Thứ Hai, 2 tháng 4, 2018

Waching daily Apr 3 2018

Today we'll analyze how Facebook allowed the leak

of more than 50 million accounts' information

and we'll also talk about the famous Cambridge Analytica case.

I'd like to start off with with a question for you:

Do you know which apps have access to your

Facebook account right now,

and what type of permissions they've been granted?

If you don't have an answer

I'm sure this video will be of interest to you.

At this point, you've surely seen something

in your social media

about the Cambridge Analytica case.

But the truth is nobody explains it in a practical way

and that's why I decided to make this video.

But first, let me tell you what happened:

A couple years ago, around 2014,

a psychologist and researcher named Alexander Kogan

designed a test which, through some questions,

can know what type of personality you have.

After trying it out in a small control group,

he decided to turn his experiment into a Facebook app.

You might remember that a few years ago there

were some quizzes in Facebook

in which, after answering the questions, they determined

which character from your favorite series you were.

Well, the Kogan quiz was similar to those.

The interesting thing is that Kogan,

when programming this quiz,

realized that with this app not only could he know

the personality of those that answered it,

but also he would get access to

the personal information of their Facebook profiles.

Like status updates, their likes, even private messages.

Until now, some of you may think it's normal

that Facebook can collect this type of information,

since you have decided to use their app.

Problem is, back then, the Facebook app not only

allowed access to the information of the people

that used Kogan's quiz,

but also that of the friends of the quiz's user.

This way, Alexander Kogan obtained

the information of Facebook profiles

of more than 50 million users,

after only a little less than 250,000 users

used this quiz called:

"This is your digital life".

Remember that information is power;

and with the advancements on data processing

with Big Data, this type of information

is, without a doubt, a gold mine.

Some time after, the Cambridge Analytica company

bought this database from Alexander Kogan

for about 800,000 US dollars.

And there, things start to get dark.

Cambridge Analytica is a company dedicated to

data analysis for political purposes.

Then, knowing the interests of more than 50 million users,

Cambridge Analytica was hired

by Donald Trump's political campaign.

This story was uncovered since Christopher Wylie,

a 28 year old canadian,

ex-employee of Cambridge Analytica decided to talk

and reveal everything that happened.

What Cambridge Analytica did was

process the information through Big Data

to know which users were most likely

to be swayed into changing their vote

in favor of Donald Trump,

showing them ads and information that

could make them change their mind and vote for him.

This only brings into light a reality that many of you

maybe know already: information database trade.

Facebook defends itself by claiming

the gathered data could only be used for

the app's proper functionality,

and that they could not be transferred

or sold like Kogan did with Cambridge Analytica.

To try and remedy the problem,

Facebook asked Kogan and Cambridge Analytica

to delete the information,

but of course they did not.

Anyway, the data was not only used

to influence the vote of many USA citizens

so Donald Trump would win,

but also to influence the United Kingdom's exit

from the European Union in the "Brexit" event.

And this is what is widely known only.

Unfortunately this does not end here,

since we know this information database

is switching hands among many companies

thus violating our privacy.

This scandal caused Facebook to lose

the amount of 36 thousand million dollars [Note: 36 billion in short scale]

in less than 24 hours.

Facebook says that the data collection Kogan did

for Cambridge Analytica does not mean that

their platform's security was broken,

since "the users gave their info willingly",

and there was no infiltration on their systems

or password theft at all.

A lot of Facebook users decided to delete their account,

affecting its growth in a significant way.

Now, you may ask yourself

just how much does Facebook know about you?

I'll teach you how to obtain a Facebook backup

so you know how much information they have on you.

In Facebook we click on the "Settings" option

and then "Download a copy of your Facebook data".

And click on the "Start my Archive" button.

After approximately a couple hours,

we'll get on our email account a link

to download the Facebook backup,

where we'll find in a detailed way all our posts,

pictures, videos, everything you've ever liked,

and private messages

from the day you created your account until now.

Now, if you use Facebook on Android cellphones,

you'll find a historical record of

all the calls and messages you've made.

All this information is used to profile you

and offer you better products and services

through Facebook.

Now, remember that supposedly, only Facebook

can access this information, and if you didn't know already,

that's the price you're paying for using this platform.

