Yes.
Testify then drop.
We have it all.
These people are stupid.
Fireworks.
POTUS’ weekly address.
END.
Q
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17218756/facebook-biometric-privacy-lobbying-bipa-illinois
Facebook-backed lawmakers are pushing to gut privacy law 8 As Zuckerberg prepares to testify, a powerful Illinois privacy law will be facing a new threat
As Zuckerberg prepares to testify before Congress, Facebook is quietly fighting a crucial privacy measure in the Illinois Statehouse. Starting tomorrow, state legislators will consider a new amendment to the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) that could neuter one of the strongest privacy laws in the US, giving Facebook free rein to run facial recognition scans without users’ consent.
For years, Facebook has been battling a lawsuit based on BIPA, which required explicit consent before companies can collect biometric data like fingerprints or facial recognition profiles. According to the plaintiffs, Facebook’s photo-tagging system violates that law, identifying faces in uploaded photos with no clear notice or consent. (Similar lawsuits have also been filed against Google and Snapchat.) Facebook added a more explicit consent provision earlier this year, but the lawsuit has continued on the basis of the earlier collection.
This week’s amendment would carve out significant new exceptions to the bill, allowing companies to collect biometric data without notice or consent as long as it’s handled with the same protections as other sensitive data. Companies could also be exempted if they do not sell or otherwise profit from the data, or if it is used only for employment purposes.
It’s not the first time lawmakers have tried to gut the bill, often with Facebook’s direct encouragement. In 2016, a proposed revision from Illinois State Sen. Terry Link tried to limit the law to scans taken in the physical world, a definition that would rule out faceprints collected from uploaded photos. Facebook applauded the proposal at the time, saying, “We appreciate Sen. Link’s effort to clarify the scope of the law he authored.” Link ultimately withdrew the proposal.
Facebook did not respond to a request for comment on this week’s proposal, but the company is a member of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce’s Tech Council, which has been actively supporting the amendment. Facebook has also made direct campaign contributions to many of the lawmakers supporting the amendment, with public donation records showing $5,500 donated to the amendment’s four sponsors over the past six months.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17220534/paid-facebook-ad-free-version-mark-zuckerberg-testimony
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17215032/facebook-zuckerberg-congress-day-1-how-to-watch-livestream-time
https://www.facebook.com/colbertlateshow/videos/1359677454177002/
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/16/1663961_-windows-1252-q-re-3a_-5bos-5d_us-ct-_report-3a_faceboo.html
Re: [OS] US/CT- Report: Faceboo k CEO Mark Zuckerberg Doesn’t Believe In Privacy
Released on 2013-11-15 00:00 GMT
| Email-ID | 1663961 |
|---|---|
| Date | 2010-04-28 21:54:41 |
| From | sean.noonan@stratfor.com |
| To | ct@stratfor.com |
=?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_=5BOS=5D_US/CT-_Report=3A_Faceboo?=
=?windows-1252?Q?k_CEO_Mark_Zuckerberg_Doesn=92t_Believe_In_?=
=?windows-1252?Q?Privacy?=
Facebook just gets better.
Sean Noonan wrote:
Report: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Doesn't Believe In Privacy
* By Eliot Van Buskirk Email Author
* April 28, 2010 |
* 1:47 pm |
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/report-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-doesnt-believe-in-privacy/
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears to have been outed as not caring
one whit about your privacy - a jarring admission, considering how much
of our personal data Facebook owns, not to mention its plans to become
the web's central repository for our preferences and predilections.
Also interesting is how this came about: Not in a proper article, but in
a Tweet by Nick Bilton, lead technology blogger for the New York Times`
Bits Blog, based on a conversation he says was "off the record" and
which he may have confused with "not for attribution."
"Off record chat w/ Facebook employee," begins Bilton's fateful tweet.
"Me: How does Zuck feel about privacy? Response: [laughter] He doesn't
believe in it."
Ouch.
Zuckerberg's apparent disregard for your privacy is probably not reason
enough to delete your Facebook account. But we wouldn't recommend
posting anything there that you wouldn't want marketers, legal
authorities, governments (or your mother) to see, especially as Facebook
continues to push more and more of users' information public and even
into the hands of other companies, leaving the onus on users to figure
out its Rubic's Cube-esque privacy controls.
Over the past six months, Facebook has been on a relentless request to
become the center of identity and connections online. Last December, the
site unilaterally decided that much of a user's profile information,
including the names of all their friends and the things they were "fans"
of, would be public information - no exceptions or opt-outs allowed.
