United States Government is using Facebook to control us

[TheGreatDeraj]

I'm sure you all heard about the Facebook experiment that came to light last week.

Here is a brief rundown for the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/technology/personaltech/the-bright-side-of-facebooks-social-experiments-on-users.html
[QUOTE=Farhad Manjoo]Facebook

[Cactus-Sack]

Well duh!

This seems relatively minor though. They changed what statues show up in 700k peoples fb....? "OH NOZE!"

Besides, fb have every right to do it. Did you read the T&C of having a fb account? No? Then don't complain, or close your account.

[kNIOKAS]

Well duh!

This seems relatively minor though. They changed what statues show up in 700k peoples fb....? "OH NOZE!"

Besides, fb have every right to do it. Did you read the T&C of having a fb account? No? Then don't complain, or close your account.
I don't think it works that way. Can Terms and Conditions overrule, say, the Constitutional rights? I think not.

[Cactus-Sack]

I don't think it works that way. Can Terms and Conditions overrule, say, the Constitutional rights? I think not.

Yes, you can choose to void your rights. You can choose to enter a contract with a non-disclosure clause, which violates your "right to free speech" in some places felons cannot own firearms, thus violating their 4th amendment rights.

The constitution exists to protect from the government, not corporations.

[TheGreatDeraj]

Well duh!

This seems relatively minor though. They changed what statues show up in 700k peoples fb....? "OH NOZE!"

Besides, fb have every right to do it. Did you read the T&C of having a fb account? No? Then don't complain, or close your account.

I have never had a Facebook account because of privacy concerns, I'm just trying to get the information out to people.

And yes it was only 700K people, because it was an experiment to see if it could work.

Now how many people opinions could be manipulated if it was everybody?
Now how many people opinions could be manipulated if during a large-scale civul unrest?

"The initiative funds universities to model the dynamics, risks, and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world."

Keep in mind this was in 2012. Did this, or could this type of manipulation have had any effects on Egypt, Syria, Iraq etc...

[kNIOKAS]

Yes, you can choose to void your rights. You can choose to enter a contract with a non-disclosure clause, which violates your "right to free speech" in some places felons cannot own firearms, thus violating their 4th amendment rights.

The constitution exists to protect from the government, not corporations.
OK, could be true, but I think it's different in Europe... I always got this confusion, e.g. in american cartoons and small letters in those contracts the characters get to sign. I have a feeling the contract is void if the person did not read small letters, or read but not really understood what was written there, or even if he has signed in full will but the contract is essentially against his basic interests (like violating his rights).

However, US is based on contracts, and you treat them more seriously. I think.

Not my taste.

[Cactus-Sack]

I have never had a Facebook account because of privacy concerns, I'm just trying to get the information out to people.

And yes it was only 700K people, because it was an experiment to see if it could work.

Now how many people opinions could be manipulated if it was everybody?
Now how many people opinions could be manipulated if during a large-scale civul unrest?

"The initiative funds universities to model the dynamics, risks, and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world."

Keep in mind this was in 2012. Did this, or could this type of manipulation have had any effects on Egypt, Syria, Iraq etc...

Maybe not this information exactly, but of course US meddling is (at least partly) responsible for Syria, Egypt, Ukraine.

I think that this is really minor. Quite shocking to many oblivious peple, because they use fb, but still minor.

[Cactus-Sack]

OK, could be true, but I think it's different in Europe... I always got this confusion, e.g. in american cartoons and small letters in those contracts the characters get to sign. I have a feeling the contract is void if the person did not read small letters, or read but not really understood what was written there, or even if he has signed in full will but the contract is essentially against his basic interests (like violating his rights).

However, US is based on contracts, and you treat them more seriously. I think.

Not my taste.

I don't think most European countries operate that way. It is your responsibility to read the contract.

I also don't think you should base your opinions of contract law on cartoons..

[rezznor]

Yes, you can choose to void your rights. You can choose to enter a contract with a non-disclosure clause, which violates your "right to free speech" in some places felons cannot own firearms, thus violating their 4th amendment rights.

The constitution exists to protect from the government, not corporations.


people still don't understand what free speech is :facepalm

criminal =/= civil. you can sign an NDA giving up your right to free speech. if you break it, you will probably get sued, but you will not go to jail.


you can post that you hate blacks on facebook. free speech right? sure, you won't go to jail, you are free to say whatever you want. however, your boss can also fire you if he wants.

[Cactus-Sack]

people still don't understand what free speech is :facepalm

criminal =/= civil. you can sign an NDA giving up your right to free speech. if you break it, you will probably get sued, but you will not go to jail.


you can post that you hate blacks on facebook. free speech right? sure, you won't go to jail, you are free to say whatever you want. however, your boss can also fire you if he wants.

facepalm at yourself, it was just an example buddy. Government nda's are a criminal violation so fvck yourself mr. know-it-all cvnt.


People still don't know what an nda is, despite probably having signed them in the past? :facepalm

[Nanners]

OK, could be true, but I think it's different in Europe... I always got this confusion, e.g. in american cartoons and small letters in those contracts the characters get to sign. I have a feeling the contract is void if the person did not read small letters, or read but not really understood what was written there, or even if he has signed in full will but the contract is essentially against his basic interests (like violating his rights).

However, US is based on contracts, and you treat them more seriously. I think.

Not my taste.

You are essentially correct. The problem with what facebook did is something called "informed consent" (cactus-shack should google this term).

If you are a participant in a study like this, you have to knowingly consent to it first. Burying a line in the fine print does not count, as the individual was never truly "informed".

[9erempiree]

Hate to say that I am right but I seen this coming.

[kNIOKAS]

I don't think most European countries operate that way. It is your responsibility to read the contract.
Don't really think so. The contract may be written in legal terms that a regular person cannot fully understand. That's why on serious contracts you need to have a lawyer with you, and I bet it still could be voided if the lawyer does not explain it to you well.

