JUL 18, 2017 @ 09:30 AM 4,451 The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
How Bad Leadership Makes Consensus Happen Anyway
Meghan M. Biro , CONTRIBUTOR
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Shutterstock
One of the key traits we associate with effective leadership is the ability to build consensus — convince the team to come to an agreement for the good of the whole. It’s not the only way to lead and there are plenty of theories that debunk it. But we still tend to associate it with success. I’ve got a colleague embroiled in a disagreement with a team these days, wishing a leader would come and rescue them by insisting they forge an agreement for the greater good, ego struggles aside.
There’s nobility in consensus, a powerful example these days is the Supreme Court. Partisanship aside, this year, the Supremes — in a sense, a moral and legal Board of Directors for the United States — set a record for coming to the most agreements in the last 70 years. They achieved consensus by carefully balancing their arguments and narrowing the focus of their decisions. They didn’t shoot the moon and set their egos and personal beliefs aside. That they were one member short meant if discussion derailed, it could mire them in a dysfunctional stalemate. So they agreed to work to agree, a classic example of consensus-building.
Meanwhile, we’re seeing far more examples of leaders whose effect on consensus is entirely different, and the stakes could not be higher. When faced with onerous global challenges, we want someone to set a course to safety we can all agree on. It’s just like being on a ship in a storm. But what happens when the designated captain doesn’t measure up?
Leader As Liability. Some have argued that Uber’s CEO was kept on top by an unwritten consensus that winning was more important than work culture. His own management style had little to do with consensus building. But that same unwritten agreement to allow Kalanick to be Kalanick — which is troubling in retrospect — ultimately turned on him. As revelations of harassment and sexism tarnished Uber’s shine, investors naturally got jumpy.
The result was indeed consensus around the fact that Kalanick was a liability that risked a successful IPO. The board weighed its priorities and found that their investment’s safety was far more important, and turned on him. Consensus reached, they acted in a stunning letter that showed a board flexing its legitimate muscle. Exit Kalanick.
Leader As Impediment. Set partisanship aside on this one and just focus on it as a study in the unintended consequences of intractable positions. Among the startling images that emerged from the G20 summit in Hamburg — a meeting dedicated to building consensus among world leaders — are those of the former leader of the free world. POTUS 45 sits by himself, clearly out of sync, a long figure surrounded by leaders networking and discussing — quite possibly, how they’re going to do about his refusal to buy into the global mission.
Seeing is believing: as one commentator noted, the G20 in effect turned into the G19, as leaders reached the consensus that they will work around him — because the global risk is too great to let him stand in the way.
Granted, Trump’s model of leadership is anything but leading teams to balanced agreement. It’s more the atomize, fractionalize, and authorize variety. But we are at a tipping point in terms of a number of things: the climate is changing, forcing us to live and work differently. And we are integrating robots, automation and artificial intelligence into more and more processes. One interesting byproduct of AI is that is does not lie. It does not allow for evasion, story changing, non-participation, or claiming that real is fake – which may soon mean that this kind of leader is rendered even more obsolete. And we don’t need to reach consensus on that.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
Mark Zuckerberg Defends Facebook After a Controversial Memo Called for Growth At All Costs - TIME
Mark Zuckerberg Defends Facebook After a Controversial Memo Called for Growth At All Costs
Posted: 30 Mar 2018 07:58 AM PDT
A controversial memo written by a top Facebook insider is causing a ruckus inside and outside the company as it continues to deal with the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica scandal and its handling of users’ personal information more broadly.
The memo, written by Facebook Vice President Andrew “Boz” Bosworth in 2016 and titled “The Ugly,” argues that Facebook’s goal should be connecting people even if it “costs a life by exposing someone to bullies” or “someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.” The memo, originally viewable only to Facebook employees, was obtained by BuzzFeed News.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg quickly responded to the memo’s publication, arguing its contents do not reflect the company’s true ethos.
“We’ve never believed the ends justify the means,” Zuckerberg said in a statement to BuzzFeed News. “We recognize that connecting people isn’t enough by itself. We also need to work to bring people closer together. We changed our whole mission and company focus to reflect this last year.”
Zuckerberg also said the Bosworth is “a talented leader who says many provocative things,” and that the memo is something “that most people at Facebook including myself disagreed with strongly.”
Bosworth himself walked back the memo, saying in a tweet that “I don’t agree with the post today and I didn’t agree with it even when I wrote it.” Instead, he characterized the note as an effort to surface “hard topics” for internal discussion among Facebook employees.
My statement on the recent Buzzfeed story containing a post I wrote in 2016 pic.twitter.com/lmzDMcrjv5
— Boz (@boztank) March 29, 2018
Bosworth’s memo was first published one day after a Chicago man was shot and killed in an incident streamed on Facebook Live, the company’s livestreaming platform.
Trump declares April National Sexual Assault Awareness Month - CNN Politics
Trump declares April National Sexual Assault Awareness Month
Sophie Tatum
By Sophie Tatum
Updated 2346 GMT (0746 HKT) March 30, 2018
#MeToo movement drives women into politics
#MeToo movement drives women into politics 03:53
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump issued a proclamation Friday designating April as National Sexual Assault Awareness month.
