IMPORTANT: Due to COVID-19, we will conduct fewer human reviews, in order to protect the health of our extended workforce. Unfortunately, as a result, we may remove content that does not violate our Community Guidelines
My question is how can an online YouTube company stipulate that due to their protection of the health of their extended workforce that they may remove content that does not violate their Community Guidelines?
Surely a extended (remote) workforce can work from home in accordance with social distancing and isolation?
The majority of people (80%) are not in danger of a mild virus. It is those with compromised immune systems that are apparently at risk.
How do we know you are not censoring content you do not agree with that may offer information that is not the standard narrative?
How do we trust Google (now owner of YouTube) given the Cambridge Analytic situation and using algorithms to place information in front of people to influence behaviour?
What does the global population want? What is in the public interest? Would it be a free internet where all views are given a platform?
I certainly support public standards in respect of information that does not promote violence. However, I am all for freedom of speech even by those I don’t agree with. For example I would not shut down the 5G or the pro smart cities material even though I believe it is not in the public interest. I would like to see both pro and against so that I can make a choice. That is respect for me as a citizen to make up my own mind.
In education teachers will provide alternative views for children to decide so they learn how to determine their own thoughts. There is no corporate influence in the classroom to subliminally give them cues that they remember and later will prompt them to purchase. I worked for a educator in London and there tests had corporate logo’s designed to influence children. We see the issue of advertising to children when they do not have parental supervision which may push them to pressure parents, not unlike placing items at a checkout so kids will go for them and embarrass parents so they weaken to buy. It is this incessant need to seel and discard the real needs of people that I am awakening to. Is it truly service if messages are delivered to serve the sender not the receiver.
Other issues concern grooming, where messages are sent over and over and people get used to seeing them and through operant conditioning people just accept the message after a while. It is not a forum with standards, debate, contrasting views where the public can really discuss what is in our interests and what is not.
There are real concerns in the community about mind control and algorithms affecting what is seen and what is not seen. What is high on rankings and what is shunted lower due to not paying or ideological preferences of corporations. It is known that the CIA and NSA are working with Silicon Valley and hence, high tech companies. How is surveillance affecting us, information management from a certain perspective rather than open minded approaches that respect we are in a global village and it is not about specific interests but how we can co-exist as a diverse, vibrant global commons. Unfortunately when business interests come into play the whole feel and freedom of the space slowly changes as ads pop up, people buy space so they can influence, and the money incentive stifles what is seen and what is not. It is so unfortunate as we all lose that diversity and creativity that happens naturally without interference.
I am not voting for a Brave New World. I am voting for a free public commons where there is minimal interference and a celebration of what it is to be human and to co-collaborate on ventures that advance our world in ways that maximise happiness and ecological sustainability. See no-one pays me to say this, it comes from my heart which is my true nature. Yet if I was a corporate person my message would be different as an agenda would be there. This is why true freedom is so important for expanding our world in ways that benefit everyone.
Perhaps what we need is a global regulator who can make decisions on the basis of information that cause deliberate harm and information that serves education, knowledge and interests. To be careful to make it narrow as interpretation can be wrong, culturally filtered, personally judged or ideologically narrowed. Can we do this in a way that honours the voice of billions?
Professor Shoshana Zuboff speaks about Silicon Valley shadow operation. We won’t get the data. Hi-Tech claim data they take from our lives without our permission, private lives without permission, analyse data, took it, illegitimate profit. Bypassing our awareness. Without consent.
I, Susan Carew, do not consent to any extraction of my data or the residual data in order for companies/government/intelligence to predict my behaviour with the objective of selling to me, controlling me or suppressing my democratic rights. I will not use a iPhone ever as it takes away my rights, distracts me from my life and purpose, and exposes me to radiation which likely causes cancer and health damage. I do not consent to other radiation emitters around me as it impacts my health and safety. Moreover, the rampant consumption is the outcome of data usage mapping our lives and is the very core issue of ecological collapse. I cannot participate in the destruction of my planet or imprisonment of human society as a global citizen. Today is my birthday and it is the gift I give to myself.
