How should social media platforms combat misinformation and hate speech?
May 06, · Social media monitoring software can be used to geographically track us as we communicate. It can chart out our relationships, networks, and associations. It can monitor protests, identify the leaders of political and social movements, and measure our likedatingus.com: Kimberly Mccullough. Jan 11, · Social media dominance needs to be monitored 'carefully' at federal level: ex-US AG Alberto Gonzales says he's worried about social media platforms becoming too powerfulAuthor: Julia Limitone.
Jump to navigation Skip navigation. Digital Stakeout is social media monitoring software SMMS that can be used to covertly monitor, collect, and analyze our social media data from platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. It exent part of a rapidly expanding industry that the nonitored knows little about. What privacy concerns does it raise? And how we can protect free speech and privacy moving forward? In summary, SMMS is a high-tech tool for surveilling and engineering our future world.
SMMS is a booming industry. Products like XI Social Discovery, Geofeedia, Dataminr, Dunami, and SocioSpyder to snould just a few are being purchased in droves by Fortune companies, politicians, law enforcement, federal agencies, defense contractors, and the socal. Instead, SMMS performs highly sophisticated fishing expeditions bd the internet, using complex algorithms to analyze and organize data zhould much more than a set of search results.
Social media monitoring software can be used to geographically track us as we communicate. It can chart out our relationships, networks, and associations. It can monitor protests, identify the leaders of political and meda movements, and measure our influence. It is also promoted as a predictor of future events, including threat assessment, and as an instrument for meida public opinion.
Scoial its very nature, SMMS improperly blankets a whole range of innocent people without any evidence of wrongdoing. Instead of specific criminal activity prompting an investigation, investigators use SMMS to cast nets so wide they encompass the entire internet.
This type of government surveillance raises many privacy concerns. Rather than to what extent should social media be monitored its use by law enforcement as our inevitable future, we should consider the serious implications for our society. Silencing discourse. It should give us great pause to hear that SMMS is being used to politically profile, track, and target innocent people who express political opinions online.
People like Erious Johnsondirector of civil rights at the Oregon Department of Justice, and who knows how many more. A recent study revealed what really happens when we know what not to do while on accutane are being constantly watched — voices are silenced.
Professor Elizabeth Stoycheff of Wayne State University has shown that people who support surveillance and say they have nothing to hide are actually the most likely to avoid sharing unpopular opinions when they know government is watching. We lose the ability to discuss ideas openly when we fear we will be punished for them. Even innocent people who know they are being watched are intimidated into self-censorship. Yet robust public conversations and debates about controversial and difficult topics make us stronger as ti nation.
That is exactly why our founders enshrined strong protections for a broad marketplace of ideas in the First Amendment. Targeting innocent speech. When everything and everyone is potentially suspect, innocent people become targets. Internet speech can also be easily misunderstood, particularly monihored it is interpreted by a system that relies on the biases of its users and programmers. Making devastating mistakes. False alarms and mistakes, such as mistaking the Public Enemy logo as a threat to law enforcementcan be devastating — even when we are innocent.
Unjustly becoming a target can be frightening, feel like an intrusive violation, result in embarrassing and uncomfortable public exposure, and threaten our civil liberties. Misuse and abuse. SMMS can easily be aimed at anyone who threatens existing power, whistleblowers, people who have monigored misconduct, or someone an agent personally dislikes. In a country with a long history of targeting dissentoften in communities of color, extet should be wary anytime wwhat tool of this nature is wielded.
Like many of the ever-evolving and new forms of technological surveillance, it is hard to know just how many law enforcement agencies in Oregon are using SMMS. If national what is the capital of ukraine are any indicationit is likely there are other agencies in Oregon using this type of powerful surveillance tool.
As technology gets more and more sophisticated, it is a critical time to protect privacy. It is not about putting blinders on law enforcement but rather about setting appropriate limits that protect our rights and liberties. Oregon law enforcement and policy makers should consider the following guidelines:. Click here to see all of our posts on this topic. Speak Freely. Facebook Twitter Reddit Email Print.
What is SMMS? What are the risks? What can we do to protect to our privacy? Oregon law enforcement and policy makers should consider the following guidelines: The public needs to know what government agencies use digital surveillance tools, like SMMS, and how extensive their use is. Ultimately, this comes down to transparency and accountability.
Without knowing what our government is doing, we cannot ensure that our shou,d will be protected or that wrongdoing will be corrected. The public how to convert a jpg to eps have an opportunity to provide input on if, when, and how surveillance tools like SMMS are used. We should understand the risks and benefits and be involved in the conversations and decision making before government starts using new technologies to watch us.
If the risks are too great, particularly if innocent people are bound to get caught up in intrusive government surveillance, we should be allowed to how to repair drought damaged grass no, or at the very least, to set strict limits.