According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, April has been Sexual Assault Awareness Month since 2001 in the United States. The move to issue a proclamation observing the month was first started by President Barack Obama in 2010, and the tradition has carried over into the Trump administration.
"Sexual assault crimes remain tragically common in our society, and offenders too often evade accountability. These heinous crimes are committed indiscriminately: in intimate relationships, in public spaces, and in the workplace," the presidential proclamation from the White House states.
Over the past year, there has been a reckoning in the United States over sexual assault and harassment, particularly in the workplace, known as the #MeToo movement.
Revelations surrounding various industry leaders accused of sexual assault and harassment in recent months also come as Trump himself has been accused of sexual misconduct by a number of women.
In December of last year, a group of women held a press conference to share their personal stories involving Trump.
At least 15 women have come forward with a wide range of accusations against Trump, ranging from sexual harassment and sexual assault to lewd behavior around women. Of the women, 13 say Trump attacked them directly and two others say they witnessed behavior that made them uncomfortable. All the alleged incidents took place prior to his assuming the presidency.
The White House and Trump have responded to the allegations, denying all of them.
CNN's Dan Merica contributed to this report.
Sophie Tatum
By Sophie Tatum
Updated 2346 GMT (0746 HKT) March 30, 2018
#MeToo movement drives women into politics
#MeToo movement drives women into politics 03:53
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump issued a proclamation Friday designating April as National Sexual Assault Awareness month.
According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, April has been Sexual Assault Awareness Month since 2001 in the United States. The move to issue a proclamation observing the month was first started by President Barack Obama in 2010, and the tradition has carried over into the Trump administration.
"Sexual assault crimes remain tragically common in our society, and offenders too often evade accountability. These heinous crimes are committed indiscriminately: in intimate relationships, in public spaces, and in the workplace," the presidential proclamation from the White House states.
Over the past year, there has been a reckoning in the United States over sexual assault and harassment, particularly in the workplace, known as the #MeToo movement.
Revelations surrounding various industry leaders accused of sexual assault and harassment in recent months also come as Trump himself has been accused of sexual misconduct by a number of women.
In December of last year, a group of women held a press conference to share their personal stories involving Trump.
At least 15 women have come forward with a wide range of accusations against Trump, ranging from sexual harassment and sexual assault to lewd behavior around women. Of the women, 13 say Trump attacked them directly and two others say they witnessed behavior that made them uncomfortable. All the alleged incidents took place prior to his assuming the presidency.
The White House and Trump have responded to the allegations, denying all of them.
CNN's Dan Merica contributed to this report.
Texas woman jailed for five years for voting while on probation - Guardian
Texas woman jailed for five years for voting while on probation
Crystal Mason, 43, cast ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton
Texas Republican leaders search for rare convictions
Jamiles Lartey and agencies
@JamilesLartey
Sun 1 Apr 2018 21.16 AEST
A Texas woman has been sentenced to five years in prison for attempting to vote in the 2016 presidential election when she was ineligible because she was on probation.
Texas woman fights harsh voter fraud sentence: 'I just wanted them to hear my voice'
Read more
Crystal Mason, 43, will appeal the punishment handed down this week in Fort Worth, according to her attorney. The sentence was handed down despite the fact that Mason’s provisional ballot was not ultimately counted.
At the time of the 2016 election Mason was on probation, having served nearly three years of a five-year sentence for defrauding the federal government. A former tax preparer, in 2011 she was accused of illegally inflating refunds for clients. She was convicted the following year.
Mason was put on a three-year term of supervised release and had to pay $4.2m in restitution, according to court documents.
She testified that she did not know people convicted of felonies could not vote until they had completed their sentences, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported. She had gone to vote at her mother’s encouragement, she told the paper, and was not told when released from federal prison that she could not do so.
Mason testified that when she voted in November 2016, she signed a provisional ballot affidavit stating that she had not been convicted of a felony. Prosecutors said she signed the form with the intent to vote illegally. Mason’s attorney called it a mistake, made as she was guided by an election worker.
The case is reminiscent of that of another Texas woman, Rosa Ortega, who was sentenced to eight years for illegally voting in several elections because, according to her, she believed her permanent residency card made her a US citizen.
According to the Washington Post, of 38 Texas prosecutions for illegal voting between 2005 and 2017, only one resulted in a sentence of more than three years. It involved a public official knowingly registering several non-citizens to vote.
But in 2015 the state elected attorney general Ken Paxton in part on a platform of rooting out voter fraud. He decided to make an example of Ortega. Announcing Ortega’s indictment, Paxton said election integrity was “essential to our democracy and a top priority of my administration”.
Ortega was a Republican and a supporter of Paxton.Mason believes she was targeted because she voted for the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, over the Republican, Donald Trump. Tarrant County, where both women were prosecuted, leans Republican.
Mason’s attorney, J Warren St John, did not immediately comment.
Trump, who lost the popular vote to Clinton by nearly 3m ballots but took the presidency in the electoral college, has alleged widespread voter fraud but produced no evidence. A widely criticised White House commission on “election integrity”, led by Vice-President Mike Pence, was scrapped.
