Anonymity vs Privacy vs Security

[Travis In Austin]

On 4/7/2018 at 7:20 PM, Zen Traveler said:

Jeff. You seem to be parsing out various topics being discussed but not looking at the big picture. Evidently you still don't understand what a pivotal person Steve Bannon is in the whole scheme of things but keep in mind not only what I reminded you below but the guy was also President Trump's Chief of Staff and he was fired after the "Fire and Fury" was released and has been questioned by the Mueller team--That may be important for the legal ramifications but the propaganda/psychological warfare IS what I feel you have missed.

 

21 hours ago you still didn't seem to realize who Steve Bannon was in the whole scheme of our discussion-- let me break it down: 1) He was President Trump's Chief of Staff and was on the cover of several magazines and newspapers because of their relationship. 2) He was one of the founders of Cambridge Analytica. 3) You may call him "a guy with questionable ethics, if not a criminal" now, but when I brought to your attention several years ago that it was him and Breitbart as to where you were getting your information you said that you didn't recognize the name but searched for likeminded information to bring to the table. 

 

Again, this is why having access to our written record could be beneficial. 

Zen:  Why are we on the current administration and current politics here?

 

I remember this thread when it started, it was on track with the original premise, but now we are on SB, Fake News, etc.

 

Seems to me Jeff isn't parsing out anything, just staying on topic but out of politics.

 

So if we look back at this thing are we going to find a bunch of clear political rhetoric in here?

[Travis In Austin]

On 4/6/2018 at 4:11 PM, CECAA850 said:

Link?

Well there's the rub.  

 

For media research there is a dominant,  respected, and timely source, Pew Research.

 

I think I have posted the link about 5 times in this Forum.  Here it is again for those that missed it

 

http://www.journalism.org

 

They track, precisely, trends on who gets there news from where, including social media, which is further broken down into many social media outlets,.including Facebook. 

 

 

 

 

[Travis In Austin]

On 4/7/2018 at 6:54 PM, Jeff Matthews said:

Just sayin'.  There really isn't such a thing as equal treatment for all members of the press.  They have always kept out the riff-raff.

The WHCA, not the White House, determines who gets a spot and where that spot is.

 

Here is the current seating chart:

 

 

[Travis In Austin]

On 5/11/2018 at 9:18 PM, Jeff Matthews said:

Speaking of security, here is an interesting estate-planning tool in the Texas Estates Code:

 

"Digital assets" are online records, such as banking records, purchases, retirement investing, etc.

 

Sec. 2001.051. USER DIRECTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF DIGITAL ASSETS.

 

(a) A user may use an online tool to direct the custodian to disclose or not to disclose to a designated recipient some or all of the user's digital assets, including the content of an electronic communication. If the online tool allows the user to modify or delete a direction at all times, a direction regarding disclosure using an online tool overrides a contrary direction by the user in a will, trust, power of attorney, or other record.

 

(b) If a user has not used an online tool to give direction under Subsection (a) or if the custodian has not provided an online tool, the user may allow or prohibit disclosure to a fiduciary of some or all of the user's digital assets, including the content of an electronic communication sent or received by the user, in a will, trust, power of attorney, or other record.

 

(c) A user's direction under Subsection (a) or (b) overrides a contrary provision in a terms-of-service agreement that does not require the user to act affirmatively and distinctly from the user's assent to the terms of service.

 

Added by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 400 (S.B. 1193), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2017.

 

 

I saw that.  Still cant wrap my head around it.

[Zen Traveler]

14 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

Zen:  Why are we on the current administration and current politics here?

Umm. I apologize. Sometimes I forget I am on the internet instead of having an ongoing conversation with a guy  whom I'm sure values logic and was trying to prove a point. It did get political and I was trying to skirt the rules here (not break) by talking about Government Officials and not necessarily political figures...Also in my defense, this happened over a month ago and figured it would be deleted if a moderator found it over the line.

 

Quote

 

I remember this thread when it started, it was on track with the original premise, but now we are on SB, Fake News, etc.

Wait. Is bringing up current events considered discussing politics? This issue is VERY MUCH IN THE NEWS and Facebook and Cambridge Analytica are both private companies and are at the heart of why the issue is so important. 

Quote

 

Seems to me Jeff isn't parsing out anything, just staying on topic but out of politics.

That's why I haven't brought up the Mueller Investigation even though those folks aren't politicians, but career professionals who are working in our country's best interest.

Quote

 

So if we look back at this thing are we going to find a bunch of clear political rhetoric in here?

Not from me. I have yet to type a partisan word....On that note, I hope everyone here is doing well. It seems there is a lot going on.  

[Jeff Matthews]

15 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

I saw that.  Still cant wrap my head around it.

Why not?

[Travis In Austin]

8 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Why not?