Also, for example in a bank you get passed a load of papers to sign, you just sign them. If you wanted to cancel them you could do it on terms that you have not read them, and everybody would understand that. People do not have time to read 5 pages of demanding writing, and it's obvious to everybody.



I also don't think you should base your opinions of contract law on cartoons..
Cartoons or you, both seem to work pretty well.

In studies, the participants must have informed knowledge, and they must be allowed to quit whenever they want. It seems as if that was not provided in the OP case.



Also, work this:

You've signed a contract agreeing with somebody killing you. Killing in US might work as a two-aspect crime, so if needed switch to cutting off an arm or something. Basically, a contract with agreeing harm done against you.

Then, you could void that contract anytime you like, couldn't you? Just run to the cops and say I do not want this contract anymore. Other party could sue you for not following through, but your rights cannot be overtaken by a contract as such. I think it should go along this way...

[Cactus-Sack]

You are essentially correct. The problem with what facebook did is something called "informed consent" (cactus-shack should google this term).

If you are a participant in a study like this, you have to knowingly consent to it first. Burying a line in the fine print does not count, as the individual was never truly "informed".

It's not fine-print.

[Nanners]

It's not fine-print.

you are focusing on the wrong part of my post.

none of the people involved in this research were informed, and none of them gave consent, thats the problem here. like i said, you should google "informed consent".

[BoutPractice]

Fine print is less the issue than peer pressure, network effects and other social dynamics.

There is no legal obligation to use Facebook, but for many teenagers there is a social obligation. To them it doesn't make a difference... in fact the pressure to conform to unwritten norms is typically much stronger than the power of "laws". For example an LA gang member owes no allegiance to the law, only to his people... in the 21st century the "law" of a particular country is less operative as a concept with every passing day.

A similar situation of subtle coercion can be found with Linkedin - and in fact you could argue that this is more pernicious, because teenagers ultimately have some measure of choice. But it has become almost an obligation for professionals in many sectors to use Linkedin in order to simply find a job. In other words, for many people joining Linkedin has effectively an obligation to secure their livelihoods.

Same thing for Twitter in certain "trendy" industries. If you don't have a Twitter account, you're nothing, you're not on the radar.

Is it duress? No, because we're not talking about law.

But it creates a de facto situation that is even worse than a monopoly: not only do you not have the choice who to buy from, but you don't even have the choice to buy or not to buy.

If companies who find themselves in such a situation of power (even for a short while, as companies unlike state tend to die) start to abuse it by engaging in disturbing practices then citizens have every right to be concerned.

Facebook is most definitely abusing their power by offering their consumers as raw meat for the surveillance state, whose totalitarian methods are only made bearable by sheer incompetence and human limitations.

[imdaman99]

I have about 70 friends (mostly relatives) and I see mostly emo messages all the time. It still doesn't put me in a bad mood other than the fact I get annoyed by pointless complaining. The only negative status I posted in the past year was about the How I Met Your Mother finale :oldlol:
Basically, I don't let the negativity surrounding me force me to the dark side... so bring it on FaceBook :banana:

[KevinNYC]

I'm sure you all heard about the Facebook experiment that came to light last week.

Here is a brief rundown for the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/technology/personaltech/the-bright-side-of-facebooks-social-experiments-on-users.html





But now, it comes out that it was actually the Department of Defense!

http://www.complex.com/tech/2014/07/facebook-psychological-studies-dod



We have large corporations and government agencies working together to manipulate and control us. Stay safe everyone.

Where's the actual source of this news?

[gts]

Where's the actual source of this news?

http://scgnews.com/

[Akrazotile]

Fine print is less the issue than peer pressure, network effects and other social dynamics.

There is no legal obligation to use Facebook, but for many teenagers there is a social obligation. To them it doesn't make a difference... in fact the pressure to conform to unwritten norms is typically much stronger than the power of "laws". For example an LA gang member owes no allegiance to the law, only to his people... in the 21st century the "law" of a particular country is less operative as a concept with every passing day.

A similar situation of subtle coercion can be found with Linkedin - and in fact you could argue that this is more pernicious, because teenagers ultimately have some measure of choice. But it has become almost an obligation for professionals in many sectors to use Linkedin in order to simply find a job. In other words, for many people joining Linkedin has effectively an obligation to secure their livelihoods.

Same thing for Twitter in certain "trendy" industries. If you don't have a Twitter account, you're nothing, you're not on the radar.

Is it duress? No, because we're not talking about law.

But it creates a de facto situation that is even worse than a monopoly: not only do you not have the choice who to buy from, but you don't even have the choice to buy or not to buy.

If companies who find themselves in such a situation of power (even for a short while, as companies unlike state tend to die) start to abuse it by engaging in disturbing practices then citizens have every right to be concerned.

Facebook is most definitely abusing their power by offering their consumers as raw meat for the surveillance state, whose totalitarian methods are only made bearable by sheer incompetence and human limitations.


Basically what you just said here, boiled down:

"People should be exempted from any consequences for their actions, as long as the action was an attempt to fit in."


Cmon man. Everyone has the right to be a sheep but that's not a valid excuse for being rescued from the consequences all the time.

[KevinNYC]

http://scgnews.com/

Thanks. Why should I believe them?

[TheGreatDeraj]

Fine print is less the issue than peer pressure, network effects and other social dynamics.

There is no legal obligation to use Facebook, but for many teenagers there is a social obligation. To them it doesn't make a difference... in fact the pressure to conform to unwritten norms is typically much stronger than the power of "laws". For example an LA gang member owes no allegiance to the law, only to his people... in the 21st century the "law" of a particular country is less operative as a concept with every passing day.

A similar situation of subtle coercion can be found with Linkedin - and in fact you could argue that this is more pernicious, because teenagers ultimately have some measure of choice. But it has become almost an obligation for professionals in many sectors to use Linkedin in order to simply find a job. In other words, for many people joining Linkedin has effectively an obligation to secure their livelihoods.