Crystal Mason, 43, cast ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton
Texas Republican leaders search for rare convictions
Jamiles Lartey and agencies
@JamilesLartey
Sun 1 Apr 2018 21.16 AEST
A Texas woman has been sentenced to five years in prison for attempting to vote in the 2016 presidential election when she was ineligible because she was on probation.
Texas woman fights harsh voter fraud sentence: 'I just wanted them to hear my voice'
Read more
Crystal Mason, 43, will appeal the punishment handed down this week in Fort Worth, according to her attorney. The sentence was handed down despite the fact that Mason’s provisional ballot was not ultimately counted.
At the time of the 2016 election Mason was on probation, having served nearly three years of a five-year sentence for defrauding the federal government. A former tax preparer, in 2011 she was accused of illegally inflating refunds for clients. She was convicted the following year.
Mason was put on a three-year term of supervised release and had to pay $4.2m in restitution, according to court documents.
She testified that she did not know people convicted of felonies could not vote until they had completed their sentences, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported. She had gone to vote at her mother’s encouragement, she told the paper, and was not told when released from federal prison that she could not do so.
Mason testified that when she voted in November 2016, she signed a provisional ballot affidavit stating that she had not been convicted of a felony. Prosecutors said she signed the form with the intent to vote illegally. Mason’s attorney called it a mistake, made as she was guided by an election worker.
The case is reminiscent of that of another Texas woman, Rosa Ortega, who was sentenced to eight years for illegally voting in several elections because, according to her, she believed her permanent residency card made her a US citizen.
According to the Washington Post, of 38 Texas prosecutions for illegal voting between 2005 and 2017, only one resulted in a sentence of more than three years. It involved a public official knowingly registering several non-citizens to vote.
But in 2015 the state elected attorney general Ken Paxton in part on a platform of rooting out voter fraud. He decided to make an example of Ortega. Announcing Ortega’s indictment, Paxton said election integrity was “essential to our democracy and a top priority of my administration”.
Ortega was a Republican and a supporter of Paxton.Mason believes she was targeted because she voted for the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, over the Republican, Donald Trump. Tarrant County, where both women were prosecuted, leans Republican.
Mason’s attorney, J Warren St John, did not immediately comment.
Trump, who lost the popular vote to Clinton by nearly 3m ballots but took the presidency in the electoral college, has alleged widespread voter fraud but produced no evidence. A widely criticised White House commission on “election integrity”, led by Vice-President Mike Pence, was scrapped.
Vermont Legislature Passes Sweeping Gun Restrictions - New York Times
Vermont Legislature Passes Sweeping Gun Restrictions
By JESS BIDGOODMARCH 30, 2018
The waiting area before the Sportsmen’s Legislative Mixer on March 13 in Montpelier, Vt. State lawmakers, in the face of opposition from sportsman groups, approved a sweeping package of new gun restrictions on Friday. Credit Christinne Muschi/Reuters
Lawmakers in Vermont, a place long steeped in hunting culture, on Friday approved a sweeping package of new gun restrictions, making the state all but certain to join Florida in passing a raft of new gun control measures after a teenage gunman killed 17 people last month at a high school in Parkland, Fla.
Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, has vowed to sign the measure. It represents a remarkable departure from the state’s existing gun laws, which are some of the weakest in the country — and an about-face for Mr. Scott, who decided to consider new gun control measures only after a teenager was accused of plotting a school shooting in Vermont in the days after the violence in Parkland.
“No state is immune to the risk of extreme violence,” Mr. Scott said in a statement on Friday, adding, “If we are at a point when our kids are afraid to go to school and parents are afraid to put their kids on a bus, who are we?”
The bill, which passed the Senate, 17 to 13, on Friday after clearing the House earlier in the week, would raise the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21 and ban bump stocks, which are devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire more rapidly. It also contains restrictions that go beyond those in the measure signed in Florida, like an expansion of background checks and a limit on the capacity of magazines that can be sold or possessed in the state.
The passage of the bill is likely to be hailed as a victory by activists pushing for tighter gun laws around the nation after the Parkland shootings. It comes less than a week after hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in protest of mass shootings and gun violence — including 2,500 who squeezed onto the steps of the Capitol in Montpelier.
“I think the message that most members of the Legislature — not all — took is that public opinion is changing in Vermont,” said Eric Davis, an emeritus professor of political science at Middlebury College.
Madison Knoop, a college freshman who organized last weekend’s march in Montpelier, called the bill’s advancement “such a good first start.”
The day after the Parkland shooting, Mr. Scott, a moderate Republican who has kept his distance from President Trump, said he saw no need for new gun laws — a position in line with years of precedent in Vermont, a rural state with a committed population of hunters.
Mr. Scott shifted his stance a day later, after a teenager was arrested and accused of planning a school shooting in Fair Haven, Vt. “Everything should be on the table at this point,” Mr. Scott said.
Lawmakers are expected to approve two more gun control measures next week. One would allow law enforcement officers to remove guns from people considered at risk of harming themselves or others, and the other would allow firearms to be taken from people arrested or cited for domestic assault.
Some Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the measures that advanced on Friday. State Senator Dick Sears Jr., a Democrat, expressed deep unease with the ban on high-capacity magazines, which had been included in the House bill.
