Society Revealed: Trump’s election consultants filmed saying they use bribes and sex workers to entrap polit

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
Surely he can be impeached for this, right?
No. Trumpito hasn't said anything under oath so he's free to lie about anything. What Cambridge Analytica was doing for Trumpito is dirty, but not quite illegal as far as I understand. Their other activities are far enough away from him so as not to trickle back other than to intensify scrutiny on who knew what when.
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
So they are just the typical low brow electioneering company. That kind of thing has existed forever. It deserves to be shamed and exposed. But let's look at the far more nefarious stuff:

1> Using ex MI6 networks for dirt on opponents (Steele dossier says this is standard work as is mentioned in the video)

2> Facebook Data was mining is a use case here, but hardly the end of the story. Forbes Welcome The RNC had spent years data gathering in an attempt to reboot the party after getting wrecked in 2006-2008. They entered the 2016 election with 10 years of data gathering which was provided for cross reference and campaigning... cambridge then provided the modern tools to microtarget this with A-Z testing expanding in a modern way over historical A/B testing that famously fundraised for Obama.

Outside of gotcha techniques that exist world wide and take no real intelligence to perform, this company appears to simply be a natural extension of former campaign tactics moved into the modern era. Demonizing them seems to miss the larger point. The genie is out of the bottle. Spidering data/metadata and cross referencing it for targeted ads is the expected advertisement practice going forward. Did people think this wouldn't extend to marketing...candidates?

Rather than target this one company for shitty shill tactics of tempting bribes or hookers, the larger pictures should be addressed. What's ethical or not? If the ads would run anyways, does micro targeting become unethical simply because the message to me and my neighbor is different? Unethical because its simply too effective?

This is the reality of social media and is nothing specific about this company. They mined facebook data, facebook knew it, and facebook okayed it because the result is selling a bunch of ads. But that facebook data could have been mined quietly if the operation were started earlier without facebook being alerted. Facebook data has been undoubtedly mined by every modern government. Now what?
The RNC and DNC and every other organization are collecting their own massive databases to allow machine learning guided micro targeting.

What is the recommended solution? Because as best I can tell, it only took one programmer to truly empower CA to do their thing. There's no doubt that every single modern campaign going forward will employ similar tactics. So what's the legislation or rules that should be put in place?
This post is beneath you.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
This post is beneath you.
Well that's rude.

How so?
I think these are very real and concerning questions on how do we legislate this? The issue isn't just foreign interference.

Should there be limits on the use of cross referenced data/meta data? And if so, how do we do that? Because again, I'm sure this is coming in every major campaign. Why wouldn't it?
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
Well that's rude.

How so?
I think these are very real and concerning questions on how do we legislate this? The issue isn't just foreign interference.

Should there be limits on the use of cross referenced data/meta data? And if so, how do we do that? Because again, I'm sure this is coming in every major campaign. Why wouldn't it?
It's beneath you because of the total misdirection in the first half that basically amounts to b-b-but Hillary...DNC...Obama...then diverts into the myths of technological determinism followed by a fairly genuine and well thought out policy question.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
It's beneath you because of the total misdirection in the first half that basically amounts to b-b-but Hillary...DNC

I'm referencing things mentioned in the video and was giving evidence of their current status and common use. That this isn't just Cambridge analytica doing this. They are putting together a lot of other pieces into once process. The expose specifically mentions mi6 agents, the most current famous example of this is in the exact same campaign. The video acts like Cambridge analytica is doing something crazy and unethical using MI6 agents. But that's not about Cambridge analytica. That's to my knowledge, and the evidence I referenced very briefly, a common tactic. But that doesn't seem to concern anybody until it's attached to Cambridge analytica.

That isn't about CA... That's a modern campaigning tactic to use ex spies to dig up dirt.

.Obama...
Click my Forbes link and read about real time A/B testing on steroids that was occurring. The machine learning aspect is doing what Obama's team did for fundraising in email. But it's doing it hundreds and thousands of times faster. My point is that it's a natural extension of a/b testing in email automatically. This is the natural extension of something we already were comfortable with. Are we uncomfortable with it now?
If so...Why? That's my point. That isn't a political post.
Obama's team revolutionized using the internet for fundraising. Trump's team did the same thing. I'm only pointing at stair steps in the process.