I have never been on a website that offered an "online tool" for directing content to a fiduciary.  Bank and financial  records are pretty easy to understand, but I wonder what process they are going to require to turn over "digital assets" to a person who claims to be an executor or trustee.  How are they any different than records the bank has that you want printed out.

 

How does this apply to an email, Facebook, or Klipsch Forum account?

[Jeff Matthews]

1 hour ago, dwilawyer said:

I wonder what process they are going to require to turn over "digital assets" to a person who claims to be an executor or trustee.

 

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ES/htm/ES.2001.htm#C

 

SUBCHAPTER C. PROCEDURES FOR DISCLOSURE OF DIGITAL ASSETS OF DECEASED USER

 

Sec. 2001.101. DISCLOSURE OF CONTENT OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS OF DECEASED USER.

 

(a) If a deceased user consented to or a court directs disclosure of the content of an electronic communication of the user, the custodian shall disclose to the personal representative of the estate of the user the content of an electronic communication sent or received by the user if the representative gives the custodian:

 

    (1) a written request for disclosure in physical or electronic form;

    (2) a certified copy of the death certificate of the user;

    (3) a certified copy of letters testamentary or of administration, a small estate affidavit filed under Section 205.001, or other court order; and

    (4) unless the user provided direction using an online tool, a copy of the user's will, trust, power of attorney, or other record evidencing the user's consent to disclosure of the content of an electronic communication if the user consented to the disclosure.

 

(b) In addition to the items required to be given to the custodian under Subsection (a), the personal representative shall provide the following if requested by the custodian:

 

    (1) a number, user name, address, or other unique subscriber or account identifier assigned by the custodian to identify the deceased user's account;

    (2) evidence linking the account to the user; or

    (3) a finding by the court that:

        (A) the deceased user had a specific account with the custodian, identifiable by the information specified in Subdivision (1);

        (B) disclosure of the content of an electronic communication of the user would not violate 18 U.S.C. Section 2701 et seq., 47 U.S.C. Section 222, or other applicable law;

        (C) unless the user provided direction using an online tool, the user consented to disclosure of the content of an electronic communication; or

        (D) disclosure of the content of an electronic communication of the user is reasonably necessary for administration of the estate.

[Jeff Matthews]

1 hour ago, dwilawyer said:

How does this apply to an email, Facebook, or Klipsch Forum account?

The Act applies to everything.  There is a distinction between "content of electronic communications" and other digital assets.  The statute above deals with content of communications.

 

This next statute deals with all other digital assets.

 

Sec. 2001.102. DISCLOSURE OF OTHER DIGITAL ASSETS OF DECEASED USER. (a) Unless the deceased user prohibited disclosure of digital assets or the court directs otherwise, a custodian shall disclose to the personal representative of the estate of a deceased user a catalog of electronic communications sent or received by the user and digital assets, other than the content of an electronic communication, of the user if the representative gives the custodian:

(1) a written request for disclosure in physical or electronic form;

(2) a certified copy of the death certificate of the user; and

(3) a certified copy of letters testamentary or of administration, a small estate affidavit filed under Section 205.001, or other court order.

(b) In addition to the items required to be given to the custodian under Subsection (a), the personal representative shall provide the following if requested by the custodian:

(1) a number, user name, address, or other unique subscriber or account identifier assigned by the custodian to identify the deceased user's account;

(2) evidence linking the account to the user;

(3) an affidavit stating that disclosure of the user's digital assets is reasonably necessary for administration of the estate; or

(4) a finding by the court that:

(A) the deceased user had a specific account with the custodian, identifiable by the information specified in Subdivision (1); or

(B) disclosure of the user's digital assets is reasonably necessary for administration of the estate.

  

[MyOwn]

Good question here. "How deep is the ocean? What can it predict?"

"Target knew this seventeen-year-old was pregnant before her dad did, based on her Google searches."

I think a frightfully good read

 

https://www.alternet.org/how-do-we-know-whats-true

 

[Jeff Matthews]

1 hour ago, MyOwn said:

Good question here. "How deep is the ocean? What can it predict?"

"Target knew this seventeen-year-old was pregnant before her dad did, based on her Google searches."

I think a frightfully good read

 

https://www.alternet.org/how-do-we-know-whats-true

 

Building a profile to offer things to people you don't know....  Novel?  Not really.

 

I think the earliest form of this effort, electronically, was probably grocery stores.  Once they figured out there was value in printing coupons and offers on the backs of receipts, it became a matter of how to avoid wasting ink and using that limited real estate in the most effective ways.  One of those was tracking your purchases made at the checkout counter.  If you bought dog food, "Ah!  You have a dog!"  Maybe you'd like to give Milk Bone dog biscuits a try.