And State Senator John Rodgers, a Democrat representing a rural stretch of northern Vermont, mourned a change in the state’s culture before he voted against the bill.
“I think maybe if we pass this bill, maybe it is over, maybe the Vermont I grew up with is over, and it’s changed,” Mr. Rodgers said, according to Vermont Public Radio.
On Saturday afternoon, Recoil magazine and Magpul Industries, which makes firearms accessories, were planning to distribute free 30-round magazines at the State House to show their disdain for the expected law. Magazines of that size that are in residents’ possession before the ban goes into effect would not be subject to the law.
Evan Hughes, vice president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, which was opposed to the legislation, said he would be among the crowd on Saturday.
“Our legislators,” he said, “have drastically underestimated the response from the gun-owning community.”
By JESS BIDGOODMARCH 30, 2018
The waiting area before the Sportsmen’s Legislative Mixer on March 13 in Montpelier, Vt. State lawmakers, in the face of opposition from sportsman groups, approved a sweeping package of new gun restrictions on Friday. Credit Christinne Muschi/Reuters
Lawmakers in Vermont, a place long steeped in hunting culture, on Friday approved a sweeping package of new gun restrictions, making the state all but certain to join Florida in passing a raft of new gun control measures after a teenage gunman killed 17 people last month at a high school in Parkland, Fla.
Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, has vowed to sign the measure. It represents a remarkable departure from the state’s existing gun laws, which are some of the weakest in the country — and an about-face for Mr. Scott, who decided to consider new gun control measures only after a teenager was accused of plotting a school shooting in Vermont in the days after the violence in Parkland.
“No state is immune to the risk of extreme violence,” Mr. Scott said in a statement on Friday, adding, “If we are at a point when our kids are afraid to go to school and parents are afraid to put their kids on a bus, who are we?”
The bill, which passed the Senate, 17 to 13, on Friday after clearing the House earlier in the week, would raise the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21 and ban bump stocks, which are devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire more rapidly. It also contains restrictions that go beyond those in the measure signed in Florida, like an expansion of background checks and a limit on the capacity of magazines that can be sold or possessed in the state.
The passage of the bill is likely to be hailed as a victory by activists pushing for tighter gun laws around the nation after the Parkland shootings. It comes less than a week after hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in protest of mass shootings and gun violence — including 2,500 who squeezed onto the steps of the Capitol in Montpelier.
“I think the message that most members of the Legislature — not all — took is that public opinion is changing in Vermont,” said Eric Davis, an emeritus professor of political science at Middlebury College.
Madison Knoop, a college freshman who organized last weekend’s march in Montpelier, called the bill’s advancement “such a good first start.”
The day after the Parkland shooting, Mr. Scott, a moderate Republican who has kept his distance from President Trump, said he saw no need for new gun laws — a position in line with years of precedent in Vermont, a rural state with a committed population of hunters.
Mr. Scott shifted his stance a day later, after a teenager was arrested and accused of planning a school shooting in Fair Haven, Vt. “Everything should be on the table at this point,” Mr. Scott said.
Lawmakers are expected to approve two more gun control measures next week. One would allow law enforcement officers to remove guns from people considered at risk of harming themselves or others, and the other would allow firearms to be taken from people arrested or cited for domestic assault.
Some Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the measures that advanced on Friday. State Senator Dick Sears Jr., a Democrat, expressed deep unease with the ban on high-capacity magazines, which had been included in the House bill.
And State Senator John Rodgers, a Democrat representing a rural stretch of northern Vermont, mourned a change in the state’s culture before he voted against the bill.
“I think maybe if we pass this bill, maybe it is over, maybe the Vermont I grew up with is over, and it’s changed,” Mr. Rodgers said, according to Vermont Public Radio.
On Saturday afternoon, Recoil magazine and Magpul Industries, which makes firearms accessories, were planning to distribute free 30-round magazines at the State House to show their disdain for the expected law. Magazines of that size that are in residents’ possession before the ban goes into effect would not be subject to the law.
Evan Hughes, vice president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, which was opposed to the legislation, said he would be among the crowd on Saturday.
“Our legislators,” he said, “have drastically underestimated the response from the gun-owning community.”
Facebook has lost $80 billion in market value since its data scandal - CNN Money
Facebook has lost $80 billion in market value since its data scandal
by Paul R. La Monica @lamonicabuzz
March 27, 2018: 4:41 PM ET
Facebook shares fell 5% Tuesday on reports that CEO Mark Zuckerberg agreed to testify in front of Congress about the company's data scandal.
The crisis began on March 16 after Facebook (FB) said it was suspending data analysis company Cambridge Analytica for allegedly harvesting data from more than 50 million Facebook users. Cambridge Analytica worked on Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
Since then, Facebook's stock has plunged 18%, wiping out nearly $80 billion from the social networking giant's market value in the process. Zuckerberg's net worth has fallen by about $14 billion. (He is still worth $61 billion, though).
Tech stocks in general have taken a hit since the Facebook allegations first came to light. The Nasdaq is down 6%.
And other social media companies, most notably YouTube owner Google and Twitter, have both nosedived as well. Shares of Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL) fell 7% since March 16 while Twitter has plunged 20%. Twitter (TWTR) was down 12% alone on Tuesday after noted short seller Citron Research has changed its tune on the company's stock.