.then diverts into the myths of technological determinism

You'll have to break that out to me. I'm not sure what myths I stated other than trying to raise some specific questions and give examples of why I think this isn't about Cambridge analytica but is a natural extension of lots of current Technologies going where they will go unchecked. It's simply highly efficent and the genie is out of the bottle. Everybody will be doing this. Not everybody will be nihlistic in their approach to clients, but this is the new Norm I'm sure. The tech didn't cause it. We did and we haven't got a line in the Sand yet.

followed by a fairly genuine and well thought out policy question.
My entire post is meant to be genuine.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
kneeblock @Kneeblock in case it's not clear, I'm not trying to defend CA or their willingness to take on clients that may be intervening illegally. But as your post above says the guys don't seem to be at their core tech breaking the law.

The guy's obviously are shity unethical assholes that should be exposed. But the fact that this entire thread headlines about low-tech gotcha hookers, instead of the two larger things of using campaign tactics that are both the norm (it's cool to use foreign spy apparatus as long as that spy is a "contracator"?) ...and the new Norm (cross reference data, machine learning, Etc.) Illustrates my point. It's not about the portions of Cambridge analytica that are being highlighted, it's that all of this will exist even if it's domestic campaign on domestic only. Even with only a domestic service using domestic data.
Is it not a sophisticated propaganda machine then?
 

Belobog

First 100
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
759
1,445
One point that is illegal and confirmed by the video is CA coordinating strategy with the Trump campaign, political action committees, and other fund raising groups.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
One point that is illegal and confirmed by the video is CA coordinating strategy with the Trump campaign, political action committees, and other fund raising groups.

Oh I don't doubt that these guys are into illegal stuff. But this illegal items seem mostly built around who they communicate with or who they take on as a client.

It took only one really smart programmer to empower their company to allow them to do what they wanted. So it seems the barrier to entry for large data Gathering and cross-referencing is Within Reach of most major organizations.

I can easily picture any major political National Committee using their own data, purchasing more data, and hiring a team whose job is to do the exact same thing. If it's all done in-house at that point, I'm pretty sure most of those rules don't apply. That in-house organization could then coordinate with the candidate at will.

Cambridge analytica seems to be simply sold to the highest bidder.

But I don't think what they're doing is particularly unique. Knock them down and they're still going to be 12 more to contend with. And I've got no idea what to do about that. Access and development of these types of tools seems like it will only become more and more in reach.

You're not doing this to fundraise can you actually run a national campaign? If you're not doing this to campaign, are you actually running at "modern ground game?"

Cambridge analytica talking about something salacious like hookers is the least of the concerns.
If you find their actions unethical to the point that they should be illegal, then what do we do when a domestic organization is able to position a vertical infrastructure along the steps that they took? At that point the legality will be on the up-and-up but largely the same messaging will be occurring.
 

Truck Party

TMMAC Addict
Mar 16, 2017
5,711
6,851
Before clicking on this thread, I pretty much knew who would be posting what.

To those on the right, I ask you employ the same spirit of skepticism of politicians accounts and the rhetoric that opposes shady tactics you so valorized during the Clinton campaign.

To those on the left, I ask you to examine what you think these new revelations mean, what exactly they confirm or contradict, what ethical boundary you think they cross and what beyond hysterics can be done about it.

To the politically agnostic, I'm genuinely curious what you think.
Shady tactics are just not something I give a shit about, the kind of stuff in that video has been going on long before I was born. This country is 10-20 years from a sovereign debt crisis, a stock market correction much sooner as private debt is above 2008 levels in every major category I've seen & public debt & unfunded liabilities are out of control, the state of Illinois is selling junk bonds to pay off lottery winners, & a list of similar things exponentially more important than a data analytics firm Trump used blackmailing politicians. If you want shady tactics to end stop having the govt take in trillions, funnel it through an inefficient bureaucracy & handing it out for votes. Make whoever the president is inconsequential, along with which party is in power in congress, & the lobbyists & shady operatives will stop lining up like pigs at the trough.
 

