Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday March 27 2018, @07:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the legal-but-immoral dept.

Companies learning to flip elections perfected their tactics in smaller or emerging countries, such as Latvia, Trinidad, or Nigeria, before turning to markets involving elections in developed nations. Paul Mason suggests that while at the moment there is a lot of angst from people being reminded of how their harvested data is used, it is really the union of private espionage, cracking, and "black ops" capabilities that should be setting off alarms.

Disturbingly, both CA and SCL have high-level contracts with governments, giving them access to secret intelligence both in the US and the UK. SCL is on List X, which allows it to hold British secret intelligence at its facilities.

It now appears that techniques they used in Ukraine and Eastern Europe to counteract Russian influence, and against Islamist terrorism in the Middle East, were then used to influence elections in the heart of Western democracy itself.

Let's be clear about what we're facing. A mixture of free market dogmatism plus constraints imposed by the rule of law has led, over the past decades, to the creation of an alternative, private, secret state.

When it was only focused on the enemies and rivals of the West, or hapless politicians in the global south, nobody minded. Now it is being used as a weapon to tear apart democracy in Britain and the US we care — and rightly so.

From New Statesman: We need to destroy the election-rigging industry before it destroys us


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday March 28 2018, @12:47AM (2 children)

    by slinches (5049) on Wednesday March 28 2018, @12:47AM (#659258)

    Either I didn't state it clearly or you misread what I wrote. I specifically intended to say that Facebook unilaterally altering the deal was the objectionable part. Hence, why I suggested targeting regulations toward making it clear what is being exchanged and requiring explicit consent to change the deal.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 28 2018, @12:54AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 28 2018, @12:54AM (#659262) Journal

    Either I didn't state it clearly or you misread what I wrote.

    Most probably both. Thanks for the clarification.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday March 28 2018, @01:05AM

    by dry (223) on Wednesday March 28 2018, @01:05AM (#659267) Journal

    Facebook never made any deal with me. I think I accidentally went there a couple of times a long time back, wasn't interested and have avoided them since. Yet they probably have more info on me then most anyone else has and it sounds like they're quite wiling to share it.