21 Burst results for "Internet Observatory"

"internet observatory" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

All In with Chris Hayes

01:33 min | 2 months ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes

"Another. Close trump associate arrested and charged with crimes of corruption. And his name is tom. Barrack is a billionaire businessman. He is accused of illegally lobbying. Donald trump on behalf of the united arab emirates prosecutors in the eastern district york today. Unsealing a huge seven count. Forty six page. Indictment go through it. We've got a reporter. Who's reporting on this. But this is a very important development a bunch of reasons not the least of which because when we last met here at this desk last night we were talking about the fate of the rule of law in the air of donald trump and particularly in the period where the justice department changed hands from attorney general in bar and then the final days of the trump administration. The lackey jeff rosen to joe. Biden's new attorney. General merrick garland last night. Here on this program. We were critical of the fact that justice department had according to reporting declined to prosecute trump's secretary of commerce wilbur. Ross that was according to reporting from both the associated press and government executive. Now that decision not to prosecute a came after the commerce department's own inspector general found at loss had lied to congress about a citizenship question that he wanted to add to the twenty twenty cents. We have an important update to that story. The government executive have both issued corrections. Clarifying that in fact it was the trump justice department that made the decision not to prosecute. Ross not the biden administration which is of course a very very big difference

stanford internet observatory fox twitter maine cova maxine Rene terresa
Clubhouse Becomes the Latest Hot App By Doing Everything Wrong

Business Wars Daily

04:04 min | 7 months ago

Clubhouse Becomes the Latest Hot App By Doing Everything Wrong

"From one three. I'm david brown. And this is business. Worst daily on this tuesday march second. Let's say you were invited to a party. Where the guest list included oprah drake and jared lehto as well as top venture capitalist business executives journalists and all manner of influencers. Would you go well. That party is happening on a beta version. Social media app called clubhouse and in about nine months. The app has gained an estimated three million users and a billion dollar valuation clubhouses content is like a series of audio only presentations and panel discussions he s. That's right audio. We'll get to that in a minute. These talks happen in so-called rooms which are really like well conference calls there's a presenter or panel other people are listening to anyone can raise a hand and ask a question or participate in the discussion. You can meet people and have conversations and because presentations are not supposed to be recorded by users. You're either there or you missed out the thing about clubhouse though is that it appears to do everything wrong. First of all as i said earlier. It's audio based that's right. Viral video challenges or memes. Not even a cute cat photo. That means that all of those people who hate to use the phone have to logon and have an actual conversation also android users. Sorry you're out of luck. This app is for apple devices. Only at least for now finally membership is by invitation. So unless you know someone who's willing to fork over one of their coveted invites you're locked out again for now. Clubhouse founders say that eventually the format will be open to all but what is that for now. Exclusivity is what's driving growth in roughly nine months. Fomo fear of missing out has fueled the apps popularity some even say that the old school style of having conversations is the key to its success. You have to listen and be able to say something meaningful. So people are striking business deals finding content partnerships and having conversations with some truly interesting people. Some are even finding romance on the app. According to a report in forbes clubhouses his popularity is even turned the head of industry giant facebook. Which has reportedly started developing an audio product to compete with clubhouse the new york times reports facebook founder mark zuckerberg made an appearance on the app earlier this month to give a talk about augmented and virtual reality. Facebook didn't confirm the report but the times also noted that the social network has a habit of buying upper competing with apps that dabble in areas. That could pose a threat to its user base like most media platforms clubhouse. Has its issues to the app. Urges you to give it access your contact list and uses that information to identify others for you to invite according to forbes quote even if you've no interest in joining clubhouse whatsoever the service may well know your name mobile number and how many friends you have on the network. It may even be violating european privacy laws. The report suggests clubhouses apple exclusivity also has some trying to hack the app so it can be streamed on android devices tech crunch report last week. Clubhouse had its first significant data-breach when someone managed to stream audio feeds on a third party website according to bloomberg the stanford internet observatory or s. I o a stanford university internet watchdog programme race security concerns earlier this month in light of these issues clubhouse says it has taken measures to prevent any such breaches from happening again. But it's not clear. Exactly what is being done.

Oprah Drake Jared Lehto David Brown Facebook Apple Mark Zuckerberg New York Times The Times Stanford Bloomberg
Facebook should Not be surprised its groups were overrun with conspiracies

Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

04:02 min | 8 months ago

Facebook should Not be surprised its groups were overrun with conspiracies

"Last month announced it will stop recommending political and civic groups to its users the company says users want less politics in there feeds and has said it didn't realize how much it's groups we're going to spread medical misinformation be used to radicalize people into on and be one of the home bases for the people who plan the capital insurrection on january. Sixth but this week the wall street journal reported that the company has had in research for months. If not years about private groups being toxic full of calls for violence and still being recommended to facebook users and rene arresthe a research manager at the stanford internet observatory says the shift to groups creates a long standing cycle of radicalization. What was happening. Beginning in two thousand sixteen was you were starting to see these very conspiratorial communities that were taking shape and they were being recommended to people who had interest in other conspiratorial communities. And when you started to have this it was like a correlation matrix. were saying. Oh you're interested in this wild theory while here try this one on again that engagement. Highly engaged communities wildly sensational content high-volume groups and posts really came to in some ways. Become a much more significant part of the experience for people who went and participated in those communities. Is it credible to you for facebook to say. We couldn't have anticipated how conspiratorial these groups were gonna get. No no not at all and that's because there is a wall street journal article that came out last year that said that what the platforms own internal research had showed back in two thousand sixteen was that they were realizing that sixty four percent of people that joined some of what they called more extreme groups were doing it because of props from the recommendation engine for researchers such as myself who were seeing it from the outside we have been very kind of anecdotal sense of the problem. Like right now if you were to go to instagram and follow robert. F kennedy juniors account. You'll see a whole range of recommended accounts that will be suggested to you. That are mostly corona virus. Denial accounts. now. That's the thing that i can see it small-scale but i really don't know if that's a systemic problem or a problem that's anecdotal. How hopeful are you about this move to stop recommending political and civic groups like you know how big a deal do you think it could be to untangle the recommendations from the existence of the groups themselves. I'm not sure that a blanket ban on topics is the way to go about doing this. And facebook has encountered some challenges with the definition of political in other product fronts like ads for example where in order to run advertisements that were related to political issues. You had to go and get yourself verified. Now i think that that's a reasonable amount of friction but the question then became what is a political issue. I think that there are plenty of political groups. That new stay within the realm of healthy behaviors right. They're not being used for organizing violence. The decision to re remove them from recommendations just means that people will have to go and kind of proactively search for them. And i think it'll be interesting to see what impact that has on their growth. I don't think it's a silver bullet though. And then how about the announcement that facebook will require moderators to spend more time reviewing member post like his moderation. A better solution. There's some really interesting evidence from read it. That suggests that the answer to that is yes. Read it really worked to empower moderation at the local level giving tools to moderators at the sub reddit level to make determinations about what norms and values and standards were appropriate for their communities. And so i think improving moderation tools. And then also you know putting the onus on people so that if they create these groups that they don't just kind of you know let them go haywire and then say oh. I just didn't know if you're choosing to form a community it gives us perhaps more of a sense going forward that that that choice is something met. We're going to be expected. To take responsibility for

Rene Arresthe Stanford Internet Observatory The Wall Street Journal Facebook Kennedy Juniors Robert Reddit
"internet observatory" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

