Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

The most unreported thread ever. Trump thread 9

969 replies

amispartacus · 07/02/2017 22:23

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2847535-Week-3-What-will-this-week-bring-Trump-thread

There are loads of other threads. But MN aren't highlighting them. Why not? I demand to know.

Grin
OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
Original poster
amispartacus · 08/02/2017 20:34

Wow - he shut down that conversation. I don't think that will play well with US military and ex military in politics.

OP posts:
Original poster
amispartacus · 08/02/2017 20:35

No that was me giving some background info as to why I can see its a total non story and you are misplacing your outrage

Can you quote anywhere where I have been outraged about this story?

OP posts:
merrymouse · 08/02/2017 20:37

if a person is being asked for Social media accounts they are already in a backroom under severe suspicion....

But isn't the person in the back room thinking wtf are you asking for my social media passwords? Don't you know I can just lie? Haven't you already been looking at all my social media chat anyway? Is this some kind of weird head f@&£ because I have no idea why you are asking this question??

Also, why wouldn't you ask somebody already under suspicion for access to their social media accounts now?

cozietoesie · 08/02/2017 20:38

Well she was being a bit of a Glen wasn't she? Smile

merrymouse · 08/02/2017 20:38

(In the strange scenario where you can't access their accounts, but you think they will give you a password).

FlyMeToTheMoonLiterally · 08/02/2017 20:42

Lurker can you answer why if individuals were already under investigation officials would need to ask for their social media details? Surely they would have all the information they need?

Also, can you explain why as you know the Snoopers charter collects vast amounts of data, the officials would use place of birth as a filter for terrorist intent and not actual (I'm being off the wall here) - terrorist involvement?

BiglyBadgers · 08/02/2017 20:44

OK, so it was me who originally said that I wasn't convinced that the story on passwords was real. I now realise I worded this really badly and in the time that it has taken me to put DD to bed we have developed into a bit of a bun fight.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this is fake news in the sense that Kelly obviously said what he said. What I meant was that I am not convinced that what he said about passwords will actually translate into everyone from those countries being told to hand over all their passwords, which I felt was what the huffpo story was suggesting (possibly I am reading this wrongly). I am not convinced this is either practical or necessary, as a pp points out a lot of people will not even know their passwords for all SM (I certainly don't). On the other hand he may have ment device passwords which I could imagine them asking for from people so they can go through your phone or laptop. That would be much more useful than social media passwords as it would give you access to a lot more of the info he was describing.

Original poster
amispartacus · 08/02/2017 20:44

No that was me giving some background info as to why I can see its a total non story and you are misplacing your outrage

Make your mind up.

No outrage here. A poster said they were not convinced that story was true.
I went to the source and posted it.

Simple question: Is it true that Kelly said what's been quoted in the papers about passwords?

It may be a non story but it is a true story that he said it.

If it was not true, then it would be fake news.

I am not outraged at the suggestion - I fully understand that when you book a flight, the US / any other country probably knows a lot more about you than your partner.

OP posts:
Deejoda · 08/02/2017 20:45

According to TV drama, intelligence agencies already have access to social media and I have seen reports of real cases where people have been convicted of crimes based on some social media evidence. I don't for 1 second imagine the suspects had to give permission for data collection to happen.

Justanotherlurker · 08/02/2017 20:46

Can you quote anywhere where I have been outraged about this story?

Semantics, it was called out as a non story, you tried to imply that if you go to the source it wasn't...

It is a total non story, and if asking for social media account passwords bothers you then I'm afraid that ship has already sailed a long long time ago

Maybe outrage is wrong, I'm not getting into a semantics argument, if you can demonstrate how this is something people should be worried about, it should be shelved as a total non story

GingerIvy · 08/02/2017 20:47

BBC News (World) ‏*@BBCWorld* 2m2 minutes ago
More
Trump under fire in Nordstrom Ivanka row

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38912247?ocid=socialflow_twitter

A spokesman for Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey said the senator "feels it is unethical and inappropriate for the president to lash out at a private company for refusing to enrich his family".
Norm Eisen, who served as ethics tsar under President Barack Obama, called the move "outrageous" and advised Nordstrom to sue Mr Trump under the California Unfair Competition Law.

