Citation: Katina Michael with Caitlin Dugan, June 20, 2019, “Father Pleads for Access to Encrypted Data from WhatsApp”, ABC Illawarra Radio.
Citation: Katina Michael with Caitlin Dugan, June 20, 2019, “Facebook's Cryptocurrency - Calibra”, ABC Illawarra Radio.
6.30 AM Bulletin
university of wollongong. social media expert says the launch of facebook crypto-currency could dramatically change the global banking system. katina michael, says the move by the us tech giant puts pressure on regulators in australia to catch-up. while the company has a huge amount of users who might be swayed into using digital currency. professor michael says the trust in social media companies, needs to be questioned. should be trusting the company that generates fake news and abide by that he should be trusting a company told how data to marketing firm
8.30 AM Bulletin
plans by social media giant facebook to launch online cryptocurrency could spark a huge challenge for australian banks and credit unions, according to university of wollongong expert katina michael, the move would allow users to buy digital currency that could be used globally after being adjusted to the country's exchange rates. professor michael says it will be difficult territory for regulators
9.30 AM Bulletin
says the launch of facebook cryptocurrency could dramatically change the global banking system. katina michael, says the move by the us tech giant puts pressure on regulated in australia to catch up. while the company has a huge amount of users who might be swayed into using their digital currency.professor michael says trust in social media companies need to be questioned
Joseph Cox and Jason Koebler, March 27, 2019, “Facebook Bans White Nationalism and White Separatism”, Motherboard, https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nexpbx/facebook-bans-white-nationalism-and-white-separatism
Joseph Cox and Jason Koebler, August 23 2018, “The Impossible Job: Inside Facebook’s Struggle to Moderate Two Billion People”, https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xwk9zd/how-facebook-content-moderation-works
Sasha Ingber, March 27, 2019, “Facebook Bans White Nationalism And Separatism Content From Its Platforms”, NPR, https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/707258353/facebook-bans-white-nationalism-and-separatism-content-from-its-platforms
Fewer than 200 people watched the original live video of the Christchurch massacre, Facebook has said.
None of them reported it immediately to Facebook during the attack, and it took half an hour after the killer started his live video for anyone to report it using Facebook's reporting tools, the company said.
However, this has been challenged. Jared Holt, a reporter for Right Wing Watch, said he was alerted to the livestream and reported it during the attack.
Police carry flowers left by well wishers to the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch. Fifty people died in the shootings on Friday.
"I was sent a link to the 8chan post by someone who was scared shortly after it was posted. I followed the Facebook link shared in the post. It was mid-attack and it was horrifying. I reported it," Holt tweeted.
* Christchurch mosque shooting accused not allowed TV or newspapers in prison
* 'You just think about what those people went through' - top Facebook executive
* Christchurch shooting demonstrates how social media is used to spread violence
"Either Facebook is lying or their system wasn't functioning properly."
Holt then checked and could find no record of his report on Facebook's internal tool for listing the reports users send off.
"I definitely remember reporting this but there's no record of it in Facebook. It's very frustrating," Holt told Business Insider.
"I don't know that I believe Facebook would lie about this, especially given the fact law enforcement is likely asking them for info, but I'm so confused as to why the system appears not to have processed my flag."
Facebook declined to comment when contacted by Business Insider.
Facebook vice president Chris Sonderby said the social media giant is working around the clock to prevent the video from being shared again.
"The video was viewed fewer than 200 times during the live broadcast. No users reported the video during the live broadcast," Sonderby said in a statement.
"Including the views during the live broadcast, the video was viewed about 4000 times in total before being removed from Facebook.
"The first user report on the original video came in 29 minutes after the video started, and 12 minutes after the live broadcast ended."
The link to the live-stream was posted on anonymous message board 8chan, and shortly after the 17-minute video ended, a download link for it was also posted on the site.
Facebook removed the video and "hashed" it to automatically prevent it being uploaded again, but some users added watermarks or edited the video in order to slip it past the detection algorithms.
In the first 24 hours after the shooting, Facebook removed about 1.5 million versions of the attack video.
"More than 1.2 million of those videos were blocked at upload, and were therefore prevented from being seen on our services," Sonderby said.