Surveillance capitalism is embedded in infrastructure projects to control the population. We are addicted to our iPhones and this is the foundation for a system of control that will not serve people but public/private partnerships to further industry. The previous blog explains the serious health effects of using iPhones emitting radiation.
Whenever you bring up ‘surveillance of phones’ in a conversation often the counter argument will quickly state: “I have nothing to hide” which is a misconception and a form of denial where the person doesn’t want to go there as they depend on their phone. They don’t question their learned dependency.
I was at the railway station today. It is a recent infrastructure project where the station was raised above a road and enlarged with surveillance equipment evident. I saw at least 15 cameras and then the LED lights which can also surveil. I saw the free public phone (recently made free). I found myself standing out of the view of cameras as I didn’t want facial recognition given my privacy. I have had surveillance happen to me when I went to a Senate inquiry in Canberra called the Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press. The hearing I went to was intelligence agencies talking about this topic. In addition, a few months earlier walked to Parliament to make homelessness visible. I am also a former community radio person, analyst and advocate for peace education. When I walked through a public square a light came on brightly in a public space as I walked through the space. I was the only person there. I saw police insignia on the camera. I knew it was facial recognition and I was uncomfortable as I feel my democratic right to participate is being targeted. My mother was stopped by the police a short time after, in the car I had driven to the inquiry. So the technology in my view can adversely impact those of us advocating for democracy and a better world.
Shoshana Zuboff indicates we willingly give our personal information believing that information is under our control, which we do not. We provide this personal information is the least important part of the information they collect about us according to Shoshana Zuboff.
Placing our heads in the sand is not an option if you want democratic freedom. If you wish to be a cyborg then just keep burying your head in your iPhone to avoid the reality of your life and courageously facing challenges to awaken and become aware.
key points and notes:
Google earth was a CIA start up;
surveillance capitalism is also offline;
we don’t know the predictive implications;
supermarket chain knew a woman was pregnant before she did;
predict personality, sexual orientation, political orientation – range of things we didn’t intend to reveal;
residual knowledge upload photos – Facebook photos, predictive signals companies can lift from photos;
algorithms facial recognition software;
predicting human behaviour and predictions are sold;
data sold to anyone, could be used for oppression;
facial photos facilitate totalitarian regimes;
processes disguised and operate in stealth;
engineered to be indecipherable to create ignorance in vast group of users;
Facebook massive scale contagion experiments, subliminal cues planted in Facebook pages influence offline real world;
two key findings manipulate subliminal cues to change real world behaviour and emotion, we can exercise this power and methods whilst BYPASSING USER AWARENESS;
Pokemon,go https://www.pokemongo.com/en-au/ – invented by Google. Google the inventor of surveillance capitalism – John Henke;
Invented keyhole which is a CIA Google Earth start up. Pokémon is not a happy game, they brought it to market, the big game on top of little game precisely emulates logic of surveillance capitalism. Sell click through rate pays for clicks on website, click to buy button. Paid for real world equivalent (footfall) to get real bodies into businesses. Buy lure modules;
Use rewards and punishment of game to herd you to the city for those paying for your body to turn up, the real game is to get you to spend, we predict where you will be, it is of value when it works;
You believe you are being served, you will not notice or complain. The shadow operation will remain hidden, you will not ask questions;
Want to know about your walk in the park, what you are doing in car, your home etc;
Net security system has a microphone built into it, voices, conversations, watching t.v., who is visiting, shouting over breakfast – predictive value;
Google’s business to misdirect to engineer ignorance in mechanism undetectable, if confronted deny until habituate;
Don’t have to think;
We give consent, privacy, your device held hostage to you agreeing, we maintain functionality, third parties will do what they do;
Third parties have no responsibility;
Silicon valley surveillance capitalism broke through in 2002;
More money came from surveillance capital;
Google acquired android, made great margin, rich. Make iPhone cheap, get price down, more on the iPhone more, facebook used network drones (growing markets);
Facebook’s intention doesn’t share information on how company works. Facebook Australia told its business customers that it has so much data about 6.6 million young adults and teenagers, predict mood shifts, stressed, fatigue, frightened. We can alert you when they need a CONFIDENCE BOOST, the exact moment when they are likely to need this. Send advert for a sexy black jacket (going on a date). Peak vulnerability.
