Tag Archives: facebook

| Ad brainwash: 15 biggest LIES ever told by major advertisers!

Posted on by
1

The 15 Biggest Lies Ever Told By Major Advertisers ~ Laura Stampler,  Business Insider,

____________________________________________________

As if you didn’t know …
Ads brainwash you into becoming non-thinking consumers!

____________________________________________________

Kim Kardashian Sketchers Shape-Ups Ad Super Bowl XLV

Zappos

Advertising doesn’t have a reputation for being the most honest profession. 

While most people know that banner ads from companies you’ve never heard of that promise to melt away “20 pounds in a week, no exercise required!” should be taken with a grain of salt, some huge and highly respected brands are also guilty of telling their consumers major lies to make sales.

You’d have to be pretty dumb to believe some of them. Skechers once claimed that by simply putting on a pair of their shoes you’d magically get buns of steel. Others  went so far as to cite fake studies to prove their false selling points.

Here are the 15 biggest offenders.

15. That Dr. Koch’s Cure All cured all.

Starting in 1919, Dr William Frederick Koch created a medication with a drug that he claimed could cure “all human ills, including tuberculosis” and cancer.

But when doctors tested the drug in 1948, doctors found that glyoxylide, the drug in question, contained little more than distilled water. Koch treated cancer patients, many of whom died, primarily with the drug.

Although the FDA was vocal in their disgust with Koch, they couldn’t find enough evidence to press charges. Koch ended up fleeing to Rio de Janeiro in the late ’40s.

 

14. That Classmates.com will find your classmates.

Before there was Facebook, people were chomping at the bit to sign up for Classmates.com and contact their old high school friends and flames. The site eventually introduced a “Gold” membership, which allowed members to email their old friends.

Anthony Michaels was lured into the Gold membership after Classmates.com sent him an email saying that an old friend was trying to contact him. That turned out to be a marketing ploy, so Michaels filed a class action lawsuit for false advertising.

Classmates.com ended up paying $9.5 million — $3 per subscriber — in 2010.

13. That Airborne cures colds.

Airborne — marketed as “the one designed by a school teacher” — got failing grades when it became public that there were no studies supporting its claims to kill germs and bacteria that caused flues and colds.

“It was so bad,” David Schardt, a senior nutritionist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told NPR.

In fact, Airborne had as much effect on a cold as a placebo or a Vitamin C pill.

Airborne had to pay $23.3 million in a class-action lawsuit.

12. That certain pills are “scientifically proven” to increase the size of a certain part of the male body.

Both Extenze and Enzyte falsely promised to give men a “big new swing of confidence.”

Extenze ended up paying a $6 million settlement in 2010, and Enzyte’s Steve Warshak was sentenced to 25 years in prison after he over-billed his customers.

11. That L’Oreal’s face cream will make you look as good as Photoshop can.

11. That L'Oreal's face cream will make you look as good as Photoshop can.

The U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority banned this ad for being “misleadingly exaggerated” due to excessive photoshopping.

The same goes for this Julia Roberts Lancome ad.

The same goes for this Julia Roberts Lancome ad.

Lancome

And Twiggy’s spot for Olay.

And Twiggy's spot for Olay.

Olay

11. That electric shocks cure AIDS and cancer.

Dr. Clark’s Zapper made a series of ridiculous claims that its supposed parasite-killing zapper could cure cancer and AIDS.

Hulda Clark’s book, “The Cure for all Cancers,” states: “All cancers are alike. They are all caused by a parasite. A single parasite! It is the human intestinal fluke. And if you kill this parasite, the cancer stops immediately.”

The Swiss-based company agreed to pay U.S. citizens refunds in 2004, and the director of enforcement at the FDA called the device “fraudulent.”

10. That gas is cleaner if it’s “crystal clear.”

Amoco launched a multi-million dollar campaign in the ’90s claiming that its gas was more environmentally friendly because it was “crystal clear” rather than a murky brown.

According to Mental Floss, ”at the time the country was going through a clear revolution.” Even Pepsi made a clear drink.

But the claim was unsubstantiated by any factual evidence and, therefore, Amoco was slapped with a fine by the FTC.

at the time the country was going through a clear revolution.

Read the full text here: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/17036#ixzz2DMettjz9
–brought to you by mental_floss

9. That wearing sneakers makes you skinny.

Skechers‘ used celebrities like Kim Kardashian to shill its Shape-up sneakers, claiming that you only had to tie your shoes to lose weight.

The FTC disagreed, and the shoe company ended up paying a $40 million settlement.

This ruling shouldn’t have come as a surprise. Just a year before, also working under the assumption that people wanted to dress for work rather than go to the gym, Reebok claimed that its EasyTone shoes and clothing would automatically make people lose weight.

It ended up settling for $25 million, and everyone who bought the product was entitled to a refund.

8. That Hoover would fly people to the U.S. for free if they bought a vacuum. (Read the outcome below.)

8. That Hoover would fly people to the U.S. for free if they bought a vacuum. (Read the outcome below.)

In 1992, Hoover promised Brits two free round-trip flights to the U.S. if they spent just £100 on any Hoover item.

Sounds too good to be true? That’s because it was.

