Conspiracy: Social Network - Google+

Google+, The monster in plain sight.

"Here we have the world’s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations and the communications with each other, their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US intelligence. Facebook, Google, Yahoo – all these major US organizations have built-in interfaces for US intelligence. It’s not a matter of serving a subpoena. They have an interface that they have developed for US intelligence to use. -- Julian Assange, Wikileaks

tech.slashdot.org...

www.extremetech.com...

To be in public is to be on camera, but most video footage is discarded, as only so much can be sorted and analyzed — until now. DARPA has created a technology that can index and analyze video in real-time, marking the end of anonymity in public places. In 2008, DARPA, the US military’s elite group of pocket protector warriors, began soliciting the tech industry to develop technologies that would allow computers to sort through and index surveillance footage from the military’s fleet of drones, satellites, and miscellaneous other super secret spy cameras. This was all part of the Agency’s proposed Video Image Retrieval and Analysis Tool (VIRAT) that would be able to describe specific human activities in real-time. This automated index would allow for searchable queries (i.e. “how often did an adult male taller than six-foot get in a car in the early morning between November 1st and December 22nd in this compound in Abbottabad?”) or flag behavior such as when someone carries a large package towards a car on the side of a road in Basra, but walked away empty handed.

www.wired.com...

The investment arms of the CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time — and says it uses that information to predict the future. The company is called Recorded Future, and it scours tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions and incidents — both present and still-to-come. In a white paper, the company says its temporal analytics engine “goes beyond search” by “looking at the ‘invisible links’ between documents that talk about the same, or related, entities and events.” The idea is to figure out for each incident who was involved, where it happened and when it might go down. Recorded Future then plots that chatter, showing online “momentum” for any given event. “The cool thing is, you can actually predict the curve, in many cases,” says company CEO Christopher Ahlberg, a former Swedish Army Ranger with a PhD in computer science. Which naturally makes the 16-person Cambridge, Massachusetts, firm attractive to Google Ventures, the search giant’s investment division, and to In-Q-Tel, which handles similar duties for the CIA and the wider intelligence community. It’s not the very first time Google has done business with America’s spy agencies. Long before it reportedly enlisted the help of the National Security Agency to secure its networks, Google sold equipment to the secret signals-intelligence group. In-Q-Tel backed the mapping firm Keyhole, which was bought by Google in 2004 — and then became the backbone for Google Earth.

www.networkworld.com...

Why must we give one corporation control over our emails, social networking, locations, connections, and other private information?
Anyone else suspicious in the least bit?

Something is wrong here. I made an account, but now after thinking it over, I'm going to keep it pretty bare and vague.

www.google.com...

By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services. You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

The Order of the New World came not in microchips under our skin, but in the form of our Souls, dancing upon rivers of light. They own us, and our information...and they are watching. Be careful...all. The future is going to be a very, different place.

www.computerworld.com...

Computerworld - More than one in five employers search social networking sites to screen job candidates, according to a survey of more than 31,000 employers released by CareerBuilder.com this week. Of the hiring managers who use social networks, one-third said they found information on such sites that caused them to toss the candidate out of consideration for a job, the survey said. The study found that the number of hiring managers that are turning to social networks like MySpace and Facebook to delve into candidates' online behavior is increasing quickly: Some 22% of employers said they already peruse social networks to screen candidates, while an additional 9% said they are planning to do so. Only 11% of managers used the technology in 2006.

This will grow into a larger problem in the future.

socialmediatoday.com...

Just imagine we had some kind of trusted source or association that knows our scoring index on the personal likelihood of sharing some piece of information, the potential of reach and relevance? Ideas, news, rumors, and visions around brands, products and services would be addressed to that person via a newly-created trust agency. Agencies and brands would be much more interested in the long-tail ad market, in bloggers or in social medians in general. Artifical user reach would be shifting to real personal relevance. Brand intensity could be enlarged by user credibility. If the users voluntarily share their believe in brands, products and companies. But is this realistic? It must be, or how could Facebook pages have become so important for some of us? We love to score, define and index ourselves via the social web. And personal search engines like 123people or yasni are just two examples of possible scoring index platforms that undermine our aasumptions. Obviously the social web will be changing into a pervasive web which people need to be aware of (and understand). Semantic impact needs to evolve, become a trustworty basis for credible metric which people could rely upon. And how does the amout of time invested in web engagement pay into the credit of our professional individuality? Is less more, or more less? How will Google change it’s algorithm and thereby the impact on our personal scoring index? Should we invest in Facebook, Diaspora or on Paths (which by its definition may become the real base for our personal brandvangelism). And just think about the possibilities if you can match the personal index in a room via mobile and augmented reality tools? There will be no way around a personal web manager controling, checking and optimizing your personal branding in the future. Don’t you think?

www.washingtonpost.com...

