Tik Tok

[daz28]

Just now, Doc said:

 

To give it a chance to get sold to Americans.

Who will sell it to whoever they want.  Apparently, it only has to be 50% American owners, which also make no sense.  Wouldn't you just stop the spying UNTIL it is sold to (half) Americans.  The oligarchs will be happy with half I guess.  

[Doc]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

Who will sell it to whoever they want.  Apparently, it only has to be 50% American owners, which also make no sense.  Wouldn't you just stop the spying UNTIL it is sold to (half) Americans.  The oligarchs will be happy with half I guess.  

 

My understanding is that they'll have to sell it to whoever the US approves.  And that half-at-least owner will ensure there's no more spying.  And it's been around for, what, 7 years now?  What's another 90 days?

[daz28]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

My understanding is that they'll have to sell it to whoever the US approves.  And that half-at-least owner will ensure there's no more spying.  And it's been around for, what, 7 years now?  What's another 90 days?

So some corporate board of half Americans will control content, or will the government oversee it?  What about FrEe sPeEcH?  Like I already tried telling you, your data is already being collected and sold with no regard for anything but the money.  

 

Thanks to a new Vermont law requiring companies that buy and sell third-party personal data to register with the Secretary of State, we’ve been able to assemble a list of 121 data brokers operating in the U.S. It’s a rare, rough glimpse into a bustling economy that operates largely in the shadows, and often with few rules.

Even Vermont’s first-of-its-kind law, which went into effect last month, doesn’t require data brokers to disclose who’s in their databases, what data they collect, or who buys it. Nor does it require brokers to give consumers access to their own data or opt out of data collection. Brokers are, however required to provide some information about their opt-out systems under the law–assuming they provide one.

 

The tipster told Tau the government was buying up reams of consumer data — information scraped from cellphones, social media profiles, internet ad exchanges and other open sources — and deploying it for often-clandestine purposes like law enforcement and national security in the U.S. and abroad. The places you go, the websites you visit, the opinions you post — all collected and legally sold to federal agencies.

In his new book, Means of Control, Tau details everything he’s learned since that dinner: An opaque network of government contractors is peddling troves of data, a legal but shadowy use of American citizens’ information that troubles even some of the officials involved. And attempts by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance program are now being debated.

On today’s episode of POLITICO Tech, Tau and I discussed the state of our personal privacy and the checks on all this government surveillance. I asked what differentiates the U.S. from authoritarian states like China when it comes to data collection, how our digital footprints will impact policy areas like abortion and what broader implications we can expect for civil liberties. He didn’t sugarcoat his responses.

“Any nightmare use for data you can think of will probably eventually happen,” Tau said. “It might not happen immediately, but it’ll happen eventually.”

Edited yesterday at 12:17 AM by daz28

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

So some corporate board of half Americans will control content, or will the government oversee it?  What about FrEe sPeEcH?  Like I already tried telling you, your data is already being collected and sold with no regard for anything but the money.  

 

Thanks to a new Vermont law requiring companies that buy and sell third-party personal data to register with the Secretary of State, we’ve been able to assemble a list of 121 data brokers operating in the U.S. It’s a rare, rough glimpse into a bustling economy that operates largely in the shadows, and often with few rules.

Even Vermont’s first-of-its-kind law, which went into effect last month, doesn’t require data brokers to disclose who’s in their databases, what data they collect, or who buys it. Nor does it require brokers to give consumers access to their own data or opt out of data collection. Brokers are, however required to provide some information about their opt-out systems under the law–assuming they provide one.

 

Spying isn't "free speech."  And I have no idea what they're going to do exactly.  The only other option is to just keep it as is.  Which is better?

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Spying isn't "free speech."  And I have no idea what they're going to do exactly.  The only other option is to just keep it as is.  Which is better?

If collecting data is "spying", then why can China obtain it from thousands of legal brokers, but just not tiktok.  It's about the money and nothing else. 

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, daz28 said:

If collecting data is "spying", then why can China obtain it from thousands of legal brokers, but just not tiktok.  It's about the money and nothing else. 

 

So you'd take option B, not bother doing anything?  OK.  That might be what happens anyway even after its sold. 

[daz28]

Just now, Doc said:

 

So you'd take option B, not bother doing anything?  OK.  That might be what happens anyway even after its sold. 

No, I chose option A:  Don't believe or trust their motives, especially when you can clearly see they're conflicting and illogical.  The government could protect our data any time they want to, but the oligarchs control them, so it never happens.  We can't even have net neutrality ffs.  

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

No, I chose option A:  Don't believe or trust their motives, especially when you can clearly see they're conflicting and illogical.  The government could protect our data any time they want to, but the oligarchs control them, so it never happens.  We can't even have net neutrality ffs.  

 

The biggest concern is China censoring things that are shared on it and spreading their propaganda.  Which is the opposite of free speech.  Which is why they have banned X.

[daz28]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

The biggest concern is China censoring things that are shared on it and spreading their propaganda.  Which is the opposite of free speech.  Which is why they have banned X.