When Hoover found out that it was unprepared to provide consumers with the free flights, it extended, rather than call off the campaign. Consumers wanting their prize then had to contact the company and send form after form after form to claim their tickets. Hoover hoped that they’d tire people out before they’d realize that the plane tickets didn’t exist.

It lead to a parliamentary inquiry and cost Hoover £48 million.

7. That One A Day vitamins prevent prostate cancer.

Bayer had to pay hefty fines for claiming that one of its vitamin ingredients, Selenium, prevented prostate cancer.

In fact, studies have shown that Selenium not only fails to prevent the cancer in healthy men but can increase the risk of diabetes.

Bayer had to pay $3.3 million in Oregon, California, and Illinois for corrective advertising.

6. That Rice Krispies will save your children from Swine Flu.

In 2009, Kellogg’s Rice Krispies claimed, in big letters, that the cereal “Now helps support your child’s IMMUNITY” by providing 25 percent of daily recommended antioxidants, vitamins, and nutrients.

The FTC told Kellogg to halt these “dubious” and unproven claims. Kellogg’s removed the wording on the boxes and explained that “While science shows that these antioxidants help support the immune system, given the public attention on H1N1, the company decided to make this change.”

One year before, Kellogg also got in trouble with the FTC for saying that Frosted Mini-Wheats increased kids’ attentiveness by nearly 20 percent — without the studies to back it up.

5. That Nutella is good for you.

For those who subscribed to President Reagan’s “ketchup is a vegetable” belief system, Nutella created ads that claimed that its delicious, hazelnut spread is actually a nutritious part of a kid’s breakfast.

Still, a mother of a 4-year-old sued, and Nutella settled for $3 million. People who bought Nutella between January 1, 2008, and February 3, 2012, could get reimbursed up to $20.

4. Another big advertising lie is that fast food looks as good in real life as it does in ads. Here’s an advertised versus actual Whopper:

The same goes for Taco Bell …

… and McDonald’s.

2. That Listerine cures everything from dandruff to cuts and bruises.

2. That Listerine cures everything from dandruff to cuts and bruises.

It couldn’t. Obviously.

Listerine claimed to be a cure-all since 1921, remedying colds and sore throats as well as acting as an after-shave tonic.

It wasn’t until 1975 that the Federal Trade Commission ruled the ads misleading and slapped the company with a $10 million fine to pay for corrective advertising stating: “contrary to prior advertising, Listerine will not help prevent colds or sore throats or lessen their severity.”

Then Listerine said that it was as effective as floss.

Then Listerine said that it was as effective as floss.

BillTsiakarosCreative via Flickr

This claim also proved misleading.

A U.S. District Judge ordered Pfizer, Listerine’s maker at the time, to pull the ads in 2005.

Although a 2010 class action suit against Listerine for the false advertising was thrown out for going “overboard.” The ads were pulled quickly and, therefore, weren’t exposed to a lot of people.

1. The classic lie, of course, is that cigarettes are healthy. This old ad for “Asthma Cigarettes” claimed to reduce bronchial irritation. “Not recommended for children under 6,” though.

1. The classic lie, of course, is that cigarettes are healthy. This old ad for "Asthma Cigarettes" claimed to reduce bronchial irritation. "Not recommended for children under 6," though.

Even Santa said cigarettes cured throat sores.

Even Santa said cigarettes cured throat sores.

_____________________________________________________________

ad hom 1

Related articles

critical-thinkingC

| Hasbara Blues: Israel’s blind eye on social media backfires!

Posted on by
1

Israel’s blind eye on social media backfires ~ Yara al-Wazir,  AL ARABIYA.

 

Israeli soldier Mor Ostrovski posted this image on Instagram.
Yara al-Wazir – AL ARABIYA

Over the past two weeks, Israel’s image has been smeared because of the use of social media, both by international activists and by one of its own soldiers. Joining the viral craze of the “Harlem Shake,” and the exponentially growing Instagram application, online activity is proving that it is not just Facebook that can affect governments.

Yara al-Wazir

Israeli soldier’s Instagram photo

The emergence of a photograph that soldier Mor Ostrovski posted on Instagram serves as a reminder of the power that social media has on public opinion. The Israeli government is no stranger to using social media to try to polish its image, with several officials having accounts in multiple languages to reach out to the public.

However, it seems that the puppet masters are losing control of their puppets. The photograph depicts a crosshair pointing to the back of presumably a Palestinian child’s head. The photograph is a reminder of the cruel cycle of barbarity that the military occupation breeds.

As distasteful and shocking as it is, it is not the first time that the Israeli Defense Forces have had to deal with a dent in its public-relations campaign. Images of Mohamed al-Durrah being shot as his father attempted to shield him still resonate in my mind, despite being eight years old when I saw them.

“Harlem Shake” for Palestine

At the opposite end of the world, just a few hours away from Ostrovski’s hometown of Tampa, Florida, a group of activists in Brooklyn, New York, shook their messages of resistance to the viral theme of the “Harlem Shake.”

Traditionally, it features people dancing frantically to DJ Baauer’s song of the same name. The activist group Existence is Resistance jumped on this craze to communicate the plight of Palestinians to the world.

The placards held by the dancers in the activists’ video show solidarity with hunger strikers. The video also calls for justice, basic human rights such as an integrated road system, and a system that allows one to see their family freely.

