Cambridge Analytica Uncovered: Secret filming reveals election tricks

What people said

save_ferris · 2019-11 · Strong recommendation

Did you watch the Channel 4 report[0]? The CEO of CA clandestinely advertised far more than just ads for the reporter posing as a potential client. They are in the business of winning elections, through whatever means necessary. He openly talked about things like targeting and entrapping political opponents with blackmail via "honeypots". His deputies made some really interesting statements during that report as well. I highly recommend watching the report, it's a fascinating watch. Based on what he was caught saying on camera, in addition to his deputies, and the reporting around their political campaigns in Africa using propaganda that claimed AIDS would come back if so-and-so were elected, it's not a stretch to imagine those people doing everything the can, legally and illegally, to sway an election. 0: [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

gt565k · 2018-03 · Recommendation

Watch the mini documentary of the undercover op by channel 4 [VIDEO] This isn't just data mining, it's straight up misinformation, entrapment, and god knows what else.

Read the original HN comment ↗

loceng · 2019-05 · Reference

To have that conversation we'd first have to define what is meant by dissident groups. If a group is known to be hateful with potential for or threatening violence, knowing their plans is a strategy - is counterterrorism. It's akin to police doing stings for drug busts, or perhaps less controversial - for child sex trafficking; should we turn a blind eye to that and not try to infiltrate that to prevent future harm? The ideal situation is everyone feels connected to everyone else and no one willfully will harm others, that's not what happens however when there is tolerance for hate. Hate will fester under surface building its potential energy until it's released - unless it is quelled by being adequately addressed. This potential energy is what bad actors have been using to rile up the population and is threatening democracy. We have to decide as a society what that line is - and that it isn't discussed is a problem. There's nuance required for it and a black-or-white solution - full open access for security services vs. complete blackout and being blind also isn't ideal. And is it even possible to allocate resources efficiently enough to do so, perhaps only being ready to enact resources once the hate starts boiling over noticeably? I believe the cheaper solution will be people subscribing to network(s) they trust, where it is known and accessible by the leaders and only the highest in the chain, and how their governance holds for accountability and safety will evolve over t

Read the original HN comment ↗