Ambridge Analytica

[Nick Odell]

Just spotted this in the Grauniad...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/shortcuts/2018/mar/21/ambridge-analytica-the-spoof-account-thats-combine-harvesting-data

Nick

[John Ashby]

Ambridge Analytica also cropped up on the subtitles during yesterday's
C4 news.

john

[Sid Nuncius]

On 21/03/2018 20:29, Nick Odell wrote:
> Just spotted this in the Grauniad...
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/shortcuts/2018/mar/21/ambridge-analytica-the-spoof-account-thats-combine-harvesting-data

:o))

--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

[Mike]

[Looks round slowly, squints, cups hands to ears, looks round again and
peers into distance] Err, there ain’t no Umralytica is there - is there?

--
Anonymous

[Sid Nuncius]

On 22/03/2018 09:06, Mike wrote:
> John Ashby <johna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 21/03/18 20:29, Nick Odell wrote:
>>> Just spotted this in the Grauniad...
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/shortcuts/2018/mar/21/ambridge-analytica-the-spoof-account-thats-combine-harvesting-data
>>

>> Ambridge Analytica also cropped up on the subtitles during yesterday's
>> C4 news.
>

> [Looks round slowly, squints, cups hands to ears, looks round again and
> peers into distance] Err, there ain’t no Umralytica is there - is there?

Certainly not. And if there is, it has not done anything wrong. And if
it has, it's not Facebook's fault.

By the way, did you know that Donald Trump is the greatest president the
USA has ever had? Trust me - the greatest president in history.

[Mike]

Oooh no I didn’t! Shouldn’t we be telling 60 million Americans how great he
is? Well I never!

--
Toodle Pip

[BrritSki]

Come come, Obama shirley ? And his use of a Facebook app to gather
data on millions of Americans in 2012 was absolutely fine. Genius even...

[Sid Nuncius]

Fair enough. I didn't mean to make a political point specifically, just
to make a cheap joke about the current furore. I'll be amazed if
political parties all over the world (quite probably including here)
haven't been doing something similar.

Just at the moment I am boodly glad I've never had anything to do with FB.

[Mike]

As am I!

--
Toodle Pip

[BrritSki]

On 22/03/2018 12:39, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>
> Fair enough.  I didn't mean to make a political point specifically, just
> to make a cheap joke about the current furore.  I'll be amazed if
> political parties all over the world (quite probably including here)
> haven't been doing something similar.

They certainly have, and also the Brexit campaigns, both for against.

>
> Just at the moment I am boodly glad I've never had anything to do with FB.
>

It's a lot of scare about not very much imo. I've been using FB for
years, as have many otherrats, and it's really not a problem if you are
sensible about security.

As with so many things it's a balance of risk and reward, and the
rewards of using FB to share info with friends and family have been great.

We know that FB gathers information, as does Google, in ways it's
difficult to imagine. My bet is there are lots of other things that are
gathering info about us that we have no idea about.

[BrritSki]

On 22/03/2018 13:42, BrritSki wrote:
>
> We know that FB gathers information, as does Google, in ways it's
> difficult to imagine. My bet is there are lots of other things that are
> gathering info about us that we have no idea about.
>

PS Here's what FB Purity advises. I've been using it since it was
brought to my attention and already followed much of this advice. The
problem is NOT new by any means. Also note that FB tracks you even if
you don't use it !

Regarding the current news of Cambridge Analytica, FB Purity was warning
its users about the problem with Facebook applications stealing their
data back in 2010! (see:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/fluff-busting-fb-purity/important-facebook-privacy-issue-your-friends-applications-and-their-developers-/10150156651570171/
)

If you value your privacy and still want or need to use Facebook. Here's
a list of some of the things you can do to protect it:

1) Ditch the Facebook mobile phone app, it basically has complete access
to anything you do on your phone, and tracks everything you do, sucks up
all your contact info, tracks you with GPS etc etc. Its safer to use the
Facebook mobile website at http://m.facebook.com in your mobile's web
browser.

