PDA

View Full Version : The fine art of manipulation .....and the can of worms thereafter.


Krystal n chips
20th Mar 2018, 06:35
Are we all sitting comfortably ?......safe in the knowledge our various democratic principles are protected with relatively little cause for concern ?

This may prove to be one of the more pivotal revelations as to just how safe those principals are.

And the lid of the proverbial can of worms has only just been opened.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/19/cambridge-analytica-execs-boast-dirty-tricks-honey-traps-elections

Relatively few on here watch C4 News, or rather admit to because by doing so they would attract the epithet of "liberal left wing apologists " or similar and that would never do..... now would it.

It's a shame really, because as self incriminatory interviews go, this one deserves an award for the investigative journalists involved and the revelations that emerged.

https://www.channel4.com/news/

le Pingouin
20th Mar 2018, 07:04
I can see Donlad's tweet now, "FAKE NEWS!!!!!!"

Jetex_Jim
20th Mar 2018, 07:14
Here's Newsnight.

Warning, a few references to Br*xit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4sLMwdpF9U

ORAC
20th Mar 2018, 07:32
Set-ups in hotel rooms, fake deals with fake sheiks or prospective customers?

You mean exactly the things that both the newspapers and TV programmes like Panorama and Newsnight have been doing for years? As, in fact, would seem to have taken place in this example.......

As in all such stories, the context of the questions asked and the editing before transmission is everything.

Krystal n chips
20th Mar 2018, 07:52
Set-ups in hotel rooms, fake deals with fake sheiks or prospective customers?

You mean exactly the things that both the newspapers and TV programmes like Panorama and Newsnight have been doing for years? As, in fact, would seem to have taken place in this example.......

As in all such stories, the context of the questions asked and the editing before transmission is everything.

ORAC,

That's a rather dismissive assessment for you.

You see, the revelations that emerged are considerably more expansive, global influences usually are, than some lurid expose ( in the public interest of course ) of snorting a few lines and having 12 in a bed romps, or whatever the predilection concerned was, of those in the public eye.

But, no doubt as the story deepens, JB will provide a suitably detailed scientific analysis as to how personal data protection can be implemented.

vapilot2004
20th Mar 2018, 10:17
Cambridge Analytica's M.O. is not surprising. Recall France removed bribery money as a tax deduction only fairly recently. Quid pro quo is a large part of what makes the world go round, unfortunate for some and very, very fortunate for others.

The other shoe...this is another example of how "free choice" and "democratic elections" are not exactly what's written on the tin. Here in the states the US Supreme Court decided to allow unlimited, and untraceable money into electioneering in 2010. The result? Prior to the controversial 5/4 decision (Citizen's United), spending was less than $6 million by PAC groups. In the 2012 election, that number rose dramatically to $300 million.

All this worry of Putin swaying our election results in 2016 seems a bit meaningless in the face of such enormous sums of money, most of which is spent on ads, most of those, in turn, distort the truth and mislead voters. So not only can Exxon-Mobil or the Koch brothers (liberal fear) or Hollywood types or Soros (conservative nightmares) secretly sway an election, turns out a Russian oligarch has the same access, thanks to a decision that will eventually be proven to have been on the wrong side of history.

Another side of this - everyone is concerned about what the NSA might know about you, but corporations like Google, Apple, and Facebook know far more about you than the NSA can ever dream about. Even our cars have information in their airbag systems that can bear witness against us after a crash. Welcome to the 21st century. Who wants a (persistent) cookie?

Jetex_Jim
20th Mar 2018, 10:47
There are some interesting snippets within these two interviews which reveal how Cambridge Analytics have developed their election winning strategy and these ring a few bells.

The first is the statement that emotional rather than factual arguments tend to be more effective. This is paired with the second arm of the strategy which is to mobilize those voters who normally don't vote. ( This was stated by the CA representative who was on the leaveEU panel in the newsnight clip)

There can be little doubt that similar pressures were used in the Trump campaign and that campaign which we must not mention.

Arguments are replaced with slogans and none answers such as "well that's just Project Fear" are the response whenever a rational possible consequence is voiced.

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Mar 2018, 10:53
The first is the statement that emotional rather than factual arguments tend to be more effective.
That may have been a simplification. My training has been that facts do actually work with some people, but are useless with plenty of other people who need different approaches to be effective.

So just by lying in a particular way to appeal to a particular set of emotions you won't appeal to everybody. But if you swing enough people to tip you over 50.1% by emotional lying then job done, and if you don't need (or know you can't win) the people who make decisions based on facts then you don't bother with the factual strand of campaigning.

