https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/20412
PEOPLE have POWER.
Don't forget how to PLAY.
TOGETHER YOU ARE STRONG.
FB violation of YOUR PRIVACY.
FB actively TRACKING YOU.
FB reading your PRIVATE messages.
FB CENSORING (anti conservative).
More will drop.
We have it ALL.
CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS are EFFECTIVE.
GLOBAL.
@Jack
You're next.
What is Jack's SECRET T-handle?
'Dummy' accounts to talk.
What you SEE is LIMITED.
Think emails (LL, HRC, HUSSEIN, etc).
Q
wikileaks emails #Q mentioning
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
--
Sean Noonan
ADP- Tactical Intelligence
Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
www.stratfor.com
--
Sean Noonan
ADP- Tactical Intelligence
Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
www.stratfor.com
=?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
--
Sean Noonan
ADP- Tactical Intelligence
Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
www.stratfor.com
--
Sean Noonan
ADP- Tactical Intelligence
Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
www.stratfor.com
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/216
https://qz.com/819808/facebook-fb-is-facing-charges-that-it-violated-the-privacy-of-thousands-by-having-you-tag-photos-of-your-friends/
Here’s what we know: Every time you tag a friend in a Facebook photo, Facebook stores their image in its database. And here’s what we’re about to find out: whether that’s an illegal violation of users’ privacy.
On Thursday, a class-action lawsuit alleging that the world’s largest social network is violating its users’ privacy will enter phase two, Bloomberg reported. Specifically, a San Francisco court will assess whether Facebook is breaking the law by using its facial-recognition tool, to identify faces in photographs uploaded by users, or by collecting those photographs into a central database.
In use since 2010, Facebook claims its facial-recognition tool is now 97.35% accurate, which is great news if you’re trying to tag overcrowded party pictures, but less so if you’re worried about privacy. Plaintiffs in the case are concerned on a number of fronts: Facebook could be selling identifying information to retailers or other third parties. More importantly, they worry that biometric data is just as susceptible to theft, hacking, and the long and invasive arm of law enforcement as other types of data.
“Unique and unchangeable biometric identifiers are proprietary to individuals,” the complaint reads (paywall). It also alleges that Facebook failed to acquire consent before collecting “faceprints.”
The class-action suit hinges on a unique Illinois law passed in 2008, called the Biometric Information Privacy Act. It states that if companies fail to get consent from users before storing biometric information, they can be subject to a $5,000 fine, plus $1,000 in damages if the violation shows negligence. That’s per violation. For a company with 7 million users in Illinois, that could mean fines as high as $35 million.
#Censorship #theyarewatching #Facebook #Privacy #Tracking #ClassAActionLawsuits
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/16/1663961_-windows-1252-q-re-3a_-5bos-5d_us-ct-_report-3a_faceboo.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpyXwavck5g
#wikileaks #julianasange #obama #markzickerberg #facebook
#censorship #hillaryclinton #brniesanders #evil #democrats #rhinos
#draintheswamp #liars @greatawakening #Q #QAnon #Anonymous
#wikileaks #julianasange #obama #markzickerberg #facebook
#censorship #hillaryclinton #brniesanders #evil #democrats #rhinos
#draintheswamp #liars @greatawakening #Q #QAnon #Anonymous
No comments:
Post a Comment