 

Now, Google does this in spades, and everyone else wants in one the game, too.  Amazon,  Wal-Mart, and a hundred million other wanna-bes.  If you're a guy in your 30's who wants to receive offers for tampons and Depends, you are a rare breed.  I think this is why most people are okay with the way modern marketing works.

 

In fact, I think it would be a brilliant idea for TV.  I like the old sit-coms, etc., but I'm not old enough to want to be bombarded with commercials on burial insurance, catheters and Life Alert.  TV stations need to get with the program and come up with a way to custom-tailor commercials. 

[MyOwn]

I think the article goes way beyond consumerism...

When online, Folks are giving data up left and right without regard to who has it and how it is being used.

I'm guilty of this. Example, here on the forum...

I belong to Amazon Prime and Netflix, I'm sure they have all kinds of goodies on me..

[Jeff Matthews]

2 hours ago, MyOwn said:

I belong to Amazon Prime and Netflix, I'm sure they have all kinds of goodies on me..

What do you think you gave them that you would not want them to have?

[Zen Traveler]

3 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

In fact, I think it would be a brilliant idea for TV.  I like the old sit-coms, etc., but I'm not old enough to want to be bombarded with commercials on burial insurance, catheters and Life Alert.  TV stations need to get with the program and come up with a way to custom-tailor commercials. 

What you mentioned above actually did happen on Facebook and groups like Cambridge Analytica actually went through people's private information and gained information on them and their friends and targeted actual content towards them using psychological profiling to the extent Facebook realized they had a MAJOR problem which I've brought up several times with links--The internet and social media have changed how people get their news and it surprised me that in 2015/16 more people got their news on Facebook than anywhere else. 😲 When you research the topic more you will find that the sheer volume of propaganda being spread by bots and shared during 2016 was mind-boggling.

 

Insofar as "getting what you want" goes, I remember making you aware that a source you were using was suspect and it has since come out that it was being used to spread "Fake News," along with some other sites folks were using--I miss not having access to that forum to bring the point home, but....

[Jeff Matthews]

3 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Insofar as "getting what you want" goes, I remember making you aware that a source you were using was suspect and it has since come out that it was being used to spread "Fake News," along with some other sites folks were using--I miss not having access to that forum to bring the point home, but....

... but I am not shocked that I encountered some fake news.  The phrase might be new, but we've all known about rumors long before the internet ever existed.  So, myeh.  I'll trade the tampon commercials for a little fake news.  Something tells me I'm going to get the fake news either way.

[Zen Traveler]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 6:22 PM, Jeff Matthews said:

That's my point.  You are quick to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to Cambridge.  Cambridge is likely not the same facts and likely involves entirely different laws.  You should make no judgment concerning Cambridge at this point.  As I said, not even the NYT or Vox articles offer any insight as to why anything Cambridge did might be criminal.

This came out since our discussion back in April: https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/facebook-fine-cambridge-analytica-scandal-light-slap-on-wrist.html

[oldtimer]

2 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

... but I am not shocked that I encountered some fake news.  The phrase might be new, but we've all known about rumors long before the internet ever existed.  So, myeh.  I'll trade the tampon commercials for a little fake news.  Something tells me I'm going to get the fake news either way.

Something tells me you're going to get the tampon commercials either way.

[Jeff Matthews]

2 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

On 4/7/2018 at 6:22 PM, Jeff Matthews said:

That's my point.  You are quick to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to Cambridge.  Cambridge is likely not the same facts and likely involves entirely different laws.  You should make no judgment concerning Cambridge at this point.  As I said, not even the NYT or Vox articles offer any insight as to why anything Cambridge did might be criminal.

This came out since our discussion back in April: https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/facebook-fine-cambridge-analytica-scandal-light-slap-on-wrist.html

It says Facebook was fined.  What does that have to do with whether Cambridge Analytica broke any criminal laws?

[Zen Traveler]

3 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

The phrase might be new, but we've all known about rumors long before the internet ever existed

The phrase was first used since we've been discussing politics when Clint Watts brought it up in a hearing on Russian Interference in the 2016 election. Then the POTUSA coined it for his own uses and the difference between then and now is that so many of us are talking to one another now. What I found on facebook is that people "Share" things they believe and the problem was that people thought they were sharing News stories and thoughts from like-minded individuals but they were actually spreading weaponized propaganda--The proof is in the comments people made and the links they posted. 

[Zen Traveler]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

It says Facebook was fined.  What does that have to do with whether Cambridge Analytica broke any criminal laws?

From the link:

Commissioner Elizabeth Denham also announced that prosecutors will file criminal charges against Cambridge Analytica’s parent company, SCL. These preliminary findings come after a four-month investigation into around 30 organizations that was launched shortly after news first broke of the data scandal.