Jump to content

Elon Musk: Officially a fraud and piece of shit. Official or unofficial war criminal?

MaybeACoordinator

By MaybeACoordinator
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
Nivek

Nivek 17453

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Flexible working is key to parents with young children.  It allows them to take care of a sick kid, handle doc visits, and be present in their lives without adding an unnecessary burden to the parent.   For non-critical employees this should be the norm.  

  • Hook 'Em 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Spottieottiedopaliscious
Spottieottiedopaliscious

Hotez is far from bulletproof.       

MissingInAction
MissingInAction
Spottieottiedopaliscious
Spottieottiedopaliscious

Absolutely.    Would you like other guys pointing out Hotez deficiencies?   It was actually more about Hotez but whatever? Why stick around? All the constructive back and forth

Posted Images

NoName

NoName 17225

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Chopper said:

interesting thread, this is the beginning of it

 

full thread unrolled: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1590480221257359361.html

 

 
Spoiler
It took me less than 25 minutes to set up a fake anonymous Apple ID using a VPN and disposable email, attach a masked debit card to it (with the address being Twitter's HQ), and get a verified account for a prominent figure. Just think what a nation-state or bad actor could do...
 
Twitter wants to pass the verification steps off to Apple and card providers but Apple didn't check a single detail and you can easily find disposable cards with no links to you or even stolen/hacked card details if you're a particularly malicious actor. The policy is unworkable
Twitter claims they've raised costs for malicious actors but I think they've actually lowered them. Now anyone with $8 can buy a verified badge rather than having to hire someone to hack a verified's account or trawl through password leaks.
 
It's not impersonations of high-profile accounts that are the problem. It's the person impersonating a minor online celebrity, an obscure government functionary, or perhaps their ex. That's where the harm will be done and no one will notice or care until it's far too late
 
The problem with the argument that "the verification system now just means something different and we should accept that" is that the new system is very unintuitive and counter to what every other SM site does. If you're not terminally online you may not realise what's happened
 
There will be a few examples of big accounts doing big damage but I suspect the more common scenario we'll see is small to medium size accounts doing small to medium size damage (or big damage to a small number of people). It'll be death by a thousand cuts not a single blow
 
This is a really good point. If everyone can get verified (without anybody actually verifying their identity at any stage of the process) how will anyone - let alone twitter - know who the real Dr X is?
?
Btw if you want to talk to me about this please DM me. My notifications are utterly unusable right now but I see a couple people have reached out.
 
Earlier this year it was revealed that 57 UK MP’s didn’t have twitter accounts. What’s to stop someone starting up an account as one of them? As long as you don’t go overboard the impersonation could take a while to be detected. (h/t @GidMK)
My argument is not only that bad stuff might happen. It was also a response to twitter’s repeated claims that just because they’re not doing verification it doesn’t mean no one is. My experiment debunks this claim. No one checked my identity at any stage.
 
As I said earlier during the Elon Musk Twitter Space meeting with the advertisers: Twitter should focus on prevention rather than mitigation with the impersonation issue. As long as they only treat impersonation as their problem AFTER it’s happened I’m not sure they’ll get far
 
Anyway I’m off to bed so will probably miss most tweets I get for the next few hours. DM me if it’s important.
 
This is exactly the sort of somewhat lower level stuff that could become a bigger issue. Another is people impersonating sex workers, either to get details on their customers, expose the sex workers, or even just to sell their content without permission Hey, I saw your thread on T...
Maybe Twitter is better at moderation now (despite losing staff) but around the start of the Covid pandemic one of my friends had their full address posted on Twitter by trolls for days without anything being done despite multiple reports
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
royiv

royiv 9945

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Dear Leader finally speaks to the proletariat:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-10/musk-s-first-email-to-twitter-staff-ends-remote-work?stream=top

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder if an individual's home address played into the recent RIF. As in, folks that had moved away from an office during the pandemic to take advantage of the work from anywhere policy were prioritized for being RIF'd. Not saying it's right, but if they didn't do that, they're about to lose a lot more people who aren't going to be willing to uproot their lives in short order to comply with this change in policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19491

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

If you feel uncomfortable about anything you’re being asked to do, you can call Twitter’s Ethics Hotline at (800) 275-4843 or submit a report at ethicshelpline.twitter.com.