08:04 min | 10 months ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Suddenly fact checking the president or banning groups that our pedaling Misinformation and stories about election fraud, and we're talking with you. Our listeners 8667336786 is the number to call if you want to join the conversation. Email US at Forum A kqed dot or Gore we just on Twitter Facebook at KQED Forum. We have reneged, arrested with this research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory, where she investigates the spread of malign narratives across social networks and assists policy makers and understanding. And responding to the problem and Lady tweets. I watched Trump supporters and Cuban on people who got censored on Twitter. Tell each other to go to parlor. I decided it was not for me, but I'm worried that these platforms are totally unfiltered Que non started on similar platforms. Like four Chan, Let me go to collar Brad in Sandra fell. Hi, Brent. Um, thank thank you for letting me speak. Um, I'm always questioned Why, uh there's no real confrontation or no real attempt. Hold some of the demagogues to what they're preaching. And specifically, I'm thinking honesty of Rush Limbaugh. I agree without Frank and actually, I said it before. Far as I know of Before Al Franken that he probably had more influence in this election than anyone single individual because he swayed about 2025 million votes for Trump, no matter what. As constantly feeding misinformation and appealing to people space senses. But what I sense is is a great amount of fear or trepidation to take somebody like him on because he has soft devoted line of followers, Brad Thanks, Rennie duress to your thoughts. I think the, um the age of the influencers is a really interesting dynamic. So Rush Limbaugh has been around for quite some time. Um, and there are a lot of Prominent influencers on on talk radio. I think this again gets up the idea that it's not necessarily that the channel that matters. The interesting dynamic with social media is it's much more visible. It's much more Um, if you're on a large social platform and the recommendation engine picks you up and begins to amplify you then or you're using ads, you're able to grow your audience and kind of recruit new adherents, right? Regardless of what the message is, that's the dynamic at play. And one of the things I think it's important to understand is that, um Moderation right the platforms deciding not to recommend something, or in certain cases, where they decide that it is an actively harmful thing, such as coronavirus misinformation. She went on election misinformation. There's a few narrowly tailored areas where they've decided that something is sufficiently harmful either to societal level on an individual level that they take much more extreme action and they actually take it down. That act of taking it down moderates the supply of the content, but it doesn't moderate the demand for the content. It doesn't make that demand stop. And so people are going in. People who are part of these communities are going to try to find other places to continue to find their content engage with their influencers. You know the influences that they've come to admire and trust. But and continue to have community. So many we which is another platform that you raised on this call, um back in 2015. I was. I was part of an effort to change a vaccine law in California. And as part of this is just, you know, it's not Stanford. I was just kind of an activist Mom who this was kind of one of my cause is I really wanted to see immunization rates rise in California and the anti vaccine activists on the on Facebook and 2015 put out a call to everybody to go migrate to me. We so this is this this behavior? Of believing that your community is about to be censored about to be De Plat formed. And this idea that you need to build back up infrastructure on a platform that will continue to host you is a dynamic that's happened over and over and over again across various communities for years. So there was a vast number of anti vaccine community members that went created accounts on me way back in 2015, But I created an account on may be back in 2015 again just to see what happens on this platform is there Is there a dynamic of High activity that grows from it and what I saw then and what we saw on parlor in in June of 2021, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and everyone we're encouraging people to go is there's periods of there's a spike in downloads a spike in account creations. There's some immediate action to, you know to begin to engage on the platform, but it doesn't necessarily have staying power for a couple reasons. One of which is that it doesn't have the design shops of Facebook. There's a reason why well designed platforms keep users they're there. The entire function of the big tech companies is to keep you on their platform. And so they built in techniques and prompts and filtering and suggestions and spontaneity and ways for you to engage on the platform that keep you there. Smaller niece. Social networks don't have that. That feature said. You know, platform parlor doesn't have groups. For example, if you go to parlor and you follow a bunch of people what you're going to see in your feet Is who you've chosen to follow. If you want to find new content, you have to search for a hashtag. It's really hard to just kind of find an organic conversation. So there's just certain design structures that are fundamentally different. So even when people go and hop to this platform again, because there's real demand to have these communities and to see this content, but they don't necessarily stay. So what the moderation is really doing is it's perhaps reducing the number of new people who come into the community, the number of new people who seek you and on content for the first time, but it doesn't. It's not really doing anything too. Diminished demand for it among the people who already have it. What they're looking for now is new infrastructure for those communities. So, interestingly, I mean, could there be benefits? That's been one suggestion to groups better like that. It's better for groups of sort of isolate themselves because ultimately they could kind of, I don't know flameout, potentially without all the nice bells and whistles that say a Facebook platform has Or do you think it's important to try to do your basic fact checking that people will stay on these sites and that'll be better because ultimately it will be more effective at helping people realize that there there is such a thing as a basic foundation of facts that we can at least all You know, debate from But I do believe that you know, keeping people on these platforms is valuable. I don't think we necessarily want toe push. Push people off. You know the D platform everybody into you know, Federated System of tiny APS. I think this is one of the areas were research is is, you know one of the things researchers are examining right now, Back when I think the first major deep platform Ng was actually Isis there was the decision to kick the kind of Isis Fanboys the sort of, you know again. Very, very extreme. It sounds like an obvious layup today, but the question was, what do you do about them on Twitter? And they were D platforms. And they did migrate into much, much more kind of niche, closed channels like telegram where you really have to go looking for them, as opposed to accidentally seeing it. And so the E. I don't think that there was quite a lot of of scholarship on exactly how that dynamic played out. It's very hard to measure one of the things that's really tough Rexes researchers as we don't have great visibility into the process by which people join these communities. We can't see that a recommendation has been shown to a person and then a person. Joins a group were sort of, you know, we're kind of at the mercy of looking at Rough measures like engagements or group growth size, But it's hard for us to understand what the motivating factor or the design decision that led people to join those communities even here with.

Facebook Twitter Rush Limbaugh Trump Brad California US Al Franken fraud president Stanford Internet Observatory research manager Gore Brent Stanford KQED Frank De Plat
"internet observatory" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

02:48 min | 10 months ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on KQED Radio

"I think that what it says about us as a society is that they're this. This crisis of trust is bigger than social media. Right. Social media is infrastructure. It's the infrastructure upon which you get your information. That's where you communicate with your friends. It's now so tightly coupled with broadcast media right, Sometimes the narrative emerges up from the bottom where social media chatter becomes the nightly news. Other times, people on social media discuss what was on the nightly news, right. So there's this this interplay between these ecosystems At this point there are, you know, historically low levels of trust in media. I historically high levels of polarization, and so the dynamics at play are far bigger than What Facebook chooses to show you or you know these air platforms that air that exacerbated that reflected but also, at the same time, people are looking to find people who are like them. To communicate with two commiserated with particularly at this time when there are people who sincerely believe that Donald Trump was re elected and are looking to kind of hold out, you know, hold out hope and and kind of continue to fight that fight. We're talking about the rising popularity of conservative social networks with Renee duress to research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory. You Our listeners are with us. Give us a call 8667336786 Get in touch on Twitter or Facebook. At KQED Former email is a form of kqed dot org's And tell us how you think we need to regain trust offline in the real world. And what questions you have about these alternative social media networks like parlor and whether or not there you've been drawn to them. Real practice. Seeing a writer wired has been with us. Thanks so much for joining us for your reporting on parlor. It was really illuminating. Thank you so much, and we'll have more with Renee duress to after the break. Stay with us. We'll get straight to your calls. I mean, it came Here's what's coming up tomorrow on forum while President Trump gained ground with some voters of color. Much of his support in the 2020 election is attributable to white voters with support growing among white women. Some experts say fear.

President Trump Facebook Renee KQED Twitter Stanford Internet Observatory writer research manager
"internet observatory" Discussed on Daily Tech Headlines

Daily Tech Headlines

01:40 min | 11 months ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on Daily Tech Headlines

"Ap news factcheck usa today factcheck grafico stanford internet observatory and our news. The content of the archive post is unaltered with a yellow banner. At the top linking to the outside article for additional context. Samsung has retaken the top spot. For phone shipments worldwide according to idc counterpoint and catalyst while we had taken over the top spot for a quarter on strong sales in china while the rest of the world's a dip in phone purchases while as q. Three shipments dropped seven percent and twenty four percent year over year but came second. Jimmy grew forty six percent of the year and took over third passing apple which dropped seven percent came in fourth five. Six and seven spots. Went to otto vivo. And real me which are all be k. Brands if you combine those be became brands. Bb k would be second and very close to samsung the financial times reports that according to sources while way plans to build a dedicated chip factory in shanghai to make components for its telecom infrastructure business. The factory would be run partnership with shanghai center and initially create ships using an old forty five nanometer process. This would be followed by a process shift at twenty eight nanometers in late. Two thousand twenty one which sources say would be suitable for smart. Tv's and internet of things devices before moving to twenty nanometers late. Twenty twenty two with plans to use those chips in some five structure sources. Say that with. While he's existing stockpile of infrastructure components this male other domestic telecom business to continue with minimal disruption sources did not mention any plans to manufacture chips for phones at the plant. Instagram removed. The recent tap from hashtag pages before the us election in an effort to stop.

Samsung stanford internet observatory shanghai center Twenty twenty shanghai us Ap idc Instagram Jimmy financial times apple china
"internet observatory" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast

The Lawfare Podcast

07:08 min | 11 months ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast

"Do we have to fear more operations during the election or after the election and should voters have confidence in their system? It's the Law Fair podcast Robert Thirtieth Laura Rosenberger on foreign interventions in us? Campaigns. Laura start with just an overview of these two articles which cover rather different ground. In foreign affairs, you argued that the real fear is not what's going to happen between now and when the election wraps up on. Tuesday. But what is going to happen after the election? So why should Americans be concerned about foreign influence operations in the wake of a US election? It's a great question bannon thanks so much for having me on to to have this conversation always so much fun to join you for these discussions. So a couple of points I would make about why I think you know potentially counter-intuitively that after the election that Americans should worry about foreign interference. The first is. Americans should actually have a lot of confidence in the security of the election itself. We can come back to have a longer conversation about this but despite a lot of the churn that we've seen over the past four years professionals at in federal institutions and at state and local governments have made significant efforts to actually secure elections systems and Americans should have a good bit of confidence that whatever efforts foreign actors may make between now, and the election that their vote will ultimately be counted. So that's point one. Point two though is that we often as we think about foreign interference particularly round elections. Tend to think about these operations in sort of a horse race fashion as we do in general about campaigns, right who's up who's down which foreign actor is trying to help which candidate and who's favoring whom and while certainly as we saw in the two thousand sixteen election that can be a component of what foreign actors were trying to achieve through these operations, a lot of what they're actually ultimately trying to do. is to undermine Americans confidence in our democratic institutions including in our election systems themselves. So. That comes two point three. which is that if the elections themselves are actually relatively secure and the goal though is to undermine Americans faith in them. What's the best way to that will the best way to do that is to create the perception in fact that there's a lack of security, it's to create the idea in voters, minds that their vote may not count and one of the things that many of us have been warning about for awhile in terms of our nightmare scenarios actually goes back to what the Russians themselves appear to have had on hand to run in. Twenty. Sixteen. If Hillary Clinton had in fact won that election And that was the Russian officials had a play in their pockets to cast doubt on the integrity of the election. They had a social media campaign ready to go with Hashtags Lake Democracy R I P and it's very possible that the probes on election systems that happened in the two thousand sixteen election could have been used in that context by Russian actors in a disinformation campaign to say that they had actually manipulated votes when in fact they had not and. So you can imagine particularly in this election where we have domestic actors also trying to cast out on the integrity of the election also trying to claim without basis about mail fraud and other kinds of election integrity challenges that. Claim from a foreign actor to have manipulated votes or to somehow still confusion about the results or the reporting of them without actually having in any way affected the integrity of the election. Could itself be used as the basis to undermine Americans belief in the legitimacy of the election at at the end of the day elections are system that are based on trust. It's our faith in the process. That's why we put so much effort into ensuring that they have integrity and to at the end of the day, it's that very confidence in the election is shown in our institutions is ultimately the target of these foreign hackers operations. So that actually is an interesting segue to the law fair piece, which is kind of about the strategic theory of end the strategic value of of different countries, influence operations. So talk about that for a moment, you know there are a lot of ways for the Russians or the Iranians or the Chinese to engage you ask policy and the US policy process. Why do it this way? Yeah. So I think there's a couple of things I would note here first of all, it was really glad to participate in this in in the series actually that law fair partnered with Stanford Internet Observatory on the kind of set up his little bit of a debate amongst experts with pieces being written on two sides of a coin on whether foreign influence or interference operations are you over overstated whether the threats overstated or not and? To my mind, these threats are new overstated but often misunderstood. In the sense that we tend to think about foreign interference operations from very tactical perspective, right so I mentioned that we often think about them in terms of you know the horse. Race. Which candidate are you a particular actor trying to help right but it also tends to manifest in terms of thinking about. This social media. Coordinated inauthentic behaviour operation was aimed at these many voters and it sought to influence them on this piece of things and it may or may not have had any impact rate. You know how many people were they targeting online? How many people saw their contents? Do they influence them to sink different way about you know take a non election example right like about Yo vaccines or did it influence how they voted end? There's been efforts to try to actually measure for instance, did the Russian Internet research agency's efforts, change voters behavior at the ballot box and looking at these operations through that kind of Soda Straw lands misses the point of what these actors are trying to.

