Tag Archive for SCOTUS

Chatbots Taking Over Politics

Chatbots Taking Over PoliticsMercifully, the 2016 U.S. election cycle is coming to an end. Most people are talking about how terrible all the candidates are. We don’t care anymore both candidates suck. The political conversation online is even worse. Political conversation online is more hateful because most of the politics on social media outlets like Facebook or Twitter are chatbots.

Researchers say that most election tweets come from political chatbots. Chatbots are computer programs that simulate human conversation or chat through artificial intelligence. Political chatbots engage with other users about politics, especially on Twitter (TWTR) and Facebook (FB).

Chatbots are rooting for Trump.

most election tweets come from political chat botsRecode reports that chatbots for both sides are pushing their candidates hard. According to a paper released by Oxford University’s Project on Computational Propaganda, Republican bots are out tweaking Democratic chatbots on the Web.

The researchers found that most bots root for Trump to win the election. During the third presidential “debate,” Twitter bots sharing pro-Trump-related content outnumbered pro-Clinton bots by 7 to 1. Between the first and second debates, bots generated more than 33% of pro-Trump tweets, compared with 20% for pro-Clinton tweets.

Twitter bot

The Oxford team found that a Twitter bot is automated account software that acts independently. Bots can retweet, like, and reply to tweets. They can also follow accounts and tweet themselves.

bots can give candidates and issues unwarranted cloutThe researchers found that Twitter accounts with extremely high levels of automation, meaning they tweeted over 200 times during the data collection period (Oct. 19-22) with a debate-related hashtag or candidate mention, accounted for nearly 25% of Twitter traffic surrounding the last debate.

The problem with the outpouring of automated engagement on Twitter is that campaigns often measure success (and decide where and how to invest in further outreach) by counting these retweets, likes, replies, and mentions.

Chatbots can give issues unwarranted clout.

The article states that it is hard to tell how many retweets and likes are from real supporters. A proliferation of chatbots can give candidates and issues unwarranted clout. Throughout the race, Trump has discounted the value of polls. They’re rigged, he says. Instead, his campaign implores Americans to reference how viral he is on social media and the size of his rallies.

rump’s uptick in automated Twitter fandomThe third debate came on the heels of the leaked tape of Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women, which went viral. The article speculated that Trump’s uptick in automated Twitter fandom during the debate may have been intended to counteract the lingering outrage against the candidate on social media.

Increasingly, journalists use Twitter to report stories and prove public interest. They believe it’s an excellent way to bring audience voices into a political discussion, though more voices don’t always make for a better conversation. The author warns that much of the engagement numbers aren’t from real people, which is also a sobering reminder that virality is no demonstration of genuineness.

Automated fake profiles that look real

journalists use Twitter to report stories and prove public interestDonald Trump likes to boast that he’s more popular than Hillary Clinton on social media. After all, he has 12.9 million Twitter followers, while Clinton lags behind with a mere 10.1 million. But it’s hard to say how much those numbers mean if many of them represent robots. Sam Woolley, a researcher at the University of Washington who studies the political use of social media bots, told Revelist “… that well over half of his [Trump] followers are automated, fake profiles made to look like real people.”

Mr. Howard told CNN,The takeaway is that we should be skeptical about social media … Politicians use bots to influence debate, it’s often a form of a negative campaign because in many cases these bots can be very vicious.

Rb-

Filippo Menczer, a computer scientist at Indiana University’s School of Informatics and Computing, said botnets have been deployed in many countries to squelch dissent. “We’ve seen examples in other countries – in Russia, Iran, and Mexico – of bots used to destroy social movements. They would impede conversations.  All of a sudden, you would see hundreds of thousands of junk tweets flooding your feed.”

Notice the Trump – Russia tie.

This is one of the risks of automating work with bots, which I wrote about here. The pro-Trump bots keep counting on themselves to skew their total numbers up and bury the discussion points from actual voters under the avalanche of bot chat.

Watch out—it won’t be long before chatbots are granted rights under dubious SCOTUS rulings like Citizen United.

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Independence Day 2016

Independence Day is the time when Americans celebrate freedom from a tyrannical government in the 18th century. While gaining that freedom, the founding fathers used encryption. They used encryption while risking their lives to gain the freedom we celebrate on July 4th. The EFF documents how many of the Founding Fathers of the United States used encryption to secure our freedoms.

  • Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson invented an encryption devicewas the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the country’s third president. He is known to be one of the most prolific users of secret communications methods. He even invented his own cipher system—the “wheel cipher”  or the “Jefferson disk” as it is now commonly referred to. Mr. Jefferson also presented a special cipher to Meriwether Lewis for use in the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
  • George Washington was the first president of the United States. He frequently dealt with encryption and espionage issues as the commander of the Continental Army. He gave his intelligence officers detailed instructions on methods for maintaining the secrecy and for using decryption to uncover British spies.
  • John Adams was the second U.S. president. He used a cipher provided by James Lovell—a member of the Continental Congress Committee on Foreign Affairs. He was an early advocate of cipher systems—for correspondence with his wife, Abigail Adams while traveling.
  • James Madison was the author of the Bill of Rights and the country’s fourth president. He was a big user of enciphered communications. Numerous examples from his correspondence prove that. The text of one letter from Madison to Joseph Jones, a member of the Continental Congress from Virginia, dated May 2, 1782, was almost completely encrypted via cipher. And on May 27, 1789, Madison sent a partially encrypted letter to Thomas Jefferson describing his plan to introduce a Bill of Rights.

TechDirt correctly concludes that If encryption was good enough for the Founding Fathers to use in the 18th Century … it’s pretty ridiculous that we’re still having this debate now in this age of constant government monitoring, warrantless searches, corporate data aggregationdata sharing, and tools like IBM’s Non-Obvious Relationship Awareness software (NORA). The time is now to fight shortsighted “going dark” claims by the FBI and efforts by clueless politicians like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) who have plans to ban encryption.

rb-

Seems to me that the biggest threat to America this Independence Day is the political ambitions of technically illiterate know-nothings in the gooberment. Be like the Founding Fathers and encrypt something start with HTTPS Anywhere from the EFF.

 

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Tech Regulatory Capture

Tech Regulatory CaptureRegulatory capture occurs when governmental bodies created to act in the public interest instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can encourage large firms to exploit the public.

Former Sen. Chris Dodd Named MPAA Chief

Former Sen. Chris Dodd Named MPAA ChiefChristopher Dodd, the former five-term Democratic senator from Connecticut is the head of the Motion Picture Association of America. He sat on the Foreign Relations Committee, headed the Banking Committee, and co-authored the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Among other things, he attempted to filibuster the legislation that immunized telecom companies from lawsuits over the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

As head of the MPAA, he’s likely to be a little less friendly to the average netizen. The MPAA has lobbied hard for the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

It has pushed for the government to shutter websites suspected of hosting infringing material and is responsible for using the American legal system to sue U.S.-based torrent search engines out of existence. A case against Canadian-based Isohunt is pending.

Facebook Adds Friends in Washington

Facebook Prepares to Add Friends in WashingtonDemocrat Sheryl Sandberg, the former Clinton administration official is a chief operating officer for Facebook. Ms. Sandberg, is the company’s No. 2 official behind co-founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg.

Republican Ted Ullyot, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is the social networker’s general counsel. Mr. Ullyot, was a White House lawyer and chief of staff for Alberto Gonzales when he was attorney general in the George W. Bush administration. Facebook  told the Los Angeles Times that Mr. Ullyot “has extremely strong connections with the Republican Party, and we think that’s a good thing.”

Facebook Adds to Its Public Policy Staff

Facebook Adds to Its Public Policy StaffFacebook increased its Republican credentials by adding Catherine Martin, who is the site’s first director of public policy. Previously, Ms. Martin worked for President George W. Bush, serving as deputy assistant to the president and deputy communications director for policy and planning.

Facebook May Hire Former Obama Aide

Facebook May Hire Robert Gibbs, Former Obama AideFacebook is in talks to hire Robert Gibbs, President Obama’s former White House press secretary, for a senior role in helping to manage the company’s communications, people briefed on the negotiations told the New York Times.

Mr. Gibbs, who left the White House in February after two years on the job, had planned to help set up President Obama’s re-election campaign before taking a private-sector job, these people said. A job for Mr. Gibbs at Facebook could be worth millions of dollars. While details of his potential compensation package have yet to be discussed, people briefed on the talks said that he would receive a cash salary as well as shares ahead of the initial offering. Some investors have valued Facebook at more than $60 billion and could be the largest offering in history. Mr. Gibbs and a spokesman for Facebook declined to comment.