Yeah, my company has that horseshit as well.  It's well known throughout the company that reporting anything of consequence through those channels is a sure fire way to make sure your name is at the top of the heap when the next round of layoffs comes around.  No one with a brain thinks ethics hotlines / ombudsman departments / etc are anything other than a way to cull the herd at nut-cutting time.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoName

NoName 17225

Posted
Posted

lol

https://www.engadget.com/twitter-blocks-new-accounts-twitter-blue-114446338.html

Twitter blocks new accounts from signing up to its $8 Blue subscription

Spoiler

Twitter has altered the rules for its $8 Blue subscription service to prevent new accounts from getting a blue checkmark. The company clarified on the service's help page that accounts created on or after November 9th, 2022 "will be unable to subscribe to Twitter Blue at this time." The website also added that Twitter Blue is only available on iOS for users in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK, with plans to expand in the future. 

While Twitter didn't explain why it's putting the restriction on new accounts, the move comes as a number of impersonators got verified by paying for the service. "Twitter's current lords & peasants system for who has or doesn't have a blue checkmark is bullshit," the website's new owner, Elon Musk, tweeted earlier this month before details about the revamped subscription service were revealed. Yesterday marked the launch of the new Twitter Blue, and it allowed people to get the formerly elusive blue checkmark by paying for its perks that include instant verification. 

The internet being the internet, people quickly realized that they can pretend to be someone else and that the checkmark could help them fool unsuspecting users. A bunch of impersonators popped up on the website, including one claiming to be LeBron James who tweeted that the basketball star was requesting a trade. A fake Nintendo of America account tweeted a photo of Mario giving Twitter the middle finger, while a fake Valve account tweeted about a new competitive platform. Twitter started banning them after a few hours. The new rule could help curb the number of fake accounts, but it's unclear how Twitter plans to address the issue going forward — it can't lock new users out of Blue forever. 

While Twitter's blue checkmarks are now for sale, it has another smaller, gray checkmark reserved for public figures. It started rolling out these "official" checkmarks yesterday, but it quickly pulled them back down and will hand them out to "government and commercial entities" first. 

 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Royal We

The Royal We 3102

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

I get irrationally angry when I see CDC taking the time to respond to morons on Twitter about whatever idiotic question/complaint they have.

Can you imagine how fucking pissed institutional investor at Tesla must be right now?

Is it possible for the Tesla BOD to remove him as CEO?  If not, then it seems like they are going to continue to get falcon punched as well due to his antics.

I knew Twitter was going to be a dumpster fire after him taking over, but this thing is spiraling quicker than I thought it would. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32686

Posted
Posted
Is it possible for the Tesla BOD to remove him as CEO?  If not, then it seems like they are going to continue to get falcon punched as well due to his antics.
I knew Twitter was going to be a dumpster fire after him taking over, but this thing is spiraling quicker than I thought it would. 

There is no board of directors


It’s Elon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 49538

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Is it possible for the Tesla BOD to remove him as CEO?  If not, then it seems like they are going to continue to get falcon punched as well due to his antics.

I knew Twitter was going to be a dumpster fire after him taking over, but this thing is spiraling quicker than I thought it would. 

 

2 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:


There is no board of directors


It’s Elon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yup. Homeboy fired his board almost immediately. When you own something private, you own it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32686

Posted
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Not Twitter, Tesla - it looks like there is a BOD.  https://ir.tesla.com/corporate

 

Fair enough; reading comprehension on my part and all.

For Tesla's BOD to contemplate this, the stock is going to have to crater and stay there. Thing is, Elon's antics probably will make this happen.

 

https://fortune.com/2022/11/09/elon-musk-tesla-investors-stock-share-sale-twitter-acquisition/

 

Quote

Elon Musk has Tesla investors fuming over his decision to unload $4 billion worth of stock onto an unsuspecting market, with key supporters warning the entrepreneur’s own credibility is now on the line.

