“In politics stupidity is not a handicap.” We know this now! Trump thread cont.

[TheClaws]

This is a quote of Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon has a number of quotes when Read through the lens of Trump are eerily prescient. Napoleon wasn’t of the same political bent as Trump necessarily, and he was certainly more cerebral, but the lust for power is the same.

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3191613-Even-if-you-subpoena-us-we-wont-turn-up-on-the-Trump-threads

I know I'm going back 'upthread' a bit, but OMG, that description of the 'Dark Triad' that CA was analyzing/gathering info on!! It sounds more like they were analyzing Trump! The characteristics fit him to a T!

Across have you managed to watch the C4 segment from last night?

Nix (or someone from CAnalytica) was describing it as "dropping a bucket further down the well" of each individual's psyche to find the emotions – particularly fears – that the person might not even know they have, in order to play on those fears.

This Channel 4 page looks like it's going to link to all 5 of the eventual pieces:

Data, Democracy and Dirty Tricks: #CambridgeAnalyticaUncovered
www.channel4.com/news/data-democracy-and-dirty-tricks-cambridge-analytica-uncovered-investigation-expose

The first two are already there.

I did, Perking. I left me feeling queasy and with that odd feeling of 'contamination'. Like when you see something you really wish you hadn't seen, you know? But ignorance in this case is NOT bliss and it certainly is NOT folly to be wise.

It was just so easy for them, wasn't it? To come in and spread fear, lies and dirt for Scrotus. But I think it shows that the Dems had integrity and honour in the tools they used to fight back. But it was a bit like battling a nuclear bomb with a pop-gun.

I also dislike how at the fake news inquiry, Alexander Nix kept saying that Obama's campaign had been the first to use microtargetting, which in and of itself might be true, but it was certainly framed in a "so what we did was only in response" when clearly they took it to a whole other level.

Maryland high school on lockdown after shooting

www.axios.com/great-mills-high-school-shooting-maryland-741741bb-0eee-47ef-b4ea-5a00c1df5e14.html

Do some of the Democrat responses seem the strongest they've ever been? Brennan (non partisan I know) certainly has spoken more critically than I've heard him speak before, and I can't remember having heard Swalwell speak more plainly than here

Kyle Griffin
‏*@kylegriffin1*
Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie says the company tested Trump slogans such as "drain the swamp" and "deep state" as early as 2014, before Trump announced a presidential run.

Rep. Eric Swalwell
‏*@RepSwalwell*
More Rep. Eric Swalwell Retweeted Kyle Griffin
Put this in perspective. @realDonaldTrump last visited Russia in November 2013, & was told by Russians they’d support him running for president. Mueller indictments says Russia interference began in 2014. Offers to build Trump Tower in Moscow were in 2015.

But until the GOP responses are as strong as the Dem responses, we're still doing nothing but treading (swamp) water, Pain.

I know. Although I saw Dianne Feinstein said that legislation protecting Mueller wasn't needed so I have low expectations

Indeed, Pain.

Straight from the Kellyanne Conway school of PR: "Well yes, Pam, Trump did use an iron to smash in Flynn's skull but you know, Obama used an iron too, to make his clothes look good, and I'm looking at you in your nice shirt and I bet you used an iron today as well."

[disclaimer: invented example. Because it's so hard to tell the difference these days]

Masterfully done perking

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
A source tells @heatherscope that Pelosi and Schumer pushed for a provision to protect MUELLER in this week’s must-pass spending — bill but Republicans rejected it.

The Dem leaders still “consider it an open item” in negotiations.

On that note

Manu Raju
‏*@mkraju*
Less than four days away from the third shutdown of the year, GOP leaders have not yet filed omnibus spending bill to keep government open. This means there will need to be a lot of cooperation on both sides to avoid a shutdown to clear a bill no one has seen. May need a CR

Yes indeed, Perking. Well done.

What is happening to former Président Sarkozy may be further sobering news for Monsieur Trump

Nicolas Sarkozy in police custody over Gaddafi allegations
French ex-president questioned over claims Libyan regime gave his election campaign €50m

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/20/nicolas-sarkozy-police-custody-french-president-campaign-funding-libya

Very topical. But then perhaps corruption always is.

Manu Raju
‏*@mkraju*
Grassley to us on whether there should be a hearing w Facebook and Zuckerberg. “All I can tell you is we're taking it under advisement. It's very serious what Facebook has done, and it violates privacy. We ought to be looking into it, but I can't promise a hearing at this point.”

Thought provoking

The problem isn’t just Cambridge Analytica or Facebook – it’s “surveillance capitalism”

www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jennifer-cobbe/problem-isn-t-just-cambridge-analytica-or-even-facebook-it-s-surveillance-capitali

The GDPR is an extension of current data protection law, which has not been well enforced in the UK. The problem with the evil that is FB is that when you sign up to it you agree to its terms and conditions, which basically give away all rights to your data. FB has put in place its biggest ever project team to deal with GDPR and still hasn't managed to become compliant, which leads me to think it is breaking the current law. I'm not sure if there are any other privacy geeks on here, but FB has just been hauled into court in Belgium for its dodgy practices - FB of course says Belgium has no jurisdiction over it and this is an important area that will change with the GDPR.

As I refuse to go onto any FB site I don't know what exactly it says about signing into other sites through its app, but it's probably perfectly lawfully taking the data from MN as users have agreed to it, processing on a contractual basis. The way that it's set up appears to be joint controllers, but we'd have to know more details to be able to determine that for certain.

I've been banging on about the risks of FB for years now (I have a long suffering DH who has to listen to me go on about data privacy) and I'm afraid I don't understand why anyone is surprised that practices like this exist.

gin with GDPR you can still authorise Facebook to give away your data to third parties but the difference is that now they have to explicitly ask you for permission to do so and detail how they use your data whilst they are asking so that situations like with CA where people aren't aware of how their data is being used don't happen as much. There's also a requirement that the language isn't tedious and longwinded but concise and free of legalese so that people don't just click through to avoid wading through huge swathes of text.

It's kind of amazing that many people in the US and UK will be so worried about Big Brother, and ID cards, etc, but give away so much more to social media.
Will regulations be enough?

A Beast piece.

Lawyer trying to silence Daniels

What will stop situations such as CA (if they remain law-abiding) is that when an organisation receives personal data from a third party they will have to provide a privacy notice to the data subject detailing what will happen to the data and where they got it - this will put a tremendous strain on any organisation buying in data.

Yes, consent is needed if FB use consent as the lawful basis for processing, but most organisations are looking to avoid using consent - FB could say that its processing on a contractual basis and so long as the details of what they are doing are in the terms and conditions then they can carry on. They don't even have to put exactly who they're sharing data with - it's recipients or categories of recipient, so they don't need to name individual companies such as CA unless you exercise your right to be informed.

Transparency and plain language is really important, but even with plain English will everyone read the contract?

For Lweji.

"Surveillance capitalism"! That's it! That's the perfect name.

And as the article points out, the products of this surveillance aren't restricted to commercial uses, but are seized on for political purposes and state purposes.

But creating the databases and manipulation models in the first place was funded by commercial companies expecting to make profits by selling us stuff.

I have actually been banging on to my few remaining friends in RL for the last few years about the fact that we were giving up vital protections against becoming a police state... all because companies wanted to sell more soap powder and consumers wanted to play Angry Birds.

You've already exceeded the limits of my GDPR knowledge gin but I didn't think they would be able to cover third parties getting your information just in the terms and conditions - I thought you had to explicitly and actively ask people to tick a box etc rather than consent being assumed from signing blanket terms.

I really don't know much about GDPR and how internet-based companies would have to comply so it is entirely possible I have got this wrong!

Carole Cadwalladr
‏*@carolecadwalla*
BREAKING: CEO of Cambridge Analytica, Alexander Nix, going live on CNN 5pm. Stand by....

Perking Another new law that's sneaking in without much publicity is the Cloud Act in the US:

www.geekwire.com/2018/congress-considers-tech-backed-cloud-act-privacy-human-rights-groups-raise-concerns/