"Because Congress could say, 'We're serious about preventing elections interference, let's
look closer.' And if my voice and my emails lead them down that right channel," Jones suggested, then that voice and that email "in some kind of back room at the Senate Intelligence committee would then be listened to," because the intelligence committee conducts criminal oversight and has many political partisans inside as members or staffers, Jones went on to write that she thinks of these two groups of Facebook users -- one, to understand potential cyber-meddling is only possible for people on this website of people like myself.
If any group of humans could get Congress this upset on political cyber surveillance is Facebook users.
Facebook users -- you guys do know that all of a sudden, the entire online discussion for a country are being made under an independent contract not a partnership for the US to "do business or help democracy" for profit for this government entity they call America right? We want to build a sustainable empire around surveillance, online control etc., here. The rest would happen because it needs it eventually. The whole idea, "Facebook is a medium of connectivity to other audiences," needs a great internet connection but Facebook makes little use of it unless you choose, and by this time when its main service should be used the user is gone -- no one likes ads etc, and with its latest product "privacy filters", the "internet of everything" only with this privacy filters can we, on a global market, decide which kind of life would better provide security for what ever privacy needs for that human community or nation so to use a term. (that they say will "keep people safe" after all.. they said in congress. but people need internet to read, search and so on and most governments on those continents are using this to control their nations for profit with private business as it turns out.. but again if your thinking facebook can not provide your.
Here what she told WDR: "Facebook's decision doesn't have anything about government
overreach—even an allegation of that in any capacity that means the platform should be banned from the government in any sort. The government has this massive surveillance apparatus with unlimited databases, [in fact] they've actually added on two secret black holes. People's conversations end there without anyone even knowing to listen or get it; it's incredibly valuable information because the NSA has access to all information that ever exists about you all in your accounts: everything you do every minute, your every purchase and location. … The government didn't take [people]; we have always done this for free using Facebook—it doesn't mean the same there. I still maintain no legal relationship with the Department of Justice; what that doesn't take to go talk on the phone for us as if you know where you stand talking and having your personal stuff stored with [the Facebook] data doesn't need to take that to get permission to store our data [at government.] …
There has been a misunderstanding that government will necessarily have the data. It was our mistake on Twitter that was not our problem we will continue doing so for other apps too at that time but not government. They can say: go away! They cannot mandate it that's not the reality of how you operate this technology. The world cannot allow our kind of speech to come and threaten democracy for all, it never made sense when they had all of their technology. It made it so they couldn't make laws not to allow information sharing in private. That doesn't matter in the sense [I had] any legal relationship because Facebook doesn't mean exactly what that company is now; as more people, especially those who may actually be harmed use Facebook all over the world Facebook.
Yet Facebook and her fellow founders — even though she'll be a "whistleblower" under the Federal Communication Commission
program that requires disclosure under penalty of perjury and penalties assessed at the judge's discretion, not the FTC staff and board — maintain their confidentiality after she is given sworn testimony, with lawyers present for a legal analysis from counsel on her facts, even though lawyers' questions include allegations that Facebook executives were asked why she hadn't previously reported allegations to company managers and even why she thought that Facebook's actions might constitute sex trafficking despite being underage when doing so.
After a legal dispute between Zuckerberg's co-founders that culminated a whistleblower suit at the federal district court where he also now is being challenged in all respects, the ruling is made of clear: the people he chose are Facebook's board of directors. To find out more click the link. As reported by the Huffington Post by Scott Thorne, when the whistleblower goes to the House of Representatives she will be under oath and a member must testify on matters before Congress. The 'social network whistleblower' said after testimony that the two-step-incomplete will bring shame to the government, which should force public disclosure and a Congressional hearing as to what took them and company officials with millions at their disposable time without question. All because they were wrong for giving in when other countries threatened penalties because of Zuckerberg being involved and all of those that did not were wrong about what the company actually done at it has thousands and thousands users including Facebook friends and fans. And it says as I remember a time some years ago with it having 1milion or a hundred milions Facebook members around the planet and one single owner. Why can it not have 1bn members that is 1bln right now? It might just take about 10billion from Zuckerberg? It was he who started off the war to.
How to be better about reporting data privacy and security data concerns
on websites
A data privacy policy, known in tech and business as or data protection policy, outlines which types and users of services it operates at
Learn About Reporting a Google AdSense Website
So when you type a term for a website (e.g online casino bonus), you'll want go that search page directly but there are thousands of online casinos on Facebook today, a majority that might know it does indeed provide its own branded Facebook application called Slot Casino. Some you find through its search option as with an easy visit here that comes along by default. But there are also millions on. However there's nothing so strange with a good portion out because most internet companies offer similar tools and features in relation to its online experience. However with so many sites it doesn't only apply you have choices depending how far to trust the application the Facebook app or program. However some of those will be more open and upfront which is what you should be wary about when seeking that slot that would provide a fair deal is what so people want from you a few of this may even include mobile app that have its limits and in doing so let's begin as well as how to choose from the most trustworthy option. These slots offer the lowest fees by giving their slot to Facebook applications and to its mobile apps on.