Wedbush Securities tech analyst and longtime Tesla bull Dan Ives complained on Wednesday that Musk threw investors a curveball and called the CEO “the boy who cried wolf” for claiming on numerous occasions, most recently in August, he was done selling stock.

 

Quote

It’s a kick in the teeth for those who bought shares last month following his grand vision that Tesla would one day be worth more than Apple and Saudi energy giant Aramco combined.

As if that wasn’t enough, he also held out the promise of a sizable stock buyback next year during the Q3 earnings call.

Ives has been critical of the Twitter deal, calling it one of the most overpaid in the tech sector’s history. The confirmation of his fears that Musk wasn’t done secretly dumping stock proved what a “never-ending Twitter albatross” Tesla shareholders had around their collective neck, he argued.

 

Quote

“The Twitter circus show has been an absolute debacle from all angles since Musk bought the platform,” wrote the Wedbush analyst. “When does it end?”

Musk’s more trusting supporters felt it was safe to assume he had raised all the money he needed to buy Twitter since no SEC filings to the contrary emerged in recent days.

“Turns out, Elon was not done selling his Tesla stock,” Loup Funds managing partner Gene Munster wrote rather meekly late on Tuesday. The Tesla bull argued that he’s “preparing for Twitter to be a money hole for the next year.” 

 

Spoiler

Many who have been paying attention anticipated Musk would be looking for any opportunity to sell into strength.

The Tesla CEO could only sell shares after the company published its full quarterly results, giving him little time to raise the billions he still needed for Twitter.

 


The good news about the stock sale for Tesla shareholders is twofold. 

First, Musk didn’t need to reveal his sales yesterday: SEC rules allowed him to hold off longer with the announcement for another two days. The fact that he didn’t suggests that he may well be telegraphing to investors he is through—for the immediate future at least.

Second, and more important, the fundamentals of the company appear to remain solid, unlike what is often the case when insiders sell.

Vehicle sales volumes continue to soar, increasing at a forecast 50% annual rate even as operating expenses remain firmly rooted to the floor. Next year Musk believes he can achieve a similar rate of growth to hit roughly 2 million cars sold.

For bulls waiting on the sidelines with spare cash that can still be deployed, picking up shares at a 52-week low is a relative bargain assuming the Twitter deal doesn’t prove too distracting. 

Still Ives, who has an outperform rating and $300 price target on Tesla, warned investor faith is not something Musk should take lightly, let alone squander needlessly on Twitter.

“Musk needs to look in the mirror and end this constant merry-go-round of Twitter overhang on the Tesla story,” the Wedbush securities analyst concluded. “This Twitter madness needs to end now.”

Shares in Tesla traded 2.3% lower at $187 during a broadly weaker session for tech stocks on Wednesday.

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
royiv

royiv 9945

Posted
Posted

Is he still the world's richest person at this point? TSLA is well off of its highs, he's plowed a bunch of cash into an asset that lost a ton of value the moment he drove it off the lot and he's on the hook for some pretty gargantuan interest payments in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32686

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/10/does-twitter-have-any-employees-left-who-remember-that-the-company-is-under-a-strict-consent-decree-with-the-ftc/

 

 

Quote

Yesterday I tweeted out a question about whether or not there was anyone left at Twitter who remembered that the company was under a pretty strict FTC consent decree:

 

 

 

Quote

Apparently the answer was yes, but they didn’t include Elon Musk. Late last night, a few hours after that tweet, the Chief Information Security Officer, the Chief Privacy Officer, and the Chief Compliance Officer all quit, apparently citing potential FTC violations as the reason. Lea Kissner, the former CISO tweeted about it early this morning:

 

Quote

According to the Verge, Elon and his entourage have made it clear that he doesn’t give a fuck about the FTC. It details a note on an internal Twitter Slack from a company lawyer:

In a note posted to Twitter’s Slack and viewable to all staff that was obtained by The Verge, an attorney on the company’s privacy team wrote, “Elon has shown that his only priority with Twitter users is how to monetize them. I do not believe he cares about the human rights activists. the dissidents, our users in un-monetizable regions, and all the other users who have made Twitter the global town square you have all spent so long building, and we all love.”

