153
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
snood
 
  6  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 12:22 am
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/s960x960/19221567_10154478494095178_1943704429277957168_o.jpg?oh=8181c6693f3fe1275118a3f64ebbece5&oe=59DAC01A
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 01:29 am
Quote:
Sensitive personal details relating to almost 200 million US citizens have been accidentally exposed by a marketing firm contracted by the Republican National Committee.
The 1.1 terabytes of data includes birthdates, home addresses, telephone numbers and political views of nearly 62% of the entire US population.
The data was available on a publicly accessible Amazon cloud server.
Anyone could access the data as long as they had a link to it.
The huge cache of data was discovered last week by Chris Vickery, a cyber-risk analyst with security firm UpGuard. The information seems to have been collected from a wide range of sources - from posts on controversial banned threads on the social network Reddit, to committees that raised funds for the Republican Party.
The information was stored in spreadsheets uploaded to a server owned by Deep Root Analytics. It had last been updated in January when President Donald Trump was inaugurated and had been online for an unknown period of time.
"We take full responsibility for this situation. Based on the information we have gathered thus far, we do not believe that our systems have been hacked," Deep Root Analytics' founder Alex Lundry told technology website Gizmodo.
"Since this event has come to our attention, we have updated the access settings and put protocols in place to prevent further access."
Apart from personal details, the data also contained citizens' suspected religious affiliations, ethnicities and political biases, such as where they stood on controversial topics like gun control, the right to abortion and stem cell research.
The file names and directories indicated that the data was meant to be used by influential Republican political organisations. The idea was to try to create a profile on as many voters as possible using all available data, so some of the fields in the spreadsheets were left left empty if an answer could not be found.
"That such an enormous national database could be created and hosted online, missing even the simplest of protections against the data being publicly accessible, is troubling," Dan O'Sullivan wrote in a blog post on Upguard's website.
"The ability to collect such information and store it insecurely further calls into question the responsibilities owed by private corporations and political campaigns to those citizens targeted by increasingly high-powered data analytics operations."
Although it is known that political parties routinely gather data on voters, this is the largest breach of electoral data in the US to date and privacy experts are concerned about the sheer scale of the data gathered.
"This is deeply troubling. This is not just sensitive, it's intimate information, predictions about people's behaviour, opinions and beliefs that people have never decided to disclose to anyone," Privacy International's policy officer Frederike Kaltheuner told the BBC News website.
However, the issue of data collection and using computer models to predict voter behaviour is not just limited to marketing firms - Privacy International says that the entire online advertising ecosystem operates in the same way.
"It is a threat to the way democracy works. The GOP [Republican Party] relied on publicly-collected, commercially-provided information. Nobody would have realised that the data they entrusted to one organisation would end up in a database used to target them politically.
"You should be in charge of what is happening to your data, who can use it and for what purposes," Ms Kaltheuner added.
There are fears that leaked data can easily be used for nefarious purposes, from identity fraud to harassment of people under protection orders, or to intimidate people who hold an opposing political view.
"The potential for this type of data being made available publicly and on the dark web is extremely high," Paul Fletcher, a cyber-security evangelist at security firm Alert Logic told the BBC.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40331215
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Olivier5
 
  4  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 03:31 am
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/issues/2016/06/07/0716_Cover_Web/840.jpg?1465321772

I wish I could get a copy. Also for the Jesus' wife story... :-)
Below viewing threshold (view)
layman
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 04:03 am
They don't like us, get the picture?:

Quote:
More than 60% of muslims think that westerners are immoral, selfish, greedy, violent, arrogant, and fanatical

Across the seven Muslim-majority countries and territories surveyed, a median of 68% of Muslims said they view Westerners as selfish. Considerable shares also called Westerners other negative adjectives, including violent (median of 66%), greedy (64%) and immoral (61%)


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/26/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 04:37 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
I must have missed the derision you included with your posting of Frank Bruni's making a big deal out of corrosive, hateful political rhetoric.

But Fuller's piece is not "corrosive" or "hateful". Playing the role of "patriot", he lays out the outlines of a charge of "treason". (Which I believe is ridiculous.) But he's not suggesting vigilante justice. He's not calling anyone a "cheese eater". And capital punishment really is a constitutionally suggested punishment. However, the scenario is really pretty far-fetched. The bar for conviction — hell, even for getting a trial in the first place — is set at a pretty high level and only a worrywart would actually believe that anyone of these public servants' lives are in danger. Like the stupid Griffin stunt, this piece is one person's viewpoint, shared with the world via the miracle of electronic media — it's just done in better taste.