Same thing for Twitter in certain "trendy" industries. If you don't have a Twitter account, you're nothing, you're not on the radar.

Is it duress? No, because we're not talking about law.

But it creates a de facto situation that is even worse than a monopoly: not only do you not have the choice who to buy from, but you don't even have the choice to buy or not to buy.

If companies who find themselves in such a situation of power (even for a short while, as companies unlike state tend to die) start to abuse it by engaging in disturbing practices then citizens have every right to be concerned.

Facebook is most definitely abusing their power by offering their consumers as raw meat for the surveillance state, whose totalitarian methods are only made bearable by sheer incompetence and human limitations.

excellent post. 100% agree you really hit the nail on the head

But what can we do about it?

[Akrazotile]

excellent post. 100% agree you really hit the nail on the head

But what can we do about it?


What!?


It was not an excellent post. "In some trendy industries you're nothing if you don't have a Twitter?" No, you're nothing if you have nothing BUT a Twitter.

If you actually have ideas, talents, style, and other assets of value to the industry, you'll be something with or without a Twitter. If you have none of those and you desperately want to compensate by running blindly with the crowd and signing up for some online service you don't want or need.... THEN you are nothing, and that's your own fault.

[TheGreatDeraj]

Thanks. Why should I believe them?

No one is forcing you to believe it, but what exactly don't you believe?

The facebook study was conducted?
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/technology/personaltech/the-bright-side-of-facebooks-social-experiments-on-users.html)

The researchers who conducted the study had DoD funding? (http://scgnews.com/facebooks-psychological-experiments-connected-to-department-of-defense-research-on-civil-unrest)

That DoD has a Minerva initiative program?
(http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/12/pentagon-mass-civil-breakdown)

Facebook, Google, Yahoo have and will continue to sell you out and participate in NSA Prism program? (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/us-tech-giants-knew-nsa-data-collection-rajesh-de)

the U.S. government has invested heavily in technology used to track and model the spread of opinions on social media. (http://www.wired.com/2009/10/exclusive-us-spies-buy-stake-in-twitter-blog-monitoring-firm)


Jeffery Hancock received funding from the Department of Defense for a study called "Cornell: Modeling Discourse and Social Dynamics in Authoritarian Regimes". If you go to the project site for that study you'll find a visualization program that models the spread of beliefs and disease.

Cornell University is currently being funded for another DoD study right now called "Cornell: Tracking Critical-Mass Outbreaks in Social Contagions" (you'll find the description for this project on the Minerva Initiative's funding page).

The Department of Defense's investment in the mechanics of psychological contagion and Facebook's assistance, have some very serious implications, particularly when placed in context with other scandals which have broken in the past two years.

http://scgnews.com/facebooks-psychological-experiments-connected-to-department-of-defense-research-on-civil-unrest

[Akrazotile]

No one is forcing you to believe it, but what exactly don't you believe?

The facebook study was conducted?
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/technology/personaltech/the-bright-side-of-facebooks-social-experiments-on-users.html)

The researchers who conducted the study had DoD funding? (http://scgnews.com/facebooks-psychological-experiments-connected-to-department-of-defense-research-on-civil-unrest)

That DoD has a Minerva initiative program?
(http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/12/pentagon-mass-civil-breakdown)

Facebook, Google, Yahoo have and will continue to sell you out and participate in NSA Prism program? (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/us-tech-giants-knew-nsa-data-collection-rajesh-de)

the U.S. government has invested heavily in technology used to track and model the spread of opinions on social media. (http://www.wired.com/2009/10/exclusive-us-spies-buy-stake-in-twitter-blog-monitoring-firm)



http://scgnews.com/facebooks-psychological-experiments-connected-to-department-of-defense-research-on-civil-unrest


He doesn't want to believe it because he's a 24/7 Obama lapdog and this will force him to go into spin overdrive. Not that he minds doing that, it's just he has so many other issues currently on his plate which require those efforts.

[TheGreatDeraj]

What!?


It was not an excellent post. "In some trendy industries you're nothing if you don't have a Twitter?" No, you're nothing if you have nothing BUT a Twitter.

If you actually have ideas, talents, style, and other assets of value to the industry, you'll be something with or without a Twitter. If you have none of those and you desperately want to compensate by running blindly with the crowd and signing up for some online service you don't want or need.... THEN you are nothing, and that's your own fault.

What about what he has to say about the power of social pressure? People using Facebook even though they know it's spying on them?

Or the LinkedIn example?

I think you're dismissing it a little too easily.

[Akrazotile]

What about what he has to say about the power of social pressure? People using Facebook even though they know it's spying on them?

Or the LinkedIn example?

I think you're dismissing it a little too easily.

That's my point. This is a good lesson in not being a sheep. If you don't think the terms to something are fair, then don't sign up. Who cares what other people are doing? This is like saying I saw a bunch of people marching by in a line so I jumped in, then we ended up marching over a bridge and now I want to know who I can sue because of it.


I'm not saying don't use Facebook. I personally don't but each person will have their own preference. I'm just saying, if you don't agree to the terms they lay out for it, then just don't sign up. It's not like it's some important life necessity. It's ****ing facebook. It's frivilous as ****. The fact that a bunch of others are doing it is not a valid excuse to cry foul when they use your info for purposes you agreed to.

[andgar923]

Thanks. Why should I believe them?

It was also reported on Wall Street Journal.

But don't take our word for it, Facebook themselves came out to defend *ahem* spin their actions.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/29/5855710/facebook-responds-to-psychology-research-controversy

[KevinNYC]

You are essentially correct. The problem with what facebook did is something called "informed consent" (cactus-shack should google this term).

If you are a participant in a study like this, you have to knowingly consent to it first. Burying a line in the fine print does not count, as the individual was never truly "informed".