Israel’s double-edged sword against anonymity

One notable discrepancy between the video and the photograph is the anonymity of the producers. Ostrovski’s Instagram account was public at the time he posted dozens of photos documenting his life in the military and resentment towards Arabs, until it was taken down on Feb. 19. However, the activists in the video shield their faces with the traditional symbol of resistance, the kuffiyeh.

Whether wearing it was intentional to hide their identities, or if it was symbolic to emphasize the lifestyle of resistance led by the activists, it does not change Israel’s notoriety in monitoring online activity.

The Israeli government has a history of doing so, and using the information found for just about everything, including whether or not to allow in tourists. Thus, it is somewhat convenient that a blind eye is turned when its own soldiers act “against the IDF’s spirit and values,” as described in a statement to YNet.

The few activists who are allowed into the country admit to wiping their digital footprint, deleting their Twitter accounts, changing their names on Facebook, and replacing their names with a pseudonym on their personal blogs. Since it is clear that online presence is monitored, why did the IDF not spot this activity from within?

Making the military cool again

The IDF has tried many tactics to encourage young people to serve for periods longer than the conscription law requires. Letting its soldiers post photographs of themselves smoking cannabis and ‘enjoying’ military life may be just another tactic.

For many, serving in the military is a box they need to tick on university applications. The IDF has gone to great lengths to entice people to join it. In July 2007, the Israeli Consulate partnered with Maxim Magazine in the United States to print borderline-pornographic images of former female military officers. It described the idea as a “creative solution” to their image problem.

A job that entails playing with guns and rifles, and smoking illegal substances while getting paid in a country with soaring youth-unemployment rates, would certainly look more appealing than playing cards to pass time as one waits for a call-back from a job interview.

Social media is a thin rope, and users must tread lightly. In this case, turning a blind eye has backfired on the IDF, but that is merely because the photograph was exposed.

The fact is that it depicts the reality that Palestinians face every day, and the very thought of wanting to change this reality on the ground keeps activists from getting on the ground, making them resort to social media to fight the system. However, online awareness is just one step in the ladder to have a free and just Palestine.
 

(Yara al Wazir is a humanitarian activist. She is the founder of The Green Initiative ME and a developing partner of Sharek Stories. She can be followed and contacted on twitter @YaraWazir)

___________________________________________________________________

israelwolf2

Related articles

cry wolfC

| Quit Posting Facebook Copyright/Privacy Messages — It’s a Hoax!

Posted on by
Reply

Quit Posting Facebook Copyright/Privacy Messages — It’s a Hoax ~
, Time.

 

Have you seen the one where you’re supposed to post a legal notice to your Facebook profile to ensure the social networking titan can’t use anything you’ve written without your permission?

No, doing so won’t accomplish anything legally speaking, and yes, it’s a hoax — an old one that already made the rounds earlier this year according to urban legend tracker Snopes.com.

I scraped a copy of the message off my own Facebook NewsFeed this afternoon (one of my friends had posted it), and other TIME editors confirmed seeing it in their feeds this morning. Here it is, in full:

In response to the new Facebook guidelines, I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, graphics, comics, paintings, photos, and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention). For any and all commercial use of the above my written consent is required in every instance.

(Those reading this may copy and paste this text on their Facebook walls. This will place them under protection of copyright laws. By the present communiqué, I hereby notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents, and/or any staff under Facebook’s direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punishable by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).

Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, or if you prefer, then you may copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, you will be allowing tacitly the use of elements such as your photos, as well as the information contained in your profile status updates

The idea seems to be that by posting this, you can somehow override the privacy strictures you agreed to when you signed up for Facebook. Let’s be clear: You can’t. It’s that simple. Posting such messages, whatever you’ve read about your rights and the power of self-declared legalese, will simply clutter up your timeline and annoy your friends. If you have a problem with Facebook’s privacy policies, you can either stick it out and lobby for Facebook to amend its terms, or you can quit Facebook.

Part of the appeal behind this particular version of the hoax lies in its citation of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Section 1-308, which supposedly confers certain legal privileges if you drop it somewhere in the vicinity of your signature. In short, it doesn’t, and it certainly doesn’t protect you on Facebook. The only thing that’ll protect you on Facebook is you, in other words — taking care not to post anything you’d rather stay private.

Perhaps “hoax” is too strong a word. Sometimes these things are just viral mistakes — someone taking a well-intentioned misunderstanding and driving it viral (though that’s often also a definition for “conspiracy theories”). People pick it up thinking they’re immunizing themselves with, as Snopes puts it, a “legal talisman.” No such thing exists. The person who devised this particular message may have been going for viral clutter, or they may simply have been misinformed.

__________________________________________________________________

Related articles

| Facebook’s new user policy and the end of digital democracy?

Posted on by
Reply

The end of digital democracy? Facebook wants to take away your right to vote! ~ John D. Sutter, CNN.

(CNN) – Unless Facebook users fight back, the days of the social network’s experiment with democracy may soon come to an end.

The company on Wednesday proposed to take away its users’ right to vote on major issues concerning the governance of its 1 billion-member online network.

The reaction online has been less than welcoming.

“Facebook now argues that it is too big for democracy, much like the Chinese government might,” writes Michael Phillips on the site BuzzFeed. “Call this new regime Facebook with Authoritarian Characteristics.”