[….]

The note goes on to say that its author, who The Verge knows the identity of but is choosing not to disclose, has “heard Alex Spiro (current head of Legal) say that Elon is willing to take on a huge amount of risk in relation to this company and its users, because ‘Elon puts rockets into space, he’s not afraid of the FTC.’”

 

 

Quote

So, here’s the thing. While Elon may think he’s not afraid of the FTC, he should be. The FTC is not the SEC and the FTC does not fuck around. Violating the FTC can lead to criminal penalties. I mean, it was just a month ago that Uber’s former Chief Security Officer was convicted on federal charges for obstruction against the FTC.

And you wonder why Twitter’s Chief Security Officer resigned?

The Verge article also notes the following:

 

Spoiler

Musk’s new legal department is now asking engineers to “self-certify” compliance with FTC rules and other privacy laws, according to the lawyer’s note and another employee familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity to speak without the company’s permission.

 

 

Anyone working in Twitter needs to know that “self-certifying” something that violates the FTC’s consent decree may be tied to a prison sentence and huge fines. This is not how any of this should be working.

Stanford’s Riana Pfefferkorn (who used to be outside counsel for Twitter) has a great Twitter thread explaining the many ways in which this is fucked up. That thread notes that… today Twitter violated the FTC’s consent decree as it was required to file a notice with the FTC about Elon’s takeover and how it relates to the compliance with the consent decrees.

As for the background on all this, some of you youngsters might not remember this, but back in 2011 Twitter signed a consent decree with the FTC over its failure to safeguard user info. Now, almost every big tech company these days has a consent decree with the FTC after they royally screwed up something and effectively leaked users’ private data. Most of the consent decrees last for 20 years. That might make you think such consent decrees are meaningless, but the opposite is true. While under these consent decrees, the FTC now has tremendous power to cause a world of hurt to the company for screwing up.

Indeed, remember three years ago when the FTC hit Facebook with a $5 billion fine? Most people remember that as being for the whole Cambridge Analytica thing, but it was actually for violating the consent decree that Facebook had signed years earlier (partly because of Cambridge Analytica, but also some other shoddy privacy practices). In other words, while you’re under the consent decree, if you screw up, you could be in deep trouble. Combined with the example of Uber’s Joe Sullivan, and you realize that fucking with the FTC doesn’t end well for anyone.

Anyway, Twitter’s 2011 consent decree was over misrepresenting how Twitter’s privacy controls worked — users believed they were choosing settings to keep info private, and Twitter wasn’t abiding by them, mainly because Twitter wasn’t very careful with its own security, allowing hackers to breach their systems and read content that users believed was private.

Given that much of the problem was around Twitter’s security practices, the consent decree was focused on making sure that Twitter shaped up its security practices. As you might recall, back in May, Twitter also got hit with a $150 million fine for violating the consent decree. In that case, it was because Twitter used phone numbers that were provided for two-factor authentication, but used them for marketing practices (this was also a big part of that $5 billion fine that hit Facebook, and notably, it looks like Twitter stopped the practice a month or two after the Facebook fine!).

All of this is kinda important right now, as Elon tries to roll out features in record speeds. Because… the consent decree has some requirements for rolling out new products and making sure they’re secure. The original consent decree says that any new product or service must be rolled out with a written plan including the following:

the identification of reasonably-foreseeable, material risks, both internal and external, that could result in the unauthorized disclosure, misuse, loss, alteration, destruction, or other compromise of nonpublic consumer information or in unauthorized administrative control of the Twitter system, and an assessment of the sufficiency of any safeguards in place to control these risks. At a minimum, this risk assessment should include consideration of risks in each area of relevant operation, including, but not limited to: (1) employee training and management; (2) information systems, including network and software design, information processing, storage, transmission, and disposal; and (3) prevention, detection, and response to attacks, intrusions, account takeovers, or other systems failures

 

When I started writing this post last night, I wondered if anyone at the company still remembered that they needed to comply with this, and by this morning I knew the answer was yes — though they’ve now all left.