Would this experiment have met the standard of minimal risk? (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/irb/irb_chapter3.htm#e1)
[QUOTE]INTRODUCTION

Risks to research subjects posed by participation in research should be justified by the anticipated benefits to the subjects or society. This requirement is clearly stated in all codes of research ethics, and is central to the federal regulations. One of the major responsibilities of the IRB, therefore, is to assess the risks and benefits of proposed research.

DEFINITIONS

Benefit: A valued or desired outcome; an advantage.

Minimal Risk: A risk is minimal where the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the proposed research are not greater, in and of themselves, than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests [Federal Policy

[TheGreatDeraj]

Among the projects awarded for the period 2014-2017 is a Cornell University-led study managed by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research which aims to develop an empirical model "of the dynamics of social movement mobilisation and contagions." The project will determine "the critical mass (tipping point)" of social contagians by studying their "digital traces" in the cases of "the 2011 Egyptian revolution, the 2011 Russian Duma elections, the 2012 Nigerian fuel subsidy crisis and the 2013 Gazi park protests in Turkey."


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/12/pentagon-mass-civil-breakdown

More evidence.

[Akrazotile]

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Minimal Risk: A risk is minimal where the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the proposed research are not greater, in and of themselves, than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests [Federal Policy

[TheGreatDeraj]

That's my point. This is a good lesson in not being a sheep. If you don't think the terms to something are fair, then don't sign up. Who cares what other people are doing? This is like saying I saw a bunch of people marching by in a line so I jumped in, then we ended up marching over a bridge and now I want to know who I can sue because of it.


I'm not saying don't use Facebook. I personally don't but each person will have their own preference. I'm just saying, if you don't agree to the terms they lay out for it, then just don't sign up. It's not like it's some important life necessity. It's ****ing facebook. It's frivilous as ****. The fact that a bunch of others are doing it is not a valid excuse to cry foul when they use your info for purposes you agreed to.

I don't have a Facebook either and I'm not saying it's illegal or anything what Facebook is doing.

I care what other people are doing because if everyone is opting into these systems then they get ingrained into our culture and society and soon there will be NO WAY to opt out.

The social pressure just becomes too much. Me and you were able to resist Facebook because we are both in at least the mid 20's, so we were born and raised before these institutions have been ingrained into us since birth. What about the 5-10 year old kids who do not know any better and will join these things because it is just part of society to join these programs?

That's just the social aspect of it, what about when it comes to the job side of it? The social pressure to get these things to advance careers and provide for your family is increasing as the job market gets more and more competitive in these tough times.

For example, how many top TV shows, News Programs, or Journalist do not have a Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn?

[Akrazotile]

I don't have a Facebook either and I'm not saying it's illegal or anything what Facebook is doing.

I care what other people are doing because if everyone is opting into these systems then they get ingrained into our culture and society and soon there will be NO WAY to opt out.

The social pressure just becomes too much. Me and you were able to resist Facebook because we are both in at least the mid 20's, so we were born and raised before these institutions have been ingrained into us since birth. What about the 5-10 year old kids who do not know any better and will join these things because it is just part of society to join these programs?

That's just the social aspect of it, what about when it comes to the job side of it? The social pressure to get these things to advance careers and provide for your family is increasing as the job market gets more and more competitive in these tough times.

For example, how many top TV shows, News Programs, or Journalist do not have a Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn?



5-10 year old kids should not be on Facebook and I consider it a colossal failure in parenting in instances in which they are.


I dunno man. I see what you mean in terms of it being dangerous when you have an entire country of dummies just mindlessly doing dumb things. But that's what Handout Nation creates. Less need for autonomy, less reliance on the self, less decisions to make, sacrifices to make, priorities to order... More dependence on the government, more entitlement, more ignorance. More power for the government.


This country is fukced. Every society has ignorant people but our ratio has gotten entirely out of whack. We frankly have teen pregnancy rates in minority communites and illegal immigration to thank. It's caused a seriously MASSIVE influx/rise in political ignorance. Good thing we're so liberal! We're literally flushing our country down the toilet in the name of tolerance and political correctness!


YIPPPEE DOOO!!!!!

[KevinNYC]

It was also reported on Wall Street Journal.

But don't take our word for it, Facebook themselves came out to defend *ahem* spin their actions.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/29/5855710/facebook-responds-to-psychology-research-controversy

No. I know about the facebook experiment. However, the two WSJ articles I see on it mentions nothing about the DOD.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/facebook-experiments-had-few-limits-1404344378
http://online.wsj.com/articles/furor-erupts-over-facebook-experiment-on-users-1404085840

So the question remains was this Facebook experiment part of the DOD's Minerva project? I don't see a source other than Stormclouds Are Gathering or SGCNEWS for this. The DOD maintains a public website for Minerva, this isn't super secret news. They have a list of all the research they have given
http://minerva.dtic.mil/funded.html
and the facebook study, Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks (http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full) is not part of it.


One of the people who worked on the Facebook Study worked on another study that was funded by DOD through Minerva, but it seems to have nothing to do with Facebook. That study was called Modeling Discourse and Social Dynamics in Authoritarian Regimes (http://semantics.ling.utexas.edu/research.html).

So how did we get to United States Government is using Facebook to control us?

Or to put this another way, why are you sheeple believing Storm Clouds Gathering is basically Alex Jones with a much smaller audience and a little better design sense without checking the facts? Do you believe his stories that the dollar is going to collapse or that stock market is about to collapse or that WWIII is coming or the government is on the verge of collapse? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fpEwul07ps&list=PLNhTos49Oq4IBVjzBF04hsmASeUVh5YzT)

[Akrazotile]

No. I know about the facebook experiment. However, the two WSJ articles I see on it mentions nothing about the DOD.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/facebook-experiments-had-few-limits-1404344378
http://online.wsj.com/articles/furor-erupts-over-facebook-experiment-on-users-1404085840

So the question remains was this Facebook experiment part of the DOD's Minerva project? I don't see a source other than Stormclouds Are Gathering or SGCNEWS for this. The DOD maintains a public website for Minerva, this isn't super secret news. They have a list of all the research they have given
http://minerva.dtic.mil/funded.html
and the facebook study, Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks (http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full) is not part of it.


