51–60 of 78 posts
This is on the front page of reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/86qxrb/cambridge_anal... I’m guessing it’s real the building does look like the CA HQ.
Best source from reverse image search
This is on the front page of reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/86qxrb/cambridge_anal... I’m guessing it’s real the building does look like the CA HQ.
I'm not sure why you would doubt it. But anyway, the Guardian has an article too: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/23/judge-grants-se...
(it's a legit Reuters photo, visible in the results at https://www.reuters.com/search/pictures?blob=cambridge+analy... )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they are like reeeally left wing The historical record of the extreme left is extremely pro-state, pro surveillance. Indeed, the Marxist corrective to freewheeling capitalism was a strong socialist state (to cover the period before communism emerges and the state withers away) [1]. Many modern surveillance techniques were pioneered or refined by the likes of the OGPU [2], the NKVD [3] and their equivalents in satelli…
Not so much unpalatable as irrelevant? Using a descriptor like "left wing" to ignore people's actual politics and go straight to accusing them of being Stalinists?
It is historically accurate to identify the extreme left with the ComIntern, i.e. the Soviet communist party, ruled during his lifetime by Stalin. Almost all communist parties were in the mould designed by Lenin, and refined by Stalin.
Even today, socialist / communist parties operate using the Leninist style of organisation, e.g. in the UK the SWP or RS21.
It is useful to know this, just as it's useful to know that Cambridge Analytica was owned by a company whose board is full of UK military/security-service types [1].
[1] http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2018/03/20/scl-a-very-british-c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a list of talks given at the CCCongress: https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2017/Fahrplan/events... You don't have to go from "left-wing hacker collective" right to Stalin if there's data readily available on the actual subject being discussed. (There should actually be a left-wing equivalent of Godwin's law. Maybe "There-Is-No-Godwin's law"?)
I have commented not on the CCC but on user: 46886532558's original claim that being "reeeally left wing" is somehow a plausible reason for being anti-surveillance. This association is misleading, and I feel a responsibility to correct this historical mistake. This correction is especially apt since Germany is still full of Stasi victims.
I think the problem with your comment is that you're flat-out misrepresenting the 'reeeally left wing'. There are plenty of 'leftist' movements that are just as opposed to 'the state' as they are to our corporate overlords. Arguing otherwise is either plain stupidity or intentional misrepresentation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not so much unpalatable as irrelevant? Using a descriptor like "left wing" to ignore people's actual politics and go straight to accusing them of being Stalinists?
I was clearly referring to 46886532558's "reeeally left wing", i.e. extreme left. It is historically accurate to identify the extreme left with the ComIntern, i.e. the Soviet communist party, ruled during his lifetime by Stalin. Almost all communist parties were in the mould designed by Lenin, and refined by Stalin. Even today, socialist / communist parties operate using the Leninist style of organisation, e.g. in th…
No, it is absolutely not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a list of talks given at the CCCongress: https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2017/Fahrplan/events... You don't have to go from "left-wing hacker collective" right to Stalin if there's data readily available on the actual subject being discussed. (There should actually be a left-wing equivalent of Godwin's law. Maybe "There-Is-No-Godwin's law"?)
I have commented not on the CCC but on user: 46886532558's original claim that being "reeeally left wing" is somehow a plausible reason for being anti-surveillance. This association is misleading, and I feel a responsibility to correct this historical mistake. This correction is especially apt since Germany is still full of Stasi victims.
The description uses "left wing" to help you conjure up the right mental image. Because "anticapitalist idealists and antiauthoritarians" would also describe buddhists and anarchists.
In the blink of an eye, it seems, we have gone from a world in which collecting, storing, and using personal data for financial gain was largely viewed as a harmless activity, to a world in which doing those same things will be increasingly controlled and regulated, scrutinized, criticized, investigated, fined, and ultimately, I suspect, criminalized.
And this is the climate while tremendously powerful corporations consider personal data collection to be a lynchpin of their moneymaking strategy (i.e., advertising.) Once internet advertising becomes broadly recognized as being not worth the cost, the demand for this data could fall off a cliff- what will policy look like then? I consider it a reason to be optimistic.
The same could happen here. Perhaps Zuck will be fired or we'll stop hearing about his (alleged) ambitions to enter politics, and that will be the end of it.
Let's not forget that CA is just one company. As long as Robert Mercer can continue doing what he does under various shell companies that are easy to register, we really haven't gotten anywhere unless regulations are implemented, and somehow applied globally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd be incredibly stupid for CA to have destroyed any evidence[0]. Privacy protections are, as far as I know, completely a matter of civil law. The worst that one would expect from the facts known so far is a high fine, bankrupting the company. Buy CA is toast anyway: no politician or reputable brand will ever want to be associated with them. Destroying evidence , however, can rather quickly result in criminal prose…
> Destroying evidence, however, can rather quickly result in criminal prosecution. I disagree with all your points. This would imply that no one has ever destroyed evidence. You are also implying they are acting rationally. You are also projecting US laws onto the U.K. > The only way to possibly way to square destruction of evidence with rational thinking is the possibility of CA having engaged in things worse than c…
>> The only way to possibly way to square destruction of evidence with rational thinking is the possibility of CA having engaged in things worse than currently known.
> Why are you assuming that this is unlikely rather than most likely?
I don't want to extrapolate from the known into the unknown. Also note that I didn't actually give an estimate on the possibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have commented not on the CCC but on user: 46886532558's original claim that being "reeeally left wing" is somehow a plausible reason for being anti-surveillance. This association is misleading, and I feel a responsibility to correct this historical mistake. This correction is especially apt since Germany is still full of Stasi victims.
> The historical record of the left is extremely pro-state, pro surveillance I think the problem with your comment is that you're flat-out misrepresenting the 'reeeally left wing'. There are plenty of 'leftist' movements that are just as opposed to 'the state' as they are to our corporate overlords. Arguing otherwise is either plain stupidity or intentional misrepresentation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was clearly referring to 46886532558's "reeeally left wing", i.e. extreme left. It is historically accurate to identify the extreme left with the ComIntern, i.e. the Soviet communist party, ruled during his lifetime by Stalin. Almost all communist parties were in the mould designed by Lenin, and refined by Stalin. Even today, socialist / communist parties operate using the Leninist style of organisation, e.g. in th…
> It is historically accurate to identify the extreme left with the ComIntern, i.e. the Soviet communist party, ruled during his lifetime by Stalin. No, it is absolutely not.
Start by asking yourself which non-fringe socialist/communist party was not using the Leninist model of organisation, and which was not a member of the ComIntern and its successors? Which did not receive funding and ideological schooling in the Soviet Union?
You have an uphill struggle against history against you.