But, also, the order and fine from earlier this year included some modifications to the original consent decree with even more stringent requirements. There’s actually a lot of new stuff in the updated consent decree (which, again, went into effect just months ago). But one thing it requires is the following:

 

Design, implement, maintain, and document safeguards that control for the material internal and external risks Respondent identifies to the privacy, security, confidentiality, or integrity of Covered Information identified in response to Provision V.D. Each safeguard must be based on the volume and sensitivity of Covered Information that is at risk, and the likelihood that the risk could be realized and result in the: (1) unauthorized collection, maintenance, use, disclosure, alteration, or destruction of, or provision of access to Covered Information; or the (2) misuse, loss, theft, or other compromise of such information. Such safeguards must also include:

Prior to implementing any new or modified product, service, or practice that collects, maintains, uses, discloses, or provides access to Covered Information, conducting an assessment of the risks to the privacy, security, confidentiality, or integrity of the Covered Information;
For each new or modified product, service, or practice that does not pose a material risk to the privacy, security, confidentiality, or integrity of Covered Information, documenting a description of each reviewed product, service, or practice and why such product, service, or practice does not pose such a material risk;

For each new or modified product, service, or practice that poses a material risk to the privacy, security, confidentiality, or integrity of Covered Information, conducting a privacy review and producing a written report (“Privacy Review”) for each such new or modified product, service, or practice. The Privacy Review must:
(a) Describe how the product, service, or practice will collect, maintain, use, disclose, or provide access to Covered Information, and for how long;

(b) Identify and describe the types of Covered Information the product, service, or practice will collect, maintain, use, disclose, or provide access to;

(c) If the Covered Information will be collected from a User, describe the context of the interaction in which Respondent will collect such Covered Information (e.g., under security settings, in pop-up messages in the timeline, or in response to a prompt reading, “Get Better Ads!”);

(d) Describe any notice that Respondent will provide Users about the collection, maintenance, use, disclosure, or provision of access to the Covered Information;

(e) State whether and how Respondent will obtain consent from Users for the collection, maintenance, use, disclosure, or provision of access to Covered Information;

(f) Identify any privacy controls that will be provided to Users relevant to the collection, maintenance, use, disclosure, or provision of access to the Covered Information;

(g) Identify any third parties to whom Respondent will disclose or provide access to the Covered Information;

(h) Assess and describe the material risks to the privacy, security, confidentiality, and integrity of Covered Information presented by the product, service, or practice;

(i) Assess and describe the safeguards to control for the identified risks, and whether any additional safeguards need to be implemented to control for such risks;

(j) Explain the reasons why Respondent deems the notice and consent mechanisms described in Provisions V.E.3(d) and V.E.3(e) sufficient;

(k) Identify and describe any limitations on the collection, maintenance, use, disclosure, or provision of access to Covered Information based on: (i) the context of the collection of such Covered Information; (ii) notice to Users; and (iii) any consent given by Users at the time of collection or through subsequent authorization;

(l) Identify and describe any changes in how privacy and security-related options will be presented to Users, and describe the means and results of any testing Respondent performed in considering such changes, including but not limited to A/B testing, engagement optimization, or other testing to evaluate a User’s movement through a privacy or security-related pathway;

(m) Include any other safeguards or other procedures that would mitigate the identified risks to the privacy, security, confidentiality, and integrity of Covered Information that were not implemented, and each reason that such alternatives were not implemented; and

(n) Include any decision or recommendation made as a result of the review (e.g., whether the practice was approved, approved contingent upon safeguards or other recommendations being implemented, or rejected);

Now, who knows. Perhaps Twitter will argue that its new verification system and the other features its rolling out with little to no testing don’t qualify for these requirements? Or perhaps along with the dwindling engineering team that is sleeping on the floor there remain a few lawyers who remember all this and have been putting together all of the documentation necessary to comply. But I do wonder how comprehensive such a report can be under these circumstances.

And, clearly, with the resignations last night, it suggests that what needs to happen isn’t happening. And I’m pretty damn sure the FTC is well aware of what’s happening. And while Elon may not give a shit about the FTC, the FTC can make his life absolutely fucking miserable.