One of the people who worked on the Facebook Study worked on another study that was funded by DOD through Minerva, but it seems to have nothing to do with Facebook. That study was called Modeling Discourse and Social Dynamics in Authoritarian Regimes (http://semantics.ling.utexas.edu/research.html).


So how did we get to United States Government is using Facebook to control us

Let the spin begin!


This is the problem. Kevinnyc is a blatant PARTISAN HACK.

If this had happened under the Bush administration, he would have done all this same spinning and searching and nitpicking in order to prove the exact OPPOSITE of what he's saying about it now.


This dude pictures himself as the Rachel Maddow of the internet. :facepalm

[KNOW1EDGE]

And yet you still have a facebook and live in America so I guess it doesnt bother you THAT much does it?

Why are people still surprised when they find out the goverment does things without our knowledge or ok?

[KevinNYC]

Let the spin begin!


This is the problem. Kevinnyc is a blatant PARTISAN HACK.


My point is it didn't seem to happen at all and people are swallowing it whole.

But Sheeple gonna Sheep.

[gts]

And yet you still have a facebook and live in America so I guess it doesnt bother you THAT much does it?

Why are people still surprised when they find out the goverment does things without our knowledge or ok?

Bingo... it's like Snowden and the NSA is spying on us revelation and the sudden mass reaction of shock

If it takes a journalist from a third rate news group to tell you the government is keep volumes of information on you or that they fund projects of dubious applications/needs then you're living in a fantasy world... the minute the telephone was created the uses for the system besides the obvious were being explored...

anytime some new technology comes out you can be sure the governments of the world and seedier groups/persons too are going to be trying to see if it can be used to their advantage...

It's up to you as a person to dictate if you'll be a victim or if you'll protect yourself...

And don't forget its not just global governments using your info, it's your neighbor as he peruses your facebook, looking at your wife's bikini pics from last summers vacation, it's the kid down the street funding his dirt bike rebuild by ripping off your new rims one night because you had to brag to the world "at Starbucks with xyz having a mocha then it's off to the movies" get home and your shit is gone (happened to a friend of mine...lol fu*kingidiot) it's the pedo looking at pics of kids and know exactly where they are everyday because their mom tells the world...

I'm not saying go dark, shut yourself off but use common sense and finally get it through your skulls people that there's all sorts of folks out there from all sorts of groups who want to know a whole bunch more about you as a citizen, a consumer or a victim and it's 100% on you to govern how much info they get

end rant. Lakers get melo yet? no? ok.. lol

edit: their not they're

[TheGreatDeraj]

No. I know about the facebook experiment. However, the two WSJ articles I see on it mentions nothing about the DOD.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/facebook-experiments-had-few-limits-1404344378
http://online.wsj.com/articles/furor-erupts-over-facebook-experiment-on-users-1404085840

So the question remains was this Facebook experiment part of the DOD's Minerva project? I don't see a source other than Stormclouds Are Gathering or SGCNEWS for this. The DOD maintains a public website for Minerva, this isn't super secret news. They have a list of all the research they have given
http://minerva.dtic.mil/funded.html
and the facebook study, Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks (http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full) is not part of it.


One of the people who worked on the Facebook Study worked on another study that was funded by DOD through Minerva, but it seems to have nothing to do with Facebook. That study was called Modeling Discourse and Social Dynamics in Authoritarian Regimes (http://semantics.ling.utexas.edu/research.html).


So how did we get to United States Government is using Facebook to control us?

Or to put this another way, why are you sheeple believing Storm Clouds Gathering is basically Alex Jones with a much smaller audience and a little better design sense without checking the facts? Do you believe his stories that the dollar is going to collapse or that stock market is about to collapse or that WWIII is coming or the government is on the verge of collapse? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fpEwul07ps&list=PLNhTos49Oq4IBVjzBF04hsmASeUVh5YzT)

How about these things from my earlier post and they are from military or education website or the Guardian and wired, not SGC.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/12/pentagon-mass-civil-breakdown
(http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/12/pentagon-mass-civil-breakdown)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/us-tech-giants-knew-nsa-data-collection-rajesh-de

http://www.wired.com/2009/10/exclusive-us-spies-buy-stake-in-twitter-blog-monitoring-firm



PI: Michael Macy, Cornell University
With collaborators from: Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory; Morningside Analytics
Government program manager: Dr. Benjamin Knott, Air Force Office of Scientific Research

This proposal focuses on the analysis and empirical modeling of the dynamics of social movement mobilization and contagions. They will evaluate the critical mass (tipping point) model on four datasets of digital traces of social contagions, which include Twitter posts and conversations around the 2011 Egyptian revolution, the 2011 Russian Duma elections, the 2012 Nigerian fuel subsidy crisis and the 2013 Gazi park protests in Turkey. For each dataset, they propose to use information retrieval and sentiment analysis methods to identify individuals mobilized in a social contagion and when they become mobilized. These methods will enable them to construct an “adoption curve” that tracks the number of individuals mobilized in the contagion at any given point in time and to test that curve for presence of the statistical signature of critical mass.


Can you really look at this and say there isn't a connection? I'm sure there is no connection between the government and Facebook. It is a lie that our government is collecting information about us, so clearly they would have no need to have any connections to Facebook, a company that has made billions off harvesting peoples information. The fact that they are using the same researchers and are doing similar research is of no importance at all.

I'm guessing you were part of the crowd that maintained we were not spying on our own citizens before the USA was caught with it's pants down?

From the links in your post


The major goal of the project is to discover how natural language discourse reflects social dynamics in English, Arabic, Chinese, and other languages. We develop computational models in our analyses of a large and diverse collection of documents from these languages and associated cultures (such as political speeches, letters, emails, chat, tweets). Our expectation is that these computer analyses of language/discourse can predict socially significant states, such as leadership, status, familiarity of group members, personality, social cohesion, deception, and social disequilibrium. This research is expected not only to advance the social sciences but also to address key national security questions that require the processing of large amounts of textual communication.

Question do you think the DoD or Facebook would use algorithms to positively alter peoples mood on Facebook or Twitter to advert a social meltdown in another country or in the USA?

[Brizzly]

who really gives a ****?

[Akrazotile]

Bingo... it's like Snowden and the NSA is spying on us revelation and the sudden mass reaction of shock

If it takes a journalist from a third rate news group to tell you the government is keep volumes of information on you or that they fund projects of dubious applications/needs then you're living in a fantasy world... the minute the telephone was created the uses for the system besides the obvious were being explored...

anytime some new technology comes out you can be sure the governments of the world and seedier groups/persons too are going to be trying to see if it can be used to their advantage...

It's up to you as a person to dictate if you'll be a victim or if you'll protect yourself...

And don't forget its not just global governments using your info, it's your neighbor as he peruses your facebook, looking at your wife's bikini pics from last summers vacation, it's the kid down the street funding his dirt bike rebuild by ripping off your new rims one night because you had to brag to the world "at Starbucks with xyz having a mocha then it's off to the movies" get home and your shit is gone (happened to a friend of mine...lol fu*kingidiot) it's the pedo looking at pics of kids and know exactly where they are everyday because their mom tells the world...

I'm not saying go dark, shut yourself off but use common sense and finally get it through your skulls people that there's all sorts of folks out there from all sorts of groups who want to know a whole bunch more about you as a citizen, a consumer or a victim and it's 100% on you to govern how much info they get

end rant. Lakers get melo yet? no? ok.. lol

edit: their not they're



well said, good post :applause:

[zoom17]

who really gives a ****?

this

[KevinNYC]

How about these things from my earlier post and they are from military or education website or the Guardian and wired, not SGC.

On the whole it seems like a bunch of Chicken Little Bullshit.


Happy Fourth of July!

[kNIOKAS]

That's my point. This is a good lesson in not being a sheep. If you don't think the terms to something are fair, then don't sign up. Who cares what other people are doing? This is like saying I saw a bunch of people marching by in a line so I jumped in, then we ended up marching over a bridge and now I want to know who I can sue because of it.


I'm not saying don't use Facebook. I personally don't but each person will have their own preference. I'm just saying, if you don't agree to the terms they lay out for it, then just don't sign up. It's not like it's some important life necessity. It's ****ing facebook. It's frivilous as ****. The fact that a bunch of others are doing it is not a valid excuse to cry foul when they use your info for purposes you agreed to.
the point was that nobody has agreed to it.


I dunno man. I see what you mean in terms of it being dangerous when you have an entire country of dummies just mindlessly doing dumb things. But that's what Handout Nation creates. Less need for autonomy, less reliance on the self, less decisions to make, sacrifices to make, priorities to order... More dependence on the government, more entitlement, more ignorance. More power for the government.
You may be on the right path with your rant but not there as far as causes of this socio-psycho-economical phenomenon.

Bingo... it's like Snowden and the NSA is spying on us revelation and the sudden mass reaction of shock

If it takes a journalist from a third rate news group to tell you the government is keep volumes of information on you or that they fund projects of dubious applications/needs then you're living in a fantasy world... the minute the telephone was created the uses for the system besides the obvious were being explored...

anytime some new technology comes out you can be sure the governments of the world and seedier groups/persons too are going to be trying to see if it can be used to their advantage...

It's up to you as a person to dictate if you'll be a victim or if you'll protect yourself...

And don't forget its not just global governments using your info, it's your neighbor as he peruses your facebook, looking at your wife's bikini pics from last summers vacation, it's the kid down the street funding his dirt bike rebuild by ripping off your new rims one night because you had to brag to the world "at Starbucks with xyz having a mocha then it's off to the movies" get home and your shit is gone (happened to a friend of mine...lol fu*kingidiot) it's the pedo looking at pics of kids and know exactly where they are everyday because their mom tells the world...

I'm not saying go dark, shut yourself off but use common sense and finally get it through your skulls people that there's all sorts of folks out there from all sorts of groups who want to know a whole bunch more about you as a citizen, a consumer or a victim and it's 100% on you to govern how much info they get

end rant. Lakers get melo yet? no? ok.. lol

edit: their not they're
It's a big difference between "knowing" it and actually having a proof for it. Assuming things does not stand in the court, either.

In fact, Alex Jones actually called the mass surveillance way back in 2000-something. KevinNYC still can't get over that by this day.

[KevinNYC]

In fact, Alex Jones actually called the mass surveillance way back in 2000-something. KevinNYC still can't get over that by this day.

I can't get over it, because the "mass surveillance of US citizens" turns out to involve less than 150 orders and less than 350 targets last year.

Foreign surveillance is also targeted and involved about 90,000 targets last year.

Bunch a Chicken Little Bullshit.

[kNIOKAS]

I can't get over it, because the "mass surveillance of US citizens" turns out to involve less than 150 orders and less than 350 targets last year.

Foreign surveillance is also targeted and involved about 90,000 targets last year.

Bunch a Chicken Little Bullshit.
Well it was done to[QUOTE]

[Nanners]

I can't get over it, because the "mass surveillance of US citizens" turns out to involve less than 150 orders and less than 350 targets last year.

Foreign surveillance is also targeted and involved about 90,000 targets last year.

Bunch a Chicken Little Bullshit.

go **** yourself kevin

http://boingboing.net/2014/07/03/if-you-read-boing-boing-the-n.html


If you read Boing Boing, the NSA considers you a target for deep surveillance

The NSA says it only banks the communications of "targeted" individuals. Guess what? If you follow a search-engine link to Boing Boing's articles about Tor and Tails, you've been targeted. Cory Doctorow digs into Xkeyscore and the NSA's deep packet inspection rules.