Robert Thirtieth Laura Rosenbe US Hillary Clinton bannon Stanford Internet Observatory fraud
"internet observatory" Discussed on On The Media

On The Media

01:43 min | 1 year ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on On The Media

"Again, where you see an increasing number of accounts just tried to flood the zone with alternative explanations for what occurred to derail the actual process of investigating what had happened. You want that investigation to happen, and then you also want people to trust the results of the investigation. If people have been fed a whole pile of misleading stories, the truth is going to seem like just one more among them. That's the real downside to flooding zone. It makes the truth just one more story Rene. Thank you so much. Thank you. Great to chat with you. Rene dirigiste is manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory. A furious campaign in a highly polarized environment party's divided on questions of basic civil rights disparity between the popular vote and the Electoral College and finally a contested election amid charges of rigging the outcome leading to the threat of political violence even a second civil war. What Year Eighteen, seventy, six was. If fears of a contested presidential result have you thinking about Bush v Gore November two, thousand New York magazine political columnist. Ed Kilgore. says. No that was nothing for a real sense of electoral chaos and it's damaged freedom. You need to go back a century and a quarter farther to the race between Democrats Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford. B Hayes Ed. Welcome to TM glad to be here. Before we look at the drama of eighteen seventy six. Let's just speak for a moment about the year two thousand the drama.

Rene dirigiste Samuel Tilden Hayes Ed Stanford Internet Observatory Ed Kilgore. New York magazine Rutherford is manager Bush
"internet observatory" Discussed on The CyberWire

The CyberWire

06:19 min | 1 year ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on The CyberWire

"During August facebook took down three networks for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior that is organized disinformation. The activity broke down as follows four, hundred, thirty, five accounts, one, hundred, three pages, seventy eight groups, and one hundred seven instagram accounts run from Pakistan were removed. They saw it influence in both Pakistan and India. The Stanford Internet Observatory characterizes these as aiming to counter criticism of either Islam or. Government. Thirteen accounts in two pages operated from Russia were taken down facebook said these were linked to individuals associated with past activity in the Russian Internet research agency. This activity was directed mostly against the US the UK. Algeria and Egypt with plenty of Cunanan covid nineteen chatter graphic says much of the networks activity involved redirection to peace data, which represents itself as a progressive independent. News. Service. Piece data it's only fair to say has reacted with outrage shocked and appalled by what they call the ugly lie that they're a Russian propaganda tool. FACEBOOK took action against these networks on the strength of a tip off from the FBI. fifty-five accounts, forty two pages and ninety-six six instagram accounts linked to the Washington based communications. Firm less strategies were removed this network devoted itself to Venezuela with some attention also paid to Mexico and Bolivia. Feed reports that Sia less strategies didn't respond directly to a question about coordinated intensity beyond briefly stating version of its corporate mission. The line, the accounts took were in Venezuela pro-opposition in Bolivia pro regime, and in Mexico, Anti Marina a leftist political party. FACEBOOK did note that C ls as a whole wasn't banned since much of the firms activity was legitimate. It's not yet known on behalf of what clients CEO less may have been working. To return to peace data, The New York Times notes that the Internet research agency may have succeeded in making an American connection according to the Times the Russian succeeded in getting actual Americans to write for peace data, which would account for the relatively good idiomatic control on display in its posts. The time says, the Internet research agency posted offers for freelance writers on a job board. The also says it spoke to one such freelancer who was steered to peace data by an IRA job board. The writer asked to remain anonymous because he didn't wish his professional reputation damaged I his having been duped by the Russian government. He was paid seventy five dollars a post, which relatively speaking is chicken feed in the freelance market. So in this case, the Russians appear to have made use of the usefully gullible. What the Russian Oregon's less politely call the governor said. The content on peace data's site, which times believes to have been designed to harm the candidacy of Democratic nominee. Joe Biden by fomenting dispute within what might otherwise be a more disciplined left contains complaint that the Democrats are insufficiently progressive on various issues and denunciation of alleged Republican closeness to unsavory far right elements. When president trump appears on peace data's pages, it's with horns, hooves, and a tail metaphorically speaking. So if the Times is right, it's a relatively sophisticated propaganda gambit. Of course peace data could just be the progressive cited claims to be. But it might be a front to. Chatter about Russian compromise of US voter databases has come to nothing Susa and the F. B.. I haven't seen anything of the kind during this election cycle. If you look at the twitter comments in the agency's thread, you'll find many skeptical one liners but we think and the bureau have got this one right yesterday's flurry of tweets linking back to a Russian newspaper articles seem to be much ado about some matters of public record. Researchers at proof point report that Chinese government threat group Ta four thirteen, which earlier deployed subculture malware against European targets is now using it in a spearfishing campaign directed at the Tabet Diaspora. This proof point things represents a realignment of Chinese cyber espionage assets from Western targets of opportunity, an urgency, the covid nineteen pandemic through to the fore and back to more traditional targeting of domestic groups. The PR see holds to be unreliable and undesirable like of course Tibetans. The recent wave of distributed denial of service attacks against targets in new. Zealand most prominently, those against the Stock Exchange may have been part of an extortion campaign. Stuff reports that Government Communications Security Bureau Minister Andrew Little said that the G C. SBA is investigating emails received by victims shortly before the attacks that demanded a bitcoin payoff if there was no payment, the attackers would render the victims networks unavailable beyond that GSP hasn't said much the investigation continues. The mastermind of the July fifteenth twitter hack in which several high profile and high value accounts were briefly. But effectively hijacked is said by the US justice department to have been seventeen year old Graham Ivan. Clark? It now appears that an additional person is of interest to the investigators and this person of interest is of even more tender years. The New York Times reports that the FBI has served a Massachusetts teenager with a search warrant and his parents home. Appearance themselves aren't suspects but their son who quite properly lives with them is. The. Warrant and other documents are under seal and the teenager has not been charged The New York Times declined to name the young man on account of his youth but they do cite sources that told them. The youth of interest may have been at least partly responsible for planning the breach and carrying out some of its most sensitive and complicated elements. So instead of one mastermind, the twitter hack made in fact have had.

facebook US twitter instagram Pakistan The New York Times Stanford Internet Observatory Venezuela Mexico Government Communications Secu Bolivia Sia Joe Biden Russia India Oregon FBI CEO IRA
"internet observatory" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

03:50 min | 1 year ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on KQED Radio

"I'm Rachel Myrow. You may have noticed that for tech titans from Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Ghoul testified on Capitol Hill today, virtually anyway, the nominal topic was antitrust following an extensive investigation by the Democrat, leaving the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust. But as expected, the hearing became a wide ranging review. Of all things we hate about Tech, which is why we turn now to Alex Thomas, who describes himself as a recovering security executive. Now at the Stanford Internet Observatory high, Rachel thinks Well, I guess my first question for you is what did you find to be the most interesting moment in this hearing, and why Well, it's really kind like we've been watching two different hearings, The Democrats on the panel have been mostly asking questions about issues of competition and antitrust, although occasionally veering a little bit off the script. Well, the Republican questions have been kind of a litany of various complaints, mostly unsubstantiated complaints about conservatives being hurt on social media, including complaints about Twitter, who isn't even represented there in the CEO's. How likely would it be for there to be any regulatory solutions, though I mean given that we're just a few months out from a major election? Well, I don't think there's any regulatory solutions around the election and the regulation of online speech is an incredibly complicated topic that they really have not touched upon in any depth in this congressional hearing or previous ones, so that the vast majority of speech that people are Complaining about online that they either don't like and they want to get down or they want Put back up is First Amendment protected when it comes to any trust. One of the weird things here is that these four companies are all dominated their spaces, but they're all dominant, very different ways and It doesn't seem to me that there's a antitrust solution that applies to Google alphabet Apple Amazon in Facebook that could address all of the different issues that have been brought up. Do you think that existing antitrust law would allow the government to go after these different companies for their different behaviours? So I'm not a lawyer, and I'm definitely not antitrust expert. I think The theory that I've heard is that the existing capabilities of the FTC and DOJ to look at acquisitions is one of the responses you could have, especially that the Facebook issue because most complaints about Facebook has been about Facebook's effective Use of their acquisition power to pick up what's happenin Instagram and so that legal capability already exists. You just need more aggressive enforcement. I'm not sure there's any legal structure that allows the DOJ FTC to go after Apple or Google Amazon for the issues that are being discussed the hearing it seemed to me largely that most of the talking was done from the politicians on the dais and you know it was hard for the CEOs to get a word in edgewise. Do you think any of these four got away with a win even a momentary win? You know, And I think this is just a fundamental problem of the structure of these hearings that you see in all kinds of context. We saw the exact same thing with the attorney general bars hearing yesterday is that you know, splitting up the time between the different members and then flip flopping between the two different parties. Means that you could never get into a deep level of questioning on some super complex topics I would rather have seen hearing where the hearing is longer that somebody could question for 15 20 minutes of time and that you have the CEOs in order, right? Maybe you get our Tim cook and in that hour is broken up in a way that you can actually get much deeper into Apple specific issues and not get distracted by switching over to a complaint about Facebook's content. Well, Alex Thomas of the Stanford Internet Observatory. Thank you so much for joining us. Yeah. Thank you, Rachel. I'm Rachel Myrow in Menlo Park..