This is is how Facebook allows companies

to increase and improve their sales

using their platform with their ads.

Every time you use an app or game in Facebook,

it tells you the permissions it needs access to.

For example, requesting access to your contact list

or also posting on your wall for you.

Problem is, the vast majority of users

never read these permission requests,

and they end up allowing access to any app

to have full access to all their information.

Now, I'll show you how to see which apps have access

to your Facebook profile, and the

permissions they were granted.

Let's go to the "Settings" section,

and we click on "Apps", on the left side.

On the right side all the apps

with access to our account are shown.

To see the permissions for an app,

we click on the "Edit" button.

There, we can see if it has access to your profile,

your friends list, and etcetera.

If you think this app shouldn't have

access to certain information,

you can simply select it and click the "Remove" button.

According to Facebook, it isn't possible for an app

to access more than your data.

I think that as time passes, with decentralized systems

in favor of privacy

this will all help develop new endeavors

and we may hear about a Facebook successor soon.

Well my friends, that's all for today's video!

I hope you liked it.

If you're new on this channel I reccommend

that you subscribe and enable notifications

so we learn together about ethical hacking and technology.

Remember that my name is César Gaytán,

@mrebola on Twitter, hackwisemx on Facebook

until next time!

For more infomation >> Explained Facebook's Cambridge Analytica data scandal - Duration: 7:46.

-------------------------------------------

El Guardián de la Salud En Vivo - Duration: 28:59.

For more infomation >> El Guardián de la Salud En Vivo - Duration: 28:59.

-------------------------------------------

Así ha sido la peculiar celebración de cumpleaños de Amaia Salamanca - Duration: 1:39.

For more infomation >> Así ha sido la peculiar celebración de cumpleaños de Amaia Salamanca - Duration: 1:39.

-------------------------------------------

Inicia el Reto 28, un plan gratuito de alimentación para bajar de peso de una manera saludable - Duration: 2:01.

For more infomation >> Inicia el Reto 28, un plan gratuito de alimentación para bajar de peso de una manera saludable - Duration: 2:01.

-------------------------------------------

4 manières de combattre cette inquiétude infinie appelée anxiété - Duration: 8:14.

For more infomation >> 4 manières de combattre cette inquiétude infinie appelée anxiété - Duration: 8:14.

-------------------------------------------

La carta de Ivonne Reyes a su hijo, a punto de cumplir la mayoría de edad - Duration: 2:25.

For more infomation >> La carta de Ivonne Reyes a su hijo, a punto de cumplir la mayoría de edad - Duration: 2:25.

-------------------------------------------

IMPACTANTE VICTORIA PARA LOS AUTORES DE LA MEDICINA ALTERNATIVA - Duration: 9:30.

Shocking Victory For Proponents Of Alternative Medicine

March 30, 2018 by Edward Morgan

Breaking: In Australia, an effort to label all alternative (traditional, complementary)

medicine products as "based on pseudoscience" has failed.

Traditional remedies (much older than mainstream medicines) are defended as appropriate, and

can include health claims.

The Crazz Files, a major defender of health freedom in Australia, reports: "In a major

win, the Federal Government has ignored the Australian Greens and anti-complementary medicine

activists like Doctor Ken Harvey…and passed a reform package that protects traditional

medicine."

"The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill, which passed Parliament on February

15, supports positive claims for complementary medicines based on traditional evidence, and

abolishes the current complaints system."

"Greens voters were shocked to learn Greens Leader and General Practitioner, Senator Dr

Richard Di Natale was aligned with skeptics, whose platform is: 'There is no alternative

to [modern] Medicine'."

"One of his [Dr. Di Natale's] 'concerns' was that people were being 'misled' by

traditional claims about the effectiveness of complementary medicine.

He, and the skeptics, wanted labels on complementary and traditional medicines to state: 'this

traditional indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and there is

no scientific evidence that this product is effective'.""The Minister for Rural

Health, Senator Bridget McKenzie, told Di Natale: 'I think it is offensive and disrespectful

to those who practice traditional medicine'."

"'For some, particularly those using Chinese medicine, the history of practising in that

traditional medicine paradigm goes back thousands of years.

It's been extensively refined, practised and documented and in many cases incorporated

into mainstream medicine.

