Data443 Risk Mitigation Inc (ATDS)

[stockvaper]

Inside Facebook’s secret rulebook for global political speech

"Facebook is attempting to tackle misinformation and hate that its platform has enabled with a massive, byzantine and secret document of rules packed with spreadsheets and power point slides that gets updated regularly for its global content moderators.

According to the blockbuster New York Times report, the rules show the social network to be "a far more powerful arbiter of global speech than has been publicly recognized or acknowledged by the company itself." The Times discovered a range of gaps, biases and outright errors — including instances where Facebook allowed extremism to spread in some counties while censoring mainstream speech in others.



The rulebook's details were revealed Thursday night thanks to a Facebook employee who leaked over 1,400 pages of the speech policing rulebook to the Times because he "feared that the company was exercising too much power, with too little oversight — and making too many mistakes."

CEO Mark Zuckerberg's company is trying to monitor billions of posts per day in over 100 languages while parsing out the subtle nuances and complicated context of language, images and even emojis. The group of Facebook employees who meet every other Tuesday to update the rules, according to the Times, are trying to boil down highly complex issues into strict yes-or-no rules.

The Menlo Park, Calif. company then outsources the content moderation to other companies that tend to hire unskilled workers, according to the newspaper's report. The 7,500-plus moderators "have mere seconds to recall countless rules and apply them to the hundreds of posts that dash across their screens each day. When is a reference to “jihad,” for example, forbidden? When is a “crying laughter” emoji a warning sign?"

Some moderators vented their frustration to the Times, lamenting that posts left up could lead to violence. “You feel like you killed someone by not acting,” one said, speaking anonymously because he had signed a nondisclosure agreement. Moderators also revealed that they face pressure to review a thousand pieces of content per day, with only eight to 10 seconds to judge each post."

Read significantly more about Zuckerberg's selective censorship
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/facebooks-massive-secret-rulebook-for-policing-speech-reveals-inconsistencies-gaps-and-biases

Facebook Breaches Stoke Calls For New Regs
December 27, 2018
Facebook Privacy Breaches Could Mean New Privacy Bills In Congress, New Roles For IT

"The Facebook Cambridge Analytica breach and the knowledge that the company was selling private information to companies might mean that Congress will consider a version of the European Union’s General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR).

Representative Will Hurd from Texas, the chairman of the Information Technology Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, told a room of people at the Aspen Cyber Summit in San Francisco that a proposing a version of GDPR was definitely possible.

“One of the things we will be looking at is GDPR. Is it working, is it not working, is it something that we may be moving to?” Hurd said. “A year ago, the answer would have been not ‘no,’ but ‘hell, no.’ I think more people are open to that now because of some of the breaches.”

Dr. Barbara Rembiesa, the president and CEO of the International Association of IT Asset Managers (IAITAM), said that if GDPR is reconsidered, it’ll have a huge effect on information technology asset management in the United States.

“The year 2018 has been a difficult one for Facebook. Between testifying before both domestic and international courts as well as the bad publicity surrounding the Cambridge Analytica scandal, one would think that Facebook would be careful how it handles and distributes personal information,” Rembiesa said. “This time, it turns out Facebook was selling access to your personal data. This includes private conversations.”

That private info, called personally identifiable information (PII), includes data like usernames and email addresses but also photos and Facebook Messenger conversations. The information was supposed to help companies advertise to Facebook’s users, but it created a scandal instead.

Rembiesa said it would behoove the U.S. to follow the EU’s lead through the use of data protection officers to handle compliance of new rules, and that some companies are already doing just that.

“The good news is that organizations that have mature IT Asset Management programs already have the professionals needed under their roof. The roles and responsibilities required of a data protection officer are a natural addition for an IT asset manager,” Rembiesa explained. “IT asset managers produce policies and processes and utilize best practices that care for software, hardware and mobile assets. As data protection officers, those practices would extend to personally identifiable info
rmation, since such information is stored on those assets.”

https://www.pymnts.com/facebook/2018/cambridge-analytica-data-breach-gdpr/

THE WAR-TORN WEB

A once-unified online world has broken into new warring states.

"The global internet continues to fragment. Governments, in particular, are using their influence to shape the ways that digital companies, markets, and rights connect us online. This new form of realpolitik, which we call “digitalpolitik,” is an emerging tactical playbook for how governments use their political, regulatory, military, and commercial powers to project influence in global, digital markets.