As far as it's being taken down by the HuffPost — and it's not the first piece of his to have been removed — I don't find that indicates anything more than their not wanting to deal with the political fallout. As I said, he's hardly a mainstream writer who shapes popular opinion. Just a guy staking out his little claim, "Bet you never heard this before!" Just as is done by people on the other side. (By the way, I'm attempting to make a response to your comments on the Bruni piece but I haven't had time to really get it at a point where it's worth posting. )

hightor
 
  4  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 05:00 am
@layman,
And thank you for predictably illustrating my point in such a succinct manner. Congratulations.

snood
 
  5  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 05:18 am
@hightor,
In one sentence, he's suggesting the attack was the Muslims fault for "wearing clothes and praying" the way they do.
In a sentence closely following, he's pointing out that Muslims "don't like us".

Yup, a real next-level thinker.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 11:02 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

But Fuller's piece is not "corrosive" or "hateful".


This kinda claim could only be made by, and accepted by, a stone-cold cheese-eater.

I ask myself if there in any sincerity whatsoever in it. Do you really BELIEVE that, or is it just a product of your mandatory duty to "defend" the cheese-eating tribe?

Then I remember: Cheese-eaters can, and will, believe anything they WANT to believe, and nothing else, irrespective of facts.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 12:19 pm
@layman,
Dohrn and Ayers are criminals who managed to not only escape justice, but to rise to positions of prominence thanks to a self-indulgent, well connected and wealthy left-wing intellectual class who valued radical chic and revolutionary fantasies over what they no doubt saw as a bourgeois sense of decency and lawfulness.

{BTW, the use of the term "bourgeois" by or in relation to these people is actually well off the mark. Their favorite target for derision and contempt is not the middle class, it's the working and lower classes: the uneducated, brute peasantry and workers of America who just can't comprehend that their interests are best served by a left-wing elite that does it's damnedest to remain removed from their soiling presence, unless attendance at some peasant celebration is required to secure votes. It would be hysterically hypocritical of them to despise any class for their materialism as the early Marxists did of the bourgeois, and the conventional attitudes and traditional mores at which they sneer are expressed far more by the very groups they sanctimoniously contend they honor and champion, (including working class and poor African-Americans and hispanics -- legal, or illegal; citizen or immigrant -- , than what might amount to a middle class.}

No doubt one or more of their defenders in this forum will rise to tell us they were not so bad (certainly no worse than Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph!), that they paid their debt to society and have moved on to productive lives that have benefited their communities and the nation. Only small minded conservatives who believe the entire decade of the 60's encapsulated the decline and fall of America ("All them dirty hippies smoking their pot and dancing to "jungle music!") and refuse to move on from the past think that any reason remains to criticize Dohrn and Ayers. After all, didn't Bill Ayers write in his memoirs that criticism of Dohrn for her comments about the Charlie Manson murders was part of a Big Lie and taken out of context. (The memoirs of which Timothy Noah of Slate Magazine wrote that he could not recall reading "a memoir quite so self-indulgent and morally clueless as Fugitive Days." Now of course Studs Terkel, the essence of the Chicago Working Man brought to life in the body of Mr. Potato Head, called the memoirs "a deeply moving elegy to all those young dreamers who tried to live decently in an indecent world." To be fair to the bulbous Studs, this may have been written well after he began his descent into dementia; when he might have mistaken Ayers for John Lennon.)

People can change! Even if they never apologize for their crimes, restrict their contrition to vague expressions of regret over unspecified "choices," and actually lament that they didn't do more.

And of course, let's repeat the dispositive statement on the value of Dorhn and Ayers as American citizens and human beings: "They were nowhere near as bad as Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph!"

When it comes to body counts, that's for sure, but unless someone is making the case that McVeigh or Rudolph were heroes, or in some way superior human being to Dohrn and Ayers, it's utterly irrelevant.

(I'm hoping that by preemptively addressing the argument I can spare this forum from the dull sophistry it represents, but I've not much hope. Even this bit of prophylactic derision is more likely to be seen as an invitation or challenge, rather than a deterrent, but we'll see)
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 12:33 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
(I'm hoping that by preemptively addressing the argument I can spare this forum from the dull sophistry it represents, but I've not much hope. Even this bit of prophylactic derision is more likely to be seen as an invitation or challenge, rather than a deterrent, but we'll see)


Well, Finn, I think that, playing Devil's Advocate, you did a very good job of presenting those arguments in a fair manner. That's about exactly what a commie-ass progressive would say, I figure.