Original poster
amispartacus · 08/02/2017 20:48

we have developed into a bit of a bun fight

No bun fight. lurker just doesn't understand the difference between fake news and non story news.

But they were very kind to explain how much they work with large amounts of data and how it can be mined and used to create an understanding of someone, who they talk to, websites they go on, contacts etc etc.

Then they very kindly explained that Government has all these powers and everything!

What they don't know is my level of understanding of data mining.

OP posts:
Original poster
amispartacus · 08/02/2017 20:49

Semantics, it was called out as a non story, you tried to imply that if you go to the source it wasnt

No - it was called out as not being true.

Words matter. But keep on digging. It adds to your credibility.

OP posts:
BiglyBadgers · 08/02/2017 20:49

I do also feel that any serious terrorist is going to be savvy enough to at least use basic methods to cover their online trail so knowing the passwords they are willing to give you isn't going actually give you anything much.

cozietoesie · 08/02/2017 20:50

Achh, let it go, ami. Lurker has a sensitivity to that. Smile

cozietoesie · 08/02/2017 20:51

Thanks for that, Ginger. Smile

Original poster
amispartacus · 08/02/2017 20:51

It's ok though.
I know it's hard for people to admit they were wrong. But you were wrong. So wrong. See other people. They're great. So great. The best. But you. Sad.

OP posts:
BiglyBadgers · 08/02/2017 20:53

But it was me who said I wasn't convinced it was true not lurker! She has just said she doesn't think it is worth getting bothered about Confused

FlyMeToTheMoonLiterally · 08/02/2017 20:53

It is a total non story, and if asking for social media account passwords bothers you then I'm afraid that ship has already sailed a long long time ago

The snoopers charter collects vasts amount of data, and will drill down on someone of it is clear they have terrorists link - innocent until proven guilty

Asking all immigrants who step off the plane to sit in a detention room whilst they go through their social media accounts is finding them guilty until proven innocent

FlyMeToTheMoonLiterally · 08/02/2017 20:55

I also said it bigly from stupidity but then spoke to my brother who is a complete IT geek and found out I was completely wrong, it is easy to assume that 'they can't be doing that, it doesn't make sense' when actually my brother said I am vastly underestimating the bureaucracy of these organisations

GingerIvy · 08/02/2017 20:56

ABC News ‏*@ABC* 21s21 seconds ago
More
NEW: Nordstrom on decision to drop Ivanka Trump line: "To reiterate...we made this decision based on performance." abcn.ws/2lprTAu

What he's basically done is put a huge damper on her business. Nobody will touch the line for fear that any changes will end up with huge negative publicity.

cozietoesie · 08/02/2017 20:56

I haven't felt the need, until recently, to keep a weather eye on the Defcon figures but - of interest to some - might be the huge new radiation levels inside the Fukushima plant.

Just saying. Smile

BiglyBadgers · 08/02/2017 20:57

I am vastly underestimating the bureaucracy of these organisations

Well, yes. I work in local government so have seen a lot of people do some seriously pointless, expensive and counterproductive stuff in my time. Your brother has a fair point there Grin

GingerIvy · 08/02/2017 20:57

I think we've reached a point where it's a bit difficult to rule anything out simply on the basis that it seems unworkable or ridiculous. Hmm That doesn't seem to slow them down at all. Case in point - the wall.

Original poster
amispartacus · 08/02/2017 20:57

But it was me who said I wasn't convinced it was true not

I know - but lurker then said if I was trying to inflate the story. I was merely showing people the source so they could see if it was true.

After all, we do want people to have the truth on here, don't we?

It seems a shame if someone is going to say you are trying to inflate a story when all you are doing is showing someone the story is true.

Especially when we are trying to avoid fake news.

OP posts: