Clinton's email spin-control, and the questions that nobody is asking

Fact check: Clinton e-mails and the privacy 'privilege'

[...] Clinton, a likely presidential candidate in 2016, has been embroiled in an e-mail controversy since March 2, when The New York Times reported that she exclusively used a private e-mail account at clintonemail.com to conduct government business. At a press conference on March 10, Clinton said she sent and received more than 60,000 e-mails during her time in office. At the State Department's request, Clinton turned over about half of them to the government in December. The rest were deleted because they were personal, she said.

Asked whether she would agree to allow an "independent third party to come in and examine your e-mails," Clinton replied that she should be treated no differently than federal employees who have a government e-mail account and a personal e-mail account. They can decide when they send an e-mail whether to use the government or private account.

"So, even if you have a work-related device with a work-related .gov account, you choose what goes on that," she told reporters.

That's true, of course, but the situation she describes is not entirely analogous, since Clinton had no government account. She made the choice to use only a personal e-mail account set up on a personal server.

Moreover, Clinton's office went too far when answering the same question in a Q&A it released on the day of the press conference. The Q&A detailed the Clinton team's review process and answered some common questions that have been raised since the Times story first appeared.

One of the questions in the Q&A: "Do you think a third party should be allowed to review what was turned over to the Department, as well as the remainder that was not?" Clinton's office answered, in part: "Government officials are granted the privacy of their personal, non-work related emails, including personal emails on .gov accounts. Secretary Clinton exercised her privilege to ensure the continued privacy of her personal, non-work related emails."

That characterization of the rules governing government e-mail systems is not accurate.

State Department policy — spelled out in the Foreign Affairs Manual under "Points to Remember About E-mail" — says there is "no expectation of privacy." Specifically, 5 FAM 443.5 says, in part: "Department E-mail systems are for official use only by authorized personnel" and "The information in the systems is Departmental, not personal. No expectation of privacy or confidentiality applies."

Clinton is correct that the department policy allows employees to delete e-mails that are not work-related. The 5 FAM 443.5 rule also says, "Messages that are not records may be deleted when no longer needed."

But Baron — who served 13 years as director of litigation at the National Archives, which is responsible for maintaining government records — said in an interview that Clinton's use of a private server gave her exclusive control, thus preventing the department from having full access to e-mails she sent and received while a federal employee. Government employees have no right to privacy on government computers and even personal e-mails are subject to review and perhaps release at the department's discretion.

"Setting up a private server to conduct public business inappropriately shifts control of what is accessible to the end user alone rather than allowing the institution to decide threshold questions," he told us.

We sent e-mails to Clinton's office and to the State Department asking about the privacy claim but received no response. [...]

Read the whole thing for embedded links and more.

The article goes on to say that Clinton claims that she was emailing people in the State Department with .gov email accounts, and that they have copies of the emails she sent. Sure, the one's she sent to THEM. What about the other emails she sent other people, as Secretary of State? Ironically, her statement also confirms something else. The people in the State Department that she was emailing, knew that she was not using a .gov account, and they just let her do it anyway. Why was she allowed to do this?

If this were a Republican being investigated, the press would be asking those people, "What did you know and when did you know it? Why was she allowed to break the rules her position required her to follow?" Will the press do so this time? If they don't, then WE need to.

ALL politicians, regardless of party affiliation, need to be questioned and held accountable for their actions, if we are to get better people in office. Clinton has been let off the hook so many times, she just keeps on acting as if she has privileges no one else has. Why? Because too many people let her do it. And that just encourages more of the same. It has to stop.

     

Can computers become WAY too intrusive?

You tell me:



EmoSPARK - the beating heart of AI in the 21st Century!

EmoSPARK is unique in many ways, in the way it processes and functions, drawing on your hopes, feelings and experiences, growing and developing with your family requirements, unlike any other multimedia home console has ever done before. In the same way, you support and nurture your maturing family, your EmoSPARK, will take its lead from you.