Lonewolf_50
20th Mar 2018, 15:19
Hollywood film, 1980, Robert Mitchum Starring: Agency (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081989/). Watch it. This approach to votes/election is nothing new.

Advertising experts have been consultants on election campaigns since (IIRC) Kennedy-Nixon if not before. With the growth of the on-line media in the past two decades, and viral marketing, why wouldn't campaigns try to apply that expertise?

Meme generation. "It's the economy supid." "No new taxes." "There you go again." That predates the internet. As to dirty tricks, the threats against Ross Perot's family in the 1992 election comes to mind.

When I was in high school, in the 1970's, we had a film (black and white) the explained political campaigns and political ads. We saw it in the social studies class on American civics.

The snob/class appeal
The down home appeal
The Common man appeal
The blue collar man appeal

Polling and research has been part and parcel to elections for decades. (I've a friend whose PhD is exactly this discipline: research, polls, and voter responses/forecasting using numerical methods and research).

It's as though the people who authored this video had no idea how information is used and abused in election campaigns in the world since the TV arrived, or for that matter, radio.


Welcome to the real world, Krystal. Do catch up, will you?


Character assassination in politics? Old News.

John Tower
Robert Bork
Gary Hart


The list is long and distinguished.

RatherBeFlying
20th Mar 2018, 15:27
There's a big difference between attack ads on broadcast media and the secret stuff micro targeted to selected individuals.

In the first case we know what the party/candidate is up to.

In the second case, we wonder why the polls were wrong.


FB fell down by allowing certain "academic" researchers to retain data with individual contact information that properly should have been anonymised:mad:

Lonewolf_50
20th Mar 2018, 15:33
There's a big difference between attack ads on broadcast media and the secret stuff micro targeted to selected individuals. no, there isn't. I welcome you to the 21st century.
In the first case we know what the party/candidate is up to. I think you are fooling yourself.
In the second case, we wonder why the polls were wrong. One team did better research than the other, perhaps?
FB fell down by allowing certain "academic" researchers to retain data with individual contact information that properly should have been anonymised:mad: I appreciate your frustration, I share it as regards FB, and Google (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/utterly-horrifying-ex-facebook-insider-says-covert-data-harvesting-was-routine/ar-BBKsPq7?li=AA4Zoy&ocid=ientp), and a variety of others who use, abuse, and sell information about their users.


That is the world we live in. Anyone in politics who intends to win will avail themselves of those tools. Someone like Vlad Putin isn't an idiot: if he sees a tool that he thinks he can use, to get what he wants, he will use it. See also how hard Benjamin Netenyahu works to influence American political opinion. You think he won't get someone like this to work for him?

The Information age is also the propaganda age.

Once again, I welcome you to the 21st century. I was studying stuff like this, insofar as how it influences public and political opinion, (and thus what people like me were going to be sent to do) in staff college back in the 90's. You really need to catch up. We were at first concerned about what we called "the CNN effect" (non linear outcomes of local events) and how any camera angle can be used to spread a lie, or a message, or spin. As the viral nature of the internet became more apparent, a whole new problem arose/arises. It's been amplifying for about two decades, and the people are Big Brother now. They narc each other out on twitter and face book. Big Brother has some of his work done for him by the public. The public is addicted to the electronic teat. That is used against them, just as TV was. (See Harlan Ellison's "The Glass Teat" from 50+ years ago for a prescient look at how electronic media influences things).

This expression of outrage strikes me as ignorance unmasked. None of this is new.


PS: Krystal, your title is very well chosen. Fine art of manipulation is exactly what it is.

sitigeltfel
20th Mar 2018, 15:38
Oh, dear...

In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends.
According to a July 2012 MIT Technology Review article, when you installed the app, "it said it would grab information about my friends: their birth dates, locations, and 'likes.' "
The campaign boasted that more than a million people downloaded the app, which, given an average friend-list size of 190, means that as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign —
without their knowledge or consent.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/

Highway1
20th Mar 2018, 16:13
You have to laugh at the attempts that some people go to to explain why their side lost - its never because they had a crap candidate and crap policies..

Flyingbadge
20th Mar 2018, 16:44
I thought I understood that it was the oldies wot swung brexit. Aren't these the same oldies who are not on facebook?