Of course, here’s where having the two top legal execs who had been with the company through this whole process might have helped… rather than firing them seconds after taking control of the company.

Ooops!

Update: It appears the FTC is aware of what’s going on:

“We are tracking recent developments at Twitter with deep concern. No CEO or company is above the law, and companies must follow our consent decrees. Our revised consent order gives us new tools to ensure compliance, and we are prepared to use them.”

 

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32686

Posted
Posted (edited)

It gets better and better.

Pre-Elon, Twitter claimed to get rid of 500K spam and bot accounts daily.

Musk and friends came out some days ago about how Twitter is growing.

Seems they (Twitter) are no longer culling out the bot and spam accounts, and are including them in growth:

 

 

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Royal We

The Royal We 3102

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/10/does-twitter-have-any-employees-left-who-remember-that-the-company-is-under-a-strict-consent-decree-with-the-ftc/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Musk’s new legal department is now asking engineers to “self-certify” compliance with FTC rules and other privacy laws, according to the lawyer’s note and another employee familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity to speak without the company’s permission.

 

 

Anyone working in Twitter needs to know that “self-certifying” something that violates the FTC’s consent decree may be tied to a prison sentence and huge fines. This is not how any of this should be working.

Stanford’s Riana Pfefferkorn (who used to be outside counsel for Twitter) has a great Twitter thread explaining the many ways in which this is fucked up. That thread notes that… today Twitter violated the FTC’s consent decree as it was required to file a notice with the FTC about Elon’s takeover and how it relates to the compliance with the consent decrees.

As for the background on all this, some of you youngsters might not remember this, but back in 2011 Twitter signed a consent decree with the FTC over its failure to safeguard user info. Now, almost every big tech company these days has a consent decree with the FTC after they royally screwed up something and effectively leaked users’ private data. Most of the consent decrees last for 20 years. That might make you think such consent decrees are meaningless, but the opposite is true. While under these consent decrees, the FTC now has tremendous power to cause a world of hurt to the company for screwing up.

Indeed, remember three years ago when the FTC hit Facebook with a $5 billion fine? Most people remember that as being for the whole Cambridge Analytica thing, but it was actually for violating the consent decree that Facebook had signed years earlier (partly because of Cambridge Analytica, but also some other shoddy privacy practices). In other words, while you’re under the consent decree, if you screw up, you could be in deep trouble. Combined with the example of Uber’s Joe Sullivan, and you realize that fucking with the FTC doesn’t end well for anyone.

Anyway, Twitter’s 2011 consent decree was over misrepresenting how Twitter’s privacy controls worked — users believed they were choosing settings to keep info private, and Twitter wasn’t abiding by them, mainly because Twitter wasn’t very careful with its own security, allowing hackers to breach their systems and read content that users believed was private.

Given that much of the problem was around Twitter’s security practices, the consent decree was focused on making sure that Twitter shaped up its security practices. As you might recall, back in May, Twitter also got hit with a $150 million fine for violating the consent decree. In that case, it was because Twitter used phone numbers that were provided for two-factor authentication, but used them for marketing practices (this was also a big part of that $5 billion fine that hit Facebook, and notably, it looks like Twitter stopped the practice a month or two after the Facebook fine!).

All of this is kinda important right now, as Elon tries to roll out features in record speeds. Because… the consent decree has some requirements for rolling out new products and making sure they’re secure. The original consent decree says that any new product or service must be rolled out with a written plan including the following:

the identification of reasonably-foreseeable, material risks, both internal and external, that could result in the unauthorized disclosure, misuse, loss, alteration, destruction, or other compromise of nonpublic consumer information or in unauthorized administrative control of the Twitter system, and an assessment of the sufficiency of any safeguards in place to control these risks. At a minimum, this risk assessment should include consideration of risks in each area of relevant operation, including, but not limited to: (1) employee training and management; (2) information systems, including network and software design, information processing, storage, transmission, and disposal; and (3) prevention, detection, and response to attacks, intrusions, account takeovers, or other systems failures

 

When I started writing this post last night, I wondered if anyone at the company still remembered that they needed to comply with this, and by this morning I knew the answer was yes — though they’ve now all left.