Since Google+, Google’s answer to social networking, came out a week and a half ago, there’s been much talk about the new possibilities it has introduced, whether it can really beat out Facebook, and how to get that elusive invite. But the dangers of joining Google+ have not yet been fully explored. How far will Google go with targeted advertising? What will be the implications for our privacy? How will Google use my content once it’s part of Google+? The people who should be most worried about this last question are photographers, according to Photofocus, an online magazine about photography. While photographers are excited about the new photo sharing capabilities of Google+, they may not be aware that by the sharing photos they take, they may give up any ability to make money from their photography.

Google owns your content. How can anyone agree to this, this is so wrong on so many levels.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric

By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services. You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

.

That makes the Google+ user agreement so much more important to read for anyone who considers getting an account, that includes me. I wasn't so sure about asking one of my friend for an invite when he offered on facebook. Now that I read this, no way, plus, what's the use really?

if you don't think facebook is a spy network, i'll give you an example. my sister left her computer on and didn't log out of facebook.

she has about 365 "friends" of which 350 i have never heard of, met or even seen with my sister.

so i decided to browse and see what this crap is about. i clicked on a random friend and visited her page. i now know where she went to college, what city she lives, how old she is, that she was going to a rock concert, what day, what time, what hotel she was going to say in etc.

then i browsed thru her photo albums, saw her in a thong on a beach in the carribean, saw her family, her friends, the inside of her house, her bedroom and so on.

got bored so browsed thru her friends list. she also had 300+ "friends". clicked on one of her friends, remember this is just 1 of her 300+ friends. and did the same thing. looked at her conversations, saw her photo albums, know where this person lives etc.

this person is a complete stranger, that doesn't even know i exist, yet i know more about her than probably half the people she works with. got that information too, where she works, what company and with google maps i could find the exact address. it was scary what someone could find out.

all this info gets multiplied and multiplied that literally you could find and be connected with every single person on facebook. we are talking about millions and millions of people around the globe. if i had the time, or cared, i could have gone thru thousands and thousands of people by clicking each "friend".

with my experiment over, i logged my sister out because i have better things to do than spy on people i never even heard of.

and i'm not an fbi agent, the cia, mossad or any other billion dollar agency that probably has software to sort all this info in a matter of minutes.

did i break any laws. no. my sister left the computer on and facebook open. i knew already as soon as i heard about facebook that this was possible.

if i were any of you with facebook accounts i would delete it immediately. who knows, there maybe serial killers roaming out there using facebook to select their victims. or f.b.i and police agencies collecting unofficial dossiers on you.

this bullsh-t isn't worth it to potentially put your life, safety and liberty at stake. in fact it should be sued and it's founder charged with espionage and criminal endangerment.

and the hook is, that this thing to most people is so addicting, more than any narcotic or drug out there to them, that even after all the things i posted and the potential danger involved, people would still find it near impossible to give it up.

to top it off, this society is so f-uped that is considers marijuana more dangerous.

reply to post by randomname



Oh, and It'll get worse.

I read an article the other day that I can not find at the moment that was discussing the idea of Social Networking site determining one's Digital Value. The amount of people who reply to your statuses and the amount of clout that you may or may not have could be as important as a credit rating in a few years. This worries me, and trouble me.

Whatever else you say about it, every google service is completely opt-in. Perhaps their privacy attitudes leave a hell of a lot to be desired; you still choose whether or not you accept their TOS. If you don't accept theire TOS, you go to hotmail, yahoo, or whatever. Email is nearly a necessity these days; so much is done electronically, that without an email account, you're crippled. So maybe your concern should not be about google directly, but about electronic conversation in general.

As for google+ itself -- there is not even a NEED for social networking. It is purely optional. It can make keeping in touch with people easier, but so can calling them on the phone, or writing an email. It's convenient for marketing, and for keeping tabs on your friends.But it is still opt-in, even moreso than gmail.


www.google.com...

By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services. You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

Which is why I'm simply not going to post anything that I need the rights to on there. I agree that they need to make this aspect more upfront for the users, though.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


I've been holding off cuz of laziness. But, I'm going on a massive campaign to reduce all info for all sites/delete and leave to the bare. Any suggestions?

reply to post by JJShinobi


Best advice I have is not to post it in the first place. Once it's there, you can "delete it" but it's mostly always archived.

If you are on here right now it's too late. If you have a computer online, cell phone, etc... they already know everything there is to know about you. Unless you trash everything and move off the grid forget it.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by randomname

 

Oh, and It'll get worse.

I read an article the other day that I can not find at the moment that was discussing the idea of Social Networking site determining one's Digital Value. The amount of people who reply to your statuses and the amount of clout that you may or may not have could be as important as a credit rating in a few years. This worries me, and trouble me.

Maybe you meant this article: What Is Your Social Credit Score?

Consider Twitter and Facebook. Both represent the means by which people create social currency. Both platforms leverage the old game of advertising to create economic gain created from people using these platforms. Entrepreneurs are using these platforms to leverage social currency into their own economic gains. Just consider the gaming company Zinga. Billions of economic value has been created by enabling people to create social currency which others use to create social and economic gains. The things we are learning about social media are not about making money from social media rather the means of creating economic value from social currency. Social currency represents information shared which encourages further social encounters and each encounter creates social value. Social currency, and the value it represents, is a social system which points to financial gains created by innovation.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Tee hee hee. The all seeing eye is watching your every move at every moment.

reply to post by darkl0rd


Interesting article, but I wouldn't get too worried about it --yet. The "social credit score" may help you get a job in media / advertising.. etc but somebody still has to do the actual work. An extreme case, if everybody just posts on social networks, no work will get done, and so the credit rating or whatever will be quite useless. I think it should be more of an inverse rating.


Anyways, I was already skeptical about Facebook when it started, and I never post anything personal there, everything is superficial (stuff that I would say in public). Also my profile is so filled with useless crap (on purpose after I realized what spy network I got myself into) = good luck finding anything useful or personal.

Back on topic: Google+ worries me too, we now have ONE BIG corporation that has everything (email, locations, earth, social network, maps, navigation, search), and it isn't getting any smaller. However, they do ask for consent and everything they do is stated in the TOC, so it's everybody's choice (free will)

And, ATS seems to be joining in the fun.

Are you really scared of a social service?
Who cares if they spy on you?
Who cares if they document everything you say/do/go?

Can you present who you truly are through a social networking site? I know I can't. My facebook/google+ accounts say so little about who I really am that I do not consider them me, or whatever.

You can run from these services, but you cannot hide your information. It is everywhere; phonebooks, school annuals, medical records, bank accounts, utility services, they can find you no matter what you do.

Do yourself a favor and keep the social networking site, its a tool for you to use; trust me, the alternative (being disconnected) is a lot worse.

Originally posted by PatriciusCaesar
Are you really scared of a social service?
Who cares if they spy on you?
Who cares if they document everything you say/do/go?

Can you present who you truly are through a social networking site? I know I can't. My facebook/google+ accounts say so little about who I really am that I do not consider them me, or whatever.

You can run from these services, but you cannot hide your information. It is everywhere; phonebooks, school annuals, medical records, bank accounts, utility services, they can find you no matter what you do.

Do yourself a favor and keep the social networking site, its a tool for you to use; trust me, the alternative (being disconnected) is a lot worse.

How can you just roll over like that? I don't understand how people just go like ,meh i cant stop em so i'l join em,and you know what that worst part of this all is ?

Because the people who react like this,think they will beat the system from the inside.
If you can avoid it,then don't get eaten.

reply to post by Cyanhide


Honestly,

I have nothing to hide; nothing to fear.

If someone threatens me, I'll fight.
If someone tries to detain me for unconstitutional reasons, I'll revolt.
If someone slanders my name, I'll rebel.

Until that happens, I'm not going to hop in the "tin-foil" boat.


I don't care if the gov't watches me. I don't care if they record my every written word.

What counts is what's in my heart and my brain. "They" will never be able to corrupt me or use me against my will.

If you are scared of being watched, then you deserve to be watched.

If you believe in something, no one will be able to get in your way of following your beliefs.

Whatever happens, have no fear.

Live life as if no one was watching.

I wouldn't worry too much about them capitalizing on your own content.

11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.

So they can use your stuff, but not abuse it. If they decided to make money with your content, they'd have to negotiate with you before hand.
If they went around stealing everyone's stuff, how long would they manage to stay in "business" before the negative feedback shut their doors and defeat the whole purpose?
Just use common sense and don't post anything online that you wouldn't want other people to know about.

Not too much involved in reading the T&C themselves other than the legal mumbo-jumbo, but it's pretty straightforward.

I have been on facebook for several years and I hadn't thought much of the hype about it invading privacy until recently. In that little side section that reads "People You May Know", it suggested a therapist I visited several years ago of which I told nobody about and I had no mutual friends with! She lives and works more than an hour away too. This is a highly unlikely coincidence that has left me shaken. I don't know how Facebook would have gotten that information but more importantly, I don't know why it would go through the trouble of getting that information. I'll be leaving facebook for sure.

But my dilemma is how will I now talk to people that I like, but that I don't like well enough to talk with them in a phone conversation?

its a fact that the US government have access to all the data from google and facebook

thats FACT

thats why the users, need to learn how to use this tools without giving up too much, but now its late, privacy only if you stop using those services