Citron short $TWTR. Near-Term target $25 Of all social media, they are most vulnerable to privacy regulation Wait until Senate finds out what Citron has published. http://citronresearch.com/wait-til-the-senate-hears-twitters-hidden-secret/ …
12:44 AM - Mar 28, 2018
Investors worry that Facebook, Google and Twitter could all face tougher regulations in the United States and around the world because of the Cambridge Analytica controversy.
If that happens, it could stymie growth for all three companies -- but Facebook in particular. Investors also worry that users may flee these companies because of privacy concerns. And if users flee, advertisers may eventually jump ship too.
That's why several Wall Street analysts have lowered their price targets and earnings estimates for Facebook during the past week and a half. But others have boosted their forecasts, arguing that the worst will soon pass and that investors are overreacting.
It's impossible to know if it's the Facebook bulls or bears who will ultimately be proven correct. But it's clear that confidence in Facebook and other once-hot tech companies has been shaken.
"While the scandal is likely to blow over, investors should be aware that a continued sell-off in this sector would not be surprising, and if another scandal were to hit, it just might break the tech sector's back," said Craig Birk, executive vice president of portfolio management at investing firm Personal Capital in a note Tuesday.
CNNMoney (New York)
First published March 27, 2018: 4:27 PM ET
by Paul R. La Monica @lamonicabuzz
March 27, 2018: 4:41 PM ET
Facebook shares fell 5% Tuesday on reports that CEO Mark Zuckerberg agreed to testify in front of Congress about the company's data scandal.
The crisis began on March 16 after Facebook (FB) said it was suspending data analysis company Cambridge Analytica for allegedly harvesting data from more than 50 million Facebook users. Cambridge Analytica worked on Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
Since then, Facebook's stock has plunged 18%, wiping out nearly $80 billion from the social networking giant's market value in the process. Zuckerberg's net worth has fallen by about $14 billion. (He is still worth $61 billion, though).
Tech stocks in general have taken a hit since the Facebook allegations first came to light. The Nasdaq is down 6%.
And other social media companies, most notably YouTube owner Google and Twitter, have both nosedived as well. Shares of Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL) fell 7% since March 16 while Twitter has plunged 20%. Twitter (TWTR) was down 12% alone on Tuesday after noted short seller Citron Research has changed its tune on the company's stock.
Citron short $TWTR. Near-Term target $25 Of all social media, they are most vulnerable to privacy regulation Wait until Senate finds out what Citron has published. http://citronresearch.com/wait-til-the-senate-hears-twitters-hidden-secret/ …
12:44 AM - Mar 28, 2018
Investors worry that Facebook, Google and Twitter could all face tougher regulations in the United States and around the world because of the Cambridge Analytica controversy.
If that happens, it could stymie growth for all three companies -- but Facebook in particular. Investors also worry that users may flee these companies because of privacy concerns. And if users flee, advertisers may eventually jump ship too.
That's why several Wall Street analysts have lowered their price targets and earnings estimates for Facebook during the past week and a half. But others have boosted their forecasts, arguing that the worst will soon pass and that investors are overreacting.
It's impossible to know if it's the Facebook bulls or bears who will ultimately be proven correct. But it's clear that confidence in Facebook and other once-hot tech companies has been shaken.
"While the scandal is likely to blow over, investors should be aware that a continued sell-off in this sector would not be surprising, and if another scandal were to hit, it just might break the tech sector's back," said Craig Birk, executive vice president of portfolio management at investing firm Personal Capital in a note Tuesday.
CNNMoney (New York)
First published March 27, 2018: 4:27 PM ET
Nothing You Say Online Is Private - Bloomberg
Nothing You Say Online Is Private
By
March 28, 2018, 5:03 PM GMT+11
As Facebook’s latest privacy missteps unfolded via the Cambridge Analytica imbroglio, the skeptical side of me couldn’t help but wonder how anyone would be surprised that what they post on the internet could be co-opted for marketing — or more nefarious purposes.
People in China, for one, seem to know better. Internet users here are all too aware that what’s posted online can and will be used against them.
Which is why it was so ironic when the operator of the country’s single most dominant social media platform — WeChat — declared at an earnings briefing last week that its one billion-plus users can trust their data would never "leak" like Facebook did. When the obvious follow-up question came about the Chinese government’s access to said data, Tencent President Martin Lau backpedaled and said cooperating with law enforcement was a different story.
Most Chinese internet users have the built-in assumption that pretty much everything is monitored. Some don’t seem to care. But many more are just much savvier about what personal information, photos and content they post online. Or how they post it: web users employ a constantly evolving palette of code-words to evade the all-seeing eye whenever they simply must speak up (say, “river crab” as a proxy for the Communist Party).
When I asked a friend living in China recently whether she took more precautions on social media than she did in the U.S., she instinctively replied “let’s talk about this offline, not on Wechat.” It’s pretty common for people to mandate face-to-face meetings in fear of online communication.
Another friend spoke of turning off location services, avoiding keywords that could alert government or company censors, and staying off rival firms’ products to prevent corporate spying. Others mentioned never posting on WeChat Moments, akin to Facebook’s newsfeed, or deleting Moments posts after a day or even an hour so friends can see your photos but not indefinitely. (This often happens with news articles and blog posts, too).