Facebook Rachel Myrow Alex Thomas Stanford Internet Observatory Apple DOJ Amazon FTC Google House Judiciary Twitter Tim cook CEO Menlo Park
"internet observatory" Discussed on PRI's The World

PRI's The World

05:59 min | 1 year ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on PRI's The World

"To undermine democracy so that leaders in both countries can point to the US, and say look at those guys over there other fighting. Is that what you want at this point? Though there isn't enough evidence that the online divides, we're seeing are being stoked by foreign players. According to some researchers, everybody wants to be a Russian smoking gun, and that's just not how things are shaping up reneged arrested tracks disinformation campaigns at the Internet Observatory. Observatory at Stanford University her research was key in helping congressional and other investigators uncover what Russia did. In Two thousand sixteen now she entered team are closely monitoring social media platforms to find misinformation and fake accounts while there's a lot of attention being paid to is done by foreign actress. This can just as easily be done by domestic actors, and in fact, it has just yesterday twitter announced took down in account run by a US based white nationalist group. The group posed another organization and called on protesters to use violence. DIRECTA says it's important to hold off on pointing the finger at for an adversary's making those accusations absent evidence both discredits legitimate protesters. And also serves to elevate Russian trolls into these all powerful puppet masters, controlling our conversations Russia wouldn't mind people thinking they have that power, but justice says right now. They don't for the world I'm Lydia mainly due. After months of self isolation people in some parts of Canada are starting to bust out of their bubbles by expanding their social circles I'm talking about real life interactions here non video chats. Health officials are encouraging people to buddy up with one other family. It's called the double bubble, but as Anita reports from Toronto, it's creating a whole new set of social challenges and some awkwardness when Pearl Martin heard the news that people in Newfoundland finally socialize in person with one more family. She started running through the possibilities. We had lots of options. My brother lives next door. And he has two sons so also live in the community. Martin's two children and a granddaughter are also in town, so we're her father in law and her husband siblings. All these options started to make her head spin. It's so weird predicament. How do you pick one child over another? How do you pick one brother over your sister, you know. How do you pick one parent over the other parent? It was asking people in reality to show favoritism. That is just on Canadian. In New Brunswick Lucia Sullivan, in her husband, faced a different dilemma. They wanted to pair up with the coolest family in their neighborhood. So Lucia immediately got on the phone to make sure her invitation was the first one to get through. It was like us. He's I wanted to the problem. That really is what it felt like. Will they see yes alone? They seem no. No and it was so strange. It was very high school. None of this is a surprise to carry macbeth. She's an etiquette consultant in Vancouver on Canada's west coast. Her phones been ringing off the hook with calls from people looking for advice. How should they conduct themselves when they're setting up their own to family bubble? What should they say if they WANNA turn someone down. Most. People, Macbeth says a really most concerned about offending others. We are heightened right now with anxiety. If you say to somebody, you know, I don't think I want you in my bubble. Somebody might take that very personally. Macbeth says she reminds her clients that even if it feels like the prom, forming social bubble is actually serious business. It means having the talk before starting the relationship. TANU donal a sales rep in Edmonton. Says Open communication with the key to forming a successful bubble with the neighbors across the street. She and her husband set up their bubble even before the government okayed the idea. Both couples have kids, and they were working at home, so they decided to take turns looking after each other's toddlers. Even before we joined houses, it was like okay. So who have you been in contact with? Who Have you seen? Where have you gone? And then from not page once we knew where everyone was wherever and has gone then it just became. We just kept ever in a movie of everything. The relationship lasted for seven weeks. It ended when the Donald Son Chase got a spot in daycare. The families decided that maintaining their bubble would be too risky. Tanya says she wasn't prepared for the heartache that followed. They started off as neighbors, but then their family and you see their child every other day, and you have a different relationship with that child. Then you would just seeing them nightly for an hour. You spend so much time with them, and honestly it feels like you're going through a break up like. Yeah, it's tough. Back in Newfoundland Pearl Martin is preparing for another serious dilemma, pearls, elderly father in law lives with her in her husband. After a lot of careful thought, they decided the fairest option was to bubble up with the father in law's female friend. Because she's in our bubble, she'll come on into our home. She can sit next to us at the Chesterfield or next to us at our table. The same as we did before any of this bubbling when Pearl expects that any day now newfoundlanders will get permission to add a third bubble to their in person social circles. She doesn't know who she'll invite in this time, but she's ready for to get awkward for the world. I'm a needed, you lash. You are with the world. I'm Marco Werman misses the World President Vladimir Putin announce a date for a national vote on changes to the Russian constitution..

macbeth Pearl Martin Russia Lucia Sullivan US Newfoundland Canada Pearl Stanford University Internet Observatory twitter Marco Werman New Brunswick Vladimir Putin DIRECTA Lydia Toronto Chesterfield Donald Son Chase
"internet observatory" Discussed on Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

08:50 min | 1 year ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

"If you've gone on the Internet in the past week you've probably heard about plan DEMOC. It's viral video full of misinformation about the corona virus it features a discredited scientist who accuses people like Dr Anthony Pao Chief of the NIH and Bill Gates of using the kkob in nineteen outbreak to seize political power youtube. Facebook and twitter have been trying to chase the video off the Internet but experts. Who FOLLOW DISINFORMATION? Say It's not an accident that it got so big in the first place. It's an old playbook that's even more effective in a time of fear and uncertainty Rene dressed as the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory she studies Discourse Online in the most recent viral misleading video. That went up on facebook. You know there was a strong marketing component to it because one of the people involved had a book to sell. What you see is the same text will be used. It'll be kind of a particular core message produced almost the way that you would see from a team where the message goes out alongside the link and there's a real attempt to get it all out of right around the same time in hopes that you can kind of trick one of the algorithms that amplifies popular content on platforms into thinking that it seeing something. That's organic and I just you know. simultaneous outpouring organic interest. In person or topic. What role do other influencers play in? Getting this into the mainstream like is part of the campaign to have a list of sort of ideal. Influencers that you would love to get to re tweet your content. Yes absolutely I if you get it to. A sufficient number of blue check accounts have a million two million followers audience members. You've really ensured that you're reaching an existing mass audience. People think that those accounts are more authoritative. A trusted influence with a large audience. Really does a lot to both reach. People also create an environment in which the information is coming from. Someone that you trust. How can journalists avoid amplifying these claims like what is the right response to a coordinated misinformation strategy? And how do you even identify quickly enough? With regard to this particular video that went viral with the discredited scientists That was actually the third or fourth video that had been posted to youtube that did get significant traction and so those of us who watch be anti vaccine in health misinformation communities really this was like a train wreck and very very very slow motion. You know people had seen indications that this marketing effort was really trying to turn her into an influence or the problem was nobody wanted to write the story including including researchers. Because you don't WanNa give it oxygen if it's just gonNA stay confined to the communities. That are the natural sort of affinity places for it and then you see the debunking pieces begin to go up because it takes time for journalists to write those articles. They usually don't go up for six hours. Maybe and the challenges at that point the viral information has had a chance to release with people for a couple of days and the correction is not going to go as far as did. This is where I do think that platforms bear a little bit more responsibility in terms of when you begin to see a video or post or a repetitive content about a person began to gain traction in what looks like an authentic or coordinated way. That's where there's an opportunity to kind of temporarily throttle while you have the fact checker. Go look and see what kind of information this is and how it should be dealt with got it. Are you saying that that platforms may have the technology or just is on to be able to get to it more quickly you can begin to see when velocity of mentions is what it's called sometimes beginning to do well of Coca Cola is all of a sudden mentioned five hundred times in a minute? It'll flag for their brand monitoring people who will go and look and see what's going on so these tools for social listening and understanding that dynamic they do exist got it. Let's say the content gets taken down? In which case the conspiracy theorist becomes digital martyr like is one of the goals actually to be taken down so the then you can claim that you were censored. Well what we saw in the prior take downs this video that achieved Mass Keel was actually the third video in which they declare exactly what you've said that someone somewhere is trying to keep people from knowing the truth that's in some cases the better response rather than doing the takedown just ensuring that the accurate information is attached as quickly as possible. What are the opportunities in this time? Exactly because you know obviously there have been a lot of conversations about misinformation about manipulating platforms platforms have tried to take a handoff hands off approach. And they're now essentially saying you know. The virus is a clear and present public health danger. We can act more aggressively because the benefits are indisputable from a health perspective. Does that give us a an opportunity for research or lasting change or data or really understanding misinformation better? While some of the work that we're doing at Stanford actually looks at The initial application of those policies so the current a virus misinformation policy in extension of policies. That were put in place in two thousand nineteen related to the measles outbreaks. That were repeatedly happening When the Brooklyn Measles outbreak struck the platforms did begin to take steps to reduce the amount of reach that anti vaccine groups were getting and they did that. Some very basic ways. They stopped promoting them in the recommendation. Engine they stop accepting money to run. Ads on their behalf. The challenge the interesting thing that we've seen come out of this is that the policies were designed to amplify the CDC in the World Health Organization and their information but during the current a virus. There was the additional challenge of institutions. Trying to figure out what was going on at the same time as everybody else and so there wasn't always great information to be amplifying because with something like hydroxy floor Clinton whether it works. A scientific authority isn't gonNA come out with a strong firm judgment all Matt Prior to the research being done and so. There's this gap where people really want information but the science isn't there yet and so what fills the void is? Whatever any random person you know with a sufficiently large audience produces about hydroxy chloroquine. And so there's there's just not a whole lot of authoritative information for the platforms to be amplifying. Says it's been an interesting time with just understanding. How how you get information to the public. When there's no information Rene Studies online discourse at the Stanford Internet Observatory and now for some related links in news. You can hopefully use if you don't find yourself to enraged by the level of willful conspiracy believing from your friends and family on facebook. The Atlantic has a piece from last week on what to say to people who shared links to things like the plan. Democ video or other debunked. Disinformation it does say that. You will have the most luck with people who are curious or uncertain wondering if thing could possibly be true and it says you should try to empathize with the fear and uncertainty and quote. Don't lecture someone. Don't get exasperated. Don't insult them and don't try to refute specific falsehoods. Which no I hear you. This is at times a Gargantuan task and I will forgive you if sometimes you just have to walk away. There's a link to that piece on our website. Marketplace Tech Dot org also linked to the piece about how twitter said Monday that it will warn users when tweets contain information that's either indisputable could be misleading and try to link to additional context when appropriate. Twitter said it will try to remove posts only when they're deemed to be actually harmful one part of the story as yet unexplored. It seems is Amazon's role in the disinformation. Either system that debunks scientists who stars in the plan. Democ video is as Rene said selling book. That book is number five on Amazon's bestseller list at the time writing this. It's been as high as number one in recent days. Amazon has come under fire. Before for promoting books that contain health related misinformation last year. Amazon removed some books that claim to cure autism. But the company told wired. Uk reporter that this book does not violate fits content gains. I'm molly would and that's marketplace tech. This is a PM..