2) When browsing Facebook on a desktop web browser make sure you have a
tracker blocking browser extension such as Disconnect or Ghostery
installed, as this will stop Facebook tracking all the websites you
visit in your web browser. The way Facebook tracks which sites you visit
is via the ubiquitous "like" button widgets that website owners include
in their web pages. Facebook even tracks non Facebook users in this way
and creates what are known as "shadow" profiles.

3) Never use the "Facebook" sign-in method to login to other websites.
Those websites get access to some of your Facebook data when you do this.

4) To make sure Facebook applications by third parties cannot access any
of your or your friends data, turn off the "Facebook Platform" in
Facebook's settings on the following page:
https://www.facebook.com/settings…
To do this, go to the section titled
"Apps, Websites and Plugins" , click Edit and then change the setting to
disable "Facebook Platform"

5) If you don't want to completely turn off the "Facebook Platform" as
you still want to use certain Facebook applications or Facebook sign-in,
you should go through the "App settings" at
https://www.facebook.com/settings… and remove any Facebook apps that you
no longer use, and also go to the section titled "Apps others use" and
untick all the boxes there (This will stop apps your friends use from
getting your data even if you yourself are not using the apps)

6) Review and edit your Facebook privacy settings at
https://www.facebook.com/settings/…

7) Review the advertising profile Facebook has built for you at
https://www.facebook.com/ads/preferences/… ( the F.B. Purity browser
add-on lets you easily delete the list of Interests and Advertisers
Facebook has generated for you) Its also worth reviewing the other
settings on that page, such as the "ads based on your usage of websites
and apps" setting, which basically means you will be shown ads related
to websites you have visited, also important is the "ads with your
social actions" setting, that basically means if any Facebook Page you
have "liked" creates a Sponsored ad on Facebook they can use your name
at the top of their ad to endorse their Advert.

8) This is an extreme one and against Facebook's terms and conditions
but its better not to include any of your real information on Facebook,
better to put fake information in there, including your name and
address, birth date etc.

Of course if you really value your privacy the best thing is to stop
using Facebook altogether, delete all the data on your Facebook account
and then delete your account, though I don't think it will stop Facebook
from keeping a "shadow" profile on you, and who knows if they really
ever delete your data, there was certainly some news articles in the
past on just that topic where Facebook was holding on to data it
shouldn't have been.

What do you think of this list? Got any other Facebook privacy tips you
would like to share, add them in the comments!

[Btms]

I think the print meeja is/has been no better; just less widely circulated
and with control from interested parties on content.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.

[Serena Blanchflower]

<languid wave>


--
Best wishes, Serena
The truth is rarely pure and never simple. (Oscar Wilde)

[Mike]

Why didn’t they just call it ‘Pernicious’ Book? Ooh err, am I being tracked
and assessed just because my writing appears on the same page as one
containing the words ‘Face Book’.???????

--
Toodle Pip

[steveski]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:39:26 +0000, Sid Nuncius wrote:

[]

> Just at the moment I am boodly glad I've never had anything to do with
> FB.

<languid wave>

--
Steveski

[LFS]

But you're out there, Sid. Amazon knows a lot about you, for a start.

I'm slightly puzzled about the fuss. At a personal level, I became
alarmed years ago - pre internet, probably - when it dawned on me that
Tesco had cleverly sent me discount coupons for things I regularly
purchased and this put me off loyalty cards because at that time it
seemed spooky and an invasion of privacy.

This has also made me cautious about signing up to anything online but I
had to have an online presence for work so didn't have much choice.

But it's now blindingly obvious that *any* information you provide
online can be accessed by some marketing organisation and used in
"research". University research is strictly controlled through ethical
review procedures. AFAIK the marketing industry has codes but no formal
regulation.

As I understand it, FB failed to make it absolutely clear that scraping
could include not only users' details but those of their friends,
although this is not difficult to work out if you look at your settings.
Apart from that, I'm not clear what they have done wrong: selling the
information is not illegal. Cambridge Analytica seem to be the villains
of the piece.