But, also, the order and fine from earlier this year included some modifications to the original consent decree with even more stringent requirements. There’s actually a lot of new stuff in the updated consent decree (which, again, went into effect just months ago). But one thing it requires is the following:

 

Design, implement, maintain, and document safeguards that control for the material internal and external risks Respondent identifies to the privacy, security, confidentiality, or integrity of Covered Information identified in response to Provision V.D. Each safeguard must be based on the volume and sensitivity of Covered Information that is at risk, and the likelihood that the risk could be realized and result in the: (1) unauthorized collection, maintenance, use, disclosure, alteration, or destruction of, or provision of access to Covered Information; or the (2) misuse, loss, theft, or other compromise of such information. Such safeguards must also include:

Prior to implementing any new or modified product, service, or practice that collects, maintains, uses, discloses, or provides access to Covered Information, conducting an assessment of the risks to the privacy, security, confidentiality, or integrity of the Covered Information;
For each new or modified product, service, or practice that does not pose a material risk to the privacy, security, confidentiality, or integrity of Covered Information, documenting a description of each reviewed product, service, or practice and why such product, service, or practice does not pose such a material risk;

For each new or modified product, service, or practice that poses a material risk to the privacy, security, confidentiality, or integrity of Covered Information, conducting a privacy review and producing a written report (“Privacy Review”) for each such new or modified product, service, or practice. The Privacy Review must:
(a) Describe how the product, service, or practice will collect, maintain, use, disclose, or provide access to Covered Information, and for how long;

(b) Identify and describe the types of Covered Information the product, service, or practice will collect, maintain, use, disclose, or provide access to;

(c) If the Covered Information will be collected from a User, describe the context of the interaction in which Respondent will collect such Covered Information (e.g., under security settings, in pop-up messages in the timeline, or in response to a prompt reading, “Get Better Ads!”);

(d) Describe any notice that Respondent will provide Users about the collection, maintenance, use, disclosure, or provision of access to the Covered Information;

(e) State whether and how Respondent will obtain consent from Users for the collection, maintenance, use, disclosure, or provision of access to Covered Information;

(f) Identify any privacy controls that will be provided to Users relevant to the collection, maintenance, use, disclosure, or provision of access to the Covered Information;

(g) Identify any third parties to whom Respondent will disclose or provide access to the Covered Information;

(h) Assess and describe the material risks to the privacy, security, confidentiality, and integrity of Covered Information presented by the product, service, or practice;

(i) Assess and describe the safeguards to control for the identified risks, and whether any additional safeguards need to be implemented to control for such risks;

(j) Explain the reasons why Respondent deems the notice and consent mechanisms described in Provisions V.E.3(d) and V.E.3(e) sufficient;

(k) Identify and describe any limitations on the collection, maintenance, use, disclosure, or provision of access to Covered Information based on: (i) the context of the collection of such Covered Information; (ii) notice to Users; and (iii) any consent given by Users at the time of collection or through subsequent authorization;

(l) Identify and describe any changes in how privacy and security-related options will be presented to Users, and describe the means and results of any testing Respondent performed in considering such changes, including but not limited to A/B testing, engagement optimization, or other testing to evaluate a User’s movement through a privacy or security-related pathway;

(m) Include any other safeguards or other procedures that would mitigate the identified risks to the privacy, security, confidentiality, and integrity of Covered Information that were not implemented, and each reason that such alternatives were not implemented; and

(n) Include any decision or recommendation made as a result of the review (e.g., whether the practice was approved, approved contingent upon safeguards or other recommendations being implemented, or rejected);

Now, who knows. Perhaps Twitter will argue that its new verification system and the other features its rolling out with little to no testing don’t qualify for these requirements? Or perhaps along with the dwindling engineering team that is sleeping on the floor there remain a few lawyers who remember all this and have been putting together all of the documentation necessary to comply. But I do wonder how comprehensive such a report can be under these circumstances.