Sallyann1234
20th Mar 2018, 17:44
There's a rather delicious irony in watching the CA man talking about setting someone up in a secretly videoed interview, not knowing that it was happening to himself right then. :E

Lascaille
20th Mar 2018, 17:48
I thought I understood that it was the oldies wot swung brexit. Aren't these the same oldies who are not on facebook?

Oldies aren't on facebook? In my experience they practically live on facebook. It's teenagers and the under-25s who prefer pseudonymous and ephemeral platforms like instagram and snap.

rogerg
20th Mar 2018, 18:29
What's Facebook? I seem to be on it, don't know why!

Lascaille
20th Mar 2018, 18:44
This is what, exactly, this accusation? No, sorry, this is a joke.

THIS IS A SALES PITCH.

https://i.imgur.com/SLSRqLq.jpg

Look at these people. The tech guy is on the (house) right, as if you couldn't tell. He's just been talking about analytics and data and viral marketing and messaging - you know, stuff he actually knows about. It's been fairly dry. It's telling, though.

'It gives you more insight that you can use to know how to segment the population, to give them messaging about interests that they care about ... that's what we do as a company'.

Then our man on the left - and oh would you just look at the cheeky grin on his face in this picture, he's the man you need, he's just all about shenanigans - can contain himself no more...

'You mentioned intelligence gathering as well, as part of the mix, didn't you?'

We cut to a side view. A moment of silence. A pensive look. Into the breach? The sheer theatre of the moment is INCREDIBLE.

'We, we have relationships and partnerships...'
The tech guy can't handle it. He can barely contain himself. What to do?

The nose grab!

https://i.imgur.com/eSl252V.jpg

transitioning seamlessly into...

The lip bite!
HE'S LITERALLY BITING HIS LIP.

https://i.imgur.com/9n5fUIl.jpg

You have those relationships and partnerships, do you?

Or do you have a framed picture of Lt Col Tim Spicer on your bedside table and a well-thumbed copy of 'The Dogs of War' always close to hand?

Smash cut back to the front cam. Mr Analytics slow-blinks - did those eyes roll so briefly under those pale lids? - and it's back to biting the lip and that look, oh that look...

https://i.imgur.com/vJS7bsv.jpg

I enjoyed every minute. Marvellous stuff.

Highway1
20th Mar 2018, 19:26
What's Facebook? I seem to be on it, don't know why!

Well they are welcome to harvest my facebook page if they are short of pictures of dogs and fast cars.. :ok:

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Mar 2018, 19:34
I thought I understood that it was the oldies wot swung brexit. Aren't these the same oldies who are not on facebook?
When you win or lose an election by a handful of votes it's your choice as to which handful swung it :) - everybody who's won an election by two votes believes that it's the two people they knocked up ten minutes before polls closed who made the difference.

Jetex_Jim
20th Mar 2018, 19:52
In the second case, we wonder why the polls were wrong.


Because, I think, the new strategy manages to mobilize people who don't normally vote. Moreover they get behind the issue and try and bring their friends along.

Advertising experts have been consultants on election campaigns since (IIRC) Kennedy-Nixon if not before. With the growth of the on-line media in the past two decades, and viral marketing, why wouldn't campaigns try to apply that expertise?

I think what is new is the ability to disguise carefully crafted propaganda as grass roots support. We've all seen comments that originated in the papers copy/pasted onto Facebook and other internet spaces.

Persuading people to rebroadcast a political slogan such as, 'Let's take back control' or 'That's just project fear' as if it was their own really is quite an achievement.

What does one call such people?

KenV
20th Mar 2018, 19:56
I can see Donlad's tweet now, "FAKE NEWS!!!!!!"
You clearly fail to grasp that this is indeed fake news, or more accurately, fake outrage over non-news. Obama quite proudly claimed to have siphoned off the data of well over 100 million Facebook users, with Facebook's explicit permission and even assistance. Not a peep of outrage.

Hypocrisy?

vapilot2004
20th Mar 2018, 20:30
There is a key difference, however. One data ingest was done with tacit approval by the users to allow their data to be used by a political campaign, the other was not. The use of the "friends list", on the other hand, was a little more in the gray area for both.

Another key difference - one side publicly announced their data mining, the other, kept it hidden. I believe these differences feed into the current outrage, for I seem to recall twas much ado about nothing when the stories were published in 2012.

For those all so terribly upset (see Russia Today, Rush Limpbowels, and Faux News, et al) about Facebook data and the Obama campaign, consider it an in-kind contribution by a large multi-national conglomerate. Happens nearly every election year thanks to Citizen's United, only with huge, giant, tremendous piles of incognito cash (could even be foreign), instead of data.

