Navigation

Archive | Big Data

The narrow Facebook mindset

By on September 11, 2016 in Big Data, Civil liberties, Democracy, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Internet, social media

We live in a time of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and young people being offended by other people’s opinions – to a point where they seem to be perfectly willing to silence others.

For society, this is disastrous. For a community to evolve, different opinions and ideas must be tested against each other in a free and open debate. Especially unconventional or controversial ones. Without a free exchange of thoughts, democracy becomes pointless. Without diversity, our culture will die. Without new input, there will be no progress.

Especially young people ought to question everything, explore new ideas and oppose conformity. Instead, today many of them seem to be narrow-minded, politically conform, anxious, and frantic. I’m pretty sure this is a new phenomenon.

Why are people so easily offended, upset and disgruntled these days?

For young people born in the Facebook era, conflicting information and alternative views are things they might not be used to. Entangled in Facebook’s algorithms they mostly communicate with like-minded people. So when faced with alternative views and opinions, many of them react with hostility. (This is nothing strange. People often react negatively to the new, to the unknown and to things that they might perceive as threatening.)

This is just an observation – not the full or only explanation. But it might be a clue to what’s going on: Facebook is limiting free speech and the development of new ideas.

This is a very sad and unfortunate way to use a tool for instant, unlimited global communication such as the Internet.

/ HAX

Also read satire website The Onions piece: Horrible Facebook Algorithm Accident Results In Exposure To New Ideas »

2

The issue of the iPhones audio jack

By on September 8, 2016 in Apple, Big Data, Big Entertainment, Copyright, DRM

The new iPhones doesn’t have a traditional 3.5 mm audio jack. Some say this is just a natural step in development, like when the computer floppy disks were dropped. But there might be more into it than that.

Nilay Patel in the Verge:

Restricting audio output to a purely digital connection means that music publishers and streaming companies can start to insist on digital copyright enforcement mechanisms. We moved our video systems to HDMI and got HDCP, remember?

Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing:

Once all the audio coming out of an Iphone is digital — once there’s no analog output — Apple gets a lot more options about how it can relate to its competitors, and they’re all good for Apple and bad for Apple’s customers. Just by wrapping that audio in DRM, Apple gets a veto over which of your devices can connect to your phone. They can arbitrarily withhold permission to headphone manufacturers, insist that mixers be designed with no analog outputs, or even demand that any company that makes an Apple-compatible device must not make that device compatible with Apple’s competitors, so home theater components that receive Apple signals could be pressured to lock out Samsung’s signals, or Amazon’s.

Perhaps worst of all is the impact on security research: because the DMCA has been used to attack researchers who disclosed defects in DRM-restricted technologies, they are often unable or unwilling to come forward when they discover serious vulnerabilities in technologies that we rely on. The Iphone audio interface is two-way: it supports both input and output. A bug in that interface turns the phone to carry with you at all times, to all places, into a covert listening device. A DRM system on that interface makes that bug all-but-unreportable, guaranteeing that it will last longer and hurt more people before it finally becomes public.

EFF:

When you plug an audio cable into a smartphone, it just works. It doesn’t matter whether the headphones were made by the same manufacturer as the phone. It doesn’t even matter what you’re trying to do with the audio signal—it works whether the cable is going into a speaker, a mixing board, or a recording device. (…)

In other words, if it’s impossible to connect a speaker or other audio device to an iPhone without Apple software governing it, then it’s simple for Apple to place restrictions on what devices or functions are allowed. Because US law protects DRM technologies, it may be illegal to circumvent that restriction, even if you’re doing it for completely lawful purposes. Having created the possibility of restricting audio output to select devices, Apple will be under pressure to use it. TV and film producers insist on having the power to decide which devices can receive video. Can we really believe they will leave audio alone if outputs become entirely digital?