Facebook Twitter Amazon Stanford Internet Observatory Rene scientist Bill Gates measles Dr Anthony Pao youtube Discourse Online Uk NIH research manager Stanford Rene Studies chloroquine CDC wired
Coronavirus conspiracy theories don't go viral by accident

Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

07:38 min | 1 year ago

Coronavirus conspiracy theories don't go viral by accident

"If you've gone on the Internet in the past week you've probably heard about plan DEMOC. It's viral video full of misinformation about the corona virus it features a discredited scientist who accuses people like Dr Anthony Pao Chief of the NIH and Bill Gates of using the kkob in nineteen outbreak to seize political power youtube. Facebook and twitter have been trying to chase the video off the Internet but experts. Who FOLLOW DISINFORMATION? Say It's not an accident that it got so big in the first place. It's an old playbook that's even more effective in a time of fear and uncertainty Rene dressed as the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory she studies Discourse Online in the most recent viral misleading video. That went up on facebook. You know there was a strong marketing component to it because one of the people involved had a book to sell. What you see is the same text will be used. It'll be kind of a particular core message produced almost the way that you would see from a team where the message goes out alongside the link and there's a real attempt to get it all out of right around the same time in hopes that you can kind of trick one of the algorithms that amplifies popular content on platforms into thinking that it seeing something. That's organic and I just you know. simultaneous outpouring organic interest. In person or topic. What role do other influencers play in? Getting this into the mainstream like is part of the campaign to have a list of sort of ideal. Influencers that you would love to get to re tweet your content. Yes absolutely I if you get it to. A sufficient number of blue check accounts have a million two million followers audience members. You've really ensured that you're reaching an existing mass audience. People think that those accounts are more authoritative. A trusted influence with a large audience. Really does a lot to both reach. People also create an environment in which the information is coming from. Someone that you trust. How can journalists avoid amplifying these claims like what is the right response to a coordinated misinformation strategy? And how do you even identify quickly enough? With regard to this particular video that went viral with the discredited scientists That was actually the third or fourth video that had been posted to youtube that did get significant traction and so those of us who watch be anti vaccine in health misinformation communities really this was like a train wreck and very very very slow motion. You know people had seen indications that this marketing effort was really trying to turn her into an influence or the problem was nobody wanted to write the story including including researchers. Because you don't WanNa give it oxygen if it's just gonNA stay confined to the communities. That are the natural sort of affinity places for it and then you see the debunking pieces begin to go up because it takes time for journalists to write those articles. They usually don't go up for six hours. Maybe and the challenges at that point the viral information has had a chance to release with people for a couple of days and the correction is not going to go as far as did. This is where I do think that platforms bear a little bit more responsibility in terms of when you begin to see a video or post or a repetitive content about a person began to gain traction in what looks like an authentic or coordinated way. That's where there's an opportunity to kind of temporarily throttle while you have the fact checker. Go look and see what kind of information this is and how it should be dealt with got it. Are you saying that that platforms may have the technology or just is on to be able to get to it more quickly you can begin to see when velocity of mentions is what it's called sometimes beginning to do well of Coca Cola is all of a sudden mentioned five hundred times in a minute? It'll flag for their brand monitoring people who will go and look and see what's going on so these tools for social listening and understanding that dynamic they do exist got it. Let's say the content gets taken down? In which case the conspiracy theorist becomes digital martyr like is one of the goals actually to be taken down so the then you can claim that you were censored. Well what we saw in the prior take downs this video that achieved Mass Keel was actually the third video in which they declare exactly what you've said that someone somewhere is trying to keep people from knowing the truth that's in some cases the better response rather than doing the takedown just ensuring that the accurate information is attached as quickly as possible. What are the opportunities in this time? Exactly because you know obviously there have been a lot of conversations about misinformation about manipulating platforms platforms have tried to take a handoff hands off approach. And they're now essentially saying you know. The virus is a clear and present public health danger. We can act more aggressively because the benefits are indisputable from a health perspective. Does that give us a an opportunity for research or lasting change or data or really understanding misinformation better? While some of the work that we're doing at Stanford actually looks at The initial application of those policies so the current a virus misinformation policy in extension of policies. That were put in place in two thousand nineteen related to the measles outbreaks. That were repeatedly happening When the Brooklyn Measles outbreak struck the platforms did begin to take steps to reduce the amount of reach that anti vaccine groups were getting and they did that. Some very basic ways. They stopped promoting them in the recommendation. Engine they stop accepting money to run. Ads on their behalf. The challenge the interesting thing that we've seen come out of this is that the policies were designed to amplify the CDC in the World Health Organization and their information but during the current a virus. There was the additional challenge of institutions. Trying to figure out what was going on at the same time as everybody else and so there wasn't always great information to be amplifying because with something like hydroxy floor Clinton whether it works. A scientific authority isn't gonNA come out with a strong firm judgment all Matt Prior to the research being done and so. There's this gap where people really want information but the science isn't there yet and so what fills the void is? Whatever any random person you know with a sufficiently large audience produces about hydroxy chloroquine. And so there's there's just not a whole lot of authoritative information for the platforms to be amplifying. Says it's been an interesting time with just understanding. How how you get information to the public. When there's no information Rene Studies online discourse at the Stanford Internet Observatory and now for some related links in news. You can hopefully use if you don't find yourself to enraged by the level of willful conspiracy believing from your friends and family on facebook. The Atlantic has a piece from last week on what to say to people who shared links to things like the plan. Democ video or other debunked. Disinformation it does say that. You will have the most luck with people who are curious or uncertain wondering if thing could possibly be true and it says you should try to empathize with the fear and uncertainty and quote. Don't lecture someone. Don't get exasperated. Don't insult them and don't try to refute specific falsehoods.

Facebook Stanford Internet Observatory Scientist Bill Gates Measles Rene Dr Anthony Pao Twitter Discourse Online Youtube NIH Research Manager Atlantic Stanford Chloroquine CDC Rene Studies Clinton World Health Organization
"internet observatory" Discussed on The CyberWire

The CyberWire

07:53 min | 1 year ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on The CyberWire

