behind the ads".
            But, does keeping his name out of it count as manipulation, I dunno… if it does, then the vast majority of all ads on social networks are guilty of manipulation. It's gonna get murky, and if anything good comes of this, it'll be that people, hopefully, will be more aware of how their data is used, and how manipulation in advertising, political or otherwise, is conducted online.

          5. some old queen

            @ Listrade. I’m not sure of the term ‘targeted political campaign’. I probably won’t get it until I see some examples. But even using that terminology, how could they have done it without the assistance of Facebook? Did nobody notice what was going on?

            @ Clamps. If ad agencies are doing this on a widespread basis, with full consent from Facebook, then why are Facebook denying all culpability in this case? What is so different?

            As for manipulation, this was not soap powder they were selling, it was politics. If their clients identify had become known it would have rendered their campaigns ineffective. That is the complete opposite of most sales or marketing which is nearly always product AND brand. People just don’t like it when they are being deceived in such a manner.

            Anyways, the British authorities want access into their servers. I expect those guys have already found what they were looking for and now just need to make it official.

            Time will tell. It’s only starting.

          6. Clampers Outside!

            I think most API’s used by agencies follow the rules. And that FB deny culpability of CA’s misuse because they have a signed form from the Wylie guy – he said he signed a form to say that CA destroyed the data.
            That was the sum of FBs security check, according to the interview on Ch4, and from that, i believe, FB says they did their due diligence, and are not culpable. And they did just fire their security head, so they’ll be able to say.. ‘look we’re fixing it’.

            You can be sure, I am anyway, FB are making sure all API’s are in line following this debacle.

            I’m with you on that.. ‘this is not soap powder’…. but where it goes next, I dunno…

          7. Nigel

            Apparently Facebook were in the CA offices trying to secure data, but the British Information Commissioner’s Office have made them ‘stand down.’ Don’t try to tell me this is normal, even for the wacky world of marketing and advertising.

          8. Listrade

            There’s an innocent explanation here too. You see CA were looking after the digital side of the Trump campaign. That’s where their data came in. Facebook also took in a lot of as revenue direct from Russia for targeted ads that appear to have used the CA data (they admited this to Congress). But Facebook also had people embedded with Trump and Cliton campaigns to assist with the digital side. However only one campaign was run by a company that was targeting ads based on old t&C’s that it said it had deleted and was also being used through russia. But even though Facebook had people in with the digital campaign, lead by CA, 3 or 4 days and accepted the money for the ads from Russia, it had no idea this was going on.

            So I assume Facebook being at CAs premises was to tell them how they arent angry, they’re just disappointed that CA were so deceptive right in front of them while they were in the room.

            However, this isn’t a data leak, it isn’t a hack, all the information was gained by legitimate means as part of t&C’s. And that isn’t the story or what we should be angry about.

            If you have Facebook, check how many apps you’ve given access to. It’s easy to forget. We give them all this data and they found a way to use it.

            There is a story in here, there is a reason Facebook tried to stop the story, there is a reason why Facebook went onto CAs offices, but it has nothing to do with a data breach.

          9. Clampers Outside!

            Nigel… nobody said what you’ve written is normal. God above your reading comprehension is annoying sometimes >_<

            Either that, or you intentionally misinterpret straight forward conversations because you're bent on suggesting someone else said something they didn't.

            – – – –

            While you're here Nigel, you do know what "espouse" means, yeah?

          10. Clampers Outside!

            Come to think of it… even though, it may not be normal, it wouldn’t be unusual, in fairness, for FB personnel to work with an API client, and from that clients’ office for a period of time. Depending on the spend levels, if FB operate the way Google does, then a high value big spending client will get some first hand assistance.

          11. Nigel

            Sorry Clamps and you such a famous stickler for reading comprehension and correct interpretation.

            (Actually found your comments informative, and that ‘don’t tell me’ was supposed to be vaguely humorous.)

  1. some old queen

    Brexit: Looks like Leo was right, crash and burn means NI remains in customs union. Enough to make the DUP walk? Time will tell.

    This day is looking good already.

    1. david

      Its a hard border
      We are to be collateral damage in the game of shaft the UK
      Sadly little leo verruca and fellow KAPOs on Irelands team just do not get it
      The reich are playing hard ball
      By the time they wake up it will be too late

      1. ReproBertie

        You can throw all the verrucas, KAPOs and Reichs you like david. It won’t change the simple truth that the British Taoiseach, through her minister for Sasamach, has conceded, or surrendered even, to the EU’s demands on the border issue. Why would they do that if they held all the cards, like the lying Sasamachs said they would?

          1. The Old Boy

            It would help them if they had some of the hard-nosed, competent utter bastards of old to deal with a situation like this, rather than the current generation of buffoons.

            As one observer put it, the Tory party were able slide from having Lord Hailsham to Liz Truss as Lord Chancellor in the space of 29 years.

  2. MaryLou's ArmaLite

    SF on another disgusting tweet storm. Disgusting party with a disgusting following.

  3. Listrade

    God bless the Telegraph and accurate reporting on fishing. Just to be pedantic, the decline in the British fishing industry was as a result of the 3 “Cod Wars”. Which was entirely the EU’s fault. Apart from the first 2 Cod Wars which were before the EU and involved NATO and the UN not the EU. And even though the last one was the UN extending Coastal Exclusive Economic Zones to 200 miles for fishing and again nothing to do with the EU, it’s still the EU’s fault.

    Still, that controlling EU interfered when it set up the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission so that states could agree manageable fishing quotas in the region and avoid conflict again. The entire British fishing industry (what was left after the British capitulated in the Cod Wars) was ruled by Brussels. What’s that? The governing body for the entire fishing in the North Eastern Atlantic is based in London? Baker Street? And has British appointees as well as membership by British fishing bodies?

    It’s the EU’s fault that the British EEZ is only really good for Mackerel, because they allow total freedom of movement for fish in and out of EEZs. It’s the EUs fault that the British fishing industry supplements this by fishing in the waters of other country’s EEZ to an agreed quota. It’s the EU’s fault that the geography of Europe around the NE Atlantic is a bit tight and so it needs the UN to agree on the exact EEZ for all the countries. It’s the EUs fault that the British wish to leave this collective agreement and so without any new treaty will be left with mackerel and no right of access to anywhere else.

    1. david

      They have taken over 250 billion of fish out of our waters
      This is one of our bargaining chips
      We need leadership desperately not what we have
      Its time Mickey martin pulls the plug
      This is way beyond the capability of our leadership
      The dim bright young things are clueless about the implications of what is at stake
      Most were at school when this country had a war waging in the north

      1. ReproBertie

        Once again david you speak when you should be listening.

        Britain’s only strong card in Sasamach is their fishing waters..

        Britain could have held firm on the fishing waters as so much of the EU’s fishing takes place there. Enforcing their rights to the waters would have meant the EU fishing fleet forced to fish in the less abundant Irish waters meaning disaster for much of the EU fishing industry. Meanwhile Britain would have sole access to the most abundant waters and, given time to increase their fleet and build the processing plants, a booming industry.

        Of course the market for most of that fish is the EU so the EU could scupper that with some tariffs and maybe that’s why the British Taoiseach caved.

      2. MaryLou's ArmaLite

        Maybe you should go back to school because this country didn’t get too involved in the situation.

        Good on the SF SCU showing the world what SF are all about. Learning a few tricks from FG.

    2. petey

      i do not contest a word of your comments about the fishing, but
      “God bless the Telegraph”
      i mean really, that’s unnecessary.

Comments are closed.