Facebook’s quarter in review
Facebook feature suspended in E.U.
Facebook reaches 1 billion users

Since 2009, in what Facebook calls an experiment with digital voting rights, Facebook has allowed users to vote on major changes to the way it manages user data and privacy, if the online community expressed enough interest. If 7,000 people commented on a particular proposal, that triggered a vote. And if 30% of the site’s active users — which would be 300 million people at this point — voted against the change, Facebook would abandon it.

Now the company says it wants to ditch that system, replacing it with new ways for users to submit questions to Facebook’s privacy team. The company lists two primary reasons for the shift away from digital democracy: Facebook has become extremely large, with more than a billion users; and it’s a publicly traded company now, which means it is “accountable to regulators around the world.”

“Democracy can be difficult, especially for a multibillion dollar public company,” writes Somini Sengupta for the New York Times’ Bits Blog.

Some technology writers are calling for users to revolt.

“Because it hasn’t revoked that right yet, there is still time for you to mount a campaign to retain it, in theory,” writes Will Oremus for Slate. “But Facebook knows it’s highly unlikely that you will. It turns out that, for all of the shrill cries that fly around the Internet every time (CEO Mark) Zuckerberg and company make a tweak, most people just don’t care enough to take action. At least, not on the types of changes that Facebook allowed them to vote on.”

Phillips, the BuzzFeed writer, says this is a watershed moment for the Internet.

“By repealing Facebook Suffrage, Facebook abandons a fundamental norm — that its users are citizens in a community, and not simply datapoints on an advertising algorithm. The vote may be quixotic, but if Facebook remains the indispensable social network, you’ll want to be able to tell your grandchildren you fought for Facebook freedom. Who knows how Facebook will develop without your input.”

In clinical language released the day before the United States celebrates Thanksgiving, a time when people here are unlikely to take much notice, Facebook says it wants to “end the voting component of the process.”

“We deeply value the feedback we receive from you during our comment period,” the site says a press release. “In the past, your substantive feedback has led to changes to the proposals we made. However, we found that the voting mechanism, which is triggered by a specific number of comments, actually resulted in a system that incentivized the quantity of comments over their quality. Therefore, we’re proposing to end the voting component of the process in favor of a system that leads to more meaningful feedback and engagement.”

The company adds: “We will continue to post significant changes to our Data Use Policy and SRR (Statement of Rights and Responsibilities) and provide a seven-day period for review and comment. As always, we will carefully consider your feedback before adopting any changes.”

As TechCrunch notes, Facebook is creating other ways for users to submit feedback to the site.

“As a replacement for the vote, Facebook is proposing to continue offering the seven-day comment period on proposed changes to its governing documents. It will also offer two new ways for users to voice their governance concerns,” Josh Constine writes. “There’s ‘Ask the Chief Privacy Officer,’ a new feature on the official Facebook Privacy Pages that will let users submit questions to Erin Egan, Facebook’s Chief Privacy Officer. Additionally, Egan would hold regular live-streamed webcasts where users can ask questions. If the proposal is allowed, these new features will be substituted for the vote.”

So there you have it. Webcasts, yes. Voting, no.

Read more about the changes and let Facebook know what you think of its apparent move away from digital democracy by visiting the Facebook Site Governance page. Facebook says it will consider user feedback submitted until noon ET on November 28.

_________________________________________________________

Related articles

| Israeli deputy PM’s Facebook, Twitter accounts hacked, filled with pro-Palestine messages!

Posted on by
Reply

Israeli deputy PM’s Facebook, Twitter accounts hacked, filled with pro-Palestine messages ~ RT.

Silvan Shalom's official youtube page hacked by ZHC group

Silvan Shalom‘s official youtube page hacked by ZHC group.

The Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube accounts of Israeli Deputy Premier Silvan Shalom have been hacked and filled with pro-Palestine status updates. ZCompanyHackingCrew claimed responsibility for this latest act of cyber war against Israel.

The group also claims to have hacked Shalom’s email and extracted personal mail, contacts and documents. The hackers announced plans to release the documents shortly.

In Shalom’s hijacked Twitter feed, the hacker group posted calls for protest against “unjust war and occupation,” and asked, “Who can bare to see the horror, the deaths of children and innocent people trying to protect their occupied land?”

The full-scale cyber attack on the top Israeli official comes just days after prominent hacker group Anonymous leaked the personal information of 5,000 Israeli officials.

Anonymous also hacked over 700 Israeli websites, including the Bank of Jerusalem, the Israeli Defense Ministry, the IDF blog, the president’s official website and many others, with the majority of the pages still down.

The Israeli finance minister acknowledged the wave of attacks, saying the government is now waging a war on a “second front.”

Over the past few days, Israel has “deflected 44 million cyber-attacks on government websites,” Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz told AP.



______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

| Social Media: Free Speech or Free Insult? Britain’s terrifying new censorship!

Posted on by
Reply

Have we got such a debased and demoralised view of freedom that we’re now willing to lock up people for posting angry comments on social media.