Zuckerberg defended the change - largely intended to keep up with the
publicness of Twitter, saying that people's notions of privacy were
changing. He took no responsibility for being the one to drag many
Facebook users into the net's public sphere.
Then last week at its f8 conference, Facebook announced it was sending
user profile information to companies like Yelp, Pandora and Microsoft
in bulk, so that when users show up at those sites while logged in to
Facebook, they see personalized versions of the those services (unless
the user opts out of each site, somewhere deep in the bowels of
Facebook's privacy control center). Facebook is also pushing a "Like"
button, which lets sites put little Facebook buttons on anything from
blog entries to T-shirts in web stores.
Clicking that button sends that information to Facebook, which publishes
it as part of what it calls the Open Graph, linking your identity to
things you choose online. That information, in turn, is shared with
whatever sites Facebook chooses to share it with - and to the sites
you've allowed to access your profile.
It's an ambitious attempt to re-write the Web as a socially-linked
network, but many see Facebook's move as trying to colonize the rest of
the web, and keep all this valuable information in its data silos, in
order to become a force on the web that rivals Google, which is why it's
no laughing matter that the head of Facebook appears not to care about
privacy. (We asked Facebook to clarify Zuckerberg's privacy stance but
have yet to hear back.)
For his part, Bilton fired off a number of salvos defending his
understanding of the the ground rules which governed the conversation he
had. "`Off record' means there is no attribution to who it is but
conversation can be used in story. `On background" means I can not
repeat it," wrote Bilton, who took over the Time's technology blog in
the last few months, after a long stint working with its technology
development team.
uh-ohUnfortunately, he's wrong about the definitions.
"`Off the record' restricts the reporter from using the information the
source is about to deliver," reads NYU's Journalism Handbook, in one
definition of the phrase. "If the reporter can confirm the information
with another source who doesn't insist on speaking off the record
(whether that means he agreed to talking on the record, on background,
or not for attribution), he can publish it." "On background" usually
means that information can be used, but can't be attributed to a
specific person.
Bilton later responded to our request for clarification, saying, "My
source said it was OK to quote them, just not say who they are." So
apparently, this Facebook employee wanted this information to get out,
for whatever reason.
Now, the die has been cast: The world knows that a Facebook employee
thinks his CEO "doesn't believe in" privacy, which should scare the
bejesus out of anyone with a Facebook account - and that encompasses
just about everyone reading this now.
Read More
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/report-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-doesnt-believe-in-privacy/#ixzz0mQUVfhAJ
=?windows-1252?Q?k_CEO_Mark_Zuckerberg_Doesn=92t_Believe_In_?=
=?windows-1252?Q?Privacy?=
Facebook just gets better.
Sean Noonan wrote:
Report: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Doesn't Believe In Privacy
* By Eliot Van Buskirk Email Author
* April 28, 2010 |
* 1:47 pm |
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/report-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-doesnt-believe-in-privacy/
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears to have been outed as not caring
one whit about your privacy - a jarring admission, considering how much
of our personal data Facebook owns, not to mention its plans to become
the web's central repository for our preferences and predilections.
Also interesting is how this came about: Not in a proper article, but in
a Tweet by Nick Bilton, lead technology blogger for the New York Times`
Bits Blog, based on a conversation he says was "off the record" and
which he may have confused with "not for attribution."
"Off record chat w/ Facebook employee," begins Bilton's fateful tweet.
"Me: How does Zuck feel about privacy? Response: [laughter] He doesn't
believe in it."
Ouch.
Zuckerberg's apparent disregard for your privacy is probably not reason
enough to delete your Facebook account. But we wouldn't recommend
posting anything there that you wouldn't want marketers, legal
authorities, governments (or your mother) to see, especially as Facebook
continues to push more and more of users' information public and even
into the hands of other companies, leaving the onus on users to figure
out its Rubic's Cube-esque privacy controls.
Over the past six months, Facebook has been on a relentless request to
become the center of identity and connections online. Last December, the
site unilaterally decided that much of a user's profile information,
including the names of all their friends and the things they were "fans"
of, would be public information - no exceptions or opt-outs allowed.
Zuckerberg defended the change - largely intended to keep up with the
publicness of Twitter, saying that people's notions of privacy were
changing. He took no responsibility for being the one to drag many
Facebook users into the net's public sphere.