"We have been working directly with the New Zealand Police to respond to the attack and support their investigation."
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has spoken to Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg since the attack.
The Government's Cabinet meeting on Monday is expected to be mostly focused on gun law but it is understood the Government is also keen to call on social networks to do more to fight radicalisation in the wake of the mosque shootings. This could include a call to share more data directly with intelligence agencies.
The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism - a consortium of global technology firms including Facebook, Google and Twitter - said it shared the digital "fingerprints" of more than 800 edited versions of the video.
Neal Mohan, YouTube's chief product officer, told The Washington Postthat his platform also struggled to moderate the video successfully on its platform.
His team finally took unprecedented steps - including temporarily disabling several search functions and cutting off human review features to speed the removal of videos flagged by automated systems. Many of the new clips were altered in ways that outsmarted the company's detection systems, he said.
Despite such efforts, concerns have been raised by a professor of engineering and information sciences about social media's failure to implement preventative measures.
Professor Katina Michael of the University of Wollongong said algorithms can only do so much to prevent certain content being uploaded and human moderators are already forced to wade through screes of questionable content.
"The best algorithms couldn't have stopped this. Having said that, if you [Facebook] can't stop it, don't offer it. If you want to provide the service, perhaps you have to vet the users."
Michael said the current algorithms were set up based on a corporate model that was centred around generating revenue, not looking for controversial content. "It is the failure of not only the algorithms, but human moderators."
Australian prime minister Scott Morrison has asked G20 members to consider practical ways to force companies like Facebook and Google to stop broadcasting atrocities and violent crimes.
Sonderby said Facebook is committed to working with leaders in New Zealand and other governments to help counter hate speech and the threat of terrorism.
Meanwhile, police probing the online presence of the terror suspect and his involvement in far-right chat boards and other internet activity have met with some resistance.
In one email exchange, New Zealand police requested an American-based website preserve the emails and IP addresses linked to a number of posts about the attack, but were met with an expletive-filled reply.
- Stuff with AAP and BusinessInsider.com.au
Katina Michael in Matthew Rosenberg, March 20, 2019, “Alarm raised about Facebook livestream mid-attack in Christchurch, man claims”, stuff.nz, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111412396/fewer-than-200-people-watched-shooters-christchurch-massacre-live-video-facebook-says
Disclaimer: The way I was quoted seems to imply that the content moderators at Facebook were partially to blame. This is not what I said in the interview with Matthew. Moderators are not paid to catch this kind of content; they are paid to investigate copyright and controversial content. Humans are at the mercy of the machine on this occasion. It can be likened to 100 people trying to stop leaks in 200,000 buckets. It just cannot happen. In terms of what could have stopped this footage from spreading? Ensuring more predictive AI algorithms, and also total information surveillance of everything coming through servers, and still that is not foolproof.
但是，这一说法已经受到挑战。Right Wing Watch的记者Jared Holt说，他在凶手直播恐怖袭击的过程中就得到消息，并且马上向Facebook进行了举报。
反恐怖主义全球互联网论坛(The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism)– 包括Facebook，Google和Twitter在内的全球科技公司联盟 – 表示，它共享了800多种编辑版视频的数字“数字指纹”。
Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism)– 包括Facebook，Google和Twitter在内的全球科技公司联盟 – 表示，它共享了800多种编辑版视频的数字“数字指纹”。
University of Wollongong的Katina Michael教授表示，算法只能做这么多事情来防止某些内容被上传，人类审查员已经被迫在那些可疑内容的碎片之间疲于奔命。
Katina Michael with Linsday McDougall, March 19, 2019, “Facebook Livestreaming and the NZ Massacre: A question of corporate responsibility”, ABC Illawarra Radio: Drive, https://radioinfo.com.au/news/lindsay-doctor-mcdougall-loves-illawarra-hosts-new-abc-drive-program.
Thanks also to ABC Producers Rory McDonald and Jake Cupitt.
I don't occasionally mind the odd call up to do media work on the weekends. Channel 10 News airing an important story today related to non-work-related Internet use in the workplace and what it is doing to employee productivity and what it is costing businesses in real terms. Kimberley Pratt from Channel 10 got in contact early this morning to see if I would be interested to cover the story. A little difficult on a Sunday morning but said I could make myself available by 1.30pm, but there was no film crew available for that timeslot.