2018 – Chris Whiley – Cambridge Analytica – analysed 18 million citizens. They wanted to understand their inner demons, how to target their demons, fear, anger, paranoia, trigger emotions manipulate them to click on website, join group, what to read, who to hang out with, who to vote for. Manipulate innocent young people. From commercial to political outcomes. Cambridge Analytica is a parasite on a huge host surveillance capitalism;
Mark Zuckerberg announces future of privacy, fear of litigation, not genuine;
When on facebook there is no right to privacy, no expectation of privacy they think;
VPN – send data via private networks;
Amish example of simplicity. Technology we use, not to control us.
I give no consent to my location, ID and my data being gathered (bulk connections). I have nothing to hide but I like my privacy as a woman. I realise the company’s believe they own my data and believe they can sell it. I do not give consent.
NOTES: Snowden’s comments –
Central problem is you do not know what the phone is doing!
According to Snowden you can turn off your phone but how do you know it is off he says. Old phones mean you can take the battery out that stops signals. The phones now are sealed. Airplane mode doesn’t turn off wifi. We don’t know what the phone is doing or what it is connected to? Apps talk want it to stop after using e.g. messenger, weather app. People need to be able to make intelligent decisions not just app by app on a connection by connection basis. You may use Facebook – want to connect to Facebook content servers, want to be able message a friend but you don’t want it to talk to an ad server or analytics server or third party (monitoring your behaviour). Facebook crams them (third party) into every app you download, you don’t know as you can see it, problem with data collection today. Industry built on keeping this invisible. Need to make activities of our devices (iPhone, computer) more visible and understandable to the average person and give them control. Say there is a little green icon spokes coming off, every app your phone is talking to, all hosts talking to. Once every 3 seconds phone is checking in with Facebook. No-one wants spying. If people could press a button to turn off apps ie. Facebook etc. People would want no spying. Google and Apple do not allow the button to exist. If the companies think it is not understood, too complex then it needs to be simplified. It is a problem.
Stories data breached, companies spying here or there, manipulating purchases, search results, hiding things on your timeline – influence and manipulate in different ways. Happens as a result of single problem – which is inequality of available information. They can see everything about you , what you device is doing, they can do anything with your device. You paid for the device, increasingly governments and corporations own it. we do all the work, pay taxes, costs… People work hard but they are owning less. The young people do not know what they are losing.
Data became a commodity, valuable to Google an social media platform, making billions of dollars earned, people are accustomed, difficult to turn that horse around. Snowden says money becomes power and influence. Information becomes influence.
Surveilance states they won’t relinquish as they embed this reality. The permanent record is the story of our lives.
Permanent record is the subject of the book.
You life how intentionally BY DESIGN both government and corporate realised it was in their mutual interest to conceal data collection activities to increase the breadth and depth of their sensor networks spread out throughout society. Back in the day Intelligence collection in US (sigin) was sending FBI agent to put alligator clips in a building, or disguised as a workman bug in a building or built satellite listening, in desert, parabolic collector listening to satellite emissions. Satellite links were owned by military and exclusive to government not affecting everyone broadly, all surveillance was targeted. What changed with technology was surveillance becomes indiscriminately, dragnet, ‘bulk collection’ should become dirties phrases in the language if we have decency. This this was intentionally concealed from us, government did it used classification, companies did it, denied it, they say you agreed to this. You didn’t agree to anything. They say they put Terms of Service page up, you clicked. You clicked a button said I Agree when you are trying to open an account to talk to friends, email etc. You were not agreeing to 600 page legal form, even if read you wouldn’t understand. Even if did, the first para says this agreement can be changed anytime by the company.
NOTE: They built a legal paradigm that presumes RECORDS collected about us DO NOT BELONG TO US. This is one of the core principles on which mass surveillance from the government perspective in US is legal. Government says it is legal, it is fine. Our perspective as a public, says that is the problem this isn’t okay, the scandal is not in their breaking the law, it is in that they DON’T HAVE TO BREAK THE LAW. It is called a third party doctrine, legal principle Smith vs Maryland. Established a precedent that the record don’t belong to the guy they belong to the company. The company has ownership over records, back in 1970s. Still relying on this precedent. No-one has a privacy right over their lives (data collection). Not data being manipulated but PEOPLE being MANIPULATED.
Everyone jumps on the bandwagon to make money without a backward glance to the social cost to democracy.I personally do not feel safe and I do not want people I do not know where I am and gathering my data about what I do, where I go, who I speak to, who my friends are. I don’t want people accessing my blog if they are monitoring me rather than reading my blog out of interest. It is a form of surveillance. This feels to me like stalking. I am alarmed by the facts raised above that my data is not mine, YES IT IS. What I am doing now is my thoughts on a page they do not belong to WordPress, the IP company or those surveilling me. I revoke other rights that state I have agreed, I haven’t. This provides insights into FOI requests and why no data is forthcoming. I am not fully informed.
I have real concerns about the medical effects cancer and EMF with iPhones. This is a real problem.
The apps are companies they are not just little icons (analytics) and it is too much for the average person to understand and make clear decisions.
The homeless guy living in the bush I met recently is probably right to be there. He is free. He is not accessing digital. He has let go of this society. I can understand why that is a good thing.
I just Googled a poem of mine that I have published. It didn’t come up at all in Google but it did come up 1st in Duckduckgo.com.
The latter search engine stops tracking and ensures online p rivacy. It is an alternative to Google. It also provides different information in a search. This is an interesting exercise.
I will stay with Duckduckgo so that I can be sure my work and other’s works is seen. I don’t want my searches filtered. I have noticed in a library that the Google icon makes it hard for me to select Duckduckgo. As I have to click a button to make it appear in the search line at the top. If I do it in Mozilla it is easier and Internet Explorer is fine. So the issue of Google dominating the searches gives us the scenario of ONE SEARCH ENGINE AND NO CHOICE. That then controls global information. This is not in the public interest. Ironically they speak of competition but not in the IT area. First movers make the most money as ads show up and pay. Something to consider.
See below how the different search engines searched and how we are influenced and information filtered.
We have to be mindful of how our searches are manipulated, filtered and controlled so certain views are seen and heard and others are hidden. This is not democracy when it is deliberate.
You will note the heading of my poem is unique, there are no others named the same. It should be first in Google.
I will post Duckduckgo search first so you can see what comes up, how the information is listed. Then I will show you what came up with Google and you can see how different they are.
Duckduckgo Search …
The Gift of Compliance (security) or Democracy (freedom)?
This is the code (at the top). Note it is simpler.
https://freedomoutpost.com/d-is-for-a-dictatorship-disguised-as-a-democracy/May 7, 2019″The Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World” was a giftof friendship from the people of France to the United States and is recognized as a universal symbol of freedom and democracy. Though, of course, the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. Assembly required (that’s part of the fun!)
in the Americas centers on building an enabling environment for private
sector investment in energy and infrastructure that is transparent,
competitive, and in line with international best practices.
https://www.usaid.gov/democracy-human-rights-and-governance-strategySince the early 1990s, USAID has promoted political freedom as an integral part of development. Released in June 2013, USAID’s Democracy,
Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Strategy highlights the centrality of
participation and accountability to the achievement of human rights and
https://www.debate.org/opinions/is-freedom-more-important-than-securityIf we have no security, then people can harm us when we practice our freedoms. A certain amount of security is necessary for freedom. As such, I consider security marginally more important than freedom, /especially/ since when this argument is brought up, it usually involves a small amount of freedom and a great deal of security.
www.ipedr.com/vol21/16-ICIF2011-F10011.pdfInformation Act 2011 with the view to assessing its implication for records and office security management. 2. METHODOLOGY The paper began with the exploratory study on the content of freedomof information Act 2011. The paper was a survey research and the data was collected mainly from secondary sources derived from
IN GOOGLE I did the exact same search. This is how it looks…
GOOGLE Search for…
The Gift of Compliance (security) or Democracy (freedom)?
This is the code (at the top). So what does the first code mean?? Note my term is further down the code.
And that’s not the only one, according to a recently published report by the non-profit, non-partisan watchdog organization, the Google Transparency Project, which identified “329 research papers published between 2005 and 2017 on public policy matters of interest to Google that were in some way funded by the company.”
What’s more, the academic research funded by Google covered “a wide range of policy and legal issues of critical importance to Google’s bottom line, including antitrust, privacy, net neutrality, search neutrality, patents and copyright.”
“[A]cademics, think-tanks, law firms, and economic consultants from some of the leading law schools and universities in the country, including Stanford, Harvard, MIT, University of California Berkeley, UCLA, Rutgers, Georgetown, Northwestern Law School, and Columbia.”
Internationally, GTP reports, “Google-funded studies were written by academics at some of the most prestigious universities in Europe, including Oxford (U.K.), Edinburgh University (U.K.), Berlin School of Economics (Germany), Heinrich Heine University (Germany), and KU Leuven (Belgium).”
“Some researchers share their papers before publication and let Google give suggestions, according to thousands of pages of emails obtained by the Journal in public-records requests of more than a dozen university professors. The professors don’t always reveal Google’s backing in their research, and few disclosed the financial ties in subsequent articles on the same or similar topics, the Journal found.”
University of Illinois law professor Paul Heald neglected to disclose the $18,830 he received from Google to fund “an idea on copyrights he thought would be useful to Google.” When he was questioned in an interview about his failure to mention his sponsor, Heald replied, “Oh, wow. No, I didn’t. That’s really bad. That’s purely oversight.” The professor also claims the money had no influence on his work.
Google has paid anywhere between $5,000 and $40,000 per paper, and the number of studies surged the highest in 2012 when the company was being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission and European regulators for antitrust violations. At least 50 studies on antitrust issues authored between 2011 and 2013 were bought and paid for by Google.
According to a former employee and a former Google lobbyist, Google officials in Washington compiled wish lists of academic papers and then searched for willing authors to complete the desired work. Google often provided working titles, abstracts, and budgets for each proposed paper. Upon completion, they were pitched to government officials. The former lobbyist told the Journal that Google would “sometimes pay travel expenses for professors to meet with congressional aides and administration officials.”
Google’s massive influence on academic research should come as no surprise given the former CEO’s openness in discussing the company’s hand in writing legislation. At the Washington Ideas Forum, Schmidt described his experience working with the U.S. government, revealing that “The average American doesn’t realize how much of the laws are written by lobbyists…and it’s shocking, now, having spent a fair amount of time in the system – how the system actually works.”
Shocking is an understatement. It’s absolutely terrifying how the system works. A multi-billion dollar company with a monopoly on the internet not only writes the laws, but funds academic studies to shield them from further laws that might prevent them from becoming even more dangerous, all while harvesting private data from over a billion people and developing AI technology that allows two neural networks to communicate using inhuman cryptographic language indecipherable to humans.
And the executive chairman of this disturbingly powerful corporation is a man who has stated that Google’s famous “Don’t be evil” slogan was “the stupidest rule ever.” This is the same man who told an audience in Washington, D.C., that “We don’t need you to type. We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”