Then last week at its f8 conference, Facebook announced it was sending
user profile information to companies like Yelp, Pandora and Microsoft
in bulk, so that when users show up at those sites while logged in to
Facebook, they see personalized versions of the those services (unless
the user opts out of each site, somewhere deep in the bowels of
Facebook's privacy control center). Facebook is also pushing a "Like"
button, which lets sites put little Facebook buttons on anything from
blog entries to T-shirts in web stores.
Clicking that button sends that information to Facebook, which publishes
it as part of what it calls the Open Graph, linking your identity to
things you choose online. That information, in turn, is shared with
whatever sites Facebook chooses to share it with - and to the sites
you've allowed to access your profile.
It's an ambitious attempt to re-write the Web as a socially-linked
network, but many see Facebook's move as trying to colonize the rest of
the web, and keep all this valuable information in its data silos, in
order to become a force on the web that rivals Google, which is why it's
no laughing matter that the head of Facebook appears not to care about
privacy. (We asked Facebook to clarify Zuckerberg's privacy stance but
have yet to hear back.)
For his part, Bilton fired off a number of salvos defending his
understanding of the the ground rules which governed the conversation he
had. "`Off record' means there is no attribution to who it is but
conversation can be used in story. `On background" means I can not
repeat it," wrote Bilton, who took over the Time's technology blog in
the last few months, after a long stint working with its technology
development team.
uh-ohUnfortunately, he's wrong about the definitions.
"`Off the record' restricts the reporter from using the information the
source is about to deliver," reads NYU's Journalism Handbook, in one
definition of the phrase. "If the reporter can confirm the information
with another source who doesn't insist on speaking off the record
(whether that means he agreed to talking on the record, on background,
or not for attribution), he can publish it." "On background" usually
means that information can be used, but can't be attributed to a
specific person.
Bilton later responded to our request for clarification, saying, "My
source said it was OK to quote them, just not say who they are." So
apparently, this Facebook employee wanted this information to get out,
for whatever reason.
Now, the die has been cast: The world knows that a Facebook employee
thinks his CEO "doesn't believe in" privacy, which should scare the
bejesus out of anyone with a Facebook account - and that encompasses
just about everyone reading this now.
Read More
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/report-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-doesnt-believe-in-privacy/#ixzz0mQUVfhAJ
SENATOR TED CRUZ RIPPED MZ APART IN COURT OVER DIAMOND AND SILK!
#Zuckerberg is a Lying Criminal! @tedcruz called out #ZuckerbergFraud on the take down of @DiamondandSilk and #ZUCKERBURG couldm't give a Straight Answer! @LockupZuckerberg! Give him 300 days jail in real life!! he is a Fraud! #FacebookCensorship #FacebookClassAction #QAnon
Facebook didn’t ban Cambridge Analytica when it found out in 2015 that it had received user data from Dr. Aleksandr Kogan, and Zuckerberg called that a mistake during his testimony before the Senate. Cambridge Analytica has since been banned.
Zuckerberg explained that “I want to correct one thing that I said earlier in response to a question from Senator Leahy. He had asked why we didn’t ban Cambridge Analytica at the time when we learned of them in 2015. And I answered that what my understanding was was that they were not on the platform, were not an app developer or advertiser. When I went back and met with my team afterwards, they let me know that Cambridge Analytica acutally did start as an advertiser later in 2015, so we could have in theory banned them back then and made a mistake by not doing so.
#facebook #markzuckerberg #privacyact #snowden #privacyact #laws #congress #courts #russiantrills #chinatrolls #clintontrills #democrattrolls
#ZuckerbergFraud Tricked us When we created #Facebook
#FacebookDataLeaks #FacebookDataBreach #bullying #CENSORSHIP#CENSORED #censorshipmachines #DiamondAndSilk Diamond And Silk Donald J. Trump Donald Trump Jr.InfoWars Alex Jones #alexjones #infowars #foxnews @lauraingraham #tedcruz
We been screwed #PrivacyAct
#Qanon #Q #Snowden #FrogsRgay
we Are Children of God!! Not Enemies!
🙄
#FacebookDataLeaks #FacebookDataBreach #bullying #CENSORSHIP#CENSORED #censorshipmachines #DiamondAndSilk Diamond And Silk Donald J. Trump Donald Trump Jr.InfoWars Alex Jones #alexjones #infowars #foxnews @lauraingraham #tedcruz
We been screwed #PrivacyAct
#Qanon #Q #Snowden #FrogsRgay
we Are Children of God!! Not Enemies!
🙄#
#
No comments:
Post a Comment