Discussion in 'Fight Club' started by Desmond David, Mar 9, 2018.
What happens when there is a major crime ? A terrorist attack ?
They need to find via the old school way ie, before the era of CCTV cameras
Are you trolling ?
"Old School" also had the "old murder/crime rate" much higher than today's rate.In fact unless something drastic happens expect increase in CCTVs in all areas of life in all nations.
You're just talking like current politicians who say "Wearing jeans is the main cause of raping" or "Yoga can cure cancer" or "Diseases like cancer due to sins committed in last lives". Why not discipline people to behave well in public places?
They are called public place for a reason .. duh !
Anyway, Govt. can collect our data but they should safe guard the collected data and should not sell / leak to other entities. W and one need some strict law so our personal data can remain safe.
Food for thought -
Facebook a national security threat because society values ‘Free Services’ over privacy, study says:
Facebook a national security threat because society values ‘Free Services’ over privacy: Study
Happened upon this thread a little late, but I see a lot of confusion here. There are various types of privacy being all lumped into one here, and they're not all equal.
For example, security is being treated as privacy, when we talk about Aadhaar or passwords stored as plain text, etc. That's not a privacy issue that's a pure security issue. People can do bad things with that data. Like create fake bank accounts in your name and endanger your freedom (you going to jail) or if you use the same passwords everywhere, it can endanger your assets (such as bank accounts), or even your email address, etc. This is security, not privacy.
Next, is the personal space privacy being discussed, which is parents not letting you be alone, or hostels not giving you single rooms, etc. That's a valid problem in every crowded country, and even a problem with minors in developed and sparsely populated countries as well. It's more societal than anything else, and with houses getting smaller and smaller because of congestion (all over the globe) this is a problem that will only get worse. If you think you have it bad here in India, think about the Japanese city dwellers who have it far worse than most of us when it comes to lack of personal privacy. There is a psychological effect that needs to be discussed as well, which may explain the more violent tendencies of some people these days, which may very well be linked to a lack of space in general, or the lack of privacy.
Lastly, we have online / offline anonymity, which is debated as to whether it's even a valid privacy whinge. more and more internet services want to know who you are, and aren't interested in catering to anonymous people. Places like this forum are some of the last spaces left online (decent places, I mean) where people can still interact with others without revealing who they actually are in the "real world". Most of us don't use that feature or ability, admittedly, but it still exists nonetheless.
Aadhaar raised the question of whether a citizen deserves the right to be anonymous, and choose what data they want to share with their governments or corporations. Now, one can claim that in order to receive government benefits, one needs to be identified (still debatable whether biometrics is needed), and that would be true, but some believe that we as people have a right to exist without giving our details to everyone.
Of course that last one is getting more and more impossible to do, anywhere in the world. No one employs people without background checks, and checks of identity, societal standing and even social media stalking to assess an employee's stance on important subjects. For example, in the west, no one wants to hire a white supremacist, or a Nazi, and while we might argue that it is against free speech, or something like that, one also cannot argue against the fact that a company needs to be able to make a profit, and fire or not hire individuals who are detrimental to that goal.
In essence, the days of anonymity online or offline for most popular things is at an end. Yes, this forum is still one of the few remaining places that we have to be able to be anonymous, but such places are few and far between now.
CCTVs, Facebook and the likes, and even ad networks, etc, are all tracking you and know who you are. For the most part, it's only because they want to try and sell you some crap, so it's not really evil, but there will always be a few that will use your data against you in ever increasing evil ways, without you even knowing it. Influencing voting and elections, shady politics in general, fear mongering, etc, are all on the rise thanks to social media, and that's not going anywhere, sadly. Either way, wishing for anonymity is just wishful thinking now, so get used to spending your life under the glare of the spotlight of the world, and being judged for every little thing. It's the sad future of our species, for better or worse...
I agree. Realistically we don't really have much control over what data is being gathered about us. The govt already has a lot of data on us already, even before aadhaar became a thing. The real question is where do we draw the line. We have to trust these companies and the govt. to be responsible custodians of whatever data they have collected about us. However, there are many ways in which this data can be abused. Like the latest Cambridge Analytica scandal where they used people's data to sway public opinion. There is also the danger of doxxing which can be done with even simpler methods of gathering data.
To be frank someone who can be swayed by "customized news feeds over social media" doesn't inspire much confidence in that person's rational thinking in the first place.To put it in perspective I never take any sensational news online/social media/tv channel at its face value(even if I do spend some time reading them just for laughs.e.g.the paytm demonetization scam article over whatsapp where somebody calculated 100 rupee note circulated 100000 times gives paytm 250000 at 2.5% transaction charge no wonder it is hard to find good economics experts in India worthy of RBI governor post) unless it is published in at least 2 national english newspapers(usually Hindu & ToI).