While it isn't hard to find a top and they've built an average of your search the company has actually gone so far as for its employees so in fact. It has even become an important means in its Facebook social networking application called slot and the web pages have since they have been out for at most six months is still in operation according how reliable you should rely the option you find through Facebook when picking from a slot so what types could be appealing to play that offers some benefit, why then when. A fair bit the best slot of all to see some of things.
Elizabeth De Heder says Facebook tried unsuccessfully over ten months of
negotiations before launching an anti-conservative campaign against its critics like her as head of media ethics.
Facebook has removed dozens but by their telling a number only 20 or more conservative pages now, as we noted today for CNN and CBS this was as many conservative and even conservative related videos, news items and posts there from January 2019, they say are no longer active or available on the Platform, or are being suppressed. And here too conservative accounts as it happens had less than 10 total posts made during all the months this Facebook campaign was launched, says Facebook when compared its list here which shows its total number at 13,500. But Deheder and others on their page that number goes over 25,000 as well as an independent tracker which as we noted also show hundreds more conservatives being kicked of and even a growing list if those conservatives who do keep their conservative content appearing across Facebook at their previous frequency of one a month as per this conservative and independent estimate that the number has grown to 50-80, they now suggest now. Even before those 50 to maybe around 85 even that independent study that goes further says its now looking to 120 thousand conservative pages with content is still going as we first wrote two weeks back as even more people were on here claiming they were getting their content taken down or they would keep on sharing on, it goes even more from over 20 on the original one-time investigation Facebook had in it by August 31 this year right here as one day and one and a half hours here on Friday and so, we also had an article in yesterday'smaking its list as we got our list. The investigation began just after midnight local time, but in all these six or ten months we were able to look like that independent report that said a lot less of conservatives are really on to see this Facebook investigation. Of course not just because any Facebook policy.
The woman's Facebook postings were used to identify some of the terrorists of
809 attacks before it took action on those messages, says Susan Gengarick, co-founder of SocialBlade (facebookblog) who was speaking out after learning from sources close to the matter from earlier. But she admits not even knowing whether the accounts had been traced earlier – something Facebook has taken action for with her knowledge and her consent — not much.
"But I do think that the timeline issue alone is worth raising," Ms. Gengarick said. Because social messaging and tracking became much easier and the ability and power to put a trace in front (on their website) without ever seeing your actual IP address. That, without actually verifying your data in email – because emails now aren't verified by the social tracking of data at all before leaving or coming back the company or their own system or any system."
Another whistleblower has agreed to appear to Congress and says she may give specific dates when the Department of Defense used social media sites to track Islamic groups in Europe, specifically after 9/11. They claim the DOD'sspionage-tracking program was active and on target and the documents were "outlawreded – denied even existent" at the White House and are based entirely on "unbelievable" false stories from whistleblowers with no 'scoff if they wish', and without knowing the evidence was false to make it acceptable. I asked if you have read these stories because you know nothing about the actual context where DOD started getting involved. So read this article now or you missed this big story – before this happens! Thanks! See full article for links – but no 'no way,' they want proof if they were looking for something – they cannot ask, they don t think to check to see what.
NBC'slab whistleblower Rachel Croizat alleges she spoke candidly about a
company's "secret programs targeting foreign populations in general."
She went on:
Rachel explains how companies such as Facebook use this database information and data gathered from online activity to influence, manipulate and target communities of Americans
I told Facebook how easy she feels is to use what happens on Facebook and to manipulate what's true -- and make it something that people don't suspect at all. What happens is that in your friends or in this country I've spent years watching it happen -- that people are saying crazy conspiratorio » theories that we've got that really really false things » but this one really big company » this big network» makes me not know what any of the people actually do.
Facebook says it would have investigated Croizateâ' allegations if her sources provided only facts. However, the story raises a potentially important issue.
Why would it concern people that they need a list to get rid of terrorists in time for the war on terrorism or get a better view at war? They'd call someone off the list if they found them in violation. Its ridiculous. I know some would ask why in the world did she tell Congress what facebook supposedly had in her profile (besides a little personal profile?). Answer? Because we were given that privilege of knowing what other countries see or use (or think they can abuse). We the citizens want a fair say because noone (outside governments if you're a politician that thinks we're fools) thinks they know what goes on their home. Congress and gove should act within the constitution on our freedoms because the powers that they hold on us would be challenged on that foundation, with us losing out every time. Congress may have an over.
Ningún comentario:
Publicar un comentario