Links:
• EFF: The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM »
• TechDirt: Why Apple Removing The Audio Jack From The iPhone Would Be A Very, Very, Very, Bad Move »
• The Verge: Taking the headphone jack off phones is user-hostile and stupid »
• BoingBoing: How a digital-only smartphone opens the door to DRM (and how to close the door) »

0

Facebook turning WhatsApp to the Dark Side of the Force?

By on August 25, 2016 in Anonymity, Big Data, Data Protection, Facebook, IT security, Privacy, social media

Under the new user agreement, WhatsApp will share the phone numbers of people using the service with Facebook, along with analytics such as what devices and operating systems are being used. Previously, no information passed between the two, a stance more in line with WhatsApp’s original sales pitch as a privacy oasis.

Wired: WhatsApp’s Privacy Cred Just Took a Big Hit »

“Only at the end do you realize the power of the Dark Side.”

0

The gatekeepers are dead. Long live the World Wide Web!

By on August 24, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Business, Big Data, Big Entertainment, Big Government, Data Protection, Democracy, Intellectual Property, Internet, Privacy, WWW

Information is power, control, and supremacy.

Until recently the tools for mass communication were expensive and in the hands of a small number of gatekeepers. Then, the price rapidly fell towards zero. With the Internet and the World Wide Web (that just turned 25 years old) anyone can communicate with the world by words, pictures, sound, and video – 24/365 – on a shoestring budget.

Still, people need to know about you. So fame, reputation, and status are factors to take into consideration. But content, quality (in some sense) and virality is the new gold standard.

This has upset the people who used to be in power, like bigwig politicians. They used to have their press releases copy-pasted into the media news flow without too much hassle. Today they still are visible in the slowly dying mainstream media. But on the Internet, they have to compete for attention with everybody and everything else.

Also, media proprietors, the copyright industry and the big brick and mortar chains are upset – just to mention a few.

It could have been very different.

Tim Berners-Lee – who invented the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) together with his friends at W3C at Cern – decided not to patent this method of connecting the dots in the Matrix, but to give it to the world.

Alternatively, the Internet could have been in the hands of a few: Microsoft, Times Warner, Disney, Universal and some television conglomerates. It could have been compartmentalized with different protocols, specialized gadgets and used mainly to send information rather than allowing interaction.

Probably, there would also have been some sort of popular alternative run by enthusiasts – but it would have nothing like the impact of the WWW, where everybody interacts on the same platform.

Still, there are those who try to turn back time and change the outcome. This is the underlying context of the copyright war, the rationale behind political initiatives like ACTA, and an issue where Big Government and Big Business have coinciding interests.

At the same time, the Internet changes other markets like transportation and the hotel business. There is an emerging sharing economy. The Internet of things will change our lives in unforeseen ways.

The other side of the coin is that this technology might invade our privacy and be used for mass surveillance and political control.

This is a mix of spontaneous development (that politicians should keep away from) and some very political questions about privacy, data protection and the relation between citizens and the government.

A free and open Internet will provide endless possibilities and progress. And it will need Internet activism to stay free and open for all. That is, for instance, what this blog is all about.

/ HAX

1

When algorithms become politics

By on August 16, 2016 in Big Data, Censorship, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Google, social media, Twitter

Are Facebook, Google, and Twitter politically biased? The jury seems to be out on that one. But one thing is clear – Facebooks algorithms do have political consequences.

It’s very simple: If enough people flag a Facebook post as offensive, it will automatically disappear. If this happens frequently, a user or a group can be banned from the platform – sometimes forever.

This is often used by various parties to silence others, for the simple reason that they do not agree with the information posted. It can be for e.g. political or religious reasons.

In my world disagreement is something positive. It promotes debate, fosters logical reasoning, widens our views, often adds relevant information and encourages progress.

That might be exactly why some find other people’s opinions offensive. They do not want to have their views questioned. They do not want people to think for themselves. They cannot defend their positions in a free and open debate. So, they try to silence dissent.

And crappy Facebook algorithms makes silencing others extremely easy.

Silencing people will have consequences for society. It will hinder human advancement, thwart enlightenment and make the world a poorer place.