Another day, another example of how our police and judiciary are criminalising nastiness. Today a young Muslim man who is angry at the UK’s involvement in the ongoing Afghanistan conflict was sentenced for posting angry comments on Facebook stating that British soldiers “should die and go to hell”. Not exactly the nicest of sentiments, but is it really something we should be criminally prosecuting through the courts?

Azhar Ahmed, from Dewsbury, Yorkshire, escaped jail partially because he quickly took down his unpleasant posting and tried to apologise to those he offended. But he will still have to carry out 240 hours community service after he was convicted under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 for making “grossly offensive comments”.

His sentence came just 24 hours after a 20-year-old Matthew Woods from Lancashire was given three months in jail for posting ill-timed and very unpleasant jokes online about the missing schoolgirl April Jones.

Stupidity

By the looks of it neither Woods nor Ahmed are amiable or eloquent people. But that doesn’t mean we should be locking them up or giving them criminal records for the stupid things they say.

Of course free speech isn’t wholly free. That’s why we have laws banning incitement to violence or encouraging hatred based solely on something a victim cannot change such as their religion, disability or sexual preference.

But in recent years we have increasingly begun to criminalise the offensive, a precedent that should be deeply worrying for anyone who cares about the importance of free speech. It’s problematic because offence – like art, music, comedy or food – is inherently subjective. What one person finds outrageous or disgusting might be hilarious, harmless or tasty to another.

Free speech is not just the right to say nice things to people. It is also the right to be nasty, unpleasant, boring, unfunny and stupid. If you start to criminalise the offensive, you pave the way for both real and self-censorship.

It’s worth taking a look at exactly what Ahmad said to earn his conviction. Two days after six British soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device in March he wrote on Facebook:

“People gassin [venting off] about the deaths of soldiers! What about the innocent familys who have been brutally killed.. The women who have been raped.. The children who have been sliced up..! Your enemy’s were the Taliban not innocent harmless familys. All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL! THE LOWLIFE F*****N SCUM! gotta problem go cry at your soliders grave & wish him hell because that where he is going.”

Criminal?

It’s neither pleasant, nor eloquent. But criminal? There are plenty of people up and down the country – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – who are deeply uncomfortable about Britain’s foreign policy and its military operations in predominantly Islamic countries. They have a right to be heard and speak out. We might not like what they have to say – or even how they say it – but we shouldn’t be shutting them down.

In sentencing Ahmed, District Judge Jane Goodwin insisted she was not stopping legitimate political opinions being strongly voices. Instead, she said, the test is whether what something which has been written or said is “beyond the pale of what’s tolerable in our society”.

That’s a very slippery slope because what society finds tolerable at any given time changes or evolves. It was only a little more than a century ago that giving women the right to vote was beyond the pale of what society found tolerable.

At the moment there is something sacrosanct about our armed forces. Over the years we have been traumatised by the steady trickle of coffins and injured veterans ferried back from theatres of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of us want to pay tribute to our armed forces. So we are sensitive to criticism of “our boys”, especially if those attacks come from British Muslims.

But our soldiers mustn’t be above criticism especially given that – unlike in some previous twentieth century conflicts Britain fought in – those going to war are volunteers, not conscripts. Like it or not our wars of the last decade have proven deeply unpopular among a large section of the population, not to mention the soldiers fighting them.

The sad fact it that whilst trying to defend Britain from the genuine threat of violent Islamism, British personnel have killed and maimed innocent Muslims. When the rights and wrongs of our wars are debated the conversation is inevitably emotional. People say things in the heat of the moment that are unpleasant, even offensive. But should it be criminal?

Democracy

Many American soldiers returning from Vietnam might have been horrified by what they felt were “grossly offensive comments” made to them about the rights and wrongs of the Washington’s military engagements in South-East Asia. But challenging, radical, even offensive remarks were all part and parcel of the democracy they were supposedly trying to protect.

Defending Woods and Ahmed, however unpleasant or ineloquent they are, is necessary because of the wider ramifications that their prosecutions have on free speech and the broad way in which section 127 of Communications Act and section five of the Public Order Act are being used to criminalise the offensive or unpleasant.

How long before comedians are arrested for making a joke pegged to a recent tragic event which is – so the joke goes – “too soon”? How long before pub arguments are broken up by flashing blue lights after someone says something “beyond the pale”? How long before the next Salman Rushdie is not protected from the mob but thrown to it?

As alarmist as this may sound, that’s the direction we’re headed.

________________________

 

Related articles

| Activists warned to watch what they say as social media monitoring becomes ‘next big thing in law enforcement’

Posted on by
3

Activists warned to watch what they say as social media monitoring becomes ‘next big thing in law enforcement’ ~ KEVIN RAWLINSON, The Independent.

Exclusive: John Cooper QC said that police are monitoring key activists online and that officers and the courts are becoming increasingly savvy when it comes to social media.

Political activists must watch what they say on the likes of Facebook and Twitter, sites which will become the “next big thing in law enforcement”, a leading human rights lawyer has warned.

John Cooper QC said that police are monitoring key activists online and that officers and the courts are becoming increasingly savvy when it comes to social media. But, speaking to The Independent, he added that he also expected that to drive an increase in the number of criminals being brought to justice in the coming months.

“People involved in public protest should use social media to their strengths, like getting their message across. But they should not use them for things like discussing tactics. They might as well be having a tactical meeting with their opponents sitting in and listening.