The EmoSPARK is the first artificial intelligence (AI) console empowered by you. Learning from you and your family the cube, which will interact on a conversational level, takes note of your feelings and reactions to audio and visual media. It learns to like what you like, and with your guidance, recognises what makes you feel happy.

It learns to recognise your face and voice, along with your family members, as well as becoming familiar with the times when you are feeling a little down in the dumps. Then it can play the music it knows you enjoy, or recall a photograph or short video of happier events. You will be in control of how you interact and engage with the EmoSPARK, which is an Android powered Wi-Fi/Bluetooth cube.

The cube, like any family member, soon gets to know and recognise the likes and dislikes of the people around it. Likewise with its unique Emotion Processing Unit, you can watch the ever changing display of colours that form and blend in the iris of the eye of the cube indicating how it is "feeling" at any particular moment.

EmoSPARK also holds the knowledge contained within Wikipedia and Freebase, as well as being connected to NASA satellite MODIS, so it has up to the minute information about global happenings, changes and hazards such as storm warnings, wild fires and hurricanes.

As you take charge of its growth pattern, the cube will in turn, help out with any piece of information you care to ask, which makes it one of the best and impartial quizmasters during a family fun night or evening homework session. You can also interact with the cube by remote access, via video conferencing or your phone app and in this way you can take gaming, your television, smart phone and computer to the pinnacle of interactive media.

Every step of the way, with this amazing and unique piece of AI technology, you are in complete control. You are the catalyst that will develop its conversational and emotional skills, and it will learn through interaction, comments and responses from you. Then, like any family member, it will want to show you off to its friends. The EmoSPARK, with its one of a kind Emotional Profile Graph, has access to a communication grid only for other cubes. All it will be able to do is recognise other cubes with similar emotional profiles and can only share media, nothing about you or your family members. It can look for the media it knows makes you happy and can then recommend or play this for your enjoyment.

Over time and with your guidance, the EmoSPARK develops a personality of its own, and will enhance and support the quality of family life you enjoy. From keeping your children entertained, as well as providing them with some company before you get back from work, to sharing emotions, as well as precious memories, with loved ones who may be living and working away from home, the EmoSPARK provides the emotive, intelligent link between human beings and our technology.

EmoSPARK is an Android powered cube that allows users to create and interact with an emotionally intelligent device through conversation, music, and visual media.

EmoSPARK measures your behaviour and emotions and creates an emotional profile then endeavours to improve your mood and keep you happy and healthy.

EmoSPARK can feel an infinite variety in the emotional spectrum based on 8 primary human emotions, Joy, Sadness, Trust, Disgust, Fear, Anger, Surprise and Anticipation.

EmoSPARK app lets the owner use a smart device to witness the intensity and nuance of the cubes emotional status. The more the cube learns the more it can help you.

EmoSPARK has access to freebase and is able to answer questions on 39 million topics instantly.

Amazing interactive learning experience for all.

EmoSPARK has conversational intelligence and is able to freely and easily hold a meaningful conversation with you in person or over your device.

New Virtually a family member.

Interactive media player understanding your desires and needs.

AI empowered by you and powered by happiness.

[...]

Uh. Yeah. Ok. Do you wonder how it would work? Look at this video, from the EmoSpark website:



Would you want one in your house? Speaking to you, making suggestions, interrogating your friends, rolling that silly ball around the floor, till it trips and injures/kills someone? "I feel happy", it says. No it doesn't. It's not alive, it has no feelings, it's an algorithm.

Ok, I did like the egg timer. That's because SHE initiated that contact. The rest seemed kind of... intrusive. I don't want a machine directing my conversations, and guiding my actions.

Next thing you know, it will lock you outside your garage door, telling you that you're endangering the mission. That's if it doesn't kill you in your sleep first.

And talk about information gathering... can you imagine what the NSA could do with a feed from such a device? It could become Big Brother's favorite tool.

I find the whole concept both fascinating, and revolting. I'm not the only one, just look at some of the comments left on the YouTube page.

I don't want to be totally negative about this. It's just that it's application can be so diverse and used in so many ways. I doubt we've even begun to guess all the unforeseen consequences of many of them. But ready or not, here it comes.

