WikiLeaks: Google's Eric Schmidt Collaborates With Clinton Campaign Team to Use the Cloud as Voter Information Aggregation Tool

[maulemall]

1 minute ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

Clearly an intel shill. Who're your donors, maulmall? Better show us your emails so we know about all the speeches you've been giving to your intel corporate masters

 

Dude, all it takes is one tor reference and you're up there. No big deal. HEIL SNOWDEN

Intel is small potatoes....

 

[tlink]

2 minutes ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

Dude, all it takes is one tor reference and you're up there. No big deal. HEIL SNOWDEN

in that case im definitly on it, i downloaded kali and follow snowden on twitter x) funny thing is that the NSA is constantly recommended to follow on twitter for me as some kind of passive aggressive act.

[mark_cameron]

3 hours ago, Michael McAllister said:

Over the past few weeks, WikiLeaks, known for releasing information and communications of some of the most powerful government players, has been releasing daily dumps from the compromised email account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair, John Podesta.

 

In a new email release (ID 37262), it has been revealed that Google's Eric Schmidt detailed a rough draft back in 2014 to use the cloud (big data) to create a system in which to aggregate voter information.

 

Excerpt:

 

 

 

Depending on how much data Google intends to aggregate, this may not be an issue.  That being said, with the number of data breaches increasing in recent months, this really gives me pause.

 

 

I have mixed things about this.  As a geek, I love the idea of things being more connected and the ease of access to information.  How can I be assured that the data will be restricted in certain ways?  How many different eyes will see the information?

 

I've donated to candidates this election, so will third parties be able to hand this information off to Google at their leisure?  Given that a number of states use electronic voting machines, will Google somehow have access to this information?

 

What are your thoughts?

I think that Donald Trump's campaign use of Bots to basically dominate discussion on social media platforms - like Twitter is a bigger issue.

 

Since it distorts people's perceptions and makes it appear that his view is the mainstream view when the reality is its a minority view. That is being artifically made to look like a mainstream.

 

This distortion of the real social media discussion and people's perception - then affects voting intentions since humans by nature follow a 'herd' mentality. This has been shown by automobile driving studies and driver tending to group rather than drive alone.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37684418

 

Trump's Twitter debate lead was 'swelled by bots'

By Shiroma SilvaBBC News

• 18 October 2016
•  

  More than four times as many tweets were made by automated accounts in favour of Donald Trump around the first US presidential debate as by those backing Hillary Clinton, a study says.

  The bots exaggerated support for the Republican, it suggests, but Trump would still have won a higher number of supportive tweets even if they had not.

  The authors warn such software has the capacity to "manipulate public opinion" and "muddy political issues".

•  

• I think artificial distortion of what people are supposedly saying - is far big an issue than a tech company analysing what people may be saying to better enable a Politician to address concerns that the general public have. Since the Trump approach is very much the TAIL WAGGING THE DOG rather the dog wagging the tail.
  
  Note that I am not American (I'm British) and merely commenting as an observer.

 

 

 

[Michael McAllister]

@mark_cameron Due to influence from lobbyists, politicians rarely address the concerns of the public. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

[mark_cameron]

7 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

@mark_cameron Due to influence from lobbyists, politicians rarely address the concerns of the public. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

I would beg to differ.

 

The 'Google' - Eric Schmidt project I have read - actually is nothing more than a glorified high intensity - voter intention survey / prediction tool.

 

That gives near real time indications on what the political candidate / candidate should be addressing in public statements. As such the technical side really isn't a massive issue in terms of the overall political process.

 

I would say what Donald Trump's campaign are doing - engaging actors to mass produce BOTS to actually distort what the public are saying - is far far more incidious.

 

Its not actually representing what the general public are saying. Its physically distorting it!

 

Rather than targetting Google - people should be targetting the companies/organisations programming the BOTS.

 

If Google were doing what the Trump Bots are doing there would be outrage.

[Michael McAllister]

5 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

I would beg to differ.

 

The 'Google' - Eric Schmidt project I have read - actually is nothing more than a glorified high intensity - voter intention survey / prediction tool.

 

That gives near real time indications on what the political candidate / candidate should be addressing in public statements. As such the technical side really isn't a massive issue in terms of the overall political process.

 

I would say what Donald Trump's campaign are doing - engaging actors to mass produce BOTS to actually distort what the public are saying - is far far more incidious.

 

Its not actually representing what the general public are saying. Its physically distorting it!

 

Rather than targetting Google - people should be targetting the companies/organisations programming the BOTS.

 

If Google were doing what the Trump Bots are doing there would be outrage.

 

Both sides have had a share in manipulation.  That isn't to excuse bots.  David Brock did something similar but instead spent $1 million to hire online trolls for HRC under the moniker Correct The Record.  Part of the purpose of my post was to demonstrate the interplay between government and corporate interests.  In this instance, it involved Google which has a tremendous amount of influence.  On the surface, this email chain appears innocuous.  We really should be asking ourselves why this conversation is taking place.  If I had ideas like that, how likely would it be that Hillary's campaign would consider them?  If I donated $20, nothing would likely happen.  That might be different if it were $200,000 through a super PAC.

[mark_cameron]

1 minute ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

Both sides have had a share in manipulation.  That isn't to excuse bots.  David Brock did something similar but instead spent $1 million to hire online trolls for HRC under the moniker Correct The Record.  Part of the purpose of my post was to demonstrate the interplay between government and corporate interests.  In this instance, it involved Google which has a tremendous amount of influence.  On the surface, this email chain appears innocuous.  We really should be asking ourselves why this conversation is taking place.  If I had ideas like that, how likely would it be that Hillary's campaign would consider them?  If I donated $20, nothing would likely happen.  That might be different if it were $200,000 through a super PAC.

You're obviously correct.

 

However, big data is not going to go away. To my eyes its not the worst issue here.

 

What is and is much more overt is the bots issue. As it shouts down the average person in the street.

 

It also potentially allows foreign state agents to interfere in the American election.

 

If this were the UK election there would be signifant outrage. The US government did try and influence the recent UK referendum. However, that was done overtly by Obama which means average voter can make their own decision. What is going on in the US election is clandestine. I genuinely believe the Russian government has tried to damage the US election process. As a friendly democracy, I find that unacceptable. Just like I would if it were the Canadian election.

 

The discussion should be  - how can we ensure Western democratic processes remain independent and uninfluenced by clandestine methods.

[samcool55]

1 hour ago, tlink said:

i bet you're on the same NSA watchlist now as me, maybe they will talk about us at coffee break  

Oooh i'm already on there for a while, i download tor at least once a year so i'm sure i'm on it

At least that way i'm sure i'm on it and i don't need to guess what would put me on it.

[Sammael]

I hope clinton wins by over 5 points, so these Assange like ANARCHISTS get rebuked and realize that most of humanity does not share their concern or psychosis and Clinton Hatred.

 

 

They are mad at her for the Iraq war vote, and think she will get in a war with Putin, she is self interested enough to not want to do the latter.  Just a bunch of loser isolationists that would rather watch the world burn than wade into the fray.  Lyssa Aryn, Walder Frey.  Assange is no Tyrion Lannister or Danaerys Targaeryn.  The latter was the biggest liberal internationalist and straight up NEOCON in all of popular fiction.  She would incinerate thousands to end slavery and impose HER values that she sees as SUPERIOR.  That is not Assange, everything is relative, we have no right to meddle in any other affairs, no matter how dark and filled with malice around the world.

 

I want this little punk isolationist loser to see that the rest of us are not him, that we do not see the world as he does, that most of us spit in his face when it comes to his views.

[tlink]

14 minutes ago, Sammael said:

I hope clinton wins by over 5 points, so these Assange like ANARCHISTS get rebuked and realize that most of humanity does not share their concern or psychosis and Clinton Hatred.

 

 

They are mad at her for the Iraq war vote, and think she will get in a war with Putin, she is self interested enough to not want to do the latter.  Just a bunch of loser isolationists that would rather watch the world burn than wade into the fray.  Lyssa Aryn, Walder Frey.  Assange is no Tyrion Lannister or Danaerys Targaeryn.  The latter was the biggest liberal internationalist and straight up NEOCON in all of popular fiction.  She would incinerate thousands to end slavery and impose HER values that she sees as SUPERIOR.  That is not Assange, everything is relative, we have no right to meddle in any other affairs, no matter how dark and filled with malice around the world.

 

I want this little punk isolationist loser to see that the rest of us are not him, that we do not see the world as he does, that most of us spit in his face when it comes to his views.

he has just as much right to publish as any journalists. he has the same right to meddle as any others have in these affairs. or is that not what you mean?

[SteveGrabowski0]

4 hours ago, maulemall said:

Ivan is a leftist. So you know that he makes up his "Truths" to fit whatever crime the Clintons commit.

Notice how he hasn't defended with any evidence he just trys to attack with a term meant to scare you, Right winger...

But lets speak of his left wingers. Mao, Stalin, Hitler. All are left wingers that have been the cause of 60 plus murders and genocides themselves. Then you have the lower cast left wingers like Che and Pol Pot who killed murdered just a mere couple million.

 

Right wingers like Lincoln and Washington are the lefts nightmare.

Hitler a left winger 

[maulemall]

1 minute ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Hitler a left winger 

public school education..

[SteveGrabowski0]

Just now, maulemall said:

public school education..

Trump U education 

[ivan134]

Lol, the usual tin foil hatters are here and there seen to be some new ones. I haven't had time to join the "discussions" and respond the the people who quoted me because I'm at work. I'll leave this here the guy who hilariously claimed that Obama set race relations back 30 years.

 

[ivan134]

43 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Hitler a left winger 

Lol, you can't make this shit up. Trump said he wants muslims to wear a special ID. The guy who made Jews wear a star of David is a left winger.

[SteveGrabowski0]

21 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Lol, you can't make this shit up. Trump said he wants muslims to wear a special ID. The guy who made Jews wear a star of David is a left winger.

Hitler abolishing all the unions was a very left wing move. 

 

I guess Reagan was a left winger too for getting rid of the air traffic controllers union.

[SteveGrabowski0]

LOL this party of Lincoln horseshit I hear from the right, as if the Southern Strategy never happened and the confederate states didn't flock to the Republican party once they became the party of white identity politics.

[maulemall]

54 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Hitler abolishing all the unions was a very left wing move. 

 

I guess Reagan was a left winger too for getting rid of the air traffic controllers union.

I guess the love affair between joe Kennedy and Adolph was a figment as well.

You leftist guys just can't accept that you have been on the side of genocide and murder through your willful ignorance.

 

Oh and it took Ronnie a long time to figure out that the left and the unions were enemies to all free thinkers.

Hitler didn't like communism that's why he abolished the unions ...

The communists tried to take from his pool of left wing nut jobs.

 Your lack of actual knowledge is understandable, It's just not an excuse or a free ride. 

[maulemall]

1 hour ago, ivan134 said:

Lol, you can't make this shit up. Trump said he wants muslims to wear a special ID. The guy who made Jews wear a star of David is a left winger.

Adolf Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word "National" before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end. In April 1920, the German Workers Party became the NSDAP. Hitler became chairman of the new party and Karl Harrer was given the honorary title, Reich Chairman.

 

http://spartacus-educational.com/GERfeder.htm

 

The lie that people like you try to espouse only works on people to stupid and lazy to read.

[ivan134]

15 minutes ago, maulemall said:

Adolf Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word "National" before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end. In April 1920, the German Workers Party became the NSDAP. Hitler became chairman of the new party and Karl Harrer was given the honorary title, Reich Chairman.

 

http://spartacus-educational.com/GERfeder.htm

 

The lie that people like you try to espouse only works on people to stupid and lazy to read.

Bahahahahha. Take your meds please.

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 hour ago, maulemall said:

I guess the love affair between joe Kennedy and Adolph was a figment as well.

You leftist guys just can't accept that you have been on the side of genocide and murder through your willful ignorance.

 

Oh and it took Ronnie a long time to figure out that the left and the unions were enemies to all free thinkers.

Hitler didn't like communism that's why he abolished the unions ...

The communists tried to take from his pool of left wing nut jobs.

 Your lack of actual knowledge is understandable, It's just not an excuse or a free ride. 

Have you been huffing spray paint tonight son?

[Thunderpup]

15 hours ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

if i can balance my budget why can't the government balance its checkbook? Won't the government go bankrupt or something?

Cause democrats hate spending cuts and republicans hate tax increases.  Both of which are required to balance the budget lol. 

 

 

15 hours ago, Michael McAllister said:

Prop 61 will enable Medi-Cal to negotiate drug prices at the same rates as the VA.

Hopefully, if passed, it works as intended and doesn't backfire like some of their other props. 

 

 

15 hours ago, mark_cameron said:

I think that Donald Trump's campaign use of Bots to basically dominate discussion on social media platforms - like Twitter is a bigger issue.

The problem is he isn't the only one, and this isn't the first election where it has occurred.  He has just doubled down on it.

 

In 2004 in the lead up to the Bush-Kerry election, back when AOL chat rooms were still a thing,  i remember people and bots going on cut&paste diatribes about how great Kerry was and how much of a devil Bush was. This persisted daily and through the election.

in 2008 i recall the same issue but this time on facebook.

2012 the Obama campaign paid people to protest and heckle Romney at his speaking engagements. 

 

Republicans have have tried to do similar things, but they've never gotten any traction with it. 

[mark_cameron]

On 01/11/2016 at 11:12 PM, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Hitler a left winger 

 

On 02/11/2016 at 0:17 AM, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Hitler abolishing all the unions was a very left wing move. 

 

I guess Reagan was a left winger too for getting rid of the air traffic controllers union.

 

Hitler and the 'Nationalist Socialism Party' was a socialist economically (left wing) privately owned but state controlled PLANNED ECONOMY and extreme right wing on issues of race and nationalism.

 

Its American simplism to try and define it in a bipartisan manner as left v right - two dimensional argument.

 

When its more three dimensional depending on what issues are under consideration (economy and individualism or collectivism).

 

Americans try and judge everyone else through their own political system. It shows.

[Sakkura]

On 1/11/2016 at 9:30 PM, wrathoftheturkey said:

As a percentage of our GDP our national debt isn't that bad either, but you don't hear people talking about that do you (sarcasm intended)

 

while on the subject of the debt and comic sans

 

if i can balance my budget why can't the government balance its checkbook? Won't the government go bankrupt or something?

 

smh

 

Governments can generally rely on economic growth, which lessens the burden of existing debt. So it's possible for a country to run a consistent deficit indefinitely. It can't be a big deficit, but it's possible.

 

In practice it's better if the government spends a lot of money during downturns, and then runs a modest surplus when the economy rebounds.

[Thunderpup]

5 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

 

Governments can generally rely on economic growth, which lessens the burden of existing debt. So it's possible for a country to run a consistent deficit indefinitely. It can't be a big deficit, but it's possible.

 

In practice it's better if the government spends a lot of money during downturns, and then runs a modest surplus when the economy rebounds.

i have to second this.