Highway1
20th Mar 2018, 23:27
But you are slitting hairs there - Obamas campaign did exactly the same data harvesting from Facebook as Trumps, but because you disapprove of Trump its suddenly become a terrible thing to do.

If Hilary had won I'm sure we wouldn't be hearing screams of outrage from the same posters over the data harvesting by her campaign.

tartare
21st Mar 2018, 01:53
So - these two, and Alexander Nix are the much vaunted and feared Cambridge Analytica?
I was expecting them to be much more sinister, smart and scary... how utterly disappointing.
Cue faux shrieks of horror at how social media has been weaponised.
Fine art my arse - it's just propaganda delivered by a new channel - rather than leaflets fluttering from the skies.
As one Washington insider put it - they're all hat and no cattle (http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/cambridge-analytica-toast/305439/).
What d!ckheads.

Krystal n chips
21st Mar 2018, 06:23
You clearly fail to grasp that this is indeed fake news, or more accurately, fake outrage over non-news. Obama quite proudly claimed to have siphoned off the data of well over 100 million Facebook users, with Facebook's explicit permission and even assistance. Not a peep of outrage.

Hypocrisy?

Well I'm sure Mr Nix will be delighted to learn this is just another example of the media producing "fake news" .

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/20/cambridge-analytica-suspends-ceo-alexander-nix

Here's a further selection of reports therefore.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk

Given the repercussions so far, what, in your opinion, would constitute real news ?.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43480978

However, now that you are here so to speak, there is another dimension to this "fake news" event, one that will be close to your heart.

America gets a passing mention and thus we will be entering the realms of the legalities involved as the "fake news" coverage expands.

You may recall therefore that little side show in Oregon a couple of years ago?.....one that duly produced several pages on here, many of which contained references from yourself as to the minutiae of American law and, by the end of the saga, we were all well on the way to gaining a PhD in the subject.

A sort of distance learning course for beginners you might say (and riveting reading it was too ! ) so, if I haven't mischaracterised your input ( this term being your preferred form of defence as we know ) can we await a further module in respect of the Constitutional legalities regarding this "fake news" event.

ORAC
21st Mar 2018, 09:43
All the data gathered and the furore over it isn’t worth a hanging chad. At the end of the day people voted.

Complaints over how and why they were persuaded to vote the wa6 they did inevitably boil down to someone wanting to impose limits on their opponents ability to convey their message to the voters. So what if they could target their message to each individual voter? What, inherently, is wrong with that?

As soon as the argument then degenerates into what they were telling them - they lied/ it was fake news - and that “someone” should be able to review and decide what can be published you start on the path to censorship and state control of the media.

jez d
21st Mar 2018, 09:50
"hanging chad"

Had to look that one up, ORAC.

Thanks for the introduction :ok:

flash8
21st Mar 2018, 09:53
As soon as the argument then degenerates into what they were telling them - they lied/ it was fake news - and that “someone” should be able to review and decide what can be published you start on the path to censorship and state control of the media.


Noticed that the "fake news" label came about soon after challenges to established (often Neoliberal) narratives? Anyone who doesn't agree with the "facts" as stated by the established media conglomerate are stated truth-deniers, conspiracy theorists and promoters of "fake news". To my mind it was primarily due to the increasingly one-sided narrative that alternative media has flourished (probably stating the obvious).

A Clampdown would not go well and I suspect wouldn't succeed but merely increase the proliferation.

Jetex_Jim
21st Mar 2018, 18:53
All the data gathered and the furore over it isn’t worth a hanging chad. At the end of the day people voted.

Complaints over how and why they were persuaded to vote the wa6 they did inevitably boil down to someone wanting to impose limits on their opponents ability to convey their message to the voters. So what if they could target their message to each individual voter? What, inherently, is wrong with that?

As soon as the argument then degenerates into what they were telling them - they lied/ it was fake news - and that “someone” should be able to review and decide what can be published you start on the path to censorship and state control of the media.

Controlling/restricting information available on the internet is unlikely to be feasible in the developed and democratic world in the 21st century.

Back in the 20th century the British government had sweeping powers of information control. 'D notices' to control the newspapers, the first radio transmissions were immediately put under government control when the BBC was formed in 1922 and the Lord Chamberlin's office could even censor theatrical productions. (That lasted until1968).