FB has definite advantages for me in personal communication so I take
great care over my privacy settings, and use Fluff Buster and Social
Fixer and follow their advice. I only see adverts when I access FB via
the web browser on my iPad and iPhone (I don't use the app at all.) The
only games I play are Lexulous and Scrabble and I don't do online
quizzes on it.






--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[LFS]

On 22/03/2018 12:42, BrritSki wrote:

Exactly.

[Kate B]

One prime way, and one difficult to avoid unless you go into VPN for
ever, is IP tracking. I was alarmed to see ads in FB for things my
non-social-media-friendly husband had googled a few days previously.
Luckily it wasn't anything oo-er. Or a present.

I once registered with some official data protection website in the US
which did actually make a difference for a while. But I can't remember
what it was called now, and it's doubtless gone the way of net neutrality.

You can clean up Facebook quite effectively, but it does take a little
while.

--
Kate B
London

[the Omrud]

On 22/03/2018 12:42, BrritSki wrote:

On a personal note, I believe (I hope) that no matter what information
is used to target me with political posts, these would not change my views.

Somebody was making a similar point on a news programme today. There
are two types of voter. One type is entrenched in their views, and can
not be moved towards a different party or candidate. They tend to be
highly political and often post stuff which identifies them as such,
argue with the other side, etc. But there's no point in trying to
change their minds through advertising or subtle posts becuase they're
not open to change.

The other type is the voter who is not really interested in politics and
may only decide who to vote for when they enter the polling booth. But
they can't be identified because they don't post stuff about politics
and they aren't interested in reading about politics, so it's a waste of
time trying to influence them.

All of which tends to imply that any effect is going to be tiny.

--
David

[Jim Easterbrook]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:12:13 +0000, the Omrud wrote:
>
> Somebody was making a similar point on a news programme today. There
> are two types of voter. One type is entrenched in their views, and can
> not be moved towards a different party or candidate. They tend to be
> highly political and often post stuff which identifies them as such,
> argue with the other side, etc. But there's no point in trying to
> change their minds through advertising or subtle posts becuase they're
> not open to change.
>
> The other type is the voter who is not really interested in politics and
> may only decide who to vote for when they enter the polling booth. But
> they can't be identified because they don't post stuff about politics
> and they aren't interested in reading about politics, so it's a waste of
> time trying to influence them.

As I understand it, the point is to identify the latter people and the
issues that engage them, in an apparently non-political way.

I find the idea of personally targetted political advertising a bit
worrying. It suggests a different, even contradictory, message is going
to each person. Unless they compare notes they won't know that at least
one of them has been lied to.
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

[BrritSki]

On 22/03/2018 18:27, Jim Easterbrook wrote:
>
> I find the idea of personally targetted political advertising a bit
> worrying. It suggests a different, even contradictory, message is going
> to each person. Unless they compare notes they won't know that at least
> one of them has been lied to.
>

But that's exactly what happens with canvassers door-knocking. The
candidate adjust the message according to the voter they are talking
too, using information they have gathered about that voter beforehand
and also by judging their reactions.

i.e. they are lied to, by politicians of all persuasions.

[BrritSki]

On 22/03/2018 18:12, the Omrud wrote:
>
> On a personal note, I believe (I hope) that no matter what information
> is used to target me with political posts, these would not change my views.

Me neither. I voted against joining the EEC in the first place and have
never seen any need to change my mind, despite two decades of living on
the European mainland :)

[Jim Easterbrook]

But they usually hand out a leaflet as well, with which their verbal
promises can be compared. We all know a verbal promise ain't worth the
paper it's printed on.

[Vicky]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:12:13 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On a personal note, I believe (I hope) that no matter what information
>is used to target me with political posts, these would not change my views.
>
>Somebody was making a similar point on a news programme today. There
>are two types of voter. One type is entrenched in their views, and can
>not be moved towards a different party or candidate. They tend to be
>highly political and often post stuff which identifies them as such,
>argue with the other side, etc. But there's no point in trying to
>change their minds through advertising or subtle posts becuase they're
>not open to change.
>
>The other type is the voter who is not really interested in politics and
>may only decide who to vote for when they enter the polling booth. But
>they can't be identified because they don't post stuff about politics
>and they aren't interested in reading about politics, so it's a waste of
>time trying to influence them.
>
>All of which tends to imply that any effect is going to be tiny.