Facebook Woos Washington

Facebook Woos WashingtonThe Daily Beast points out that Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg’s company has 600 million members, making it about twice as big as the United States. The Daily Beast says that Facebook needs to get as cozy as it can with the U.S. Government and Barack Obama. This company is gathering more personal information about more people than any other company ever, even more than Google. Suddenly it is dawning on everyone, including members of Congress, just how much power Facebook is amassing.

Co to counter the trend Facebook has hired two more former government officials.

  • Elliot Schrage worked at the Council on Foreign Relations and Google before joining Facebook. Mr. Schrage, a lawyer by training, serves as Facebook’s head of global communications and public affairs.
  • Chris Hughes, a Facebook co-founder, ran Obama’s 2008 social networking operation via a website called My.BarackObama.com.

$35,000 For a Dinner With Obama

Yelp Just Paid $35,000 For A Steak Dinner With ObamaAfter President Obama’s love-in speech video on Facebook, another group of tech luminaries got a meeting with POTUS. The steak dinner at the home of Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff cost $35,000-a-plate. According to Business Insider other Silicon Valley big-shots in attendance included:

Related articles
  • Facebook Prepares to Add Friends in Washington (nytimes.com)
  • Chris Dodd shows how Washington works (salon.com)

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Supremes Rule on Sexting Case

Supremes Rule on Sexting CaseOn Thursday (June 17, 2010) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the City of Ontario, California v. Quon case. I wrote about this sexring case earlier and its implications for corporate technology acceptable use policies (AUP).  The case involved the use of text pagers issued to officers by the city police department. The city issued the pagers for City use, under a general acceptable use policy. The officer in question consistently went over the allotted limit on messages which caused his supervisors to get stored text messages from the service provider. The City discovered that many of the messages were not work-related but were “sexting” or sexually explicit personal text messages. The officer claimed that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the police department’s actions were reasonable, and thus did not violate the constitutional rights of the police officer. Justice Kennedy’s opinion ruled narrowly, to avoid a final definition of electronic privacy.

Prudence counsels caution before the facts, in this case, are used to establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations of employees using employer-provided communication devices. Rapid changes in the dynamics of communication and information transmission are evident not just in the technology itself but in what society accepts as proper behavior. At present, it is uncertain how workplace norms, and the law’s treatment of them, will evolve.

According to the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), the Supreme Court faced an opportunity to curtail workplace privacy (or electronic privacy generally) in this case. However, the Court applied the O’Connor v. Ortega (1987) precedent, that government employees generally retain their Fourth Amendment privacy rights, and it assumed that government employees may have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in communications they send during work hours on employer-issued devices.

The CDT says the message to government employers is that the courts will continue to scrutinize employers’ actions for reasonableness, so supervisors have to be careful. Unless a “no privacy” policy is clear and consistently applied, an employer should assume that employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy and should proceed carefully, with a good reason and a narrow search, before examining employee emails, texts, or Internet usage.

rb-
As we always try to tell our clients, make sure that there is a clear statement of no privacy in all policies and policy enforcement actions and as part of their policies, companies should discourage employees from using personal accounts to conduct company business.

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Who’s in Charge Here?

Who's in Charge Here?Apparently, the justices in the U.S. Supreme court don’t use much technology. LawyersUSA reports that during oral arguments in the case City of Ontario v. Quon, which considers whether police officers had an expectation of privacy in personal (and sexually explicit) text messages sent on pagers issued to them by the city, the justices of the Supreme Court at times seemed to struggle with the technology involved.

Among the technical difficulties reported included Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. – who is known to write out his opinions in longhand with pen and paper instead of a computer – asked what the difference was “between email and a pager?”

Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what would happen if a text message was sent to an officer at the same time he was sending one to someone else. “Does it say: ‘Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you?’” Kennedy asked.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrangled a bit with the idea of a service provider. “You mean (the text) doesn’t go right to me?” he asked. Then he asked whether they can be printed out in hard copy. “Could Quon print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies?” Scalia asked.

rb-

While I’m no lawyer, I have a passing knowledge of how courts work (and don’t work) to frame decisions I make. It would seem reasonable that the Supremes would have a passing knowledge of how technology works when they are making laws that will impact the rest of us.

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.