"Contrast is generally drawn to the United States with the Americans depicted as the opposite unreliable inept and unfeeling. This would be a move toward displacing where it can the US from exercising this kind of soft power. The methods the Chinese services have adopted depends strongly on state run media gaining access to social media audiences through advertising with subsequent amplification and other social media posts researchers at the Stanford Internet Observatory told The Wall Street Journal that Beijing has purchased over two hundred political ads on facebook since the end of two thousand eighteen more than a third of those however were bought within the past two months and those for the most part focused on trying to shape global perception around China's handling of the corona virus outbreak. China's facebook political advertising has drawn roughly forty five million views since February fifteenth which in volume at least exceeds the reach that the Internet research agency achieved around the US 2016. The Internet research agency being of course the now notorious Russian troll farm facebook said last October that it would label ads purchased by state media and twitter. Says it's banned advertising by state media Chinese government operators however have proved able to run. Ads unlabeled on both platforms to techniques are noteworthy. There's a tendency to pick up casual posts along the lines of you know. I had a funny cold a couple of months ago wonder. If it was corona virus these are amplified to suggest that the virus had its origins outside of China. There's also a tendency to communicate by insinuation so the claim that Kovic nineteen is the product of a US. Biowar- program is typically made not by assertion but by posing a question was cove in nineteen in American weapon. Enquiring MINDS WANNA know. Shouldn't this be investigated? We're not saying it so but it sure sounds suspicious. And so on such conspiracy. Mongering gains traction with repetition. The intended audience is Southeast Asia Eastern Europe and Africa. Much of the Chinese disinformation has been picked up opportunistically by Russian and Iranian services the US F. B. I. Has Been Hard at work responding to the increased volume of militias online activity that's followed the covert nineteen pandemic. Herb Stapleton is Cyber Division section chief at the FBI. Well we've seen so far is really cyber actors exploiting the cove nineteen pandemic through a variety of militias activities targeting a wide range of entities in both the public and private sector. So some of the things that were most concerned about include some of the typical cyber schemes. That you'd see or scams that you would see but with Cova nineteen kind of pretext or Or flavor to them so work from home kinds of scams impersonation scams business email compromise those kinds of things and and decode nineteen sort of theme comes in when the militias actors will sort of trying to impersonate maybe a government entity like the CDC or a Health healthcare related to the World Health Organization to try to trick people into believing that they're getting either official information about the covert nineteen pandemic. Were entitled to some type of medical treatment or something like that but basically it it turns out to be really a scheme to steal personal information or money or or even to deploy malware on somebody some devices were system now for the folks in our audience who are primarily cybersecurity professionals. What sort of actions can they take to assist the efforts that you all are making it the FBI to find these sorts of things you know I think among cybersecurity professionals? A little ad vigilance is is appropriate. You know some of the things that we are concerned about our with the increase in telework We also see an increase in people using Telework type software and applications remote desktop type of applications and those create added vulnerabilities. So really being extra vigilant for potential exploitation of those types of legitimate software tools and also just making sure that the employees have an awareness of what could be waiting out there so you know software from untrusted sources we we worry about militias actors potentially using legitimate looking telework software that they might offer at a free or reduced price that ultimately they would use to gain access to sensitive information or send fishing links that are predicated to look like some type of legitimate telework software tool now in terms of reporting to you. All there at your agency is it The FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center. Is that the the best avenue to to send reports so we try to provide multiple ways that the public and companies out there can get in touch with the FBI so the Internet Crime Complaint Center is certainly One of the best avenues to report these types of Internet fraud scams or even cyber suspected cyber intrusions we also encourage companies to contact their local. Fbi field office as well if you know if they have an immediate situation or need some immediate help calling. Fbi field office is also a great way to get in touch with the FBI and get some assistance. That's Herbs Stapleton from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Crunch base reports that startups have been hit hard by the pandemic with many of them forced to lay off workers. Big Tech however is hiring and they're looking in particular for cyber security talent facebook alone. The Wall Street Journal reports plans to hire ten thousand during twenty twenty and the Silicon Valley Business Journal reports that big tack is also taking some measures to sustain their small business supply chain phishing attacks and phone scams continue to use covert nineteen fears as. Bait the south Florida Times reports. And that's no surprise. Other criminal activity concentrates on the newly expanded remote work attack. Surface with zoom representing favourite avenue of approach. Forbes says that zoom related threats have increased two thousand percent since the pandemic began to force social distancing and telework. There's a thriving. Black market in zoom vulnerabilities as criminals race against the teleconferencing providers efforts to upgrade. Its Security d'appel. Payment ransomware operators have released documents belonging to Boeing Lockheed Martin and SPACEX. Those three companies were not themselves directly infected with ransomware rather it was a subcontractor visser precision who suffered infection when visser declined to pay the ransom. The register writes. The gang began releasing stolen files. The incident illustrates to noteworthy trends. Convergence of ransomware with data theft and the extent to which organizations are exposed to significant third party risk. Another ransomware operator. The gang behind so dinner says according to bleeping computer that they'll abandon bitcoin and adopt Minero as their currency of choice. A Europol statement. That minero is impossible to track seems to have prompted the decision finally hackery reports that Dutch police have taken down fifteen de dos for higher services and in addition to knocking the Buddha's off line police in the Netherlands have made at least one arrest a nineteen year old man was arrested on charges related to a distributed denial of service attack knocking out to Dutch government websites for several hours on march nineteenth..

FBI United States China facebook Beijing The Wall Street Journal twitter Stanford Internet Observatory Africa Herb Stapleton Southeast Asia Eastern Europe Kovic Herbs Stapleton data theft CDC World Health Organization
Instagram is targeting fake coronavirus news

Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

07:54 min | 1 year ago

Instagram is targeting fake coronavirus news

"This week. Instagram announced. Big changes in how it will moderate content on its platform to try to stop the spread of disinformation around Kovic. Nineteen instagram said. Tuesday it will aggressively take down some content in de prioritize accounts that aren't from trusted sources. That's in line. With what parent company Facebook is doing and what social media platforms have teamed up to try to do as well but the truth is this moderation is really really tricky partly because of technology and partly because of the demands of the pandemic itself. Alex Stay Moses Director of the Stanford Internet Observatory and former chief information security officer at facebook. He told me. Content moderators have all been sent home for privacy and safety reasons a content moderator. That's all they do. They spent all day looking at content in that includes content. That might be private. That might be in private groups that might be in direct messages between users and the like and so as a result a lot of work goes into protecting the privacy those users to make sure that that private information does not leave the computer of the content moderator and you do a bunch of technical protections to make sure. They're not just kind of walking around and looking people's information although singer extremely difficult or impossible to do at home. And so if you send your tens of thousands of content moderators home. You end up having to make a decision of whether or not you want them to work. But if you do so you're going to have to loosen the privacy protections that have been used to protect users data the best now it sounds like these platforms are relying a lot more heavily on machine learning in one case we you know. We saw facebook sort of accidentally taking down almost everything that mentioned corona virus. What are the Trade Offs? And is there any way around mistakes? So you're right that the companies are going to have to rely a lot more on machine learning and so as you change the ratio for the number of people making judgments in the number of machines that are applying those judgments. Then you never really end up with less accuracy and that means you might take down content. That should not be and it might mean you miss badly but I think that's exactly the kind of thing we're going to have to get more used to. Yeah it's kind of interesting. I feel like it seems like potentially some of the limitations but maybe also some of the efficacy of these tools might come into clearer. Focus now right especially. Since the Christ's church shooting which there is a huge push for more content. Moderation in the truth is machine. Learning is not that smart. We're GONNA see a lot more content. Moderation that does not take the subtleties of human communication of comedy of sarcasm of repeating some kind of phrase because you're criticizing it. All of those things are classically difficult for these companies to deal with. They've had to in those situations punt that out of the machines to humans but now those humans are working from home. There's a real trade off between People's privacy and doing a better job with content moderation. So what do you think this will look like? Well they have to err on the side of more intensive. I guess censorship for lack of a better word I think every platform is going to have to make their own calculation And to be frank I think politicians and the media are going to have to be more realistic. About what kind of speech control do we want at scale and the truth is there's been kind of a moral panic around tech platforms especially social media for the last couple of years where the human problems that are reflected online the immediate response from politicians and the media is we want the tech companies to fix it right and it turns out that asking these companies to do that level of control of speech in a complicated society? Like ours has downsides that was always true but the fact that these companies are now having to deal with these issues shorthanded with way less human intervention. I think he's going to bring that into sharper relief. Yeah absolutely if you see platforms basically say okay. We'll wholesale we will have to block all information. Nobody'll be happy but clearly if misinformation gets through lives are lost as a result. That's ends up being a problem for platforms. Also I mean. Is this a lose lose? I guess I think there is no way that you can solve the societal problems by making the speech. That reflects those problems. Go Away Right The other court issue here is that in a number of these areas but especially Corona Virus. A lot of the misinformation is coming from public officials right and so in a situation where the president of the United States is saying things. That aren't true then. The entire media and social media environment is going to struggle with how to deal with it right and I think this is actually the other side of the coin of the discussion of whether the media should still carry. Trump's news conferences. Live Is it's clearly newsworthy. Any in the president says from the podium in the White House but if it's both newsworthy and untrue or newsworthy and harmful what is the responsibility of both the media and then the social media intermediaries to either put more information around that rabbiting context and so far. What they've been trying to do is to counter that elite misinformation with direct links to sources like the CDC and like and so as long as hopefully their parts of the government that are still somewhat independent in that are sharing information that is still trustworthy and reliable. They they still do have an option that you next to a Donald Trump facebook poster tweet that they can also have a link directly to the CDC and then allow people to make their decision where does attack. Advertising mechanisms fit into this conversation. If at all so when you look at disinformation as a problem over all you have to deal with it. In a different way for different kinds of products in the the online product that is most risky is advertising and for two reasons one. Advertising allows people to trade money for speech application and the second is advertising one of the only ways that you can put information in front of somebody who did not ask to see it right so the number one determinate of what is on. Somebody's facebook newsfeed. Is who their friends are and who they follow right on twitter at two. You've decided to follow so you've made affirmative decision that these are the people that want to hear from. Advertising bypasses all that allows people for whom you have no relationship to take information to put it on your screen and that can be incredibly powerful for commercial purposes but it can also be very risky from a disinflation perspective. I think most of the companies have banned in this case when you talk about Corona virus. It's a little bit easier than the general political issue issue in that. There's a handful of terms that you can ban right. And what a number of companies have done is they have by default banned any use of certain words in their advertising. What you see now is that advertisers are coming. Apple euphemisms In this case people talk about the illness or the virus or you some kind of euphemism and not sacred virus or cove for like but there is an interesting question on the commercial platforms like the ebays. The amazons of what is the appropriate response? Here it is not illegal to sell masks it is not illegal to make a profit off of it except in some certain circumstances but it might be kind of morally reprehensible in some ways although medical professionals are also getting PP and masks via some of these platforms. So I think it's actually very difficult. Balancing Act of. Do you allow normal commerce to happen even in a situation where the things that are being sold are you should be rationed and given to very specific people overall? There doesn't seem to be very much legal guidance and I think this is the kind of place where you actually want states in the federal government to step in. Because there's a lot of different ways you can sell stuff online and without guidelines across multiple companies. Anything that any individual company does is going to be an effective