I don't see why what Cambridge Analytica did is so wrong. Someone please explain this to me.
We had demographic profiling for so long in advertising, and it does work. Psychographic profiling is just an evolution of that. Facebook by its very nature, allows granular targeting of content and ads... this is what fills its coffers. Generally, is it not better that you are seeing ads that you like instead of ads that you do not like? Personalised communication is proven to be better for individuals and companies alike. For example, if you are playing some sidey game, you might get ads to dating sites, pets, karaoke ads and whatnot. Since we cannot escape ads really, is it not better to get ads that are purely of other games? Now why cannot political campaigns use the same tools, especially since they are allowed traditional advertising? If it was wrong, the moral judgement on the wrongness was decided after the fact, so they certainly did not know it was wrong before hand. And come on, since when have politicians been squeaky clean. Someone who propagates politically coloured posts on social media, would do so from any source.
^^The thing they did wrong is taking advantage of an already "rationally crippled" section of population(aka believing in social media type) by getting their hands on illegally obtained data. To give an analogy it is like a life insurance agent selling an expensive policy to 18 years old who just inherited a large sum of money(which he knows by gaining access to an otherwise private database of people inheriting large sums of money recently) by scaring him with false info about death but on a very large scale(aka he did the same to millions of 18 years old). The agent did not exactly do anything illegal(except getting the information part) as life insurance policy is genuine & there is a life risk for any person irrespective of age but that does not make this right especially if done on a large scale.
As for distributing biased posts from other sources remember that unlike social media there is no "hard analytical data" for those sources.One can print biased posters,get newspapers to print biased news articles etc but there is no guarantee that it will work because there is no data that says X% of ppl in Y town trust any news in Z newspaper over others or they trust wall papers more than newspapers etc.
IMO Political parties should not employ methods that corporations use for "customer engagement and retention". Politicians must be elected based on merits and demerits. That is why I am not very happy with Cambridge Analytica's role in swaying elections.
But then, this was being done for at least a 100 years, through traditional modes of advertisement as well. Even if you remove micro targeting for delivering the ads, it will cost a bit more to achieve the same results. An agency can disseminate the same ads, with the same content, without the targeting. You cannot stop political parties from campaigning.
Facebook is being singled out here. They had a number of data sources. This included Snapchat, Acxiom, Infogroup, Experian, Datatrust, Aristotle, Folk, L2 and Nielsen among others. This allowed them to get all the data points they needed to make granular targeting possible.
^^None of them is as effective as Facebook & no it will not be possible to achieve the same results(using facebook data) using other sources no matter how much more you spend.
Nix himself said it, the big data was big, allowed them billions of data points on each individual. Some of the stuff you cannot get from Facebook, like which TV shows you watched on your cable subscription. These are all professional data vendors. The difference in costs will be reaching the same number of people through non targeted campaigns on FB only.
Facebook is in a league of its own,there is no other source(aka netflix,hulu,instagram etc) which wields as much influence on as many people.The reason facebook is facing so much flak for cambridge analytica is exactly this.This is also why russian hackers/bots are most active on facebook because they know this is where it is most efficient(with their skills penetrating databases of netfilx etc is nothing too difficult for them).
It could also be that Facebook is the most visible, or the conspiracy theorist in me is saying it was deliberately targeted. The scandal came out in a vortex of whistleblowers and leaked videos, almost a year and a half after CA worked on the Trump campaign, and more than 5 years after their work on other political campaigns, and 4 years after FB fixed the underlying problem (the method used to scrub the data. Selling it was a whole other issue). In any case, there is little or no scrutiny on the mountain of data that the other data brokers sold to CA. I'm pretty sure the data gathered from FB is just the tip of the iceberg.
Russian troll farms purchased $50,000 worth of FB ads. Clinton and Trump spent $80 million. src
Giving some examples. What you purchased, when you did it, where you got it from, how much you paid for it. What you watched on local cable channels. Where you went out to eat. Your financial records. Your medical history. Your call records. All of this data is collected somewhere. FB does not collect all this data. That data has a price. This is the job of data brokers.
It's simple really, CA had generated psychographic profiles of every adult in the Untied States. Every adult in the United States is not on Facebook.
True, but creating a psychographic profile won't really help anyone unless you find a way to engage said people. And Facebook is the largest platform where you can do so.
Separate names with a comma.