Last month, at the Internet Governance Forum, French President Emmanuel Macron announced the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, a multi-stakeholder effort to define internet principles around human rights law, with calls for protections against cybercrimes, intellectual property theft, hate speech, and hacking from nonstate actors. The signatory list includes predictable supporters, including France’s European Union allies, large private companies such as Alphabet and Microsoft, and internet rights advocacy groups such as Access Now. There were also notable abstentions, predominantly from countries that bristle at delegating their sovereignty, like the United States, Russia, and China. Despite refusing to sign as sovereigns, the prominence of American companies in pushing for international internet agreements amid its governmental absence highlights one of Macron’s key points: “The internet is a space currently managed by a technical community of private players,” noted one source from the Macron government, quoted by Reuters, “But it’s not governed. So now that half of humanity is online, we need to find new ways to organize the internet.”

Not all digitalpolitik, however, is international treaties and calls for governance. Google, for example, recently announced Dragonfly, a search engine tailor-made to enable China’s government to continue censoring content and news and connecting people’s queries with their phone numbers—and therefore their identities. Dragonfly marked a dramatic shift from Google’s first attempt at working in China and very public, principled stance to pull out nearly nine years ago. Pushback from Google’s own employees, deeply uncomfortable about enhancing the digital power of the Chinese state, caused the cancellation of the project. But the Chinese government maintains its stance: If you want to do business in China, even huge tech platforms will do it Beijing’s way. And, with one of the world’s largest digital markets, China built and encouraged a rich ecosystem of local, homegrown tools and apps such as Baidu (search), WeChat (chat and social media), and Taobao (online shopping).

Google’s announcement of Dragonfly was a public acquiescence to that policy and an implicit acknowledgement that China is more valuable as a market than a political stance on speech. Some called it a reflection of Google’s new leadership and priorities; it was also a reflection of China’s growing power and influence, with a robust middle class and a phone ecosystem that runs on Android alternatives. Dragonfly was the modern, market-based peace treaty between two of the internet’s largest warring states until a concerted push by Amnesty International and internal revolt led to a rollback of the plan. Its short, doomed life was one indicator of the beginning of the next era of the internet, one where states actively seek to influence global internet governance and norms through a variety of tactics. In the uncertain institutional environment of the global internet, states, civil society groups, and private citizens are also being forced into creative approaches for digital advantage.



What’s becoming clear is the way governments are using their policies, market influence, and security apparatuses to create a competitive advantage in our increasingly digital world.

In many ways, the Paris Call is an extension of the EU’s increasing efforts to influence technology norms. This past May, the EU implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a rigorous regulatory regime aimed at policing all behavior that “targets” European citizens. Almost immediately, Europeans noticed a number of companies actively blocking them, preventing them from accessing a range of services and sites including the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. But Europe’s influence extends beyond its borders—the regulations in place have created a sea change of new services designed around data privacy and that affect all users of major platforms, including those who neither live there nor are EU citizens.

And while much attention is paid to a tripartite technology world of the United States, China, and the EU, smaller initiatives abound: At the same time as states are navigating sovereign relationships, nearly every country is also wrestling with domestically defining and balancing state and political power. In the United States, California passed a data protection law this year with no federal support, just one of many state-led efforts to influence a national stance on data and the internet, with a special focus on net neutrality. Some states are focusing on how to manage the balance between the state and its citizens, as with India’s Aadhaar biometric identity system or Uganda’s social media tax, while others focus on corporate influence, such as Papua New Guinea’s temporary restrictions on Facebook or Ireland’s beneficial corporate taxes. Nationalized versions of internet utilities, as in the U.K. and Cuba, are either on the table or coming into effect. Regardless of whether you agree with each individual initiative, what’s becoming clear is the way governments are using their policies, market influence, and security apparatuses to create a competitive advantage in our increasingly digital world."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/19/the-war-torn-web-internet-warring-states-cyber-espionage/

Data443 Beta Testing Status - Wordpress GDPR
DOWNLOADS HISTORY 6:23 AM 12/28/2018
Today 180
Yesterday 428
Last 7 Days 3,439
All Time 141,854

Version: 1.0.22, Last updated: 1 week ago

Support Issues resolved in last two months: 8 out of 9