In a shocking story on the German site Tagesschau (Google translate), Lena Kampf, Jacob Appelbaum and John Goetz report on the rules used by the NSA to decide who is a "target" for surveillance.

Since the start of the Snowden story in 2013, the NSA has stressed that while it may intercept nearly every Internet user's communications, it only "targets" a small fraction of those, whose traffic patterns reveal some basis for suspicion. Targets of NSA surveillance don't have their data flushed from the NSA's databases on a rolling 48-hour or 30-day basis, but are instead retained indefinitely.

The authors of the Tagesschau story have seen the "deep packet inspection" rules used to determine who is considered to be a legitimate target for deep surveillance, and the results are bizarre.

According to the story, the NSA targets anyone who searches for online articles about Tails -- like this one that we published in April, or this article for teens that I wrote in May -- or Tor (The Onion Router, which we've been posted about since 2004). Anyone who is determined to be using Tor is also targeted for long-term surveillance and retention.

Tor and Tails have been part of the mainstream discussion of online security, surveillance and privacy for years. It's nothing short of bizarre to place people under suspicion for searching for these terms.

More importantly, this shows that the NSA uses "targeted surveillance" in a way that beggars common sense. It's a dead certainty that people who heard the NSA's reassurances about "targeting" its surveillance on people who were doing something suspicious didn't understand that the NSA meant people who'd looked up technical details about systems that are routinely discussed on the front page of every newspaper in the world.

But it's not the first time the NSA has deployed specialized, highly counterintuitive wordsmithing to play games with the public, the law and its oversight. From James Clapper's insistence that he didn't lie to Congress about spying on Americans because he was only intercepting all their data, but not looking at it all; to the internal wordgames on evidence in the original Prism leak in which the NSA claimed to have "direct access" to servers from Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, etc, even though this "direct access" was a process by which the FBI would use secret warrants to request information from Internet giants without revealing that the data was destined for the NSA.

I have known that this story was coming for some time now, having learned about its broad contours under embargo from a trusted source. Since then, I've discussed it in confidence with some of the technical experts who have worked on the full set of Snowden docs, and they were as shocked as I was.

One expert suggested that the NSA's intention here was to separate the sheep from the goats -- to split the entire population of the Internet into "people who have the technical know-how to be private" and "people who don't" and then capture all the communications from the first group.

Another expert said that s/he believed that this leak may come from a second source, not Edward Snowden, as s/he had not seen this in the original Snowden docs; and had seen other revelations that also appeared independent of the Snowden materials. If that's true, it's big news, as Snowden was the first person to ever leak docs from the NSA. The existence of a potential second source means that Snowden may have inspired some of his former colleagues to take a long, hard look at the agency's cavalier attitude to the law and decency.

[TheGreatDeraj]

KevinNYC has to be trolling, it is simply not possible to have your head that far up your own ass

from the Associated Press

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-secretly-created-cuban-twitter-stir-unrest



According to documents obtained by The Associated Press and multiple interviews with people involved in the project, the plan was to develop a bare-bones "Cuban Twitter," using cellphone text messaging to evade Cuba's strict control of information and its stranglehold restrictions over the Internet. In a play on Twitter, it was called ZunZuneo — slang for a Cuban hummingbird's tweet.





Documents show the U.S. government planned to build a subscriber base through "non-controversial content": news messages on soccer, music and hurricane updates. Later when the network reached a critical mass of subscribers, perhaps hundreds of thousands, operators would introduce political content aimed at inspiring Cubans to organize "smart mobs" — mass gatherings called at a moment's notice that might trigger a Cuban Spring, or, as one USAID document put it, "renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society."

[KevinNYC]

go **** yourself kevin

http://boingboing.net/2014/07/03/if-you-read-boing-boing-the-n.html

Happy Fourth to you, Nanners.

First, never believe anything Jacob Applebaum says on this.
Second, Cory at BoingBoing is one of the biggest Chicken Little Bullshitters around.

The idea that they want data on anyone who enters Tor into a search engine is ridiculous on its face. Tor turns out to be a fairly popular word, especially around World Cup time.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(Fu%C3%9Fball)

In terms of dealing with Big Data, you always want to refine your dataset, adding all the readers of Boing Boing or anyone searching for tor, would just add a lot of crap you don't want. It's just more noise to block your signal.

This is the mistake the article makes. They don't understand when these search filters apply.

You don't select targets using xkeyscore. The xkeyscore instructions are used to refine the TARGETED DATA. It's a filter, I'm guessing there are hundreds more, if not thousands more in the NSA's system. The filters serve a few purposes, one is the let the analyst get accurate results, the other is security roles/permission. As an analyst when I login into xkeyscore, my security role indicates if I have permission to access information gathered under 702 or 215, if I don't it's not coming up on my screen. (The data is usually stored on different databases for security permissions reasons as well.) Again these filters are not used to DEFINE the target and define what is collected. They are used afterwards on what is already collected. If your target is using Tor, that is now a very helpful thing to know.

My favorite part of the original news report from Germany was this part

The XKeyscore rules .... details about visits to a popular internet journal for Linux operating system users called "the Linux Journal - the Original Magazine of the Linux Community", and calls it an "extremist forum." and the source code that they publish shows it to be pure bullshit. (http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/xkeyscorerules100.txt) This is especially funny because the NSA is filled with Linux geeks and xkeyscore is built on Linux.

Lastly, if they were targeting TOR users, wouldn't they have found out what the world's most famous TOR user was up to? We know Snowden, Greenwald, Appelbaum and Poitras all used TOR.

[KevinNYC]

Since the Snowden leaks came out, three different jihadi encryptions programs have been released in 2013. Al Qaeda abandoned their encryption program which had been using since 2007 and came out with a new tool. ISIS came out with a new tool. And the propaganda wing of Al Qaeda, Al Fajr Media Center, released another encryption program.

Either these guys are adopted Agile software development and continuous releases or they all decided to make changes post Snowden.

[kNIOKAS]

Since the Snowden leaks came out, three different jihadi encryptions programs have been released in 2013. Al Qaeda abandoned their encryption program which had been using since 2007 and came out with a new tool. ISIS came out with a new tool. And the propaganda wing of Al Qaeda, Al Fajr Media Center, released another encryption program.

Either these guys are adopted Agile software development and continuous releases or they all decided to make changes post Snowden.
So has everybody since the internet security has been compromised worldwide.


You get my neg easily.

[ILLsmak]

people still don't understand what free speech is :facepalm

criminal =/= civil. you can sign an NDA giving up your right to free speech. if you break it, you will probably get sued, but you will not go to jail.


you can post that you hate blacks on facebook. free speech right? sure, you won't go to jail, you are free to say whatever you want. however, your boss can also fire you if he wants.

yabut you can't do shit like Facebook is doing. I mean "you can" but it's very unethical.

Good thing I am not attached to the bullshit media manipulation (cuz if anyone thinks they are free from that when they log off of Facebook lol...)

STEP FORWARD. STOP BEING BRAINWASHED.

-Smak

[cuad]

I need to get a job with the DoD or something doing this shit, because I sure as hell am more like them than I am like the billion curmudgeons on facebook.

[MadeFromDust]

What if I told you...



That the admins experiment with us on ISH in more intrusive ways?
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2013/105/8/e/what_if_i_told_you_by_heroforpain-d61vzyl.jpg

[KingBeasley08]

KevinNYC has to work in the White House. He's like Obama's official spokesperson on ISH :lol

[sportsfan76]

That's why you should have a screen name when you use facebook attached to a bogus email account

[Nanners]

First, never believe anything Jacob Applebaum says on this.

why not? because you say so? lol...


Second, Cory at BoingBoing is one of the biggest Chicken Little Bullshitters around.
orly? the fact that you keep resorting to ad hominem is not exactly persuasive


blah blah blah, bunch of logical fallacies and other bullshit

do you have any legitimate sources to back up your nonsense? i dont mind if you dislike boingboing, is the EFF full of chicken little bullshitters too?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/dear-nsa-privacy-fundamental-right-not-reasonable-suspicion?PRINT=YES

[IamRAMBO24]

KevinNYC has to work in the White House. He's like Obama's official spokesperson on ISH :lol

:oldlol:

Ya I wonder about this sometimes. I think he works for the government as a computer analyst. I think he's baiting the people in here to see how extreme they are in their views. If he was just a normal person, he wouldn't say half of the things he is saying now.

[KevinNYC]

i dont mind if you dislike boingboing, is the EFF full of chicken little bullshitters too?

Of ****ing course! Are you kidding me? Who the **** first filled Snowden's head with Bullshit? The EFF was among them. Applebaum is the guy who has people on ISH spouting bullshit like the NSA has hacked 100% of Apple iPhones. These are the folks who claim that every router shipped in the US is hacked by the NSA.

Xkeyscore doesn't choose targets. This is about filtering targeted information that is already collected. These instructions tell if your target uses TOR or TAILS.

Why would use generic search terms as a way to target. What would be the value is adding all this noise to your dataset? You just be wasted your time?

[Nanners]

Why would use generic search terms as a way to target. What would be the value is adding all this noise to your dataset? You just be wasted your time?

If the dataset is set up to filter for this stuff its obviously not "noise". The US government has been creating datasets on dissidents, activists, etc for a very long time. They create datasets on ****ing everything. You dont have to be very bright to see why they would value information like this.

[KevinNYC]

If the dataset is set up to filter for this stuff its obviously not "noise". The US government has been creating datasets on dissidents, activists, etc for a very long time. They create datasets on ****ing everything. You dont have to be very bright to see why they would value information like this.

Anything that involves dissidents or activists would be done by the FBI not NSA.

A dataset is just a collection of data. As for adding noise to the dataset it just wastes your time by slowing down your searches and then returning a bunch of useless shit you have to read. Were you doing web searches in 1990's before Google? You would get a bunch of crappy results.

The Washington Post just had another story based on the Snowden docs where the NSA was searching for Umar Patek who was in involved in the 2002 Bali bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings) that left over 200 people dead.
http://images.lpcdn.ca/641x427/201011/27/219267-evenement-ete-baptise-certains-11.jpg

It took 9 years to get this guy. This is the actual work analysts are trying to do. They are not setting up their systems in a way that would waste peoples time. A lot of what they do is very time consuming to begin with.

Boing Boing seems to understand how terribly inefficient and wasteful it would be to surveil everyone reading Boing Boing or other sites about Tor, they call this bizarre. They don't seem to understand that is also currently protected by law you can't target someone just based on things protected by the first amendment, like searching for TOR.

The filter looking for TOR does not happen upstream. That's the mistake the German article makes and that Boing Boing and EFF repeat. They don't understand any of the legal rules and then misinterpret the technical bits. And because they are making an elemental mistake, they the describe WHAT IS NOT happening as bizarre.
The authors of the Tagesschau story have seen the "deep packet inspection" rules used to determine who is considered to be a legitimate target for deep surveillance, and the results are bizarre.

According to the story, the NSA targets anyone who searches for online articles about Tails -- like this one that we published in April, or this article for teens that I wrote in May -- or Tor (The Onion Router, which we've been posted about since 2004). Anyone who is determined to be using Tor is also targeted for long-term surveillance

All the parts in bold are false.

Yes, there is value in knowing if your target is using TOR. xkeyscore rules work not only to filter what you see, but what you can't see. For one thing, if you search for something and it comes from an US IP address that most likely will mean you can't see it because most likely you are dealing with a US person. US persons are off limits unless you have a higher authorization, usually from a warrant. HOWEVER, if that is coming from a US IP address and the target is using TOR then you don't know if you are dealing with a US person because that is the way TOR works, you could be dealing with someone in Indonesia or Yemen.