Last year several University of Tasmania academics reported an opinion piece to the ABC based on a 273 person survey. They wrote:
"Cyberloafing — engaging in non-work online activities while "on the clock" — is a modern form of counterproductive workplace behaviour.
Rather than stealing company goods, the modern work environment with its various digital devices easily allows many employees to essentially steal company time.
Cyberloafing can lack malicious intent, but not always.
In fact, in our study, we found cyberloafing can be associated with everyday levels of "dark" personality traits and a perceived ability to get away with it."
Here is some advice for employers, although I do not endorse this kind of surveillance as it does not give the individual an ability to rehabilitate, it is simply workplace monitoring. My issue with this kind of telecommunications monitoring advice has to do with blanket coverage surveillance when only about 1% of the employees are causing the damage.
Here is some advice for what employees should NEVER do on their work computer.
It seems a lot of employers are getting tougher with their IT Acceptable Use Policy as costs related to Internet downloads and costs to productivity are being calculated as significant expenditures.
Kimberley sent through the following stats from an article that appeared in the Daily Telegraph:
- 42% are checking their phones 7 times per day.
- 5.2% admit to being distracted 15 times per day.
- 92% are spending up to 90 minutes of work time scrolling their feeds.
- It takes 23 minutes to return to the same level of concentration following distraction.
If the film crew had been available, I would have spoken about the following things, taken verbatim from articles I have previously written on the topic.
Barring sleep, we have just 16 hours each day to live our conscious lives. If we spend 11 of them online, at a console, or in a game, that's 69% of our waking lives. No matter how you slice it, that's a lot of screen time . Even those figures may underreport the problem. A recent study from comScore and Jumptap shows total U.S. Internet use nearly doubled between 2010 and 2013, from 451 billion minutes to 890 billion minutes .
Most of us legitimately require screen time for work, but we often get stuck there. How many times have we said, “I'm just going to check my email, or update my professional profile, or play one more quick round of this game,” only to find ourselves, stiff and aching, two hours later, with papers ungraded, chores undone, and dinner unmade? And even though we recognize this, we keep repeating the cycle.
This tendency to be time-sucked by our devices seems to be a universal feature of the technology, experienced by all cultures that have adopted it. It's not just South Korea and China, but all of us who are allowing our real lives to fade into secondary importance as we spend ever more time locked-in by the always-on, ever beckoning digital world. Filmmaker Shlam gets it right when she warns that “something is getting lost” in our physical, real, everyday lives.
The productivity void of all these wasted hours is already beginning to alarm U.S. employers, as analysts bemoan that employees spend one quarter of their online time at the office on non-work related Internet surfing, thus squandering an average of five hours per week . Yet where are the experts calculating the loss of quality parenting hours? Marriage hours? Study hours? Playing, tinkering, walking, cooking, exercising, dancing, music-making, lovemaking, stargazing, living hours ?
- FOMO (fear of missing out)
- FOBO (fear of being off the grid)
- Nomophobia (the fear of being without a mobile phone).
At work, 60 to 80 percent of the time on the Internet is non-work-related, and consumes on average nearly one quarter of a worker’s day.
Whether online seeking information or entertainment, we all browse. Why? It’s easy! In the middle of serious research we can be inspired by one questionable sentence to leap to another source, then another, and another, hoping to assemble a logical solution to the issue we are researching. And, frankly, we wonder how any single source can be the “best” one—accurate, complete, etc. We are also prompted to source-hop when we suspect what we believed to be an unbiased discussion is in fact a commercial in disguise. Rabbit holes.
She said young people needed to balance their technology use with some form of physical or real-life social activity.
Part-time work can also be helpful in reducing the amount of time available to spend on social media.
We need to replace some of this addiction behaviour with real physical activity in the real world.
Work-related accidents pertaining to mobiles and tablets are increasing.