But even private or small group chats can only be trusted as much as the person on the other side of the conversation. A string of recent scandals in China that originated from screenshots taken of private chats have put some users on notice.
As guides on how to better safeguard your data or #deleteFacebook spread across the internet, the bigger question is whether it’s time to abandon the idea that any company, government or other entity is going to protect our privacy for us — especially those whose business models depend on monetizing user data.
The best way for individuals to safeguard their information is to limit what they share in the first place. But I’m also reminded of a friend’s recent admonition on not just resigning yourself to an internet without data protection, and why you can’t just give up on holding companies and governments accountable: “If you don’t fight for your privacy, it’s all that much easier for it to be taken away.”
And here’s what you need to know in global technology news
Facebook's tanking. Its shares are headed toward its worst month since May 2013, after an analyst warned of a temporary pullback in advertising and the FTC confirmed it’s investigating the social network’s privacy practices.
More on the Uber crash. It's said to have disabled standard collision-avoidance technology in the Volvo that struck and killed a woman in Arizona. The state's governor has ordered its cars off the road indefinitely.
Why Uber lost Southeast Asia. While it looked to conquer ride-sharing around the world, Grab was focused on serving the 620 million people that share its home in Southeast Asia.
Tightening the screws on China. Huawei and ZTE could face higher barriers to the U.S. market under a proposal advanced by federal regulators.
By
March 28, 2018, 5:03 PM GMT+11
As Facebook’s latest privacy missteps unfolded via the Cambridge Analytica imbroglio, the skeptical side of me couldn’t help but wonder how anyone would be surprised that what they post on the internet could be co-opted for marketing — or more nefarious purposes.
People in China, for one, seem to know better. Internet users here are all too aware that what’s posted online can and will be used against them.
Which is why it was so ironic when the operator of the country’s single most dominant social media platform — WeChat — declared at an earnings briefing last week that its one billion-plus users can trust their data would never "leak" like Facebook did. When the obvious follow-up question came about the Chinese government’s access to said data, Tencent President Martin Lau backpedaled and said cooperating with law enforcement was a different story.
Most Chinese internet users have the built-in assumption that pretty much everything is monitored. Some don’t seem to care. But many more are just much savvier about what personal information, photos and content they post online. Or how they post it: web users employ a constantly evolving palette of code-words to evade the all-seeing eye whenever they simply must speak up (say, “river crab” as a proxy for the Communist Party).
When I asked a friend living in China recently whether she took more precautions on social media than she did in the U.S., she instinctively replied “let’s talk about this offline, not on Wechat.” It’s pretty common for people to mandate face-to-face meetings in fear of online communication.
Another friend spoke of turning off location services, avoiding keywords that could alert government or company censors, and staying off rival firms’ products to prevent corporate spying. Others mentioned never posting on WeChat Moments, akin to Facebook’s newsfeed, or deleting Moments posts after a day or even an hour so friends can see your photos but not indefinitely. (This often happens with news articles and blog posts, too).
But even private or small group chats can only be trusted as much as the person on the other side of the conversation. A string of recent scandals in China that originated from screenshots taken of private chats have put some users on notice.
As guides on how to better safeguard your data or #deleteFacebook spread across the internet, the bigger question is whether it’s time to abandon the idea that any company, government or other entity is going to protect our privacy for us — especially those whose business models depend on monetizing user data.
The best way for individuals to safeguard their information is to limit what they share in the first place. But I’m also reminded of a friend’s recent admonition on not just resigning yourself to an internet without data protection, and why you can’t just give up on holding companies and governments accountable: “If you don’t fight for your privacy, it’s all that much easier for it to be taken away.”
And here’s what you need to know in global technology news
Facebook's tanking. Its shares are headed toward its worst month since May 2013, after an analyst warned of a temporary pullback in advertising and the FTC confirmed it’s investigating the social network’s privacy practices.
More on the Uber crash. It's said to have disabled standard collision-avoidance technology in the Volvo that struck and killed a woman in Arizona. The state's governor has ordered its cars off the road indefinitely.
Why Uber lost Southeast Asia. While it looked to conquer ride-sharing around the world, Grab was focused on serving the 620 million people that share its home in Southeast Asia.
Tightening the screws on China. Huawei and ZTE could face higher barriers to the U.S. market under a proposal advanced by federal regulators.
Tesla in fatal California crash was on Autopilot - BBC News
Tesla in fatal California crash was on Autopilot
31 March 2018
The driver of the Tesla Model X died shortly after the crash
Electric carmaker Tesla says a vehicle involved in a fatal crash in California was in Autopilot mode, raising further questions about the safety of self-driving technology.
One of the company's Model X cars crashed into a roadside barrier and caught fire on 23 March.
Tesla says Autopilot was engaged at the time of the accident involving the driver, 38, who died soon afterwards.
But they did not say whether the system had detected the concrete barrier.
Will we be able to trust self-driving cars?
Tesla Autopilot update seeks better safety
Uber barred from self-drive trial
"The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive," a statement on the company's website said.
"The driver's hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision."
"The driver had about five seconds and 150m (490ft) of unobstructed view of the concrete divider... but the vehicle logs show that no action was taken," the statement added.