Are you ready for the Brave New World?


Update 02-16-14: Is EmoSPARK a scam? It seems to be a "kickstarter" operation, attempting to raise funds to build the product. I have no way of knowing if it's legitimate or not, and a quick Google search didn't reveal much, other that what the company itself says.

Using things like "face recognition" in a product for the home, seems more advanced than I would expect for something in the home market at this point. But I'm no expert either, and I wouldn't doubt that someone will try to be first to market with such a product, as many existing technologies are being perfected and mass-produced more inexpensively. The EmoSPARK idea is an interesting concept, insofar as it shows where this technology could go, and where some people want to take it.

I'm not endorsing this (yet to be produced?) product, or warning you off it. I'm just saying, caution is advisable before investing in anything cutting-edge. Buyer Beware.

   

What "do no evil" Google Knows about You

And what it does with it:

Google knows too much about you

(CNN) -- If you use Google, and I know you do, you may have noticed a little banner popping up at the top of the page announcing: "We're changing our privacy policy and terms." It gives you the choice to "Learn More" or, another option, the one I'm betting most people followed, to "Dismiss."

Who wants to read about what Google plans to do with all that information it has about us?

[...]

If Americans -- or people anywhere -- decided to take up Google's offer to check out its new policy, they would discover something so troubling, so frightening, really, that it would override the national tendency to leave companies alone to make money how they see fit. At least in the case of companies such as Google -- and now Facebook -- which know more about us than even our closest friends.

Here's what Google knows about you, what it stores right there on its servers, waiting for a hacker:

Google has every e-mail you ever sent or received on Gmail. It has every search you ever made, the contents of every chat you ever had over Google Talk. It holds a record of every telephone conversation you had using Google Voice, it knows every Google Alert you've set up. It has your Google Calendar with all content going back as far as you've used it, including everything you've done every day since then. It knows your contact list with all the information you may have included about yourself and the people you know. It has your Picasa pictures, your news page configuration, indicating what topics you're most interested in. And so on.

If you ever used Google while logged in to your account to search for a person, a symptom, a medical side effect, a political idea; if you ever gossiped using one of Google's services, all of this is on Google's servers. And thanks to the magic of Google's algorithms, it is easy to sift through the information because Google search works like a charm. Google can even track searches on your computer when you're not logged in for up to six months.

Facebook has even more interesting stuff: your pictures, your comments, your likes, your friends, your un-friends.

[...]

Google's famous motto is "do no evil." I won't accuse Google of deliberately doing evil. It has done much to improve our lives. It makes no secret of the fact that it seeks to make profits, which it richly deserves. I do believe, however, that it deliberately tries to deceive us when it claims the new privacy policy seeks "to provide you with as much transparency and choice as possible."

I followed the instructions and with some difficulty eventually downloaded pages upon pages of personal material about myself from Google. What I was looking for was a simple, shall we say beautiful, button telling Google not to save anything I don't explicitly want it to save. But there was no such button.

Google, like Facebook, owns trillions if not quadrillions-plus bits of information. They mine it, use it to sell ads, algorithm it. But my real fear is not Google. My real fear is that computer technology has turned into an arms race between good guys and bad guys. Google may see itself as a jaunty white hat wearer, valiantly protecting all our information. And it may be doing it to the best of its ability. But hackers are hard at work all the time. [...]

Is the concept of privacy, as we've known it, destine to become a thing of the past?

Read the whole thing for embedded links, and more about what is being attempted to contain this collection and use of personal data.

And here is something you can do, before March 1st:

How to delete your Google browsing history in three simple steps . . . before it's too late to hide your secrets


Also see:

Social Media Dangers in our Brave New World

Are Facebook's "Social Plugins" making the service less popular with older users?
     

Are Facebook's "Social Plugins" making the service less popular with older users?

It would seem that users age 35 and older are concerned that their personal data is being carelessly handled:

Amid backlash, Facebook tries to save face

[...] Social plug-ins were one of Facebook's big announcements at F8, the developer conference that the social network held last month.

They take its existing Facebook Connect product a few steps further by bringing users' Facebook friends lists to external sites and showing them their friends' activity. A news site, for example, could show which stories your Facebook contacts have been recommending and commenting on.

CNN.com is one of several dozen sites that partner with Facebook to display and share users' interests.

Facebook says the Amazon-owned Internet Movie Database has seen referral traffic from Facebook double after it started putting Facebook "like" buttons on individual pages in its entertainment directory so that members can easily share their favorite movies and TV shows on their profiles; more than 350,000 "likes" have been pushed to Facebook through IMDB.

For news sites, Facebook reports that its referral traffic has increased 290 percent for the Washington Post and 250 percent for ABC News.

"We think the story behind these stats is more important than the stats themselves. As we've found on Facebook, people share, read, and generally engage more with any type of content when it's surfaced through friends and people they know and trust," the post by Facebook developer representative Justin Osofsky read.

"We're bringing activities that have been social in the offline world, such as sharing news, reviews, and sports enthusiasm, and giving sites a way for their users to experience their content with friends."

Unfortunately, though these numbers are a bright spot for potential partners, they don't do much for irritated users who say that Facebook is more or less toying with their personal information.

And the bad press, too, continues to roll in. Earlier on Tuesday, news broke that there was asecurity hole in Yelp -- one of the test partners in Facebook's "Instant Personalization" program -- that put Facebook user data at risk.

The "Instant Personalization" program takes Facebook's social plug-ins even further by automatically importing Facebook profile information to third-party partners. Yelp says it's fixed the hole.

This adds to two Facebook-related security holes that surfaced last week, in which there were likely no malicious intentions but which didn't help already-concerned Facebook users from wondering just how safe their data is on a site that repeatedly modifies its privacy policies and has had a well-documented recent history of security flaws and phishing scams.

And one polling firm, YouGov, says that Facebook may want to start getting concerned about its brand image -- at least where adults are concerned.

The firm's BrandIndex service surveyed two slices of the U.S. population, adults 18 to 34 and those over 35, to discover if their perception of the Facebook brand has grown more positive or negative over the past few weeks and rating the results on a scale of -100 to 100. While Facebook's stock appears to be rising in the younger demographic, climbing from 32.8 to 44.8 since March 24, in the older one it's slid from 26.7 to 21.2. [...]

This is a good example of why I haven't jumped onto the social networking bandwagon. It's all too new, and there are still many unforeseen consequences. I'd rather not be the guinea pig. I'll wait and see what happens to other people first.


Also see:

Social Media Dangers in our Brave New World
A look at the creepy ways your social networking data can be used.
     

Do you think you have privacy on the internet?

Guess again. An interesting article from LinuxInsider.com:

Who's Watching You Browse?

Being on the Internet is like living in a village: Everyone knows who you are and all the details of your private life -- except that on the Internet, it's not just people you may have known all your life who know a lot about you; it's complete and utter strangers.

It's not just that those strangers may know stuff that could really make you uncomfortable, such as the fact that you perhaps posted photos of yourself stinking drunk on your Facebook More about Facebook page. More importantly, they can track the Web sites you visit and report back to someone who wants to track you, has malicious intentions or wants to sell you something.

Take, for example, a company called LeadLife, which has an app that can determine who is visiting a client's Web site, how the visitor got to the client's Web site; and which of the client's products the visitor is most interested in. LeadLife is one of many companies offering such a service. Other firms put trackers on users' browsers so they know just where the visitors go and, based on that, launch targeted marketing campaigns.

Over the years, several third-party companies offering apps that mask users' identities have sprung up. Recently, browser vendors have begun including a privacy mode in their products, but are these good enough?

And just what is privacy, anyhow? [...]

Read the rest of the article to see the many ways in which you do not have privacy on the internet, the ineffective ways privacy is guarded, and what (if anything) you can do about it.

It explains how websites I've visited freqently have built up profiles on me, and then alter the banner ads on their sites based on web browsing I've done. Yikes.

Brave New World, with such people in it.