So, a statement required by the Australian Government that the indication is not in accordance

with modern medical knowledge and that there is no scientific evidence will be seen as

arrogant and insensitive to those practising and using traditional Chinese medicines,'

Senator McKenzie said."

Boom.

All right.

Now I want to treat readers to a brief analysis of "modern medicine," the so-called scientific

system that is the "only valid system."

It is the system employed in Australia, America, and virtually all countries in the world.

People who watch the news or read mainstream news have the impression that "scientific"

medical research is remarkably valid and always progressing.

Doctors and medical bureaucrats line up to confirm and ceaselessly push this view.

But they are concealing a dark truth.

Let's go to the record.

Here are two editors of two of the most prestigious and respected medical journals in the world.

During their long careers, they have read and scrutinized more studies than any doctor,

researcher, bureaucrat, or so-called medical blogger.

And this is what they have written:

ONE: "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that

is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical

guidelines.

I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two

decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

(Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, "Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story

of Corruption")

TWO: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps

half, may simply be untrue.

Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses,

and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable

trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

"The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming.

In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their

preferred theory of the world.

Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.

Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too.

We aid and abet the worst behaviours.

Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in

a select few journals.

Our love of 'significance' pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals

are not the only miscreants.

Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…"

(Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol

385, "Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?")

There are many ominous implications in these two statements.

I will point out one.

Incompetent, error-filled, and fraudulent studies of medical drugs—for example, published

reports on clinical trials of those drugs—would lead one to expect chaos in the field of medical

treatment.

And by chaos, I mean: the drugs cause widespread death and severe injury.

Again, if a person obtains his news from mainstream sources, he will say, "But I see no evidence

of such a vast scandal."

That is a conspiracy of silence.

Because this widespread death and grievous harm HAS been reported.

Where?

In open-source medical literature.

For example: On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when one

of its most respected public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings

on healthcare in America.

Starfield was associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The Starfield study, "Is US health really the best in the world?", published in the

Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion,

among others:

Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people.

Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.

On the heels of Starfield's astonishing findings, media reporting was rather perfunctory,

and it soon dwindled.

No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing "Medicalgate" investigation.

Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial

action.

All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy

preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email.

Here is an excerpt from that interview.

Q: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

A: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions

lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the

US does not have the 'best health in the world'.

Q: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics

been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

A: The findings have been accepted by those who study them.

There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot

of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and

we need more of it.

He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Q: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the

[devastating] effects of the US medical system?

A: NO.

Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published,

to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies.

Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing

it?

A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that 'it would

not be interesting to readers'!

—end of interview excerpt—

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies.

These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million

Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent.

In other words, the medical literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO ESTEEMED MEDICAL EDITORS I QUOTED ABOVE—MARCIA ANGELL AND

RICHARD HORTON—ARE SAYING.

If you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing the final word

on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct

him to read them, and suggest he get in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover

what has happened to his profession.

For more infomation >> IMPACTANTE VICTORIA PARA LOS AUTORES DE LA MEDICINA ALTERNATIVA - Duration: 9:30.

-------------------------------------------

VIOLENTA AMERICANA - Film de actiune subtitrat in limba romana - Duration: 2:32:57.

For more infomation >> VIOLENTA AMERICANA - Film de actiune subtitrat in limba romana - Duration: 2:32:57.

-------------------------------------------

Los 9 responsables de la derrota del procés separatista - Noticias del Clavel rojo - Duration: 12:21.

For more infomation >> Los 9 responsables de la derrota del procés separatista - Noticias del Clavel rojo - Duration: 12:21.

-------------------------------------------

5 ZILE DE RAZBOI - Film de actiune subtitrat in limba romana - Duration: 1:48:27.

For more infomation >> 5 ZILE DE RAZBOI - Film de actiune subtitrat in limba romana - Duration: 1:48:27.

-------------------------------------------

5 hábitos de higiene íntima que no son tan buenos como pensabas - Duration: 7:37.

For more infomation >> 5 hábitos de higiene íntima que no son tan buenos como pensabas - Duration: 7:37.

-------------------------------------------

ख्वाजा मेरी झोली भर दो | Tere Naam Pe Mujhko Naaz Hai | Khwaja Meri Jholi Bhar De - Duration: 9:47.

khwaja garib nawaz qawwali

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét