Author Topic: they know what you are doing  (Read 126426 times)

Offline Irene

  • 🐾👀🐾
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1159
  • Gold 513
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #735 on: March 10, 2017, 10:09:44 AM »
i wasnt trying to insult you was a jab at big z.i like pickn on him is all.
Ive known him like 8yrs?
Weve had good times and bad times,like any family.

All right, robo. I've been naughty myself lately, so it was probably just karma coming back around at me. :)
Shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.....

Offline space otter

  • Pegasus Alternate Energy Team
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4877
  • Gold 681
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #736 on: March 10, 2017, 11:20:38 AM »

holy crap this is awful..1984 is here  yikes
words leaving the dictionary  privacy  and choice

House Republicans would let employers demand workers’ genetic test results
Sharon Begley
4 hrs ago
A little-noticed bill moving through Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information.

Giving employers such power is now prohibited by legislation including the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law known as GINA. The new bill gets around that landmark law by stating explicitly that GINA and other protections do not apply when genetic tests are part of a “workplace wellness” program.

he bill, H.R. 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.

“What this bill would do is completely take away the protections of existing laws,” said Jennifer Mathis, director of policy and legal advocacy at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a civil rights group. In particular, privacy and other protections for genetic and health information in GINA and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act “would be pretty much eviscerated,” she said.

Related video: How does genetic testing really work?
vid at link

Employers say they need the changes because those two landmark laws are “not aligned in a consistent manner” with laws about workplace wellness programs, as an employer group said in congressional testimony last week.

Employers got virtually everything they wanted for their workplace wellness programs during the Obama administration. The ACA allowed them to charge employees 30 percent, and possibly 50 percent, more for health insurance if they declined to participate in the “voluntary” programs, which typically include cholesterol and other screenings; health questionnaires that ask about personal habits including plans to get pregnant; and sometimes weight loss and smoking cessation classes. And in rules that Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued last year, a workplace wellness program counts as “voluntary” even if workers have to pay thousands of dollars more in premiums and deductibles if they don’t participate.

Despite those wins, the business community chafed at what it saw as the last obstacles to unfettered implementation of wellness programs: the genetic information and the disabilities laws. Both measures, according to congressional testimony last week by the American Benefits Council, “put at risk the availability and effectiveness of workplace wellness programs,” depriving employees of benefits like “improved health and productivity.” The Council represents Fortune 500 companies and other large employers that provide employee benefits. It did not immediately respond to questions about how lack of access to genetic information hampers wellness programs.

Rigorous studies by researchers not tied to the $8 billion wellness industry have shown that the programs improve employee health little if at all. An industry group recently concluded that they save so little on medical costs that, on average, the programs lose money. But employers continue to embrace them, partly as a way to shift more health care costs to workers, including by penalizing them financially.

The 2008 genetic law prohibits a group health plan — the kind employers have — from asking, let alone requiring, someone to undergo a genetic test. It also prohibits that specifically for “underwriting purposes,” which is where wellness programs come in. “Underwriting purposes” includes basing insurance deductibles, rebates, rewards, or other financial incentives on completing a health risk assessment or health screenings. In addition, any genetic information can be provided to the employer only in a de-identified, aggregated form, rather than in a way that reveals which individual has which genetic profile.

There is a big exception, however: as long as employers make providing genetic information “voluntary,” they can ask employees for it.  Under the House bill, none of the protections for health and genetic information provided by GINA or the disabilities law would apply to workplace wellness programs as long as they complied with the ACA’s very limited requirements for the programs. As a result, employers could demand that employees undergo genetic testing and health screenings.

While the information returned to employers would not include workers’ names, it’s not difficult, especially in a small company, to match a genetic profile with the individual.

That “would undermine fundamentally the privacy provisions” of those laws,” said Nancy Cox, president of the American Society of Human Genetics, in a letter to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce the day before it approved the bill. “It would allow employers to ask employees invasive questions about … genetic tests they and their families have undergone” and “to impose stiff financial penalties on employees who choose to keep such information private, thus empowering employers to coerce their employees” into providing their genetic information.

If an employer has a wellness program but does not sponsor health insurance, rather than increasing insurance premiums, the employer could dock the paychecks of workers who don’t participate.

The privacy concerns also arise from how workplace wellness programs work. Employers, especially large ones, generally hire outside companies to run them. These companies are largely unregulated, and they are allowed to see genetic test results with employee names.

They sometimes sell the health information they collect from employees. As a result, employees get unexpected pitches for everything from weight-loss programs to running shoes, thanks to countless strangers poring over their health and genetic information.

Offline space otter

  • Pegasus Alternate Energy Team
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4877
  • Gold 681
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #737 on: March 14, 2017, 09:22:15 PM »

HEALTHY LIVING 03/14/2017 07:56 pm ET
Workplace Genetic Testing Isn’t Just Unethical, It’s Scientifically Unsound
A House bill would allow penalties for refusing to provide DNA results.
By Erin Schumaker

vid at link

In 2008, Congress passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act to prevent employers and insurance companies from discriminating against Americans based on their medical records.

Now a House committee is taking steps to remove GINA’s protections.

On March 8, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce narrowly approved HR 1313, which could allow employers to require genetic testing as part of a workplace wellness program. Employees could face financial penalties if they refused.

The idea behind this is to make employees healthier and reduce health care costs for companies. But medical ethicists argue that this is not only unethical, it’s scientifically incoherent. Simply put, an employer wouldn’t be able to glean anything particularly useful from commercially available genetic testing.

“There’s this notion that somehow we could give you a genetic test and find out your risk factors and control them or monitor them,” Arthur Caplan, the founding director of New York University’s Division of Medical Ethics told The Huffington Post. “That’s science that isn’t here yet.”

Dr. Lainie Ross, professor of clinical medical ethics at the University of Chicago Medicine, said, “We’re advancing in our understanding of genetics, but we’re nowhere near being able to say, ‘Because you have this gene, you definitely should take this medicine’ or not.”

Even Dr. Tom Price, the former orthopedic surgeon and Affordable Care Act opponent who now heads the Department of Health and Human Services, expressed reservations about HR 1313.

“I’m not familiar with the bill, but it sounds like there would be some significant concerns about it,” Price said Sunday on “Meet the Press.” “If the department’s asked to evaluate it, or if it’s coming through the department, we’ll be glad to take a look at it.”

The genetic testing industry is unregulated

In 2015, the Food and Drug Administration cautioned that some laboratory tests could harm patients because they led to false diagnoses and unnecessary treatments (the agency later withdrew its regulatory proposals and left lab test regulation up to President Donald Trump’s FDA commissioner and Congress).

In fact, in a study in which researchers gave nine labs a genetic variant and asked them to analyze it, the labs gave different answers 22 percent of the time.

“Even if everyone agrees that a genetic variant can cause disease, the actual risk to an individual of developing that disease is not that clear,” Heidi Rehm of Brigham and Women’s Hospital told the STAT health news site. “That risk depends on environmental factors as well as other genetic ones, but truthfully we don’t know what those factors are.”

Forced genetic testing could push highly personal, sensitive and potentially inaccurate information on individuals who may not want to know if they have specific health risks, particularly if they carry genetic mutations for serious or incurable conditions.

The dangers of inaccurate genetic testing

Genetics is based on probabilities, not certainties. So, although a test may find that you have an increased risk of breast cancer, to use one example, that does not mean you are certain to get the disease.

“It may push people into seeking out untested treatments or treatments that they really don’t need because they come from a low-risk family,” Ross said. “It’s not good medical practice.”

Then there’s the possibility that employers and insurance companies could use genetic information (which might not even accurately represent disease risk) to discriminate against employees and customers. Insurance companies could potentially charge people who show a risk for certain genetic conditions higher premiums, and unscrupulous employers would have the ability to make hiring and firing decisions based on employee health. 

There’s also the dicey question of which genes employers and insurance companies might choose to look at.

Cherry-picking who gets insurance could potentially stigmatize one group of people.

“We all have health risks. We’re all going to die,” Ross said. “This is all about risk, and we want to share the risk.”

Employers can prioritize health without sacrificing privacy

Workplace wellness programs are popular (about half of U.S. companies with 50 or more employees had workplace wellness programs in place, according to a 2013 report from the nonpartisan Rand Corp. think tank), but there’s not much evidence that such programs improve employee health.

Most of the studies that do exist fail to prove causation, show only short-term effects or are written by the wellness industry, according to The New York Times. The more rigorous studies are more likely to show that wellness programs neither save money nor improve employee health.

That’s not to say health and wellness shouldn’t be employer priorities. But workplace wellness programs that incentivize and penalize employees based on their health are fundamentally unethical, according to Caplan.

“The notion that your boss is in the best position to monitor your health is morally tenuous,” he said. “For example, your boss doesn’t care if your job is stressing you out. They’re not going to fix that. They’re just going to tell you to lose weight.”

“If your boss really cares about your health, then they can build a gym and incentivize you to go down there when they give you that extra 30-minute break.”

Suggest a correction

Offline space otter

  • Pegasus Alternate Energy Team
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4877
  • Gold 681
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #738 on: March 23, 2017, 04:03:37 PM »

U.S. Senate votes to overturn Obama broadband privacy rules

By David Shepardson
2 hrs ago

The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted narrowly to repeal regulations requiring internet service providers to do more to protect customers' privacy than websites like Alphabet Inc's Google (GOOGL.O) or Facebook Inc (FB.O).

The vote was along party lines, with 50 Republicans approving the measure and 48 Democrats rejecting it. The two remaining Republicans in the Senate were absent and did not cast a vote.

According to the rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission in October under then-President Barack Obama, internet providers would need to obtain consumer consent before using precise geolocation, financial information, health information, children's information and web browsing history for advertising and internal marketing.

The vote was a victory for internet providers such as AT&T Inc (T.N), Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) and Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N), which had strongly opposed the rules.

The bill next goes to the U.S. House of Representatives, but it was not clear when they would take up the measure.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate was overturning a regulation that "makes the internet an uneven playing field, increases complexity, discourages competition, innovation, and infrastructure investment."

But Democratic Senator Ed Markey said, "Republicans have just made it easier for American’s sensitive information about their health, finances and families to be used, shared, and sold to the highest bidder without their permission."

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said consumers would have privacy protections even without the Obama administration internet provider rules.

In a joint statement, Democratic members of the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission said the Senate vote "creates a massive gap in consumer protection law as broadband and cable companies now have no discernible privacy requirements."

Republican commissioners, including Pai, said in October that the rules would unfairly give websites like Facebook, Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) or Google the ability to harvest more data than internet service providers and thus dominate digital advertising. The FCC earlier this month delayed the data rules from taking effect.

The Internet and Television Association, a trade group, in a statement praised the vote as a "critical step towards re-establishing a balanced framework that is grounded in the long-standing and successful FTC privacy framework that applies equally to all parties operating online."

Websites are governed by a less restrictive set of privacy rules overseen by the Federal Trade Commission.

Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel for advocacy group Consumers Union, said the vote "is a huge step in the wrong direction, and it completely ignores the needs and concerns of consumers."

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Chris Reese and Jonathan Oatis)


What Are Some of the Laws Regarding Internet and Data Security?
By: Nadia_Kovacs30 ADMIN EMPLOYEE   Posted: 25-Mar-2016



Last update: Nov. 16, 2016



Protecting Consumer Privacy | Federal Trade Commission
The FTC has been the chief federal agency on privacy policy and ... when it began enforcing one of the first federal privacy laws – the Fair Credit Reporting ... The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA): What Parents Should Know ...

[PDF]Federal Internet Privacy Law - Fenno Law Firm, LLC
PRIVACY LAW. Similarly, there is no comprehensive federal law governing privacy in general. Internet privacy (and privacy in general) in the United. States is ...

« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 04:11:36 PM by space otter »

Offline biggles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1202
  • Gold 47
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #739 on: March 23, 2017, 07:16:05 PM »
I know they know everything about me because I have been helping, talking and emailing someone on their hit targeted list.

Let them turn up at the door, believe me with what I go through they can shoot if they want.

I have been getting private numbers calling me for two years no one on there, just listening, so in the end I started calling them names.
I know that I know nothing - thanks Capricorn.

Offline space otter

  • Pegasus Alternate Energy Team
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4877
  • Gold 681
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #740 on: March 28, 2017, 08:08:27 PM »

House pulls the plug on internet privacy rules
Marguerite Reardon
4 hrs ago

Broadband providers won't have to get your permission before sharing your web browsing history and other personal data with marketers thanks to a vote today on Capitol Hill.

Republicans in the US House of Representatives on Tuesday followed their colleagues in the Senate with a vote to approve a resolution that uses the Congressional Review Act to prevent privacy rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission last year from taking effect. The vote was 231 in favor of the resolution and 189 opposing the measure.

The Senate voted on Thursday to adopt the resolution to nullify the rules. All that's left now is for President Trump to sign the order. This will essentially repeal the Obama-era regulation passed in October days before Trump was elected. These rules would have required broadband companies to get their customers' permission before they sell "sensitive" information about their web browsing activity, app usage or whereabouts to marketers. The Congressional Review Act also prohibits the FCC from adopting similar rules in the future.

Why should you care?
Proponents of the rules, like consumer advocacy groups, say this is bad news for consumers because the rules protect your privacy. Without these regulations, these groups say that broadband providers will be able to sell information about where you've been online, what you're buying, the apps you're using, and where you're located to marketers and other third parties, like insurance companies.

"ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Charter will be free to sell your personal information to the highest bidder without your permission -- and no one will be able to protect you," Gigi Sohn, an advisor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who championed the rules, wrote in an op-ed on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, internet service providers say the regulations are too strict and unfairly single out broadband providers, because they require broadband companies to adhere to a more stringent privacy requirement than internet companies must follow. They say the rules are burdensome and will stifle competition, driving up prices.

"The FCC's flawed broadband privacy rules will have a chilling effect on internet innovation and competition," said Gary Shapiro head of the Consumer Technology Association.

Instead, these groups say that broadband companies should follow the same privacy guidelines as internet companies, like Facebook and Google. They follow rules established by the Federal Trade Communication, which only requires companies offer consumers the opportunity to opt out of such data sharing. Industry groups argue having two sets of rules gives internet companies a competitive leg up.

For broadband companies the stakes are high. These companies are looking to expand their businesses and offer marketers more targeted advertising, and they want to use the personal information they collect from their customers to do it. The nation's largest broadband companies -- AT&T, Comcast and Verizon -- have each made acquisitions in an effort to build their digital content holdings, making them not only the companies that provide a broadband pipe into your home, but also companies whose own content rides that network.

The vote, which has been highly politicized, fell along party lines. It's part of a GOP effort to eliminate several regulations issued during Obama's final months in office. And it comes just days after Trump's plan to repeal and replace "Obamacare" failed. President Trump has already signed several resolutions under the Congressional Review Act to repeal regulations, including two related to education and one concerning the environment.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who voted against the rules when he was a commissioner before being appointed as chairman in January, had already put the brakes on the rollout of the rules. In February, the FCC voted to hold off implementing the rules until challenges to the rules could be assessed.

Offline robomont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Gold 212
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #741 on: March 29, 2017, 12:40:54 AM »
And innovation is officially dead except for big corporations.
Why create anything if its just gonna be stolen before you can even file a patent.
ive never been much for rules.
being me has its priviledges.


Offline space otter

  • Pegasus Alternate Energy Team
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4877
  • Gold 681
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #742 on: March 30, 2017, 09:27:28 PM »

ahh face book....i don't know a lot about this source but the info seems more than believable..


Mattathias Schwartz
March 30 2017, 2:01 p.m.

IN 2014, TRACES of an unusual survey, connected to Facebook, began appearing on internet message boards. The boards were frequented by remote freelance workers who bid on “human intelligence tasks” in an online marketplace, called Mechanical Turk, controlled by Amazon. The “turkers,” as they’re known, tend to perform work that is rote and repetitive, like flagging pornographic images or digging through search engine results for email addresses. Most jobs pay between 1 and 15 cents. “Turking makes us our rent money and helps pay off debt,” one turker told The Intercept. Another turker has called the work “voluntary slave labor.”

The task posted by “Global Science Research” appeared ordinary, at least on the surface. The company offered turkers $1 or $2 to complete an online survey. But there were a couple of additional requirements as well. First, Global Science Research was only interested in American turkers. Second, the turkers had to download a Facebook app before they could collect payment. Global Science Research said the app would “download some information about you and your network … basic demographics and likes of categories, places, famous people, etc. from you and your friends.”

“Our terms of service clearly prohibit misuse,” said a spokesperson for Amazon Web Services, by email. “When we learned of this activity back in 2015, we suspended the requester for violating our terms of service.”

Although Facebook’s early growth was driven by closed, exclusive networks at college and universities, it has gradually herded users to agree to increasingly permissive terms of service. By 2014, anything a user’s friends could see was also potentially visible to the developers of any app that they chose to download. Some of the turkers noticed that the Global Science Research app appeared to be taking advantage of Facebook’s porousness. “Someone can learn everything about you by looking at hundreds of pics, messages, friends, and likes,” warned one, writing on a message board. “More than you realize.” Others were more blasé. “I don’t put any info on FB,” one wrote. “Not even my real name … it’s backwards that people put sooo much info on Facebook, and then complain when their privacy is violated.”

In late 2015, the turkers began reporting that the Global Science Research survey had abruptly shut down. The Guardian had published a report that exposed exactly who the turkers were working for. Their data was being collected by Aleksandr Kogan, a young lecturer at Cambridge University. Kogan founded Global Science Research in 2014, after the university’s psychology department refused to allow him to use its own pool of data for commercial purposes. The data collection that Kogan undertook independent of the university was done on behalf of a military contractor called Strategic Communication Laboratories, or SCL. The company’s election division claims to use “data-driven messaging” as part of “delivering electoral success.”

SCL has a growing U.S. spin-off, called Cambridge Analytica, which was paid millions of dollars by Donald Trump’s campaign. Much of the money came from committees funded by the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, who reportedly has a large stake in Cambridge Analytica. For a time, one of Cambridge Analytica’s officers was Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s senior adviser. Months after Bannon claimed to have severed ties with the company, checks from the Trump campaign for Cambridge Analytica’s services continued to show up at one of Bannon’s addresses in Los Angeles.

“You can say Mr. Mercer declined to comment,” said Jonathan Gasthalter, a spokesperson for Robert Mercer, by email.

The Intercept interviewed five individuals familiar with Kogan’s work for SCL. All declined to be identified, citing concerns about an ongoing inquiry at Cambridge and fears of possible litigation. Two sources familiar with the SCL project told The Intercept that Kogan had arranged for more than 100,000 people to complete the Facebook survey and download an app. A third source with direct knowledge of the project said that Global Science Research obtained data from 185,000 survey participants as well as their Facebook friends. The source said that this group of 185,000 was recruited through a data company, not Mechanical Turk, and that it yielded 30 million usable profiles. No one in this larger group of 30 million knew that “likes” and demographic data from their Facebook profiles were being harvested by political operatives hired to influence American voters.

Kogan declined to comment. In late 2014, he gave a talk in Singapore in which he claimed to have “a sample of 50+ million individuals about whom we have the capacity to predict virtually any trait.” Global Science Research’s public filings for 2015 show the company holding 145,111 British pounds in its bank account. Kogan has since changed his name to Spectre. Writing online, he has said that he changed his name to Spectre after getting married. “My wife and I are both scientists and quite religious, and light is a strong symbol of both,” he explained.

The purpose of Kogan’s work was to develop an algorithm for the “national profiling capacity of American citizens” as part of SCL’s work on U.S. elections, according to an internal document signed by an SCL employee describing the research.  here sheepies sheepies

“We do not do any work with Facebook likes,” wrote Lindsey Platts, a spokesperson for Cambridge Analytica, in an email. The company currently “has no relationship with GSR,” Platts said.

“Cambridge Analytica does not comment on specific clients or projects,” she added when asked whether the company was involved with Global Science Research’s work in 2014 and 2015.

The Guardian, which was was the first to report on Cambridge Analytica’s work on U.S. elections, in late 2015, noted that the company drew on research “spanning tens of millions of Facebook users, harvested largely without their permission.” Kogan disputed this at the time, telling The Guardian that his turker surveys had collected no more than “a couple of thousand responses” for any one client. While it is unclear how many responses Global Science Research obtained through Mechanical Turk and how many it recruited through a data company, all five of the sources interviewed by The Intercept confirmed that Kogan’s work on behalf of SCL involved collecting data from survey participants’ networks of Facebook friends, individuals who had not themselves consented to give their data to Global Science Research and were not aware that they were the objects of Kogan’s study. In September 2016, Alexander Nix, Cambridge Analytica’s CEO, said that the company built a model based on “hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans” filling out personality surveys, generating a “model to predict the personality of every single adult in the United States of America.”

Shortly after The Guardian published its 2015 article, Facebook contacted Global Science Research and requested that it delete the data it had taken from Facebook users. Facebook’s policies give Facebook the right to delete data gathered by any app deemed to be “negatively impacting the Platform.” The company believes that Kogan and SCL complied with the request, which was made during the Republican primary, before Cambridge Analytica switched over from Ted Cruz’s campaign to Donald Trump’s. It remains unclear what was ultimately done with the Facebook data, or whether any models or algorithms derived from it wound up being used by the Trump campaign.

In public, Facebook continues to maintain that whatever happened during the run-up to the election was business as usual. “Our investigation to date has not uncovered anything that suggests wrongdoing,” a Facebook spokesperson told The Intercept.

Facebook appears not to have considered Global Science Research’s data collection to have been a serious ethical lapse. Joseph Chancellor, Kogan’s main collaborator on the SCL project and a former co-owner of Global Science Research, is now employed by Facebook Research. “The work that he did previously has no bearing on the work that he does at Facebook,” a Facebook spokesperson told The Intercept.

Chancellor declined to comment.

Cambridge Analytica has marketed itself as classifying voters using five personality traits known as OCEAN — Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism — the same model used by University of Cambridge researchers for in-house, non-commercial research. The question of whether OCEAN made a difference in the presidential election remains unanswered. Some have argued that big data analytics is a magic bullet for drilling into the psychology of individual voters; others are more skeptical. The predictive power of Facebook likes is not in dispute. A 2013 study by three of Kogan’s former colleagues at the University of Cambridge showed that likes alone could predict race with 95 percent accuracy and political party with 85 percent accuracy. Less clear is their power as a tool for targeted persuasion; Cambridge Analytica has claimed that OCEAN scores can be used to drive voter and consumer behavior through “microtargeting,” meaning narrowly tailored messages. Nix has said that neurotic voters tend to be moved by “rational and fear-based” arguments, while introverted, agreeable voters are more susceptible to “tradition and habits and family and community.”

Dan Gillmor, director of the Knight Center at Arizona State University, said he was skeptical of the idea that the Trump campaign got a decisive edge from data analytics. But, he added, such techniques will likely become more effective in the future. “It’s reasonable to believe that sooner or later, we’re going to see widespread manipulation of people’s decision-making, including in elections, in ways that are more widespread and granular, but even less detectable than today,” he wrote in an email.

Trump’s circle has been open about its use of Facebook to influence the vote. Joel Pollak, an editor at Breitbart, writes in his campaign memoir about Trump’s “armies of Facebook ‘friends,’ … bypassing the gatekeepers in the traditional media.” Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser, has written in his own campaign memoir about “geo-targeting” cities to deliver a debunked claim that Bill Clinton had fathered a child out of wedlock, and narrowing down the audience “based on preferences in music, age range, black culture, and other urban interests.”

Clinton, of course, had her own analytics effort, and digital market research is a normal part of any political campaign. But the quantity of data compiled on individuals during the run-up to the election is striking. Alexander Nix, head of Cambridge Analytica, has claimed to “have a massive database of 4-5,000 data points on every adult in America.” Immediately after the election, the company tried to take credit for the win, claiming that its data helped the Trump campaign set the candidate’s travel schedule and place online ads that were viewed 1.5 billion times. Since then, the company has been de-emphasizing its reliance on psychological profiling.

The Information Commissioner’s Office, an official privacy watchdog within the British government, is now looking into whether Cambridge Analytica and similar companies might pose a risk to voters’ rights. The British inquiry was triggered by reports in The Observer of ties between Robert Mercer, Cambridge Analytica, and the Leave.EU campaign, which worked to persuade British voters to leave the European Union. While Nix has previously talked about the firm’s work for Leave.EU, Cambridge Analytica now denies that it had any paid role in the campaign.

In the U.S., where privacy laws are looser, there is no investigation. Cambridge Analytica is said to be pitching its products to several federal agencies, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff. SCL, its parent company, has new offices near the White House and has reportedly been advised by Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, on how to increase its federal business. (A spokesperson for Flynn denied that he had done any work for SCL.)

Years before the arrival of Kogan’s turkers, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg tried to address privacy concerns around the company’s controversial Beacon program, which quietly funneled data from outside websites into Facebook, often without Facebook users being aware of the process. Reflecting on Beacon, Zuckerberg attributed part of Facebook’s success to giving “people control over what and how they share information.” He said that he regretted making Beacon an “opt-out system instead of opt-in … if someone forgot to decline to share something, Beacon went ahead and still shared it with their friends.”

Seven years later, Facebook appears to have made the same mistake, but with far greater consequences. In mid-2014, however, Facebook announced a new review process, where the company would make sure that new apps asked only for data they would actually use. “People want more control,” the company said at that time. “It’s going to make a huge difference with building trust with your app’s audience.” Existing apps were given a full year to switch over to have Facebook review how they handled user data. By that time, Global Science Research already had what it needed.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 09:38:33 PM by space otter »

Offline space otter

  • Pegasus Alternate Energy Team
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4877
  • Gold 681
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #743 on: March 31, 2017, 07:42:18 AM »
this may be helpful

03/30/2017 02:05 pm ET
Republicans Are About To Sell Your Browser History. Here’s How To Protect Yourself.
“If I don’t like the practices of Google, I can go to Bing... But if I don’t like the practice of my network provider, I’m out of luck.”
By Ryan Grenoble

Comcast has done the impossible. Somehow, Americans are about to hate it (and just about every other large internet service provider in the country) more than they already do.

Thanks in no small part to the efforts of those ISPs, the House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday that would allow internet and telecom companies to share customers’ personal information, including web browsing history, without their consent.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who introduced the legislation in the House, has received $693,000 from the internet and telecom industry over the course of her 14-year political career, including $77,000 from Comcast, $98,600 from Verizon, and $104,000 from AT&T. While we’re on the subject, here’s a complete list of every politician who voted for Tuesday’s bill, and how much the telecom industry gave them in their most recent election cycle. Yeah.

Unfortunately, you can’t just go and drop your ISP for one that will protect your data, since many of them are local monopolies and you don’t have a choice.

“ISPs are in a position to see a lot of what you do online. They kind of have to be, since they have to carry all of your traffic,” Jeremy Guillula, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for internet privacy, said in a statement to The Huffington Post.

That’s different than the rest of the internet, where “if I don’t like the practices of Google, I can go to Bing; if I don’t like the practices of Bing, I can go to Firefox,” former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler told HuffPost on Monday. “But if I don’t like the practice of my network provider, I’m out of luck.”

The bill has now passed in both the House and the Senate, with Republicans almost unanimously in favor and Democrats mostly opposed. President Donald Trump has said he strongly supports the measure, meaning a veto is unlikely.

So, in the very likely event that this becomes law, here’s what you can do to protect your privacy:

Get A Virtual Private Network

A virtual private network guards your web traffic by encrypting it as it flows from your device, through your ISP, and to a private server, which then directs you to your ultimate internet destination. They’re extremely common in the corporate world as a way to shield sensitive data when, say, an employee logs on to the free Wi-Fi at Starbucks to do some work.

Unfortunately, VPNs aren’t exactly a “silver bullet,” says Jake Laperruque, senior counsel at the Constitution Project, a bipartisan think tank focused on public safety, privacy and government accountability.

While VPNs protect users from ISP snooping, there’s nothing regulating the VPNs themselves. And that matters, since you’re effectively letting your VPN handle all the data that would otherwise be available to your ISP. So be sure to find a VPN that both encrypts your data and explicitly says it won’t collect it.

“It’s important to do research and make sure the VPN you use has clear terms guaranteeing it won’t collect your data,” Laperruque told HuffPost in an email. “Unfortunately, more reliable VPNs tend to require payment, so Internet users will now face a cost to preserving privacy.”

Laperruque noted that VPNs also won’t protect users from tracking software, “or potentially innovative new types of ‘cookies’ that are more effective.” (More information on that here.)

You can expect to pay around $5 a month for an honest, reliable VPN. Alternatively, Ars Technica has an excellent explanation of how ― and why ― you might want to just build your own if you’re technically inclined.


No, not the Norse god with the similar name and the big hammer. TOR, which stands for “The Onion Router” (really), is an all-in-one anonymous browsing beast.

TOR disguises your web traffic by mixing it up with everyone else’s, bouncing data around via a relay of volunteer-run servers all over the world. It’s extremely effective at anonymizing people, but all that bouncing comes at a cost: It’s also pretty slow.

“Tor is an excellent resource for private browsing but there are a few caveats to note,” Laperruque says. “It’s slower so things like streaming video are very hard... and you need to be in the Tor browser, so things like outside messaging apps... that default to a different browser aren’t protected. On the upside, unlike many VPNs, Tor is totally free.”

Make Some Noise

Instead of hiding from your ISP, feed it lies.

A handy new website called “Internet Noise,” courtesy of the programmer Dan Schultz, will drown your web history by constantly conducting random Google searches on the side. Your browsing data isn’t worth much to advertisers if they can’t figure out what it means.

In the 15 or so seconds HuffPost had the tool activated, it searched for spearfishing, “spy sad” (whatever that means), and “horse news.” Yee haw! Schultz told Wired he Googled “top 4,000 nouns” and used the results to figure out what sort of noise would be... er, noisiest.

Schultz warns that his tool “does not make you safe” and is intended mostly “as a form of digital protest.”

Encryption Is Your Friend

Remember the early days of the internet, when every web address started with “http://”? They still do, actually (though modern browsers rarely display it), but these days a more secure version has started to take its place: HTTPS. It’s basically the same thing as its predecessor, just encrypted. And given the choice, encrypted is always better from a security standpoint.

When you visit a website that uses HTTPS, your ISP can see ― and track ― the website you visited, but it can’t see the individual pages. (If you’re using Chrome or Firefox, sites that use HTTPS are denoted with a little green lock icon to the left of the address bar.)

“HTTPS is something that every internet user should be on the lookout for whenever they’re on a site that might request sensitive data,” Laperruque said. “It’s a critical protection against malicious hackers.”

However, HTTPS “will only provide limited help in terms of ISP tracking,” he went on. “On these sites [ISPs] can’t track what you visit within a site, but they can see the base domain you visited, which can be very sensitive (for example a site for an abortion clinic, drug addiction resources, or political donations).”

Not every website has HTTPS, or even automatically serves it by default if it does. But thanks to a handy browser plug-in from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, you can force sites to provide HTTPS when possible.

“HTTPS Everywhere” is available for Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Android. It’s currently in beta, so expect some hiccups.

Be A Sellout

If a corporation can sell your browsing history (and “corporations are people, my friend”), why not cut out the middleman and just sell your own data?

Petter Rudwall, a creative director at the Swedish public relations agency Wenderfalck, recently attempted to do just that. “If my browser history is becoming a commodity,” he told HuffPost, “why shouldn’t I benefit from it?”

Rudwall listed his browser history on eBay earlier this week, writing in the description: “The money will go to me, instead of a large ISP (I’ll make good use of it, promise). My browser history will be delivered in a nice email or as a glossy 3.5” floppy disk. Your choice!”

Unsurprisingly, eBay pulled the listing soon after, forcing Rudwall to put it on Craigslist instead.

“This makes the story even more interesting, since Ebay won’t let me sell something that is mine, i.e. my browser history, but soon my ISP will be able to do it,” he told HuffPost. “I’ve sent an email to Ebay regarding this, and asked them to clarify.”

Do you have information you want to share with the Huffington Post? Here’s how.
Suggest a correction
Ryan Grenoble 
Reporter, The Huffington Post

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19931
  • Gold 879
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #744 on: March 31, 2017, 01:15:57 PM »
If a corporation can sell your browsing history (and “corporations are people, my friend”), why not cut out the middleman and just sell your own data?

There ya go :P

People give it away free anyway on Face Book etc   

Facebook founder called trusting users dumb f*cks
Peace Prize for Mr Zuckerberg?

Loveable Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg called his first few thousand users "dumb frigs" for trusting him with their data, published IM transcripts show. Facebook hasn't disputed the authenticity of the transcript.

Zuckerberg was chatting with an unnamed friend, apparently in early 2004. Business Insider, which has a series of quite juicy anecdotes about Facebook's early days, takes the credit for this one.

The exchange apparently ran like this:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb frigs

The founder was then 19, and he may have been joking. But humour tells you a lot. Some might say that this exchange shows Zuckerberg was not particularly aware of the trust issue in all its depth and complexity.

Want PRIVACY on the internet ?


Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19931
  • Gold 879
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #745 on: March 31, 2017, 01:34:22 PM »
Rudwall listed his browser history on eBay earlier this week, writing in the description: “The money will go to me, instead of a large ISP (I’ll make good use of it, promise). My browser history will be delivered in a nice email or as a glossy 3.5” floppy disk. Your choice!”

Unsurprisingly, eBay pulled the listing soon after, forcing Rudwall to put it on Craigslist instead.

This is because Ebay has a very JEALOUS policy on doing ANY business outside Ebay  They don't allow links or emails to be shared and will ban your account if you do

Fortunately once you made a deal you get the clients email from Paypal :P

But selling you info in a list is not the way to go :P

Corporations buy lists of many names not just info from one person

Don't worry be happy

Personally i think to many people worry to much about this...

Pegasus website is http  unsecured but then no one shares personal info there so it doesn't need encryption... Hacker issues are different. A hacker would have to hack Globat server to mess with the files

https should ALWAYS be watched for when making payments  etc and you will see a little padlock symbol

So what are they interested in?  Whether you are a terrorist wanna be?  NO not really :P  The NSA takes care of that.

What they want is your shopping habits sothey can send you ads that are targeted to YOU personally

Example  If you go to Amazon  and look for FURSTY FERRET BEER  :P

From that day you looked at it it is in the system that you want that product so when you see ads when visiting other random sites, that product will appear again and again

The really funny thing is that when i view my own products on Ebay, I will for days see reminders asking me if i am still interested in buying :P

You CAN use ad blockers  but big sites now can see you using those and refuse to allow you access to their site if you are using adblockers :P

As a webmaster using affiliate programs to make a few dollars, I don't want people using ad blockers :P

But I don't stop the free lookers either :D

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19931
  • Gold 879
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #746 on: March 31, 2017, 01:36:26 PM »
PS If anyone in the UK feels generous and wants to send me a 6 pack of Fursty Ferret beer I would be much obliged :P


Offline The Seeker

  • grouchy, old, but inquisitive...
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Gold 405
  • The one-armed Bandit
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #747 on: March 31, 2017, 02:04:04 PM »
PS If anyone in the UK feels generous and wants to send me a 6 pack of Fursty Ferret beer I would be much obliged :P


Double that order and I will pay the shipping  8) PM for shipping address.  :P
Look closely: See clearly: Think deeply; and Choose wisely...
Trolls are crunchy and good with ketchup...
Seekers Domain

Offline space otter

  • Pegasus Alternate Energy Team
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4877
  • Gold 681
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #748 on: April 06, 2017, 07:06:19 PM »

 when the gov can squash anyone who critisizes it.. we are in big trouble

entire articles are at the links listed

Twitter files lawsuit over US government attempt to identify users behind anti-Trump account
By James Rogers  Published April 06, 2017

On March 14 Twitter received a CBP summons “demanding that Twitter provide them records that would unmask, or likely lead to unmasking, the identity of the person(s) responsible for the @ALT_USCIS account,” according to the suit, which describes the summons as unlawful. “Permitting CBP to pierce the pseudonym of the @ALT_USCIS account would have a grave chilling effect on the speech of that account in particular and on the many other ‘alternative agency’ accounts that have been created to voice dissent to government policies,” it added. 


Trump Sued by Twitter Over Bid to Unmask @Alt-Agency Handle
by Kartikay Mehrotra
April 6, 2017, 3:41 PM EDT April 6, 2017, 9:19 PM EDT

U.S. demands to know identity of immigration policy critic
Twitter says request violates users’ free speech rights
President Donald Trump wants to know who’s behind the rogue federal employee Twitter accounts slamming his administration’s policies. Twitter Inc.’s suing to keep him from finding out.
Twitter alleges that the Trump administration’s subpoena for information to identify the users behind accounts critical of the president would violate their Constitutional rights to free-speech. The social media giant contends users are entitled to their anonymity unless they’ve violated a law that would warrant unmasking and the government has failed to make such a case.


U.S. | Thu Apr 6, 2017 | 9:00pm EDT
Twitter refuses U.S. order to reveal user behind anti-Trump account
By David Ingram | SAN FRANCISCO

Twitter Inc on Thursday filed a federal lawsuit to block an order by the U.S. government demanding that it reveal who is behind an account opposed to President Donald Trump's tough immigration policies.

Twitter cited freedom of speech as a basis for not turning over records about the account, @ALT_uscis. The account is claimed to be the work of at least one federal immigration employee, according to the lawsuit filed in San Francisco federal court.


and all the current articles are listed with this search

Offline space otter

  • Pegasus Alternate Energy Team
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4877
  • Gold 681
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #749 on: April 08, 2017, 05:12:03 PM »

if you are turned down for some money thing you may want to check this list out

04/08/2017 07:01 am ET | Updated 11 hours ago
Your Financial Life Could Be Ruined If Your Name Is On This Massive Government List
The Treasury Department essentially has a 1,000-page financial no-fly list.
By Ben Walsh

Muhammed Ali Khan tried to do one of the most boring, responsible things an American taxpayer can do: set up a government-guaranteed retirement savings account. He was rejected because the Treasury Department thought he might be a terrorist.

He isn’t. He’s a software consultant from Fullerton, California. But he shares a first name (with a different spelling), last name and middle initial with a financier of a Pakistani terror group. That man, Mohammad Naushad Alam Khan, is on the Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN). The 1,026-page catalog lists people and organizations that U.S. citizens and residents are barred from doing business with because of their ties to terror cells, drug cartels or rogue states.

The SDN is essentially a financial no-fly list that cuts people off from U.S. banks ― and, as a result, the global financial system. The SDN has more than doubled in length in the last five years.

Khan later found out that his credit reports from Experian and TransUnion had also been flagged as a potential match. The trouble this caused him was relatively minor ― after he got over the shock of seeing a terrorism flag on his credit report, he spent a few hours navigating customer service lines with the Treasury Department and the two credit bureaus. He got his retirement account set up and his credit reports cleared after providing some personal information to show that he was not the man who had financially supported the 2008 Mumbai attacks. (Neither TransUnion nor Experian answered The Huffington Post’s questions about how they handle such false positive flags.)

Some other people wrongly believed to be on the SDN ― either because they share a name with someone who is or because their name partially matches an alias used by someone on the list (and international criminals often have a lot of aliases) ― are hurt far worse than Khan.

They can have their airline ticket purchases rejected or hotel reservations declined. Their bank accounts can be frozen. Loans to buy a home or a car can be declined. Wire transfers can be seized and held for up to a year while the freeze is litigated, which can destroy small businesses, block real estate transactions or delay inheritances.

Such delays impose “a tremendous burden,” Peter Djinis, a former anti-money laundering regulator at the Treasury Department, told HuffPost.

“It can become a business disadvantage to people whose name just happens to be similar to that of someone actually on the list,” he said. “This is a real problem.” 

Bank accounts can be frozen. Loans to buy a home or a car can be declined. Wire transfers can be seized and held for up to a year.
The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, maintains the SDN list. The catalog was created in 1940, but the department massively increased its efforts to block terrorist financing after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

OFAC is a relatively small office compared to other parts the law enforcement and national security apparatus, although the Treasury Department told HuffPost that OFAC has enough staff and that its size is appropriate relative to U.S. sanctions programs. However, OFAC is especially small relative to its mission of blocking thousands of people from the U.S. financial system.

This means day-to-day enforcement is largely left up to the private sector.

A Treasury Department spokesman told HuffPost that “OFAC manages individuals and entities on its list in coordination with relevant U.S. government agencies, and has processes in place to ensure that designations are applied appropriately, and to assist and provide due process to anyone who believes they should be removed.”

A whole industry has popped up around this, producing what is known as interdiction software ― programs that banks use to see if a customer’s name matches one on the blocked list. This software produces a staggering volume of hits and leads to lots of false positives, like Khan’s.

Banks tend to be conservative in their risk management, and cast as wide a net as possible to try to stop anything improper. This is because sanctions are enforced under the legal standard of strict liability, meaning any transaction with anybody on the list is illegal, regardless of intention. Fines are steep, too: either $284,000 per violation, or twice the value of the transaction ― whichever is higher.

Companies that peddle interdiction software turn banks’ worries into a selling point. Yet the software’s results often don’t live up to its promises, and financial institutions are struggling to deal with the mountains of data the software produces. The Treasury Department declined to comment on interdiction software.

A compliance software executive who asked not to be named because it could harm his business told HuffPost that big banks, credit card companies and payment processors can have between 200 and 500 employees who sift through hits and gather information to try to clear false positives from the OFAC list. When a potential client’s name matches one on the list, the financial institution staffers then have to call OFAC to figure out if the person really is on the SDN or if they are dealing with a false positive.

The SDN doesn’t often provide much in the way of specifics ― a name, a few aliases, a nationality and sometimes a date of birth. Financial institutions would like more identifying information about the people on the SDN so they could vet their customers more quickly.

But the government is often hamstrung because it has limited personal information about the people on the list, often because the SDN targets are concealing as much about their lives as possible. The Treasury Department told HuffPost it compiles and releases as much identifying information about the people on the list as it can in order to reduce the number of false positives. The department declined to release data on the number of transactions or transfers halted due to false positives. 

It can become a business disadvantage to people whose name just happens to be similar to that of someone actually on the list.
Peter Djinis, a former anti-money laundering regulator at the Treasury Department
False hits ― people like Khan ― are “a bigger problem, not a smaller problem,” explained Djinis, the former regulator. And clearing up false hits is a labor-intensive process.

The safe, simple option for the financial institution is often to just stop doing business with a customer whose name gets flagged.

The complex nature of financial transactions makes this process even more difficult for customers with names that are likely to get wrongly flagged. For instance, a simple money transfer abroad might involve two retail banks and an intermediary bank to facilitate. The transfer can be held up if software run by any of the three banks flags any party involved.

Some financial institutions have tried to fix this by buying more software to help sort through the results ― which is great for the software providers, and could help the people the system has wrongly flagged. “We are going to make so, so much money selling them stuff to fix this,” the software executive said.

The application of the SDN list has become “guilt by association,” Shereef Akeel, a civil rights lawyer in Michigan who has worked on the issue, told HuffPost. The Treasury spokesman said the department wasn’t worried that enforcing the list raised any civil rights issue.

The vast number of false positives, Akeel said, “actually compromises our national security … because everyone is busy looking at all these other names, they don’t have enough time to really catch the bad guys.”

Instead, Akeel said, the burden falls on people like Khan, who have to try to prove that they are not someone else. Khan succeeded in setting up his retirement fund, but there’s no way for him to proactively tell every U.S. financial institution that he isn’t Mohammad Naushad Alam Khan. USA, LLC
Free Click Tracking USA, LLC

* Recent Posts

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Irene
[Today at 09:45:51 AM]

Australien Skies 2 - Exclusive Premiere by thorfourwinds
[February 20, 2018, 10:10:11 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by robomont
[February 20, 2018, 08:21:05 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by petrus4
[February 20, 2018, 05:10:21 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Ellirium113
[February 20, 2018, 04:10:16 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 20, 2018, 01:52:22 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by space otter
[February 20, 2018, 07:11:59 AM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Eighthman
[February 20, 2018, 05:53:51 AM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 19, 2018, 06:54:51 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by robomont
[February 19, 2018, 06:28:01 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 19, 2018, 05:44:09 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by robomont
[February 19, 2018, 03:28:14 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 19, 2018, 03:05:34 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by robomont
[February 19, 2018, 02:35:45 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 19, 2018, 01:51:36 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by petrus4
[February 19, 2018, 11:33:01 AM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Irene
[February 19, 2018, 11:12:13 AM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by petrus4
[February 19, 2018, 08:20:35 AM]

Re: Mandalay: The biggest shooting since Columbine. by The Seeker
[February 18, 2018, 08:48:25 PM]

Re: Mandalay: The biggest shooting since Columbine. by spacemaverick
[February 18, 2018, 02:40:59 PM]