Isn't it the case that we all tend to read information from sources we
already support, and either don't read or discount quickly the ones we
oppose? So most people don't get the full picture and want to believe
things that support their point of view.

That's the reason the Trump supporters, for instance, don't care what
other sources say and read his posts and stick with him. Most of us
like to think we are more discriminating but is it a matter of degree?

--

Vicky

[Btms]

Gosh! Are you suggesting that if a don’t know fence sitter like myself read
all the information pedalled, I would have the full picture! Forgive my
cynicism but this is a tad challenging for me in terms of credibility.
Otoh if you are right, it is an excellent suggestion.

[Rosalind Mitchell]

You had a chance to vote on that? Nobody else in Britain did, outside
the Palace of Westminster. There was a referendum in 1975 on whether to
remain in the then-EEC, which is what you may be thinking of :)

(I remember that because it was a blazing hot day just three days after
a whole day of a County Championship match between Derbyshire and
Lancashire at Buxton was abandoned because of snow. And I was freezing
to death waiting for the Liverpool Irish Centre to be opened up for my
last exam. AISTR Lancashire, batting on the Saturday on a hard-baked
pitch, accumulated a score of considerable proportions. On the Tuesday
the home side was dismissed twice for scores not unlike England's last
night, on a pitch damp with melted snow on top of a hard-baked layer
underneath. I don't thing last night's England had that excuse.)

Rotaa

[Rosalind Mitchell]

Vicky <vicky...@gmail.com> writes:

> Isn't it the case that we all tend to read information from sources we
> already support, and either don't read or discount quickly the ones we
> oppose? So most people don't get the full picture and want to believe
> things that support their point of view.

Not in my case, no. I've always maintained that my fellow lefties ought
to read the Telegraph and the Spectator rather than the Grauniad and the
Staggers. These days I keep an eye on the Spectator and also enjoy
reading and occasionally trolling sites like Breitbart to get the
nutjobs frothing.

> That's the reason the Trump supporters, for instance, don't care what
> other sources say and read his posts and stick with him. Most of us
> like to think we are more discriminating but is it a matter of degree?

And whenever anybody tries to put a reasonable point of view they get
called all sorts of names and have their mental health, parentage and
sexual inclinations questioned. They thrive on kidding themselves
they're the only ones, which is why I think more sensible people wade
in.

Rotaa

[BrritSki]

On 22/03/2018 19:35, Vicky wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:12:13 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Isn't it the case that we all tend to read information from sources we
> already support, and either don't read or discount quickly the ones we
> oppose? So most people don't get the full picture and want to believe
> things that support their point of view.

There was some research I read yesterday that suggested this is not the
case. We all suffer from confirmation bias of course, but I will always
listen to a good argument and will give one in return I hope.

I certainly don't want to live in an echo chamber - I wouldn't have hung
around in umra with all you lefty bastards if I did ! :)

[BrritSki]

On 22/03/2018 20:08, Rosalind Mitchell wrote:
> BrritSki <rtilbury...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 22/03/2018 18:12, the Omrud wrote:
>>>
>>> On a personal note, I believe (I hope) that no matter what
>>> information is used to target me with political posts, these would
>>> not change my views.
>>
>> Me neither. I voted against joining the EEC in the first place and
>> have never seen any need to change my mind, despite two decades of
>> living on the European mainland :)
>
> You had a chance to vote on that? Nobody else in Britain did, outside
> the Palace of Westminster. There was a referendum in 1975 on whether to
> remain in the then-EEC, which is what you may be thinking of :)

Pedants-R-Us !!! I voted in the referendum. I rest my case. :)

[BrritSki]

On 22/03/2018 12:39, Sid Nuncius wrote:

> Fair enough.  I didn't mean to make a political point specifically,

Having read this thread again, perhaps I should add that I wasn't trying
to make a political point either. I have little time for Trump, I just
don't like the hypocrisy that surrounds the situation.