Facebook Donald Trump Instagram CDC Kovic President Trump Alex Chief Information Security Off Stanford Internet Observatory Twitter Director United States Corona Apple White House
"internet observatory" Discussed on Short Wave

Short Wave

03:04 min | 1 year ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on Short Wave

"You're listening to shortwave from. Npr missed yesterday's episode. You missed the story of Cincinnati Pediatrician Nicole Baldwin. And Tick Tock So. I like the music. I think it's Super Fun to watch people being goofy and dancing and all that kind of tick tock is a social media where people basically do that. Be Goofy to music. So who follows you talk to you know my daughter in? That's not horrifying. Yeah I it's funny dinner. Conversation House but I think a lot of Of Physicians Right now are following me I definitely do have some adolescent patients in the past couple of weeks of come into the office. And they're like I saw here tic TAC. I follow you on dog. So that's that's fun because that's who I'm trying to reach. Is that population with some of these messages by messages. Nicole means posts about family health and last month. One of them opposed of hers. Promoting the importance of vaccination went viral and not entirely in a good way. I was scared and we did even at home. Call the police just to have them do extra patrols around our house. In the last episode we examined how Anti Vaccine Activists Harass Nicole through social media eventually finding her office and threatening her practice this episode. We'RE GONNA explore why the Internet is so good at fuelling misinformation. You know the Internet is really good at helping people find other people like them Rene Directa who you also heard in the last episode. Is the research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory? She studies the spread of misinformation through what she calls inadvertent algorithm mic amplification and. What that means is the recommendation engines or the trending function or the search function. We know that these are kind of features that send a lot of is in the way of certain information and so the question has been Do the platforms have an obligation to ensure that the information that they are sending people to is quality information and there are some people who think that the answer is no that but my belief is that we should not be in a world where the most popular website takes top billing on. Google particularly when the notion of most popular Is derived from easily gamed metrics. So Today Rene. Dirigiste helps explain how people game the Internet and the Internet in away games us when it comes to spreading bad information online. I Matt Safai. In this shortwave daily science podcast from NPR..

Nicole Baldwin Rene Directa Npr Cincinnati Stanford Internet Observatory Google Matt Safai Dirigiste research manager
"internet observatory" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

06:14 min | 1 year ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"Home than vote for the extremist Roy Moore and you know the margin. The election between the two was pretty close. Close to fifty thousand. I'm not saying that that's necessarily swayed the outcome but it leaves you with questions. The project was a failure in so far as the people who funded it and and even some of the operatives who carried it out have since repudiated it. I think that style of campaign has at least been stigmatized. This is Brendan Nyein. Professor Festive Government Dartmouth. Who's done a lot of research on fake news and political influence campaigns on social media? I don't think we know however How effective it really was is? It's very difficult to evaluate. The success of campaign influence efforts take place via facebook because the platform so closed it does highlight the risk that domestic political actors can use some of the same tactics that the Russians have used and that really complicates. Some of the questions were dealing with. Here here is there. There's a very strong consensus that Foreign actors have no place in our elections. But the questions become much more complicated when it comes to people who are part of our political process but are stretching the boundaries of conventional politics and You know our legal and regulatory system hasn't fully caught up with with that problem and I think our media ecosystem hasn't either You know the platform certainly have been caught off guard again and again by these sorts of incidents and and there's no reason to think that they will catch the next one in time you know. You can't rerun elections or at least you couldn't without great damage to the legitimacy of our democracy dougherty so these kind of last minute sneak attacks. Remain a a worrisome threat. Slate plus members can hear more of your conversation with Brendan Nyein in an extra episode of this series so go to slate dot com slash amicus plus to check it out. It's incredibly interesting and do you agree with Brendan Rick. This is probably actually didn't sway the election and any way. There's just no way of knowing whether it did and although these activities were unpalatable they were dishonest. They just weren't illegal so I think Brenton's right that we don't have good evidence as to how much these things sway elections. I know that Alex Stamos who used to be head of security at facebook spoke thought. Trump's micro targeting was much more important than the Russian disinformation during two thousand sixteen. It's really hard to measure but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and take actions against them if we could The question is is it legitimate. We've had dirty tricks before you know. Dirty tricks go back to the beginning of the country. What's different now is that you can kind of super supersize them? Through the use of social media things can spread Vialli. That are false. There's all kinds of ways to try to manipulate public opinion. That weren't available before and and what about Brendan's point that it's different win their domestic political actors That's a whole different kettle of fish than Russians intervening. So I think you know when it comes to the law we. We have a lot more tools to deal with foreign interference and we could take steps. But you know there's a controversy now for weather for example facebook should be banning lies by I Candidates right president trump puts out a lie and should facebook take that down well. Do we really want facebook to decide what the truth is you know. And and so the line between what's improper campaign talk what's illegal. What's ugly but okay you know? It's really hard to draw those lines and I don't know that either facebook or the government can really be in the business of doing that but what we've learned. Is that whatever the Russians tried to do in two thousand sixteen Americans can try and do In Two thousand twenty themselves. We don't need foreign interference. We can interfere with our own elections. Thank you very much and we can dress it up as Clever campaigning or just free speech. That's right and you know the kind of the First Amendment stalwarts are out there saying. Oh you know it's just about what people need to hear. And the the truth will rise to the top. I talked about this with Rene Geresta. WHO's the technical research manager at Stanford's Internet Observatory about how hard it is to even detect your even define what count says improper campaigning versus legitimate free speech and the sort of early policy frameworks that tech platforms? Came up with to address what happened in two thousand sixteen. A lot of the emphasis was on a taking down content because the actor was authentic. So what that would mean as you know the Russians ran a fake Texas secessionist pige. But there's nothing that is inherently wrong with holding the position. Texas should secede air go real Texas secessionists who are running the same page or the same content would not have been taken down so that was this idea idea of of authenticity of actor when you have domestic actors running those types of pages. That's perfectly legitimate first. First Amendment Free Expression Framework for people to express their political point of view so the question becomes platforms. Where the lines between gene legitimate activism like people deciding that they're all going to coordinate in a facebook group and coordinated inauthentic activity? Who's going to be the entity? That's going to to arbitrate. What's true and what's false? Do you trust the trump administration. Set up a government agency to tell us the truth. Do we trust facebook right so we lack good intermediary Meteo to tell us what's true. What's false even if we thought that was a good idea? So rick the after effects of what happened in two thousand sixteen in terms of foreign interference in domestic mastic elections. They continue to reverberate through this twenty twenty election cycle Russian tactics influencing domestic actors as we've just heard about Russian tactics six likely influencing other foreign actors we are in foreign interference information overload. Can can you help me right now. Sort the signal from the noise here so if we think back to two thousand sixteen we saw three very different kinds of attempts at Russian interference. First there was the manipulation over social media. The kind of things project Birmingham tried to emulate not just.

facebook Brendan Nyein Brendan Rick Brendan Texas Roy Moore Festive Government Dartmouth Trump Birmingham Alex Stamos Brenton Professor Rene Geresta trump Vialli Meteo Stanford Internet Observatory
"internet observatory" Discussed on KCRW

KCRW

04:46 min | 2 years ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on KCRW

"Formally a Facebook now director of the Stanford internet observatory thanks a lot thank you very much you're listening to All Things Considered from NPR news this is case your W. I. macula any actually know can tell you that a freeway closure instantly becomes the talk of the town west side commuters might remember Carmageddon when the four of five a shut down back in twenty eleven and corona residents live through corona again in two thousand sixteen on a stretch of the ninety one shut down now the Inland Empire has just started the long dreaded sixty swarm and it promises to be the best freeway project yet with us now to talk through what to expect is Kimberly cherry she's the Caltrans spokesperson for the riverside symphony No district Kimberly welcome thank you so to start off of what is it about the sixty swarm that makes it shall we say a bit more newsworthy than the previous agains we've lived through well the sixties form is going to consist of a couple of projects at the same time but the largest and what's getting the most attention is the freeway shut down from the ice is keen to the sixteen ninety one to fifteen junction but it's desperately needed to do road repairs for the deteriorating concrete on that freeway well I guess through through what lanes are going to be closed and win because there's these we can shut down to those also nightly shut downs too right that's correct and the weekend shut downs are starting Friday night this Friday at ten PM they go from Fridays at ten PM to Mondays at five AM for the shut down on the eastbound side only for the first eight weekends once we get from amber starting from the fifteen once we get to that junction after the eight weekends we turn around and then we close the westbound side for the same hours from Friday to Monday but the nighttime lane closures same hours ten PM to five am are happening from Euclid Avenue Monday through Friday all the way to the sixteen ninety one to fifteen junctions all right so I mean if you didn't have a pencil paper take all of that what are some of the ways Caltrans is trying to minimize some of the sixties warm headaches and and make it easy for people to remember and to be aware that this this massive project is happening absolutely we have sixty swarm dot com and we're going to have updates on that we have a hotline that's a one eight three three sixty swarm and we need to have the Twitter and Facebook with hash tag sixty swarm however we are telling people if they're headed west bound to take the sixty two the two fifteen up to the ten or they can take the sixty to the ninety one southernly to the fifteen and then go back out subsequently and of course if they're traveling eastbound it's the same thing when you hit that fifteen you already diverted down to fifteen to the ninety one more northward up to the town well a lot of projects are involved also some bridges are being redone in Chino as well we've been having some laughs about the the general convenience of the sixties so warm and how it's going to be with us at least three thanksgiving or at least at that time of year but when that project is finally done when it's all said and done one can commuters expect to see it's it's a lot of work there re paving the lanes as you know and that they are utilizing the full closure to do multiple projects at the same time within the area so it involves re paving and they are actually going to be breaking out in it and and doing this had layer underneath as well they will also be retaking the on and off ramps as well as the curbs at the end and beginning studies on and off ramps to be ADA compliant for wheelchair accessibility the other part of the sixties warm as you just mentioned the bridges of pipeline MontaVista and Benson Avenue they are going to be raised in the vertical clearance is going to be raised up to current standards and and as well as being widened by one lane in each direction all three of those bridges they'll see new pavement from Euclid Avenue all the way down to that sixteen ninety one to fifteen junction electricals any taking care of landscaping is getting in there at the same time as well as the maintenance crews are getting in there to do anything that they need to take care of whether you know it be sprinklers at practical as etcetera so eventually it will be it will be a great payoff but in the mean time probably be best to travel with a couple of of Advil yeah it would about we say you know there's no gain without the pain so and as a good friend of mine says it'll be sweet when it's complete there we go Kimberly cherry she is the Caltrans spokesperson for the riverside semolina district thanks for being with us.