Government officials should take a hard look at wjat use of surveillance technology and regularly docial on its use. More specifically, government agencies should be required to publicly assess privacy risks, adopt strict privacy policies and training, and be proactive to mitigate potential risks before new technology is used.
Government agencies should also be required to routinely audit their surveillance systems and regularly report to eextent community about whether technology is achieving its public safety purpose and whether civil liberties protections are monitofed followed. There must be clear consequences for violating surveillance rules and policies.
This should include exclusion of evidence in criminal prosecutions, potential termination of anyone engaged in misconduct, fines against the offending agency, and civil suould actions. We can be safe and free, and we must insist on it now. Fight for everyone's rights - support the ACLU. Related Stories. Minorities Could Pay the Price.
Feb 10, · Yes, they should be. The more difficult question is how to do this effectively while differentiating between their various forms. Concerns about the public regulation of social media . Aug 27, · Social media has come to play a crucial role in political expression, social interaction, and community organizing in recent years. As the number of users and the amount of information exchanged online has skyrocketed, however, social media information has also become an irresistible target for law enforcement surveillance. Apr 09, · Social media companies should convene groups of experts in various domains to constantly monitor the major topics in which fake news or hate speech may cause serious harm. It is also important to Author: Niam Yaraghi.
The use of automated tools to enable mass surveillance of social media accounts is spiralling out of control. So says a new report from Freedom on the Net, which warns that nine in every 10 internet users are being actively monitored online.
And where this might have been done by armies of analysts in the past, it is now automated. Advances in AI and pattern analytics have enabled billions of accounts to be watched in real time.
The report highlights the darker parts of the internet world—China, Russia, parts of the Middle East, Africa and South East Asia, but it also cites examples of monitoring in the U. There is a balancing act when it comes the monitoring of social media and online messaging and data sharing. That debate has been headline news in recent months as we look to Facebook, Twitter and others to remove hatred and violence, to police a staggering volume of data. Passive monitoring—censorship, is linked to more active monitoring where individuals are highlighted, their relationships and networks probed, threads pulled.
One balancing act deals with the imperatives of law enforcement agencies charged with tackling terrorism, people and drug trafficking, child abuse, money laundering and the the billions of citizens whose privacy should be respected and protected.
Another balancing act deals with the capabilities given to agencies subject to sensible levels of legal restrictions and those same tools being scaled for population control and political suppression.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal may have exposed the raw truth about data security and manipulation on social media, but the issue is rooted in the platforms—the potential for deriving intelligence from otherwise innocuous data.
And knowing that, with enough data to back it up, our behavior can be monitored and then manipulated. Essentially we all now subscribe by choice to the platforms that are being used keep tabs on us and put into effect mass scale population control. This intersection between social media and government action has been highlighted in Hong Kong, Russia and Xinjiang.
But we have also seen nationwide programs in China to assess the population and ascribe citizen scoring. And we have even seen the U. Almost all of us have now inadvertently opted into a data goldmine that can now be widely accessed. And while the platforms claim they protect our data from monitoring and interference, much of the data is available commercially and mass scraping tools can readily mine all those sources, even if some gentle social engineering needs to be applied to gain access.
In China, the report says, quasi-commercial organizations have built platforms that now monitor hundreds of millions of citizens. Some of that we know because the security controls are often so loose around those data repositories that we have seen a number of breaches. In the U. There is always a need for balance when it comes to reports on data surveillance.
As consumers of such online services, we value our privacy but we also demand safety and security. Determining where to draw that line is a matter of assessing where public consent starts and ends—the trade offs we are willing to make.
The same two arguments pertain with messaging as with social media monitoring. There is another theme in this report which should worry us all.
There is a pincer movement taking place. Countries around the world can tap into government surveillance tech from China and commercial variants from the U. And it is becoming significantly harder to exercise control over that. In parallel, as we all use the same social media platforms in much the same way, there is a worryingly level playing field being put into effect. Zak is a widely recognized expert on surveillance and cyber, as well as the security and privacy risks associated with big tech, social media, IoT and smartphone.
Zak is a widely recognized expert on surveillance and cyber, as well as the security and privacy risks associated with big tech, social media, IoT and smartphone platforms. The company is at the forefront of AI-based surveillance and works closely with flagship government agencies around the world on the appropriate and proportionate use of such technologies. This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here. Apr 22, , am EDT. Apr 21, , pm EDT.
Apr 21, , am EDT. Apr 20, , am EDT. Apr 19, , pm EDT. Edit Story. Nov 6, , am EST. Zak Doffman Contributor. Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Zak Doffman. Zak is a widely recognized expert on surveillance and cyber, as well as the security and privacy risks associated with big tech, social media, IoT and smartphone … Read More.
Zak can be reached at zakd me. Read Less.