Facebook is a private company, and we all have agreed to (but not read) their terms and conditions. They can do more or less as they like. But they can never escape criticism when acting in an imprudent way.

My recommendation would be for Facebook only to delete posts, users and groups if clearly illegal. And even that would be a slippery slope.

/ HAX

2

The two faces of Big Brotherism

By on August 3, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Business, Big Data, Big Government, Civil liberties, Democracy, Police state, Privacy, social media

There is a huge difference between government mass surveillance and commercial privacy infringements.

The government can use force to make you behave the way politicians and bureaucrats want you to behave. The government can limit your freedom and it tends to curtail your civil rights. In a state with total control, democracy will succumb. Living in a Big Brother society will be unbearable. Government mass surveillance is about control and power.

Commercial players tend to use the data they collect to try to sell you stuff – which basically is about influencing a voluntary relation. Or to evaluate partners (customers, suppliers etc.) that they conduct business with. Never the less, this can be very annoying, intrusive, damaging and even dangerous for the private individual.

We must keep in mind that these are two different issues. They are about totally different relations to the individual. They should be approached in different ways.

Sometimes I get the impression that certain parties in the public debate deliberately is trying to muddle the water. Politicians regularly try to lead the discussion away from government mass surveillance to issues concerning commercial actors. And when asked what they do to protect people’s right to privacy their answers often are about Facebook, Google, advertising and commercial data mining – when it ought to be about mass surveillance, data retention and the relations between citizens and the state.

They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that.

/ HAX

1

Government using private sector censorship for political objectives

By on July 24, 2016 in Big Data, Big Government, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Google, Human rights, Rule of law, social media, Transparency, Twitter

Censorship is censorship. If you block someone from speaking freely or delete people’s content from the Internet you do censor them.

But there are different sorts of censorship.

One is when the government silences opposition, controversial voices or whatever. That is, in general terms, a violation of freedom of speech and our civil rights. That should not be accepted in a democratic society.

Another form of censorship is when Twitter censors Milo Yiannopolous, when Google censor artist Dennis Cooper or when Facebook is accused of downgrading news depending on political affiliations.

These are private companies and they choose to whom they want to provide their services. This is clearly stated in these companies voluminous terms and conditions.

So, OK – social media giants can censor people (and ideas). But should they?

The fact that Google, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter can censor people in a legally »correct« way in no way should protect them from being criticized for doing so.

And they should be criticized! Especially as their dominance on the social media scene is almost total. Their actions have political consequences. And they might very well have a political agenda.

(As a libertarian I run into this issue a lot. Just because I dislike something, I do not have the desire or right to outlaw it. But still, as a consumer, user or concerned citizen I am free to criticize e.g. censorship – and to loudly point out its risks and problems.)

But recently the lines are getting blurred. As I have pointed out in previous blog posts, governments (most recently the EU) are teaming up with major social media players to use the latter’s legal framework to silence voices that politicians dislike. Thus circumventing the legal system and the rule of law – and moving government censorship out of democratic control.

This is a serious, mounting problem.

/ HAX

2

Twitter censoring Milo Yiannopolous

By on July 21, 2016 in Big Data, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, social media

The decision to unperson Yiannopoulos was done in secret in some hidden Twitter office, no doubt one with cheerful Twitter blue birds on every wall. His “suspension” was retroactive: His past posts—virtually all of which were once regarded as acceptable—have been vanished just as much as any problematic ones.

It is unclear which was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Nor is it clear which were the past straws. Twitter’s only statement regarding Yiannopolous’s ban was a reiteration of its terms of service, which is akin to reading the criminal code aloud when someone is accused of a crime. There is, however, a very profound difference here. Twitter does not have a Soviet monopoly on the media. It is still largely open to criticism, both on the platform itself and in other venues. This is not a First Amendment issue. But it still remains, quite obviously, an issue.

Observer.com: Twitter’s Stalinist Unpersoning of Gay Provocateur Milo Yiannopolous »

0