[Rosalind Mitchell]

DINTAFPOU?

Rotaa

[Btms]

And the fence sitters like me who see so many povs can be relied upon to be
labelled friend or foe depending on whether a n other is looking for an
argument or an ally. Usually assumed foe.

[John Ashby]

DYNTAPFPBWASSOU?

(PokingBrritSkiWithASharpStick)

john

[BrritSki]

Of course not !

[Chris B]

On 22/03/2018 17:12, the Omrud wrote:

>
> The other type is the voter who is not really interested in politics and
> may only decide who to vote for when they enter the polling booth.  But
> they can't be identified because they don't post stuff about politics
> and they aren't interested in reading about politics, so it's a waste of
> time trying to influence them.

That's the bit where the argument falls down, if you can get this
"disinterested" group to take an interest then there is a large group
who you may be able to enlist to your cause.

Theory has it that Obama did it very well in 2008 and 2012; used social
media very well (ironically) to enthuse the minority voters many of whom
had never bothered voting before. Also compare with the Labour/Jeremy
Corbin engagement of the youth vote in the UK in recent years.

>
> All of which tends to imply that any effect is going to be tiny.

I think not.
>


--
Chris B (News)

[Chris J Dixon]

Chris B wrote:

>On 22/03/2018 17:12, the Omrud wrote:
>>
>> The other type is the voter who is not really interested in politics and
>> may only decide who to vote for when they enter the polling booth.  But
>> they can't be identified because they don't post stuff about politics
>> and they aren't interested in reading about politics, so it's a waste of
>> time trying to influence them.
>
>That's the bit where the argument falls down, if you can get this
>"disinterested" group to take an interest then there is a large group
>who you may be able to enlist to your cause.

Isn't the whole point you are making that they are uninterested,
but not disinterested.

If they were disinterested, why would there be any point in
getting involved?

As I was recently discussing with another umrat on email, the
ship seems to have sailed on that particularly useful
distinction.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
ch...@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.

[Chris B]

On 24/03/2018 08:29, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Chris B wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/2018 17:12, the Omrud wrote:
>>>
>>> The other type is the voter who is not really interested in politics and
>>> may only decide who to vote for when they enter the polling booth.  But
>>> they can't be identified because they don't post stuff about politics
>>> and they aren't interested in reading about politics, so it's a waste of
>>> time trying to influence them.
>>
>> That's the bit where the argument falls down, if you can get this
>> "disinterested" group to take an interest then there is a large group
>> who you may be able to enlist to your cause.
>
> Isn't the whole point you are making that they are uninterested,
> but not disinterested.
>
> If they were disinterested, why would there be any point in
> getting involved?
>
> As I was recently discussing with another umrat on email, the
> ship seems to have sailed on that particularly useful
> distinction.
>
> Chris
>

I simply taking issue with "they cant be identified" and "its a waste

of time trying to influence them"

If you can engage large numbers of people who would not previously have
read about politics, watched party political broadcasts or reliably
voted for your party (by for example social media or by doing a turn at
Glastonbury) then you are onto a winner.

--
Chris B (News)

[Mike Ruddock]

On 24/03/2018 8:29 AM, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Chris B wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/2018 17:12, the Omrud wrote:
>>>
>>> The other type is the voter who is not really interested in politics and
>>> may only decide who to vote for when they enter the polling booth.  But
>>> they can't be identified because they don't post stuff about politics
>>> and they aren't interested in reading about politics, so it's a waste of
>>> time trying to influence them.
>>
>> That's the bit where the argument falls down, if you can get this
>> "disinterested" group to take an interest then there is a large group
>> who you may be able to enlist to your cause.
>
> Isn't the whole point you are making that they are uninterested,
> but not disinterested.
>
> If they were disinterested, why would there be any point in
> getting involved?
>
> As I was recently discussing with another umrat on email, the
> ship seems to have sailed on that particularly useful
> distinction.
>
> Chris
>

Not while I draw breath it hasn't.

Mike Ruddock