Zeph

TMMAC Addict
Jan 22, 2015
24,355
32,126
Shady tactics are just not something I give a shit about, the kind of stuff in that video has been going on long before I was born. This country is 10-20 years from a sovereign debt crisis, a stock market correction much sooner as private debt is above 2008 levels in every major category I've seen & public debt & unfunded liabilities are out of control, the state of Illinois is selling junk bonds to pay off lottery winners, & a list of similar things exponentially more important than a data analytics firm Trump used blackmailing politicians. If you want shady tactics to end stop having the govt take in trillions, funnel it through an inefficient bureaucracy & handing it out for votes. Make whoever the president is inconsequential, along with which party is in power in congress, & the lobbyists & shady operatives will stop lining up like pigs at the trough.
Or, you know, like most countries, you could just make it illegal to bribe politicians, rather than try to live in some an-cap hellscape.
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
kneeblock @Kneeblock in case it's not clear, I'm not trying to defend CA or their willingness to take on clients that may be intervening illegally. But as your post above says the guys don't seem to be at their core tech breaking the law.

The guy's obviously are shity unethical assholes that should be exposed. But the fact that this entire thread headlines about low-tech gotcha hookers, instead of the two larger things of using campaign tactics that are both the norm (it's cool to use foreign spy apparatus as long as that spy is a "contracator"?) ...and the new Norm (cross reference data, machine learning, Etc.) Illustrates my point. It's not about the portions of Cambridge analytica that are being highlighted, it's that all of this will exist even if it's domestic campaign on domestic only. Even with only a domestic service using domestic data.
Is it not a sophisticated propaganda machine then?
No, it's not propaganda and the foreign versus domestic elements I think we can both agree are mostly a red herring. To me, the idea of elections only being national in scope is a quaint artifact of an older pre-globalized era.

The reason I say it's not propaganda is because these terms need to be disambiguated. Misleading news, propaganda, trolling, psyops, persuasion campaigns and targeted marketing (psychometric or otherwise), all are distinct types of communication that we can't collapse into shorthand. The differences between A/B testing messages and the kind of psychometric targeting CA engaged in aren't exactly vast. They're part of the same family, but they are distinct because of the way the data is acquired. In this case, we are hearing there was misappropriation of data and it was used to take advantage of certain structural affordances of Facebook. That in itself is unique, but doesn't exactly rise to the level of subverting democracy or manipulating a blind, victimized public as some narratives would like to hysterically proclaim. Still, it's not exactly a continuation of a trend so much as an information arms race between a variety of actors, some of whom are political. To say that this is just something that's been going on for awhile or that the genie is out of the bottle is to surrender to that arms race.

There are a number of ways some of this can be legislated to restrict the collection and usage of certain data in elections. Facebook in particular has already made some shifts to their platform that will mitigate some of this, but it could be too little, too late. A possible fix could be to alter election roles to force candidates to disclose all data sources and information they have on you when interacting with their content in the same way we make them disclose funding. Of course that doesn't stop the dark money that moves through FB or any platform from subverting these rules which is why we need a court that will overturn Citizens United.

To me, this is an inflection point, not a continuation of a trend or a meh, this is the new norm. If we accept that in this moment, any political will for data accountability will be foreclosed until who knows when.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
kneeblock @Kneeblock First off, thanks for taking the time to give some input and your thoughts. I see that we mostly agree actually and in my night shift posting, I've obviously failed to be clear with my intent. There is not some of the implication intended that you are reading in my posts.

distinct because of the way the data is acquired
This is a good point and starts to answer lines in the sand. But for the sake of argument, while that is probably illegal, or should be, I think it's short sighted to focus on that as a defining factor. I believe that we are very close to meeting the same data points through legal, passively agreed, measures. CA claims a multitude of datapoints (4-5000) to generate a profile, etc. I don't doubt that users opting in, fine print, etc. could generate the needed data for the same profiling. So getting the data this time worked via a third party unethically (illegally?) scraping facebook content. But a 2020 facebook ad network might very well be so sophisticated as to allow the same messaging to the same people that CA was able to do. And that would be a "feature" of a great "highly targeted" ad network. This is where I see a continuum in both the tech, but also potentially the legality/culture accepting this type of messaging. I'm a bit uncomfortable with that, even though I believe that's a direction we could easily go.