“For example, if antifascist organisers were discussing their plans on social media, they can assume that a fascist organisation will be watching. Social media sites are the last place you want to post something like that,” he said.

Mr Cooper QC’s warning comes after a New York court ordered Twitter to hand over messages posted on the site by a demonstrator belonging to the Occupy Wall Street movement in America. Malcolm Harris, 23, is accused of disorderly conduct after he was arrested on Brooklyn Bridge during a protest last October.

After a lengthy legal fight, Twitter eventually complied with an order to hand over the tweets on 14 September. Prosecutors hope to use them to disprove the demonstrator’s defence that police escorted the protesters on to the bridge before arresting them for allegedly blocking it.

Addressing the possibility of similar cases arising in the UK, Mr Cooper QC said: “The police are aware and are getting more aware of powers to force and compel platforms to reveal anonymous sites.” He cited the case of Nicola Brookes, in which he succeeded in forcing Facebook to hand over details exposing the identity of an anonymous online bully.

Mr Cooper QC added: “activists are putting themselves at more risk. Police will be following key Twitter sites, not only those of the activists but also other interesting figures. They know how to use them to keep up with rioting and to find alleged rioters.

“In the same way they used to monitor mobile phones when they were trying to police impromptu raves, they are doing the same with Twitter and Facebook, as those who say too much on social media will find.”

But some activists are trying to overcome that naivety. In London on Saturday, former members of the Occupy encampment outside St Paul’s Cathedral – among others – were among the 130 people who meet technical experts for lessons on how to keep themselves safe online. The so-called “Cryptoparty” was part of a global movement to arm those who want to carry out protests online with the skills to maintain their anonymity.

Attendees at the event at the Google Campus in east London‘s Tech City were simply asked to bring a laptop and technology experts promised to teach them skills like encryption. The events were the brainchild of an Australian activist, who uses the online nickname Asher Wolf. She said: “The idea is to stay safe online and protect the privacy of personal communication.

She added that there were more secure forms of online communication than those commonly used and insisted that Cryptoparty was not a tutorial on how to hack but said that, once people have learned to maintain their online security, “what they choose to do in their private communications is their business”.

While some argue that genuinely peaceful protesters can have little fear of arrest regardless of what they say online, Mr Cooper QC said: “It would be wrong to establish a general rule that private communications should be handed over to the police. The principle that the law enforcement agencies should establish relevance first should not be diluted.”

The lead officer on digital media and engagement for the Association of Chief Police Officers Deputy Chief Constable Gordon Scobbie confirmed that police “monitor social media for potential issues” around protests but said they generally use them to engage with demonstrators, which he said was “key to the police service’s approach to policing peaceful protests”.

However, some have found themselves regularly the subject of unwanted police attention as a result of their attendance at demonstrations. In May, peaceful protester John Catt lost his legal fight to force police to delete information they hold on him on the National Extremism Database. Pictures of and references to him are held because of his links to protest groups.

But long-term activist Mr Catt argued that, since he has never been convicted of any crime, officers were not justified in recording the details. Lawyers for Mr Catt claimed that he is “logged and recorded wherever he goes” and that the surveillance at more than 55 protests had a “chilling effect” on people exercising the right to protest.

But Lord Justice Gross and Mr Justice Irwin sitting in the High Court refused to order police to remove references to him from the database, saying that recording his actions was a “predictable consequence” of regularly attending demonstrations.

And that ruling came around five months after it emerged that City of London Police included the Occupy London movement on a leaflet warning businesses in The City about terrorist threats. The CoLP dismissed the inclusion of the protest movement alongside the likes of al-Qa’ida as a clerical error.

But, Mr Cooper QC said, social media are “far too much of an important tool not to be used but they need used in a less naïve way”.

He added: “When people are acting within their rights of public protest, which are important but often become the ‘Cinderella right’ because they are subservient to their siblings, they should be very careful indeed about what they post because I would suspect that key activists are being followed anonymously by law enforcement agencies.

“These social networks are all, in my opinion, forces for good; I am a great fan. But they are liable to abuse and misuse. And, not only are the police catching up, the courts are too. The Lord Chief Justice is very social media-aware and in fact allowed tweeting from court.

“It is right to say the criminal courts are social media friendly; the law is beginning to understand them. If people continue to use social media in a naïve way then legitimate individuals are probably going to give too much away.”

While he supported the right of people exercising their rights to public protest without unnecessary disruption, Mr Cooper QC stressed that real criminality was a very different issue.

He said that an unambiguously positive effect of the police’s increased interest in social media would be an increasing numbers of criminals being caught because of their indiscretions online. He said: “With social media, it is amazing how many people involved with crime seem to let themselves down with it.

“More and more, the police and defence teams analyse the Facebook accounts of witnesses they are trying to undermine. It is accepted in criminal law that remarks made on these which are inconsistent can be put to the witness as inconsistencies in evidence or as evidence of bad character.”

DCC Scobbie agreed, saying: “The police service works hard to secure evidence from any source during the course of an investigation. Information which is openly and publically available on social media sites that links criminals to crimes and offences has been used to help secure successful prosecutions.”

Mr Cooper QC added: “One of the big revelations in crime detection in recent decades was the Filofax; it was amazing how often serious, professional criminals would record the weights of drugs in their conspiracies in little graphs in the back of their Filofaxes.