In any case if this current discussion is about anything it's not demanding media censorship. More likely, it's about people being shocked and angry about the behaviour of companies that have been entrusted with private data. You may well say, 'well more fool them for trusting people working for profit.' However, would you be equally relaxed if your doctor or bank shared your personal data?

vapilot2004
21st Mar 2018, 21:14
First, it was "everybody does it", now, with the roaches of misinformation and rats of division start to scatter and damage control takes over:

Mr. Nix’s recent comments secretly recorded by Channel 4 and other allegations do not represent the values or operations of the firm and his suspension reflects the seriousness with which we view this violation

It should be noted that alt-right, white nationalist Steve Bannon supporter, Robert Mercer is a large stakeholder in C.A. and team Trump is claiming they hardly knew them, yet for some odd reason saw fit to disburse around $6 million in cash to CA for something or other, and it sho' weren't them nice, red #MAGA baseball caps.

But you are slitting hairs there - Obamas campaign did exactly the same data harvesting from Facebook as Trumps, but because you disapprove of Trump its suddenly become a terrible thing to do.



Re-read my earlier post. Thanks.

troppo
22nd Mar 2018, 11:19
Indeed. If you're stupid enough to live your life on fb for the world to see more fool you.
Facial recognition and behavioral tracking are on par with skynet. The real value is in identity and recognition should an organization or government want access to half the global population.
MZ has a lot to answer for.

ORAC
22nd Mar 2018, 11:43
You get the idea that governments arenít upset by the collection and use of data - but that someone apart them is doing it......

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-tech-firm-kaspersky-lab-exposes-america-s-anti-jihad-mission-nn6rsxdlf

SNAFU!: Wow. The package bomber didn't stand a chance...tech has created the police state on steroids... (http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2018/03/wow-package-bomber-didnt-stand.html)

VP959
22nd Mar 2018, 16:47
Just seen this:

Facebook data: What the social media giant knows about you - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/newsbeat-43501075/facebook-data-what-the-social-media-giant-knows-about-you)

What I find astonishing was that the guy was surprised to find all the data that was easily available from Facebook. Do people not realise that when they sign up to "free" services like this they are consenting to freely give all this information away?

I thought it was common knowledge that "there is no such thing as a free lunch", and that all the majority of "free" software is mining private data from you as currency, in effect.

VP959
23rd Mar 2018, 11:30
Most people know that their data will be stored and used for targeted advertising and just don't care. Facebook allows them to connect with friends and family all over the world and be involved in groups with like minded people that share a variety of interests. All for free. The only 'payment' for having access to this service is that the adverts, instead of being random and probably of no interest, will be targeted to them and may be offers they are actually interested in. It sounds like a win win to me.

I really do not see the issue that some people have with this targeted advertising. You are going to be advertised to so what is wrong with it being for items you may want to hear about? Some have ad blockers on which, to me, is almost like downloading pirated films or software and kind of weird.

It seems to be the older guys that have an issue with it and see their personal interests data the same way they would view the private secure data such as banking info. It's almost like a company knowing you like baked beans and city breaks can somehow use that to take money off you that you otherwise would not have spent. The young, quite rightly realise that being advertised to is a small price to pay for an online service and the more those adverts are tailored to yourself the better.

What seems to have happened in this case however, is that a company had gained the FB data outside of Facebook, possibly from a hack and so were not subject to the strict controls FB puts in place.

In the case I quoted there was no hacking involved - that was all private data that was available without breaking any laws.

The issue has nothing really to do with targeted advertising, that's a relatively benign aspect that many assume to be the main reason for the service being free.

The reality is that these large data sets have immense value to lots of people other than advertisers. There are very few practical restrictions on how this data may be collated and used by third parties, and different laws in different states that control what can and cannot be done with personal data, making the whole thing a bit of a minefield.

Jetex_Jim
24th Mar 2018, 18:19
Anybody still feeling relaxed/complacent about the Facebook data thing might like to have a look at this.

https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976368845635035138
https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976369275324678145
https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976369669874491392
https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976860676944777219
https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/977100204821307392

Krystal n chips
24th Mar 2018, 18:43
I was referring to the attitudes of some people towards targeted advertising not this case.

Facebook very tightly controls how it's data can be used. I think most organisations that collect this info do, if only to preserve its value. They don't really sell the info itself, it's more about selling access to it. If you stop paying then you no longer have access. To give actual info away is giving away future income.

When companies buy lists of details to use as they see fit then it is usually coming from hacked info.

Your support for all and anything related to IT is commendable really....alas, it's fundamentally flawed as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/24/cambridge-analytica-week-that-shattered-facebook-privacy

Can we assume you would consider a $58bn drop in the share price the equivalent of a "glitch" in IT terms. Although you are surpassed by the contributor who opined it was "fake news". $58bn seems reasonably tangible to the rest of us after all.

The extent of this scandal hasn't, from what is currently available in the public domain, even begun to emerge yet, and advertisers are getting decidedly edgy to say the least.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43517995

This may turn out to be more than relevant however.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43518628

I also recommend reading the "News " column on page 8 of the current "Private Eye".

Not that many, if any, of the chaps on here would sully their minds with the contents of such a magazine however.

Ogre
25th Mar 2018, 23:03
I find it somewhat ironic that people are complaining about engagement of people who don't normally vote, but looking at the percentages of people who have voted in elections over the last decade or so the actual numbers have been ridiculously low. I would of thought anything that could be done to encourage more people to vote would be a good thing.

Unless of course they end up voting for "the other guy", in which case they were manipulated by false information rather than encouraged to stand up for the cause of truth/justice/<insert symbol here> by voting for your candidate.

Both sides are as bad as each other, both are so convinced of their own virtues that they are sore losers if it doesn't go their way.

Gertrude the Wombat
25th Mar 2018, 23:18
I would of thought anything that could be done to encourage more people to vote would be a good thing.
Depends on who it is, doesn't it - encouraging more people to vote against you is not something you generally wish to spend time, money and effort on.

Elections are very often won and lost on differential turnout, rather than people changing their minds. So what you're after is getting your people to bother to turn out to vote, and persuading the other lot that it's all a waste of time and they're better off staying at home and watching the telly[$]. And of course you ignore the ones who never vote anyway, regardless of their stated preferences[#], as they're a complete waste of time.

All well and good when you've got the information. But what about the "white" houses, where you know nothing about the residents? - if they've recently moved in you (probably) don't even know whether they're in the habit of voting. You can guess from local knowledge, you can buy postcode tagged demographic data (the old way) or Facebook histories (the new way) to aid the guessing, you can knock on their doors (but this is frequently a waste of time, as most people are out most of the time), you can shove paper through their doors anyway (as long as they don't live in an inaccessible block of flats) and hope for the best.

Oh, and the bit I don't much like is where you put postal vote application forms through the letter boxes of all your supporters. Sure this increases turnout, and the opposition are doing it so you've got to do it too, but the problem is that the postal vote system is, in my view and that of others, rather too open to fraud at the moment, and personally I'd prefer postal voting on demand to be scrapped.

Fun, innit.


[$] Yes, I am aware of a local party that won an award from its national party for a leaflet which was designed to suppress the turnout of a perceived-to-be unfriendly target group.

[#] Once Upon A Time when someone shouted at me in the street "I'm never going to vote for you lot again" I'd look them up. But as 100% of such cases had not only never voted for us before, but in fact had never voted at all before, I stopped bothering.

vapilot2004
26th Mar 2018, 03:05
The fallout from the Robert Mercer/Steve Bannon data firm has produced some interesting works of journalism. To wit:

Cloak and Data: The Real Story Behind Cambridge Analytica’s Rise and Fall - Mother Jones May/June 2018 (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/cloak-and-data-cambridge-analytica-robert-mercer/)

I did not know the firm's first big US political candidate was Ted Cruz. Not a very auspicious beginning, but fitting considering their ultimate Manchurian candidate selection of Donald Trump. I also learned from a related article how British laws about personal data require private corporations to disclose such data upon request. The US has no such legal requirement, although it should.

Krystal n chips
30th Mar 2018, 07:00
The test is how it is dealt with by that organisation afterwards. Facebook is built on personal data so it takes this very seriously. Mainly for financial reasons as it makes so much money selling access to the data it would lose billions by having a glitch that lets people harvest that very data out of the system.


.

About data and sharing information....and sod the consequences thereafter.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/29/facebook-memo-mission-andrew-bosworth

I like the bit about not now agreeing with the content of the memo and, even better, not agreeing with it at the time of writing !....nothing like a bit of heartfelt retrospection really.

And then we have this......

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/28/all-the-data-facebook-google-has-on-you-privacy

Jetex_Jim
30th Mar 2018, 11:19
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/979352470110564352

Here's that 'none existent' contract covering Cambridge Scientific and Facebook.