No, those are what they are selling you as concerns.  If that's true, then all algorithms are "censoring".  The government shouldn't get to decide what is "propaganda", especially when they propagate their own just as much.  You know who the best judge of propaganda is?   ME!  THAT is free speech.  You literally just spurned China for banning X, while you're praising trump fiddling with Tik Tok here,  LOL 

[Doc]

13 minutes ago, daz28 said:

No, those are what they are selling you as concerns.  If that's true, then all algorithms are "censoring".  The government shouldn't get to decide what is "propaganda", especially when they propagate their own just as much.  You know who the best judge of propaganda is?   ME!  THAT is free speech.  You literally just spurned China for banning X, while you're praising trump fiddling with Tik Tok here,  LOL 

 

There's no "selling."  Why do you think X is banned in China? 

[daz28]

Just now, Doc said:

 

There's no "selling."  Why do you think X is banned in China? 

Because their less than free citizens aren't deemed smart enough to be free, which is EXACTLY what they're trying to do here, and succeeding.  Do you think America's enemies weren't compromising the pony express? The telegraph wires?  The radio waves?  The TV?  Cable news?  The government and corrupt SCOTUS are really making the stand on a video platform, where  12 year old girls do dances?  LOL.  I watched an interview with a downed Tuskegee airmen who was interrogated by the Nazis.  He said he couldn't even tell them anything they didn't already know about him.  That was in the day/age when the card catalog was a fresh new idea.  I can't get past the idea that you're failing to understand that your data is not safe, and is not a concern of Washington WHATOSEVER.  Instead of "buying" their reasons, ask the real questions, like why is my already unsafe data safer w/o Tik Tok, and why is the SCOTUS pitching my freedoms aside for obvious bs.  

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Because their less than free citizens aren't deemed smart enough to be free, which is EXACTLY what they're trying to do here, and succeeding.  Do you think America's enemies weren't compromising the pony express? The telegraph wires?  The radio waves?  The TV?  Cable news?  The government and corrupt SCOTUS are really making the stand on a video platform, where  12 year old girls do dances?  LOL.  I watched an interview with a downed Tuskegee airmen who was interrogated by the Nazis.  He said he couldn't even tell them anything they didn't already know about him.  That was in the day/age when the card catalog was a fresh new idea.  I can't get past the idea that you're failing to understand that your data is not safe, and is not a concern of Washington WHATOSEVER.  Instead of "buying" their reasons, ask the real questions, like why is my already unsafe data safer w/o Tik Tok, and why is the SCOTUS pitching my freedoms aside for obvious bs.  

 

You're saying nothing will change.  I'll wait and see after it is sold to an American group.  If nothing changes...then nothing changes.  Asking questions when it won't make anything change isn't and answer.  LOL.

 

In the meantime I'll keep avoiding it like I've done since it came on the scene.

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

You're saying nothing will change.  I'll wait and see after it is sold to an American group.  If nothing changes...then nothing changes.  Asking questions when it won't make anything change isn't and answer.  LOL.

 

In the meantime I'll keep avoiding it like I've done since it came on the scene.

Bro, the only thing that will change is who is getting paid for your data, that's it.  All disguised as 'national security'.  One of the biggest over-reaches in history, and this country has told some doozies in its past.  No, you'll keep exercising your CHOICE to void it.  This was started with an "emergency" executive act btw.  Go back to sleep.  

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Bro, the only thing that will change is who is getting paid for your data, that's it.  All disguised as 'national security'.  One of the biggest over-reaches in history, and this country has told some doozies in its past.  No, you'll keep exercising your CHOICE to void it.  This was started with an "emergency" executive act btw.  Go back to sleep.  

 

LOL!  You weren't this worked-up when you realized they were lying to you about Biden not being senile.  This is yet another lie told by them.

 

Again I don't use it.  Frankly I couldn't care less what happens with it.

[daz28]

Just now, Doc said:

 

LOL!  You weren't this worked-up when you realized they were lying to you about Biden not being senile.  This is yet another lie told by them.

 

Again I don't use it.  Frankly I couldn't care less what happens with it.

See bait, won't swtich.  LOL  Just wait until trump tells you what's best.  LOL

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

See bait, won't swtich.  LOL  Just wait until trump tells you what's best.  LOL

 

You don't even know what you're arguing anymore.  Good night.

[daz28]

Just now, Doc said:

 

You don't even know what you're arguing anymore.  Good night.

That's because it's complicated.  You don't even know WHAT you're arguing about.  Go Bills!

[daz28]

If you'd like to learn more about this subject, just google Fox news.  NC swears by it.  Here's their latest 'story'.  They put two of their top people on it, and neither was a DEI hire, even the Latino woman:  

 

Trump inauguration performer Lee Greenwood defends Carrie Underwood against critics

Story by Christina Dugan Ramirez, Larry Fink

 • 13h • 3 min read

Edited yesterday at 02:51 AM by daz28