You also did a good job of destroying those arguments. I suspect there will be no further comment on the topic coming from cheese-eaters. But NOT because they acknowledge the validity of your counter-arguments. They will NEVER do that.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 12:35 pm
@layman,
Hope springs eternal.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 12:40 pm
@layman,
Did you every see the film "Minority Report" starring Tom Cruise and based on a novel by Phillip K. Dick.

In it Cruise goes on the lam and has to get iris transplants in some seedy and highly illegal medical "clinic" to avoid detection by the police.

The shape of things to come.

(It was a good movie btw - I recommend it)
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 12:41 pm
@Olivier5,
Here's a link to the article entitled "How American Politics Went Insane":

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/

It's quite a long article. I've only had time to skim through it. It looks interesting. At least that's my opinion.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 12:41 pm
@Olivier5,
I have a subscription but haven't received this issue yet.

I'll let you know if it's any good.
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 12:50 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
It came out in July 2016; it was also wrong about the Cubs.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 12:59 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I'm reading it now. Here's a couple of excerpts--I hope these don't serve as a spoiler for ya:

Quote:
In their various ways, Trump, Cruz, and Sanders are demonstrating a new principle: The political parties no longer have either intelligible boundaries or enforceable norms, and, as a result, renegade political behavior pays....

The very term party leaders has become an anachronism. Although Capitol Hill and the campaign trail are miles apart, the breakdown in order in both places reflects the underlying reality that there no longer is any such thing as a party leader. There are only individual actors, pursuing their own political interests and ideological missions willy-nilly, like excited gas molecules in an overheated balloon.

Trump, however, didn’t cause the chaos. The chaos caused Trump. What we are seeing is not a temporary spasm of chaos but a chaos syndrome.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 02:05 pm
@layman,
There have been two groups hoping and praying for this backlash: Terrorist organizations and the Western Left.

Now, of course their motivation is dissimilar as is the extent of their exultation. ISIS et all welcome it because it it helps them in recruiting new jihadists who will go out and commit new murders and feed the backlash. They couldn't care less about either the innocents victimized by the backlash or the innocents victimized by the acts that gave rise to the backlash. For that matter, they couldn't care less about the lives of the jihadists...as long as they get the job done.

The Western Left does care about the innocents victimized by jihadists and the Backlash, but it will remain to be seen if their concern and outrage will be equal as respects the two groups. While I, of course, am not arguing that the Left, in general, is happy about specific innocent Muslims being victimized, I am certain that it is pleased that there is now evidence of what of what they have feared and predicted after every Islamist terrorist attack: Violent backlash. Just look at the tone of the posted article.

It's a peculiar place to be if that which you assert you fear and don't want to see, in some way pleases you when it shows up because it confirms your analysis of a situation and your predictions. There must be a word for being happy about something for a reason that overrides your unhappiness about it's particulars, and if so, it must be German. Walter?

I can't recall exactly which Islamist attack on US soil was involved (there have been enough that their particulars have begun to run together) but I absolutely recall Attorney General Loretta Lynch announcing that "our" biggest concern (in the wake of the attack) was for any sort of backlash against innocent Muslims. Not the fate of those wounded or the possibility of copycat attacks, but of a backlash.

Can you provide a link to this article layman?

The excerpt specifically (without much specifics) cites Britain and Germany as nations where there has been an increase in "violence and harassment directed against Muslims" but then it resorts to overly broad terms like "around the world," and "across Europe" with the intention, no doubt, of leading the reader to the conclusion that the feared Backlash is occurring everywhere!. I suppose this could be considered cynical of me, but I feel quite certain that the author of this piece as well as the publication source would have used language to connote that incidents were restricted to several nations rather than erupting all over the world if the subject was Islamist attacks and not a backlash to those attacks.

The US is conspicuous in its absence in this excerpt. It seems very unlikely that if there was evidence of a backlash against Muslims in America that might even come close to qualifying as "a rising wave of violence," the US would not be featured in the article and simply included in "around the world" bucket. This is why I would like to read the full, original article.

I'm obviously not as familiar with the public reactions of foreign government officials, pundits, and entertainers having millions of pennies with which they fund their incessant insertion of two cents into every topic in the news, as I am with those here in the US, but if they are similar, then the evidence of a backlash was welcome news to a great many.

A rising wave of violence and harassment directed at any group of innocents is a terrible thing, and should be combated, but it's no worse than any other because its origin can be defined as a backlash, and a credible argument can be made that if the attacks that have given rise to the backlash were stopped those of the backlash would stop as well.

One thing is for certain, if authorities all around the world are somehow able to put a halt to any and all Backlash attacks, we won't see a stop or even a slowdown in Islamist attacks.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/25/2019 at 10:39:32