Facebook director Stanford internet observatory
"internet observatory" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast

The Lawfare Podcast

01:30 min | 2 years ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast

"On the media side. The unfortunate fact is we will always have the possibility that trained intelligence agencies are going to be able to get access to really sensitive emails documents that jump it s to hack is a great example of something that's very hard to defend against which is there are thousands of people who used to operate under the protective of Birla of professional IT and security teams who are now just like grandparents, and who's g mail accounts are national security issues, and so preventing that kind of attack is impossible. And so if we assume that our adversaries will always be able to strategically leak information to damage our elections to influence our elections than it is on the media to try to understand how to deal with that. I'm Susan see. And this is the law, fair podcast, June eleven twenty nineteen more than two years after the two thousand sixteen. Presidential elections, new information's continues to seep into the public about the extent of Russia's sweeping and systematic. Efforts to interfere in the US democratic process with the twenty twenty presidential election on the horizon last week, Stanford cypress policy center published a report on securing American elections, including recommendations on how the US can protect elections election infrastructure, from foreign actors on Monday. I spoke to two of the reports authors. Alex stamos director of the Stanford, cyber policy centers, internet observatory, and former chief security officer of Facebook and Nate per silly Stanford law professor and expert on election administration..

Stanford cypress policy center Stanford Alex stamos Facebook Russia US internet observatory Nate officer director professor two years
"internet observatory" Discussed on Slate's If Then

Slate's If Then

04:13 min | 3 years ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on Slate's If Then

"Like they missed their revenue growth targets in a quarterly earnings report, but bad like they've been accused of contributing to genocide in Myanmar. They've been hauled before congress to explain how they let tens of millions of users personal information get harvested and exploited by Cambridge Analytica. They're hit by data breach. In which the profile information of some twenty nine million users was stolen by parties that remain unknown and at large and last week came in New York Times investigation, the paints the company's leaders as more concerned with their public image than with owning up to the scope of Facebook's problems along the way. Several key executives have departed the company citing differences with leadership, including our guest today. Alex stamos stamos served as the chief security officer for Facebook from twenty fifteen until August of this year prior to that he was the CFO at Yahoo. Currently he's a Hoover fellow an adjunct professor at Stanford University, and the director of the new Stanford internet observatory it's a technical research group focusing on understanding and. Gating abuse of new technologies after the New York Times story came out last week stamos pendant op Ed in the Washington Post titled. Yes, Facebook made mistakes in two thousand sixteen but we weren't the only ones Alex stamos. Welcome to if then thanks glad to be here. Gem. Glad to have you on their. We've been talking about doing this for while. I think this is a great opportunity to reflect on everything that's transpired at Facebook in the past two or three years will not everything, but the stuff that concerns your role as chief security officer in particular, and where that leaves us now. So I wanted to dive right into the New York Times piece, which of course, is the subject of controversy of the moment. The crux of the story to me was this Facebook has over the past couple years presented itself as this idealistic mission driven company at been blindsided by the ways in which bad actors have abused platform. It's trying earnestly to confront those problems as they come up. You know, they always say they're taking it seriously. They've acknowledged that they've been to. Slow to respond in some cases. But the times piece painted a little bit of a different picture. It suggested that leaders like Mark Zuckerberg, and Sheryl Sandberg were not just slow to grapple with the consequences of some of these problems. But actually wanted to sort of downplay them an end when you brought them up. They got upset and and we're concerned about how it would look not only to the public. But maybe two Republicans on Capitol Hill that sort of thing. So I wanted to get your take on this. I mean, which vision of Facebook leadership resonates with you are they Ernest idealists who have just been blindsided or are they have they been calculating and more concerned, maybe with their image or with looking bad than with really tackling the problems. What's interesting question? I think from the outside people are kind of confused about what's going on. And that Kadhamy you described his is the challenge. What's going on Facebook is there's a lot of people who care. A lot about the abuse of the platform, and stopping it. They're also people whose job it is to look out for the company from coms and a legal and policy perspective. And I think what you're seeing from the outside is sometimes the groups that work on Shaffi, insecurity are able to get their message out are able to to drive change Turnley and you'll see a burst of activity in. Sometimes the people who are really worried about the way the company has seen are winning that battle. And so you end up with his this kind of inconsistent view of what what's going on. And for the most part. I think that's actually unfortunate for the company because the truth is that a lot more was happening especially in the late twenty sixteen early twenty seventeen time period than is publicly known and because of these concerns about not centering itself in the controversy after the election of Donald Trump. I think Facebook missed this huge opportunity to demonstrate that the company is part of the solution not part of the problem, and and because of that missed opportunity now everything else that comes out is seen through the lens of the idea that Facebook doesn't care which is not accurate at least for the people that I worked with right?.

Alex stamos stamos Facebook New York Times Myanmar officer Cambridge Analytica Donald Trump congress Stanford University Stanford internet observatory Washington Post Mark Zuckerberg Yahoo Sheryl Sandberg adjunct professor director Shaffi Turnley Ernest
"internet observatory" Discussed on Slate's If Then

Slate's If Then

04:13 min | 3 years ago

"internet observatory" Discussed on Slate's If Then

"Like they missed their revenue growth targets in a quarterly earnings report, but bad like they've been accused of contributing to genocide in Myanmar. They've been hauled before congress to explain how they let tens of millions of users personal information get harvested and exploited by Cambridge Analytica. They're hit by data breach. In which the profile information of some twenty nine million users was stolen by parties that remain unknown and at large and last week came in New York Times investigation, the paints the company's leaders as more concerned with their public image than with owning up to the scope of Facebook's problems along the way. Several key executives have departed the company citing differences with leadership, including our guest today. Alex stamos stamos served as the chief security officer for Facebook from twenty fifteen until August of this year prior to that he was the CFO at Yahoo. Currently he's a Hoover fellow an adjunct professor at Stanford University, and the director of the new Stanford internet observatory it's a technical research group focusing on understanding and. Gating abuse of new technologies after the New York Times story came out last week stamos pendant op Ed in the Washington Post titled. Yes, Facebook made mistakes in two thousand sixteen but we weren't the only ones Alex stamos. Welcome to if then thanks glad to be here. Gem. Glad to have you on their. We've been talking about doing this for while. I think this is a great opportunity to reflect on everything that's transpired at Facebook in the past two or three years will not everything, but the stuff that concerns your role as chief security officer in particular, and where that leaves us now. So I wanted to dive right into the New York Times piece, which of course, is the subject of controversy of the moment. The crux of the story to me was this Facebook has over the past couple years presented itself as this idealistic mission driven company at been blindsided by the ways in which bad actors have abused platform. It's trying earnestly to confront those problems as they come up. You know, they always say they're taking it seriously. They've acknowledged that they've been to. Slow to respond in some cases. But the times piece painted a little bit of a different picture. It suggested that leaders like Mark Zuckerberg, and Sheryl Sandberg were not just slow to grapple with the consequences of some of these problems. But actually wanted to sort of downplay them an end when you brought them up. They got upset and and we're concerned about how it would look not only to the public. But maybe two Republicans on Capitol Hill that sort of thing. So I wanted to get your take on this. I mean, which vision of Facebook leadership resonates with you are they Ernest idealists who have just been blindsided or are they have they been calculating and more concerned, maybe with their image or with looking bad than with really tackling the problems. What's interesting question? I think from the outside people are kind of confused about what's going on. And that Kadhamy you described his is the challenge. What's going on Facebook is there's a lot of people who care. A lot about the abuse of the platform, and stopping it. They're also people whose job it is to look out for the company from coms and a legal and policy perspective. And I think what you're seeing from the outside is sometimes the groups that work on Shaffi, insecurity are able to get their message out are able to to drive change Turnley and you'll see a burst of activity in. Sometimes the people who are really worried about the way the company has seen are winning that battle. And so you end up with his this kind of inconsistent view of what what's going on. And for the most part. I think that's actually unfortunate for the company because the truth is that a lot more was happening especially in the late twenty sixteen early twenty seventeen time period than is publicly known and because of these concerns about not centering itself in the controversy after the election of Donald Trump. I think Facebook missed this huge opportunity to demonstrate that the company is part of the solution not part of the problem, and and because of that missed opportunity now everything else that comes out is seen through the lens of the idea that Facebook doesn't care which is not accurate at least for the people that I worked with right?.

Alex stamos stamos Facebook New York Times Myanmar officer Cambridge Analytica Donald Trump congress Stanford University Stanford internet observatory Washington Post Mark Zuckerberg Yahoo Sheryl Sandberg adjunct professor director Shaffi Turnley Ernest