“The police soon learned to seize the Filofax when they searched a house. Things move on and the next big thing was mobile phones; they were a revelation. With mobiles, not only do we have a whole industry in forensic phone analysis, we can also work out where people were using the phone by the mast locations.

He cited a past client who insisted he was not at the scene of a murder he was accused of committing but who – mobile records showed – had made a call while standing next to the bin the victim’s body was later found in.

He said: “Police will use social media just as they used the Filofax and the mobile phone and why shouldn’t they?”

_________________________________

 

Related articles

| Internet bullies aren’t ‘trolls’ – they’re disgusting cowards besieging our culture and ruining debate!

Posted on by
Reply

Internet bullies aren’t ‘trolls’ – they’re disgusting cowards besieging our culture and ruining debate ~ Mic Wright, The Telegraph.

I played with trolls as a child. They had big tufty hair and natty outfits. Sadly, the word and the world have moved on. Troll now means, to most people, someone who fires off foul abuse online, relentlessly attacking someone they have taken against. The most extreme adherents to this aggressive tendency take their campaigns offline, finding home addresses and phone numbers.

 

Trolls aren’t cute any more!

That’s the situation Leo Traynor found himself in, harassed and hectored by an online bully who, as he explained in a powerful blog post, turned out to be his friend’s 17-year-old son. The boy’s campaign escalated from online attacks to posting packages to Traynor’s home that included threats to his wife and child.

When he finally came face-to-face with this kid who had harassed him over a two year period, the teenager’s explanation was shocking: “I don’t know. I don’t know. I’m sorry. It was like a game thing.” A game thing. Those three words say so much about the culture of pseudonymous abuse that has been enabled by the web and leaked out into real-world interactions.

The internet can allow people to distance themselves from the effect of their words. I put myself in the firing line by questioning the ultra-aggressive culture of comment sections and have received my fair share of abuse for doing so. That was inevitable, just as the criticism Traynor himself has received from commenters at The Guardian, which has republished his tale, are depressingly familiar.

The term “trolling” has been hijacked to mean this bullying, hectoring, constant abuse that some internet users believe they have a right to dish out. It is grotesquely euphemistic. The boys who bullied me as a teenager were not trolls, they were bullies, and so are those who lash out from the virtual darkness.

Trolling has become a perennial discussion point for the papers and talk radio. It’s up there with footballer’s salaries and pop stars not wearing enough clothing. Every few months something comes up to spark the conversation again. This time it’s Traynor’s blog but last week it was the Facebook page celebrating the killer of two female police officer and a few months ago it was a BBC Three documentary on the phenomenon. We are still nowhere near an answer.

Of course the law offers recourse to pursue abusive individuals, but at times it seems like the authorities have a hair trigger, imprisoning individuals for being offensive. Free speech means you have the right to attack the way I spell my name, the way I look in my byline picture, the opinions I express and the way I express them. But the price of having a presence online should not be endless bile and personal attacks.

Like Traynor, I have had death threats by email, often as a result of very innocuous articles, and been subject to the attentions of borderline online obsessives with impenetrable grudges. Almost anyone who dares to put forward a point of view can become subject to the attentions of these bullies. Writing this, will, no doubt encourage them – but as a society we must do more to speak out against the cowards who are besieging our culture and damaging our ability to debate.

From now on, I am removing “troll” from my vocabulary. It is too easy to apply the term to critics with genuine points and for those who are simply abusive; words like bully and coward are far more applicable. As I think back to my childhood and playground bullies, I prefer to remember trolls as they should be – smiling plastic characters with neon shocks of hair.

________________________

 

Related articles

| How To Stop Facebook From Tracking You!

Posted on by
Reply

How To Stop Facebook From Tracking You ~ Samantha Felix, Business Insider.

Most people don’t realize that Facebook can continue to monitor their internet activity, even if they are no longer logged into the site. 

Using “Facebook Connect,” and other social plug-ins, Facebook is able to set up a cookie on any site that has a “Like” or “share” button, giving Facebook access to a startling amount of user information. Technically, the purpose of these plug-ins is to authenticate users, but it still has the ability to collect personal information such as the IP address of your computer, browsing data, outside login information, phone numbers, etc.

The cookie, known as the “datr” cookie, has been a controversial topic for the past year. Using this cookie, among other things, Facebook knows what you have read on a web page even if you did not click the “like” button. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “for this to work, a person only needs to have logged into Facebook or Twitter once in the past month. The sites will continue to collect browsing data, even if the person closes their browser or turns off their computers.”

To help users control how and when their information is tracked and distributed, companies such as Abine and Ghostery have developed tools that allow users to block Facebook social plug-ins, cookies, and other trackers.

We identified five practical options for consideration, including an option for web site publishers that will help protect their customers from trackers while keeping their websites running smoothly.

Do Not Track Plus — A browser add-on that will identify and block trackers.

Do Not Track Plus — A browser add-on that will identify and block trackers.

DNT+ website

As Business Insider previously reported, Abine’s DNT+ tool is a FREE add-on that monitors, tracks, and allows users to block any trackers and requests that may be following their internet activity. It is compatible with MAC or PC for Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Internet Explorer. It is currently able to block more than 600 trackers, and automatically updates to catch new trackers. 

