TODAY – Page 5 – * Failed Pols

The recent Facebook data breach by data mining and analysis firm Cambridge Analytica is believed to be the largest in Facebook history. But are we really so shocked that this could have happened? Whenever we use a Facebook app, take a Facebook quiz, or play a Facebook game, we’re advised that Facebook is accessing some of our personal information. We don’t know, of course, that data firms like Cambridge Analytica might unethically use the information we consent to share with Facebook, but perhaps we should start to assume that anything could happen to our data once we let it go into the ether.

According to whistleblower Christopher Wylie, a former Cambridge Analytica contractor, Cambridge Analytica used personal information from the Facebook profiles of over 50 million people without their permission. Facebook users who took a personality quiz entered data into a third-party app. The app not only allowed Cambridge Analytica access to data about those users, it also allowed them access to data about the users’ Facebook friends. Cambridge Analytica then built a powerful software application to predict and influence choices at the ballot box by targeting political advertising to those users during the Trump presidential campaign.

Wylie said, “This is based on the idea of informational dominance. The idea that if you can capture every channel of information about a person, and then change the content around them, you can change their perception of what’s actually happening.”

Thought we don’t know for sure how, or if, the Cambridge Analytica data breach impacted the way our election turned out, we know that the same technology that is used for selling items and services on Facebook was used to target people for political ads. According to Wylie, Cambridge Analytica used the data to create profiling algorithms that allowed them to learn more about the mental vulnerabilities of users. Cambridge Analytica then “mapped out ways to inject information into various streams of content onllne, so that people (would) begin to see things all over the place that may or may not have been true.” This went further than simple political advertising, in that it delivered fake news messages based on personality profiles.

Cambridge Analytica is a U.K. company. Though European data access and privacy laws are much stricter than those in the United States, Cambridge Analytica took advantage of the lack of legal protection of American data. We do have specific laws, such as HIPAA, that protect certain types of data, but, unlike Europe, we don’t have a general law that protects our data in all situations, and it’s much more difficult to know what data about us is gathered.

Facebook claims that its business model holds protection of users’ privacy as paramount. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook co-founder, chairman, and CEO, has apologized to users, and has suspended Cambridge Analytica from Facebook. Zuckerberg stated, “We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can’t, then we don’t deserve to serve you.”

Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer of Facebook, said, “We know this was a major violation of people’s trust and I deeply regret we didn’t do enough to deal with it.”

But will deleting your Facebook account protect you? Not really, says David Carroll, Associate Professor of Media Design at the Parsons School. “You’re only reducing the number of ways data is collected about you.”

Still, Carroll offers these suggestions for Facebook users:

Limit the amount of info you share with social networks
Limit the browser you use for your social network
Take the applications off your phone.
Don’t share your exact name, location, or age

We should always assume that someone, somewhere, is harvesting our data. This reaches beyond Facebook and Cambridge Analytica – it’s a demonstration of how easily companies can target and manipulate us by getting hold of our data.

Facebook Suspends Data Firm Tied to Trump Campaign | CBS News [2018-03-17]

Cambridge Analytica Whistleblower Says Company Worked With Corey Lewandowski & Steve Bannon | TODAY [2018-03-19]

After the eighteenth school shooting in the U.S. since 2018 began (and one of the deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history), it seems preposterous that there is even any question that we need to take a look at tighter gun control regulations. The debate polarizes, then stalls, though, at the black-and-white interpretation of “gun control” as “taking away all of our guns.”

The Trump Presidency marks a new era for gun rights supporters. Protecting second-amendment rights, as interpreted by current gun enthusiasts, seems to take precedence over establishing protections for would-be victims, in the form of tighter gun control laws. Yet, in the past five months of Trump’s presidency, three of the deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history have occurred.

After each of the past three mass shootings, Paul Ryan has responded with some variation of “This is not the time to jump to some conclusion, not knowing the full facts.”

Paul Ryan: No ‘Knee Jerk’ Reactions On Guns. Ever. | All In | MSNBC [2018-02-15]

In its seeming avoidance of addressing gun control, Congress wants to cite anything and everything but lack of gun control as the cause of these deadly shootings. “It’s a mental health issue” tends to come to the top of the list.

Earlier, however, on what was perhaps Opposite Day at the White House, Congress demonstrated that it didn’t view mental illness as a culprit in gun violence. In the first month of Trump’s presidency, Congress repealed Obama-era gun control legislation passed after the Sandy Hook massacre, during which 20 first-graders were among those murdered by a mentally disturbed man. The legislation would have made it harder for people with certain mental illnesses to purchase firearms.

“Now, the only thing Congress has done (about) guns since Sandy Hook, is make it easier for mentally ill people to get guns,” said Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

Congress Allows Mentally Ill To Buy Guns, Rolls Back Obama-Era Regulations | TODAY [2018-02-16]

We should note that those who see gun ownership as a fundamental right often are referring to ownership of more than just a revolver, a shotgun , or a bolt-action rifle. They defend the right to own semi-automatic weapons, such as the AR-15, the weapon used most often in mass shootings. Often citing “home protection,” they appear to want guns that do so much more than protect from intruders or assailants; they want guns with the ability to blow human bone to bits, obliterate multiple intruders at once, and perhaps even provide protection in case of a zombie apocalypse.

So, despite arguing for the right to own weapons such as the AR-15, which was designed solely for the purpose of killing human beings, staunch gun enthusiasts are also quick to point out that it’s not the guns that are killing people. In addition to mental health issues, they often cite poor parenting, the need for gun education, the lack of safety measures (such as metal detectors and armed guards) in schools, and the abundance of violent TV shows and video games – but not the availability of guns – as the culprits for gun violence.

Clearly, many possible factors contribute to the rate of gun violence and mass shootings in the United States. Tighter gun control is but one factor, albeit an important one. But as we debate how to best address these other factors, somewhere, someone in the U.S. is perhaps taking out his semi-automatic firearms and contemplating the next mass shooting. And we’re stalling the prevention of that mass shooting as we avoid addressing the gun control issue head-on.

President Donald Trump Talks Mental Health But Not Guns In Wake Of Florida Shooting | TODAY [2018-02-18]

Category: TODAY

Cambridge Analytica, Facebook Data Breach: Are We Really Surprised?

Gun Control Debate: Stalling Prevention of the Next Mass Shooting?