Some of most connected countries in the world have researchers that have developed scales to identify addiction/overuse. University of Bergin in Norway, Facebook addiction scale; you have Smartphone Addiction Scale in South Korea etc
Yet, alarmingly, one recognized industry report, “Digital Down Under,” stated that 13.4 million Australians spent a whopping 18.8 h a day online . This statistic has been contested but commensurately backed by Lee Hawksley, managing director of ExactTarget Australia, who oversaw the research. She has gone on record saying, “...49% of Australians have smartphones, which means we are online all the time…from waking to sleep, when it comes to e-mail, immersion, it’s even from the 18–65s; however, obviously with various social media channels the 18–35s are leading the charge.”
According to the same study, roughly one-third of women living in New South Wales are spending almost two-thirds of their day online. And it is women who are 30% more likely to suffer anxiety as a result of participating in social media than men –. This is even greater than the Albrecht and Michael deduction of 2014, which estimated that people in developed nations are spending an average of 69% of their waking life behind the screen . That is about 11 h behind screens out of 16 waking hours. But, no doubt, people are no longer sleeping 8 h with access to technology at arm’s reach within the bedroom, and, as a result, cracks are appearing in relationships, employment, severe sleep deprivation, and other areas as a result of screen dependencies .
Internet-enabled television (e.g., Netflix), play stations (for video games), desktops (for browsing), tablets (for pictures and editing), and smartphones (for social media messaging)
In 1999, a multinational company I worked for, dismissed 25 employees, some of them senior executives, for having cyberporn on their work computers. The majority of individuals engaged in this were located in the US with only one individual identified in Asia.
I also noted to Kimberley: the stats are accurate- I would say the overall figures would be even higher. From memory, 24% of Internet-related time is on non-work related things. People are heavily distracted. The distraction is allowed because allegedly it makes people more productive. I don't buy into the latter. We have a fractured workforce as a result of everything now being online- banking, bill paying, kids school reports and absence and excursion permission notes, blah blah blah...
Addicts are 'obvious'- they disappear from sight for large blocks of time feigning the need for an early lunch break or "emergency". Facebook and Instagramming (both owned by same company) are the most toxic. Instant messaging has usurped emailing and even texting...
For men, the issue is online gaming/Tindering at work rather than social media like Facebook for women. In my 22 years in the workplace I've seen everything from one woman printing out in high definition color her wedding invitations to hundreds of guests, to bruised knuckles on pointer fingers from the constant social media scrolling, to people who turn up to work some days completely out of it because they've been up all night "searching" rabbit holes and who are otherwise great employees.
NOTE: while reference was not made to the correspondence between myself and the producer, the story ran in The Telegraph, the dialogue seems to have been removed at the last stage. This is a common practice when the word length is limited.
>> Tinder, while not the first dating application by a long shot, was a first mover in the smartphone space to take advantage of the phone's swipe feature. Tinder has about 50 million active users on its system.
>> Facebook has over 1.2 billion active users, with WhatsApp at 700 million active monthly users. Clearly the size of the potential if Facebook gets the App right is humungous. Otherwise there will be subscribers who use both platforms and exploit different features in each.
>> Facebook today enables a subscriber to connect with people you know, while Tinder allows you to meet total strangers.
>> We have to consider the Tinder Plus users who are committed to continuing with the platform given the ease of use, and the Apps specificity.
>> Facebook has always been about social relationships. Do they have an advantage? Yes, because profiles are already available and they have access to 1/6 of the world's population. On the flip side they do not have permission just to share these profiles with people who wish to date.
>> Yes, already we are seeing a chilling effect take place when Facebook is mentioned in conversation. The CA scandal has meant that some people have deleted their Facebook accounts.
>> But the real issue is that most people on dating web sites do not realise a) that some of their data is already freely available; b) and their data is being used for non-dating purposes.
>> For now the CA scandal was a "blip" on the s-curve of Facebook services. It did raise awareness of what is possible, some people did delete their accounts, or did minimise their activity on Facebook as a result, but most went "now that it's out it is business as usual". The power to connect may seemingly override the power to keep one's "patterns of life" private. >> Facebook does not need to do this but it is trying to grow its market. Commercials in the US play, presently, with the slogan "together".
>> Facebook is trying to reach a different audience. It will provide a new revenue stream. It will also keep people on Facebook's platform longer to see more advertising. Mobile users that use services like Tinder, are willing to pay for services for connecting with NEW people, not just existing people you know (as in Facebook).