And, clearly, with the resignations last night, it suggests that what needs to happen isn’t happening. And I’m pretty damn sure the FTC is well aware of what’s happening. And while Elon may not give a shit about the FTC, the FTC can make his life absolutely fucking miserable.

Of course, here’s where having the two top legal execs who had been with the company through this whole process might have helped… rather than firing them seconds after taking control of the company.

Ooops!

Update: It appears the FTC is aware of what’s going on:

“We are tracking recent developments at Twitter with deep concern. No CEO or company is above the law, and companies must follow our consent decrees. Our revised consent order gives us new tools to ensure compliance, and we are prepared to use them.”

 

 

Legit holy shit. 

 

Dumpster Fire GIF by MOODMAN

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 21123

Posted
Posted

giphy.gif

i was never a big twitter user, didn't have or attempt to have many followers, and haven't spent much time scrolling through it (much less tweeting) in the past year unless I'm looking for something specific. But, I just deleted all of my tweets and removed all the information from my account. Am going to keep the app on my phone for a bit to... watch the trainwreck but I think it's done. I can't believe that they actually threw away verification.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19491

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

It gets better and better.

Pre-Elon, Twitter claimed to get rid of 500K spam and bot accounts daily.

Musk and friends came out some days ago about how Twitter is growing.

Seems they (Twitter) are no longer culling out the bot and spam accounts, and are including them in growth:

 

 

 

This is exactly the first thought that popped into my mind when they reported the big jump in users.  I was thinking "Yeah, that's just the bots that were previously banned going active again."  I haven't tried to petition to get my banned account reactivated and have no desire, but I could see others doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Constant

Constant 6955

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

giphy.gif

i was never a big twitter user, didn't have or attempt to have many followers, and haven't spent much time scrolling through it (much less tweeting) in the past year unless I'm looking for something specific. But, I just deleted all of my tweets and removed all the information from my account. Am going to keep the app on my phone for a bit to... watch the trainwreck but I think it's done. I can't believe that they actually threw away verification.

It is such a fucking mess of an app now. Say what you want about the ‘elite’ blue checkmark. At least it gave some clarity. It is a total disaster and probably only going to get worse. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90711

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Captainant said:

It's pretty allsome seeing twitter get taken over by id personified and careen wildly from one sweeping policy overhaul to the next. Can we do meta next? Just a damn shame they don't have the debt to drag them down like TWTR does

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

Stable Genius!

1 hour ago, Chopper said:

OTOH I'm sure the advertisers will be running back to elo any day now

It's fantastic that the CEO and owner of twitter is making masturbation jokes on twitter through his official account.

That has to inspire such amazing confidence in the advertisers.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chopper

Chopper 17460

Posted
Posted

This was the article I referred to earlier about tsla stock price and where it's possibly headed. From The Street. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/topstocks/tesla-stock-charts-show-two-major-levels-of-potential-support/ar-AA13QbD0

Quote

 

When looking at the chart above, it’s clear that the $200 to $205 area has been a huge support zone for Tesla stock.

Shares are cracking below that area now, but if the stock can bounce and regain that area, then it’s possible for traders to ride Tesla higher in the short term.

However, the bigger opportunity for longer term investors rides with a larger move to the downside.

Specifically, the $182 to $187 zone has resulted in two major bounces for Tesla stock in 2021. The first led to a 44% bounce. The second kickstarted the stock’s run to all-time highs, as shares ultimately rallied more than 125% from this zone.

If we see a retest of it, aggressive buyers will again look for rebound. Below that and things get interesting.

The $167.50 area is somewhat attractive, as it was technically a breakout point on the chart. But if we can somehow see a flush into the $150s, a much more attractive entry may present itself.

Admittedly, it would have to take place in the next few weeks — or else the measures we’re looking at will continue to track higher — but as it stands, the 200-week and 50-month moving averages sit between $150 and $160. So does the monthly VWAP measure.

Let’s also not overlook the ~$150 breakout level from 2020.

While I’m unsure of whether we’ll see a dip into the $150 to $160 area, it’s a zone to watch for long-term investors. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...