To say that this is just something that's been going on for awhile or that the genie is out of the bottle is to surrender to that arms race.
I think I was not clear there.
"Something already going on" was in reference to using MI6 and other spy apparatus for campaign dirt. It was also meant to be in reference to the tech continuum I see above where ads become targeted, become micro targeted, become scary in their micro-targeting...and then to ask, what differentiates this continuum we seem to be on legally from the current illegal(?)/unethical moves of CA.

A large part of Wylie's complaint (the guy who programmed/ "hacked" for CA) against CA is that the microtargeting was done without the viewers awareness of the degree of customized targeting. They had a "lack of agency" as per him. I'm not sure that current legally perfected microtargeting will give users that agency. And whether the data came from scraping their facebook or from the fine print on their gmail and walgreen's rewards card, the end result seems to be that microtargeting is coming in a exponentially accelerated way using data that's out there in a manner many (me!) are questioning.

"the genie is out of the the bottle" was not meant as a giving up and acceptance that CA and others like them should be allowed or accepted to operate by scraping data. Rather, the tools are now out. What they did can be duplicated. The barrier to entry to that is not some DARPA level investment. It's low entry for many and with that, its going to keep happening. That's not a surrender, as much as I meant it to be a statement of a 'call to arms' of realization. This is getting easier and only going to get easier. My questions are partly rhetorical in response to that, but mostly meant to be a truly, "This is coming. More is coming. People are going to go into this arena off our current tech. I see a spectrum of legally allowed moves that mirror CA messaging that we should be questioning...is it okay? And what do we do about the bad actors?"

To me, this is an inflection point, not a continuation of a trend or a meh, this is the new norm.
Again, I was apparently not being clear. I definitely didn't mean to imply 'meh' by pointing out my views of continuation.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
No, it's not propaganda and the foreign versus domestic elements I think we can both agree are mostly a red herring. To me, the idea of elections only being national in scope is a quaint artifact of an older pre-globalized era.
Can you expand on this more?
 

redneck

First 100
First 100
Jan 18, 2015
999
1,513
Ahhh, so it was them who came up with the women who claimed that Trump raped them, and the pissing Hookers story about Trump, realeased the 'pussy grabbing' audio, and the Stormy Daniels story? Is this how they won the election for Trump, or are we still blaming Russia and facebook for that?
 

Truck Party

TMMAC Addict
Mar 16, 2017
5,711
6,851
Or, you know, like most countries, you could just make it illegal to bribe politicians, rather than try to live in some an-cap hellscape.
a communist in favor of good government, I've seen it all

it is illegal, still happens all the time
 
Last edited:

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
kneeblock @Kneeblock First off, thanks for taking the time to give some input and your thoughts. I see that we mostly agree actually and in my night shift posting, I've obviously failed to be clear with my intent. There is not some of the implication intended that you are reading in my posts.



This is a good point and starts to answer lines in the sand. But for the sake of argument, while that is probably illegal, or should be, I think it's short sighted to focus on that as a defining factor. I believe that we are very close to meeting the same data points through legal, passively agreed, measures. CA claims a multitude of datapoints (4-5000) to generate a profile, etc. I don't doubt that users opting in, fine print, etc. could generate the needed data for the same profiling. So getting the data this time worked via a third party unethically (illegally?) scraping facebook content. But a 2020 facebook ad network might very well be so sophisticated as to allow the same messaging to the same people that CA was able to do. And that would be a "feature" of a great "highly targeted" ad network. This is where I see a continuum in both the tech, but also potentially the legality/culture accepting this type of messaging. I'm a bit uncomfortable with that, even though I believe that's a direction we could easily go.



I think I was not clear there.
"Something already going on" was in reference to using MI6 and other spy apparatus for campaign dirt. It was also meant to be in reference to the tech continuum I see above where ads become targeted, become micro targeted, become scary in their micro-targeting...and then to ask, what differentiates this continuum we seem to be on legally from the current illegal(?)/unethical moves of CA.

A large part of Wylie's complaint (the guy who programmed/ "hacked" for CA) against CA is that the microtargeting was done without the viewers awareness of the degree of customized targeting. They had a "lack of agency" as per him. I'm not sure that current legally perfected microtargeting will give users that agency. And whether the data came from scraping their facebook or from the fine print on their gmail and walgreen's rewards card, the end result seems to be that microtargeting is coming in a exponentially accelerated way using data that's out there in a manner many (me!) are questioning.