Ghostery — similar to DNT+ but this add-on is also available for Opera.

Ghostery — similar to DNT+ but this add-on is also available for Opera.

Ghostery

Similar to DNT+, Ghostery is a browser add-on, owned by Evidon, that protects consumer privacy while online. By giving the consumer visibility into who is tracking their online activity and allowing them to block all or specific trackers, it empowers users with the ability to stop third parties from collecting their personal information without permission. It currently has more than 16 million monthly users and pulls data from over 26 million web domains via an opt-in service of 7 million users. 

Ghostery is free to download, free to use, and does not contain any adware or spyware. It is available for all major browsers: Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera and Internet Explorer.

Disconnect and Collusion for Chrome — A robust tool that will identify and block trackers, but is only available for Chrome.

Disconnect and Collusion for Chrome — A robust tool that will identify and block trackers, but is only available for Chrome.

Collusion for Chrome

Chrome Disconnect Website 

Similar to DNT+ and Ghostery, Chrome Disconnect allows you to stop third parties and search engines from tracking your web activity. Specifically, this tool focuses on allowing users to disconnect from sites such as Facebook, Digg, Google, Twitter, and Yahoo without risking the performance of the sites. The tool blocks identifiable cookies while allowing you stay logged into various sites.

Collusion for Chrome

This site allows users to then see which third parties are tracking them by graphing the spread of the data from sites to tracks, exposing them, and giving users the ability to block the trackers.

Consider adjusting browser settings to control trackers.

Consider adjusting browser settings to control trackers.

Screenshot of Safari’s Do Not Track Option

Business Insider

Before downloading yet another piece of software on your computer, consider simply adjusting the settings on your browser. 

Firefox: Firefox> Tools> Options> Privacy> click the box that says, “Tell websites I do not want to be tracked.” Then you should set it to “never save your history” and remove cookies frequently.

Chrome: Chrome> Preferences> Settings> Advanced Settings> Privacy> Content Settings> Click, “Block Third Party Cookies and Site Data.”

Safari: Safari> Preferences> Security> Accept Cookies> select “never.” You might also want to consider browsing privately so your history and passwords are not stored, and thus accessible.

Internet Explorer 10: Microsoft’s latest version of Internet Explorer 10 will default to a “Do Not Track” position. The browser will send a signal to advertisers altering them that users do not want to be tracked.

Evidon — A blocking and tracking tool for web publishers.

Evidon — A blocking and tracking tool for web publishers.

Evidon

Evidon Encompass Revenue Protection: This product is designed for website owners who want to keep the intentional tracking code on their sites from spawning additional code from third parties. It allows websites to see all trackers and how they are affecting the site’s performance, while securing the site’s customer data. 

Evidon Encompass Privacy: This is a tool designed specifically for web publishers to help them both comply with privacy regulations,  ePrivacy Directive and “AdChoices” self-regulatory programs, and protect the private information of their customers. In addition to showing all of the trackers on a site, and where they are originating from, this tool also alerts web site owners of everything that needs to be disclosed to consumers about how their information is being used.

Want to know what Facebook is tracking?

_________________

 

 

Related articles

| US, UK Govt websites downed in Anonymous-claimed attack!

Posted on by
Reply

US, UK govt. websites downed in Anonymous-claimed attack ~ RT News.

More US and UK government websites have fallen prey to DDoS attacks by the hacktivist group Anonymous. The victims now include the US Department of Justice, CIA and two MI6 sites.

The group claimed responsibility on their Facebook page, saying: “its [sic] all of us together. We are the “little people”, the hungry, the poor, the “manipulated”, and yet for all their power and might, these “little people” brought their pride down.”

Earlier, Brazilian hacker group Anonymous member Havittaja claimed responsibility for DDoS attacks on the US Department of Justice and CIA websites.

On his Twitter microblog he posted that the CIA site was offline for an hour and a half. He said it was done for the “lulz”, referring to the popular online abbreviation “for laughs.”

The rest of the group joined in to finish what their “Brazilian brother started”, AntiS3curityOPS wrote on their Facebook wall.

 

First reports of the attack came from the official OWS Twitter account, where Anonymous’ involvement was questioned.

The US Central Intelligence Agency site has been taken down by Anonymous hacktivist group twice before: in February 2012 and June 2011.

This winter’s attack was directed against US law enforcement agencies and copyright holders. The CIA’s site came down along with official websites of the US Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and others. Anonymous was quick to claim responsibility.

Following that attack, an alleged member of Anonymous uploaded a video explaining how the collective crushed the agency’s online presence — and why the CIA should have been ready.

This appears to have helped the CIA cope with Monday’s online onslaught.
Back in February though, of all the sites targeted CIA.gov seemed the least prepared. It took the agency several hours to get back online, while dhs.gov was revived in mere minutes.

The technique also known as a DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attack, is a concentrated effort by multiple individuals to make a network busy to its intended users. The end result is server overload.

DDoS attacks are a violation of the Internet Architecture Board’s proper use policy. That, however, does not stop Anonymous using them as an effective tool to spread online mayhem.

CIA.gov taken down by a possible DDoS attack - reports

CIA.gov taken down by a possible DDoS attack – reports