Tesla's Autopilot system does some of the things a fully autonomous machine can do. It can brake, accelerate and steer by itself under certain conditions, but it is classified as a driver assistance system, is not intended to operate independently and as such the driver is meant to have their hands on the wheel at all times.
In 2016, a Tesla driver was killed in Florida when his car failed to spot a lorry crossing its path.
It led the company to introduce new safety measures, including turning off Autopilot and bringing the car to a halt if the driver lets go of the wheel for too long.
Federal investigators said last year that Tesla "lacked understanding" of the semi-autonomous Autopilot's limitations.
Uber dashcam footage shows moment before fatal impact
The accident in California comes at a difficult time for self-driving technology.
Earlier this month, Uber was forbidden from resuming self-driving tests in the US state of Arizona.
It followed a fatal crash in the state in which an autonomous vehicle hit a woman who was walking her bike across the road.
It was thought to be the first time an autonomous car had been involved in a fatal collision with a pedestrian.
The company suspended all self-driving tests in North America after the accident.
31 March 2018
The driver of the Tesla Model X died shortly after the crash
Electric carmaker Tesla says a vehicle involved in a fatal crash in California was in Autopilot mode, raising further questions about the safety of self-driving technology.
One of the company's Model X cars crashed into a roadside barrier and caught fire on 23 March.
Tesla says Autopilot was engaged at the time of the accident involving the driver, 38, who died soon afterwards.
But they did not say whether the system had detected the concrete barrier.
Will we be able to trust self-driving cars?
Tesla Autopilot update seeks better safety
Uber barred from self-drive trial
"The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive," a statement on the company's website said.
"The driver's hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision."
"The driver had about five seconds and 150m (490ft) of unobstructed view of the concrete divider... but the vehicle logs show that no action was taken," the statement added.
Tesla's Autopilot system does some of the things a fully autonomous machine can do. It can brake, accelerate and steer by itself under certain conditions, but it is classified as a driver assistance system, is not intended to operate independently and as such the driver is meant to have their hands on the wheel at all times.
In 2016, a Tesla driver was killed in Florida when his car failed to spot a lorry crossing its path.
It led the company to introduce new safety measures, including turning off Autopilot and bringing the car to a halt if the driver lets go of the wheel for too long.
Federal investigators said last year that Tesla "lacked understanding" of the semi-autonomous Autopilot's limitations.
Uber dashcam footage shows moment before fatal impact
The accident in California comes at a difficult time for self-driving technology.
Earlier this month, Uber was forbidden from resuming self-driving tests in the US state of Arizona.
It followed a fatal crash in the state in which an autonomous vehicle hit a woman who was walking her bike across the road.
It was thought to be the first time an autonomous car had been involved in a fatal collision with a pedestrian.
The company suspended all self-driving tests in North America after the accident.
Moscow official says West is trying to deny Russia World Cup - BBC News
1/4/2018
Moscow official says West is trying to deny Russia World Cup
Rostov-on-Don is one of the Russian cities hosting the Cup
Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has accused the UK and US of seeking to stop her country hosting this summer's World Cup.
Speaking in a lengthy interview with a Russian TV channel, she said their "main aim" was to "take the World Cup out of Russia".
The UK has been seeking to punish Russia after accusing it of mounting a nerve agent attack in Britain.
The Royal Family will shun the World Cup as part of the British response.
UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has likened Russia's World Cup to Nazi Germany's Olympic Games in 1936. and one British Opposition MP has called for the Cup to be postponed or moved.
However, there is currently no suggestion the England team will boycott the prestigious championship, which opens in June.
Russian diplomats leave Washington
Scores of diplomats have been expelled on both sides in the dispute over the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury on 4 March.
In the latest move, about 170 Russian diplomats and their family members left Washington on Friday evening.
At the same time, the US flag at the American consulate in St Petersburg was taken down following the Russian government's instruction to close it down.
Aeroflot plane in deepening Russia-UK row
Russia v the West: Is this a new Cold War?
What did Zakharova say?
Speaking to Russia's Channel 5 TV, Ms Zakharova said: "It's my impression that all they care about is taking the World Cup out of Russia.
"They will use any means. Their minds are only on that football and God forbid it should touch a Russian football field."
Russia denies any involvement in the poisoning of the Skripals.
Mr Skripal remains critically ill but stable, while his daughter is now said to be conscious and talking.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has said it will consider a request for Russian consular access to Yulia, a Russian citizen.
What is the background to the dispute?
The poisoning row has rumbled on for nearly a month.
The UK is adamant Russia is behind the poisoning of the Skripals.
UN secretary general Antonio Guterres on Thursday issued a warning over "a situation that is similar, to a large extent, to what we lived during the Cold War".
Russia says it is seeking a meeting with leaders of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to "establish the truth" about the poisoning.
Moscow official says West is trying to deny Russia World Cup
Rostov-on-Don is one of the Russian cities hosting the Cup
Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has accused the UK and US of seeking to stop her country hosting this summer's World Cup.
Speaking in a lengthy interview with a Russian TV channel, she said their "main aim" was to "take the World Cup out of Russia".
The UK has been seeking to punish Russia after accusing it of mounting a nerve agent attack in Britain.