"the genie is out of the the bottle" was not meant as a giving up and acceptance that CA and others like them should be allowed or accepted to operate by scraping data. Rather, the tools are now out. What they did can be duplicated. The barrier to entry to that is not some DARPA level investment. It's low entry for many and with that, its going to keep happening. That's not a surrender, as much as I meant it to be a statement of a 'call to arms' of realization. This is getting easier and only going to get easier. My questions are partly rhetorical in response to that, but mostly meant to be a truly, "This is coming. More is coming. People are going to go into this arena off our current tech. I see a spectrum of legally allowed moves that mirror CA messaging that we should be questioning...is it okay? And what do we do about the bad actors?"



Again, I was apparently not being clear. I definitely didn't mean to imply 'meh' by pointing out my views of continuation.
Great summary here.




 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
Can you expand on this more?
What I mean is that national elections only being of interest to domestic parties has always been a ruse. And as long as we live in an era of corporate personhood, we've opened spaces for multinationals to impose an agenda on politics that have little to nothing to do with US priorities. The US has certainly set the precedent since the Monroe Doctrine of involvement in electioneering abroad. This obviously intensified especially in the Cold War and its globalization aftermath.

So there's plenty of historical political precedent for foreign involvement in ensuring favorable election results. What's mostly distinct about this case is the information asymmetries that are figuring into electoral contests. It's one thing for information to be collected on candidates and their allies to discredit them, but wholly another to collect information on the public itself to manipulate affect toward how they engage in the political process altogether. Whether it's illegal is one debate, but whether it merits either a regulatory or a punitive (in the event of foreign actors being involved) response is another. The rules of engagment for how institutions can interact with our digital selves are so poorly defined. The way we protect ourselves and our democratic processes in this era of info wars is one of the hottest issues around, but in reality we still don't know enough to even say what effect most of these attempts at manufacturing consent/denial are realisticaly having. Still lots more work to be done.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
the genie is out of the the bottle" was not meant as a giving up and acceptance that CA and others like them should be allowed or accepted to operate by scraping data. Rather, the tools are now out. What they did can be duplicated. The barrier to entry to that is not some DARPA level investment. It's low entry for many and with that, its going to keep happening. That's not a surrender, as much as I meant it to be a statement of a 'call to arms' of realization. This is getting easier and only going to get easier. My questions are partly rhetorical in response to that, but mostly meant to be a truly, "This is coming. More is coming. People are going to go into this arena off our current tech. I see a spectrum of legally allowed moves that mirror CA messaging that we should be questioning...is it okay? And what do we do about the bad actors?"

Hey look at that:

Political parties combine social media data with electoral roll information

 

Jesus X

4 drink minimum.
Sep 7, 2015
28,766
31,292
a politician buying hookers will not end his career people don't give a shit. our commander bought sex from stormy daniels and we just went "meh".
 

jason73

Yuri Bezmenov was right
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
72,789
134,171
Washington runs on hookers. So do ottawa ,moscow ,and london.its all part of the game
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
A large part of Wylie's complaint (the guy who programmed/ "hacked" for CA) against CA is that the microtargeting was done without the viewers awareness of the degree of customized targeting. They had a "lack of agency" as per him. I'm not sure that current legally perfected microtargeting will give users that agency. And whether the data came from scraping their facebook or from the fine print on their gmail and walgreen's rewards card, the end result seems to be that microtargeting is coming in a exponentially accelerated way using data that's out there in a manner many (me!) are questioning.

"the genie is out of the the bottle" was not meant as a giving up and acceptance that CA and others like them should be allowed or accepted to operate by scraping data. Rather, the tools are now out. What they did can be duplicated. The barrier to entry to that is not some DARPA level investment. It's low entry for many and with that, its going to keep happening. That's not a surrender, as much as I meant it to be a statement of a 'call to arms' of realization. This is getting easier and only going to get easier. My questions are partly rhetorical in response to that, but mostly meant to be a truly, "This is coming. More is coming. People are going to go into this arena off our current tech. I see a spectrum of legally allowed moves that mirror CA messaging that we should be questioning...is it okay? And what do we do about the bad actors?"
And the next generation....


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSLM-6AVxiU