Citation: Katina Michael with Chris Graham, Overnight Producer, Commenting on Facebook Dating Service for The Telegraph UK.
I asked everyone from Facebook to data brokers to Stan for my information. It got messy
28 April 2018
By technology reporter Ariel Bogle
Brands I've never heard of have my details.
Deciphering your Facebook data can be like leafing through a corporate-owned teen diary.
In 2007, one of my first comments was telling a friend she had a "fashionable mullet", but my online data footprint has exploded since then.
I downloaded my data from Facebook in an effort to understand how brands target me with personalised advertising — an activity that accounted for 98 per cent of the social giant's 2017 revenue.
Your name, age and location are the least of it. Every like, link and interaction can add to your profile, whether it's an inferred political preference — are you liberal or conservative? — or an interest in board games.
But as Wired has detailed, Facebook's data download provides an incomplete picture.
To fix that, I asked for my personal data (you can too, thanks to the Privacy Act) from everyone from data brokers to advertisers.
What did I find? That understanding who knows what about you online is a sisyphean undertaking. One that takes dozens of emails and almost one month.
What do data brokers know?
Ever heard of a data broker? If you haven't, that's no mistake.
"They rarely have a public presence," said Sacha Molitorisz, a digital privacy researcher at the University of Technology Sydney.
"My guess is there is an intuition somewhere there, that what they're doing might not be palatable to customers."
Data brokers are companies that may gather online and offline information — census data, surveys and purchase histories, for example — to create consumer profiles that they serve to advertisers.
In the market for a new car? An expectant mother? These are the types of insights they look for.
If advertisers want to reach these people, they can source special audience information from data brokers and target ads to them on Facebook.
This is allowed under Facebook's Partner Categories program, but after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the company said it would be winding the option down.
A Facebook spokesperson said ad campaigns run this way would end by October 1, 2018.
For now, though, Facebook works with three providers in Australia: Quantium, Axciom and Experian.
I contacted all three and asked for my personal data. All three said they had nothing — but that's not the whole story.
How am I targeted?
Earlier this year I was served a Facebook ad for 100% Pure New Zealand. Facebook told me it was based on a dataset provided by the data analytics firm Quantium.
But if Quantium doesn't have my personal details, how does it target me?
The tourism ad was sent to two consumer segments — "outdoor enthusiasts" and "travellers" — a Quantium spokesperson said.
The company received de-identified purchase data, likely from Woolworths Rewards program, which was then used to create anonymous groups likely to purchase something based on their past shopping behaviour.
My de-identified data was probably in there. Then, apparently, Quantium matched it up with my de-identified data from Facebook.
"Publishers like Facebook de-identify their users' personal data utilising the same encryption algorithm used by Quantium," the Quantium spokesperson said.
"The de-identified data from both parties is passed into a secured anonymisation zone for matching purposes. This allows the two datasets to be matched without using any personal information."
In some cases, it gets more mysterious.
In Settings, Facebook lists the advertisers it says are running ads, using contact lists they uploaded to the platform.
Experian said it had no personal information about me, but Experian Data Quality is listed as having uploaded my contact information to Facebook.
A company spokesperson said it could not confirm why I was connected to Experian Data Quality.
"Based on the information you provided to us, we again confirm that Experian's Data Quality and Targeting (Marketing Services) in A/NZ does not hold any personal information on you," she wrote in an email.
Who else has your email?
Brands are only meant to upload contact lists to Facebook for advertising if they have permission to do so.
In the case of the video streaming service Stan, seeing its ad on Facebook made sense — I'm a subscriber, and apparently, I've watched the TV show Billions.
A Stan spokesperson said the ad I saw was intended to remind people "who may be fans of the show" that a new season was available.
It does this to highlight content the company thinks subscribers are interested in, using its internal analytics.
"We matched your encrypted email to data held by Facebook to facilitate the surfacing of that content," she added.
(I also asked for all my personal data from Stan, and the hours of television I've watched makes for a terrifying spreadsheet, by the way.)
The contact list mystery
But Stan is not the only brand that has my information.
As I write this article, there are more than 300 brands that Facebook lists as having my contact information — the majority of which I've never heard of.
There's a sushi restaurant in Perth, for example, called Tao Café. I've never visited.
I got in touch, and Tao Café office manager Annette Sparks was equally baffled about its appearance on my list.
But she said that the food delivery company Deliveroo ran ads on behalf of the company, and suggested that's how my contact details may have been bound up with the sushi venue.
So, onto Deliveroo.
While they couldn't discuss my personal situation, a spokesperson said Deliveroo does provide "marketing support" to its restaurant partners — essentially, it runs ads promoting them as part of the delivery service.
Did Deliveroo then share my email with cafes from Perth to Singapore? The company said no.
"Under no circumstances does Deliveroo share any customer details with restaurants or other third parties as part of these marketing campaigns," the spokesperson said.
I'm left none the wiser about why Tao Café was on the list — and there are other mysteries too.
According to Facebook's list, various American political candidates have my contact information.
As does the official Facebook page of the actress Kate Hudson.
What can I do?
Mark Zuckerberg has said Facebook users own their data, but it's an unusual kind of ownership.
Ownership feels largely meaningless when your data is scattered around the internet.
There is no one company to blame. The architecture of online advertising is set up this way.
"The issue is that in the digital space … personal data is very much sought after, and there are all [kinds of] different players who stand to benefit from access to that data," Mr Molitorisz said.
"There needs to be greater transparency with how our data is used."
This is the reality of surveillance capitalism, according to Professor Katina Michael, a privacy expert at the University of Wollongong.
Our data is a valuable commodity, and time is not on our side when it comes to understanding who wants it and where it's going.
"We don't measure it, we don't write it down like we do calorie-controlled diets," Professor Michael said.
"We don't realise how much we're giving away."
Ariel Bogle, April 28, 2018, "I asked everyone from Facebook to data brokers to Stan for my information. It got messy", ABC Radio National, http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2018-04-28/i-asked-everyone-from-facebook-to-data-brokers-to-stan-for-my-information-it-got-messy/1752610
伍倫貢大學（University of Wollongong）網路成癮專家邁克爾教授（Katina Michael）表示，科技公司精心設計了讓人上癮的應用程序，「他們實際上在竊取大腦，內容正在轉向洗腦，甚至可以在高度上癮的用戶肉體上看到痕迹，例如拇指和食指上的瘀傷，這種成癮可能隨時發生在任何人身上。」
Original source: http://www.exmoo.com/article/60967.html
PHONE-addicted Aussies are spending up to six hours a day glued to their devices amid concern quality time with loved ones is being compromised.
Research shows some users unlock their devices an astounding 216 times a day – once every three minutes over a 12-hour period.
The average Australian spends nearly 2½ hours a day on their phone. Women aged 56-65 were the worst offenders.
The figures – from smartphone usage tracker AntiSocial – show Australia’s phone addiction ranks among the highest worldwide. Only Russia, the UK and US were worse.
Chris Eade, from tech firm Bugbean, which developed AntiSocial, said most phone users tended to underestimate their usage and were shocked to learn the reality.
“It’s crazy to see how much time we spend and what we do on our phones,” Mr Eade said.
The statistics – based on the phone usage of more than 130,000 AntiSocial users over two years – point to a worrying pattern of compulsive checking and social media use.
Australians launch mobile apps an average 101 times a day. Those aged 18-25 average 118.
Social media apps take up most user’s phone time, with Facebook accounting for 20 per cent of total “in app” time.
University of Wollongong internet addiction expert Prof Katina Michael said tech companies were engineering apps to be as addictive as possible.
“They are literally hacking the brain – the content is turning to brainwashing,” she said.
But University of Adelaide behavioural expert Daniel King said addiction was not black and white. “It’s not obvious that just using your phone is addictive,” he said. For those who think they have a problem, Mr Eade recommends leaving the phone off for the first and last 30 minutes of the day and tracking usage.
Citation: Peter Bateman, April 8, 2018, "Aussies are hung up on phones", The Advertiser, p. 7.
Professor Katina Michael is from the School of Computing and Information Technology at the University of Wollongong and she joins Nick and Trevor to talk about the ripples after the Cambridge Analytica scandal and how she’s quitting an app most of us are addicted to.
Citation: Katina Michael with Nick Bennett and Trevor Long, April 3, 2018, "Quitting Facebook after Cambridge Analytics", Talking Lifestyle: Talking Technology on Macquarie Media, https://www.talkinglifestyle.com.au/podcast/quitting-facebook-after-the-cambridge-analytica/
Citation: Katina Michael with Eric Gyors, March 28, 2018, "Is it the end of privacy?", EPISODE: Wednesday Drive – 4:00pm 28th Mar 2018, https://eastsidefm.org/episodes/wednesday-drive-400pm-28th-mar-2018/
Jesse Mulligan found out the hard way how much data Facebook keeps on you when Kanoa Lloyd downloaded his and read it back to him on Three's The Project.
Facebook has come under fire recently after it was revealed Cambridge Analytica was using data from the site to influence elections in the United States and Africa.
- Political firm Cambridge Analytica accused of rigging elections worldwide
- UK investigating Cambridge Analytica, Facebook
The company was using data collected when users took part in online quizzes and managed to get from 200,000 users who completed the quizzes, to over 50 million users from their friend lists.
To illustrate just how much data Facebook keeps on you, The Project host Kanoa Lloyd downloaded all of Jesse Mulligan's and read it back to him live on air.
"This stack here shows me so much stuff and this is the kind of stuff that could potentially be getting shopped out to companies like Cambridge Analytica," she said.
Among some of the things she discovered was the day Jesse signed up to the site, the name of his father and the number of messages he had sent.
The message was to Jesse's flatmate in London, and he remarked it was really creepy that Kanoa was able to find that out so easily.
"I feel creeped out knowing this, I don't need to know this stuff and I definitely wouldn't want a company like Cambridge Analytica knowing this stuff about me either," she said.
Lloyd even managed to find the contents of his first ever Facebook message, but he wouldn't let her read it out on the show.
Katina Michael from the Australian Privacy Foundation says while you don't necessarily have to delete your Facebook it may be time to think twice about those innocuous looking quizzes.
"When you've got 2 billion subscribers and your whole model and whole business is built on advertising and micro-analysing consumers, people have become products and that's a bit evil," she said.
While it may be hard for users to understand the breach Dr Michael says they should be concerned about how their data is being used.
"People perhaps have cared about privacy but haven't realised the seriousness of the micro-analysis going on with our psychographics," she said.
"Everyone should care about their right to privacy and the intrusion of their privacy, how anyone is misusing their personal information."
Newshub Staff, March 23, 2018, "The secret file that tells you what data Facebook has on you", Newshub, http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/03/the-secret-file-that-tells-you-what-data-facebook-has-on-you.html
Citation: Katina Michael with Joe O'Brien, "Now that Facebook have acknowledged "mistakes", what's next?" ABC 24 hrs: Mornings with Joe O'Brien, channel 24, 11am-11.12am.
Joe O'Brien is the host of ABC News 24's morning news program and was previously co-host on ABC News Breakfast. Joe has more than 20 years experience in journalism and has been with the ABC since 1995. He presented the 7pm ABC News programs in both Queensland and New South Wales, and regularly presented the national Midday Report on ABC TV. Joe's extensive reporting experience covers everything from drought and floods to sport and politics. He was first based for the ABC in Rockhampton, and then in Brisbane as a reporter and presenter. Follow @JoeABCNews
Sources of Information for Consideration:
The damning evidence is mounting on CA. Today it was announced that CEO Alexander Nix has been suspended from his position given a Channel 4, UK covert sting recording.
Citation: Katina Michael with Cassie McCullagh, March 21, 2018, "Psychometrics, big data, data-driven approaches, microtargetting, and you", ABC Sydney Radio: FOCUS: http://www.abc.net.au/radio/sydney/programs/focus/focus/9549448
Citation: Ariel Bogle, March 19, 2018, ABC Science: Online, http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-03-19/facebook-targeted-ads-are-explanations-transparent-enough/9539784
Citation: Ramona Pringle, "Rampant social media misuse puts future of popular platforms at risk", CBC News: Technology, http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/social-media-facebook-twitter-instagram-society-negative-1.4429146