The Royal Family will shun the World Cup as part of the British response.
UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has likened Russia's World Cup to Nazi Germany's Olympic Games in 1936. and one British Opposition MP has called for the Cup to be postponed or moved.
However, there is currently no suggestion the England team will boycott the prestigious championship, which opens in June.
Russian diplomats leave Washington
Scores of diplomats have been expelled on both sides in the dispute over the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury on 4 March.
In the latest move, about 170 Russian diplomats and their family members left Washington on Friday evening.
At the same time, the US flag at the American consulate in St Petersburg was taken down following the Russian government's instruction to close it down.
Aeroflot plane in deepening Russia-UK row
Russia v the West: Is this a new Cold War?
What did Zakharova say?
Speaking to Russia's Channel 5 TV, Ms Zakharova said: "It's my impression that all they care about is taking the World Cup out of Russia.
"They will use any means. Their minds are only on that football and God forbid it should touch a Russian football field."
Russia denies any involvement in the poisoning of the Skripals.
Mr Skripal remains critically ill but stable, while his daughter is now said to be conscious and talking.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has said it will consider a request for Russian consular access to Yulia, a Russian citizen.
What is the background to the dispute?
The poisoning row has rumbled on for nearly a month.
The UK is adamant Russia is behind the poisoning of the Skripals.
UN secretary general Antonio Guterres on Thursday issued a warning over "a situation that is similar, to a large extent, to what we lived during the Cold War".
Russia says it is seeking a meeting with leaders of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to "establish the truth" about the poisoning.
Donald Trump steps up attacks on Amazon - BBC News
Donald Trump steps up attacks on Amazon
31 March 2018
President Trump (right) accuses Amazon, owned by Jeff Bezos, of not paying enough for deliveries
President Donald Trump has stepped up his attacks on Amazon, suggesting the online retail giant is ripping off the US Postal Service.
The US Post Office would lose $1.50 (£1.07) "on average for each package it delivers for Amazon", he tweeted, but supporters of Amazon dispute this.
Mr Trump also said the Washington Post newspaper was a "lobbyist" for Amazon.
Amazon owner Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post, which publishes stories unpalatable to the president.
Like most mainstream media, the Post has reported on stories including Special Counsel Robert Mueller's continuing investigation into links between the Trump election campaign and Russia, as well has his alleged relationship with porn star Stormy Daniels.
Saturday's edition details how three different legal teams are scrutinising the Trump Organization's accounts.
Mr Trump's attacks on Amazon have seen its share price fall in recent days, amid concern that he might push for its power to be curbed by anti-trust laws.
The president tweeted that the US Post Office was losing "billions of dollars" in its contract with Amazon.
"If the P.O. 'increased its parcel rates, Amazon's shipping costs would rise by $2.6 Billion.' This Post Office scam must stop. Amazon must pay real costs (and taxes) now!" he continued, quoting the New York Times.
Amazon has not commented.
But supporters of Amazon point out that the Postal Regulatory Commission, which oversees the industry, has found that the US Postal Service makes a profit from its contract with the company.
This in turn helps subsidise the costs of letter delivery, which avoids the need for price rises.
It is unprecedented for a sitting president to single out one company for such vicious attacks, says the BBC's Business Correspondent, Joe Lynam.
Friends of Mr Trump in the commercial property sector have also been urging him to protect them from digital retail giants as they see shopping malls closing and rents falling, our correspondent adds.
31 March 2018
President Trump (right) accuses Amazon, owned by Jeff Bezos, of not paying enough for deliveries
President Donald Trump has stepped up his attacks on Amazon, suggesting the online retail giant is ripping off the US Postal Service.
The US Post Office would lose $1.50 (£1.07) "on average for each package it delivers for Amazon", he tweeted, but supporters of Amazon dispute this.
Mr Trump also said the Washington Post newspaper was a "lobbyist" for Amazon.
Amazon owner Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post, which publishes stories unpalatable to the president.
Like most mainstream media, the Post has reported on stories including Special Counsel Robert Mueller's continuing investigation into links between the Trump election campaign and Russia, as well has his alleged relationship with porn star Stormy Daniels.
Saturday's edition details how three different legal teams are scrutinising the Trump Organization's accounts.
Mr Trump's attacks on Amazon have seen its share price fall in recent days, amid concern that he might push for its power to be curbed by anti-trust laws.
The president tweeted that the US Post Office was losing "billions of dollars" in its contract with Amazon.
"If the P.O. 'increased its parcel rates, Amazon's shipping costs would rise by $2.6 Billion.' This Post Office scam must stop. Amazon must pay real costs (and taxes) now!" he continued, quoting the New York Times.
Amazon has not commented.
But supporters of Amazon point out that the Postal Regulatory Commission, which oversees the industry, has found that the US Postal Service makes a profit from its contract with the company.
This in turn helps subsidise the costs of letter delivery, which avoids the need for price rises.
It is unprecedented for a sitting president to single out one company for such vicious attacks, says the BBC's Business Correspondent, Joe Lynam.
Friends of Mr Trump in the commercial property sector have also been urging him to protect them from digital retail giants as they see shopping malls closing and rents falling, our correspondent adds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
