I’m being spied on

[syd]

Hello,

Lovely labour campaigner knocked my door to ask if I’d still be voting labour! How the .... did he know who I voted for? Seriously does anyone know how this happened?

[JGD]

Easily.

Every ballot paper has a unique number - and possibly this provides the key link..

And whilst we are repeatedly assured that all elections are conducted as a secret ballot - election after election someone turns up and either knocks on your door because they know how you voted and want you to change or to alternatively secure your continuing support.

And don't even go to the Facebook data-mining and data-merging capabilities that take this dark art to a whole new level.

If you need any comfort - you are not alone. But possibly - and probably - that does not make it right.

[mosy]

I complained in the STF Pub about a year or two ago (probably when the Tower Hamlets fiasco hit the papers) about the unique number on ballot papers as it makes a mockery of the so called secret ballot which used to be a mainstay of "democratic rights and freedoms". Of course if you scratch it out, your paper will be invalid so can't avoid it if you want to vote. It's not a recent thing either but I forget exactly when it was first introduced without looking it up again.

I agree with JGD that it doesn't make it right. Indeed at all, let alone if sold or accessible to others which it seemingly is. *growl* Mind you, I thought exactly the same when the DVLD sold our driving records off for profit despite our having no choice but to provide our info to them. The irony is that the government is now making a great fuss about others misusing data from the glass house in which it sits.

[syd]

Easily.

Every ballot paper has a unique number - and possibly this provides the key link..

And whilst we are repeatedly assured that all elections are conducted as a secret ballot - election after election someone turns up and either knocks on your door because they know how you voted and want you to change or to alternatively secure your continuing support.

And don't even go to the Facebook data-mining and data-merging capabilities that take this dark art to a whole new level.

If you need any comfort - you are not alone. But possibly - and probably - that does not make it right.

That’s outrageous, I’m seriously shocked and the fact that labour used this data is a big problem for me so I’m going to have words with Corbyn. Lewisham labour are poo and probably still has the stain of new labour.

[Robin Orton]

I'm sure that however the Labour Party got information about (or guessed) your previous voting patterns, it won't have been by illegally tracing your ballot paper(s) through the unique number. If that sort of thing went on, we would have heard about it and it would constitute a major political scandal.

[Tim Lund]

I'm sure Robin is right in this instance, although his reasoning is rather complacent.

For better or worse, the Labour Party is by some way the most competently run political grouping in LB Lewisham, and will have canvassers noting what has been told them, even if the People who told them have subsequently forgotten. They may make a few errors, but will at all times be well aware of electoral law.

[syd]

I'm sure that however the Labour Party got information about (or guessed) your previous voting patterns, it won't have been by illegally tracing your ballot paper(s) through the unique number. If that sort of thing went on, we would have heard about it and it would constitute a major political scandal.

the windrush scandal has been going on for years so anything is possible. To be asked if I’d be voting Labour “again”was suspicious.

[syd]

I'm sure Robin is right in this instance, although his reasoning is rather complacent.

For better or worse, the Labour Party is by some way the most competently run political grouping in LB Lewisham, and will have canvassers noting what has been told them, even if the People who told them have subsequently forgotten. They may make a few errors, but will at all times be well aware of electoral law.

I’d rather get the facts from before I make assumptions about the reason I was asked for my vote. I need to know and with GDPR being implemented in May I’ll get the answer, wether they like it or not.

[JGD]

For better or worse, the Labour Party is by some way the most competently run political grouping in LB Lewisham, and will have canvassers noting what has been told them, even if the People who told them have subsequently forgotten. They may make a few errors, but will at all times be well aware of electoral law.

Dontcha just love that Cambridge Analytical are a UK company.

They boast openly about their global reach and their ability to change and influence secret ballot elections across so many countries.

And here we are - uncertain about CA's impact on the Brexit vote - and even more uncertain about their capacity - and propensity - to influence future votes.

No - it's not just about Labour - Brexit was a cross party boundary deal - but for those who engage in this form of electoral manipulation - and thereby fight by the sword - may also die by the sword.

[JGD]

A little separation - but relevant.

The BBC do lie to us..

"An interview given in 1968 by BBC director general Sir Hugh Greene shows the BBC's policy of denial and obfuscation in action.

To a reporter from The Sunday Times in February Greene blithely and misleadingly declared: "We have a staff of 23,000 and in that community we have people of all descriptions, including what you call pansies" - the word had apparently been used by the reporter - "and also communists. But that's none of my business. We don't conduct an inquisition on people who join the BBC.""

But the BBC did lie, they did everything and more than the DG denied - and stonewalled and lied in a very serial fashion.

If you read the full piece you will see that deception and denial were the mainstay of how our institution elected to mislead us.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-43754737

We do have to be careful.

[Rachael]

Any chance Labour campaigners knocked on your door during a previous campaign and asked how you were voting, so they have you on their list as a Labour voter? That could be the simple answer.

[stuart]

Frankly Sydenham is so predominantly Labour that turnout is more important for them than your affiliation. More interestingly is whether folks here are going to vote the same way as last time. Do CA or any party have a better view of how I'm going to vote than me?

The Mayoral contest with its 1st & 2nd preferences is particulary challenging. Except for Duwayne Brookes who I ruled out as running a weird right wing piston head campaign. The Lib Dems must be relieved he left them.

Stuart

[JGD]

Do CA or any party have a better view of how I'm going to vote than me?

Stuart

Many media reports from people who were hacked by Facebook and CA expressed surprise at how precisely CA predicted what their political aspirations and their propensity to vote one way or another might be.

Even worse was the fact that some fundamental errors in the assumptions made by CA and what the hacked person's assessment of their position was, did not result in a significant difference between CA's and their conclusions.

Weird.

[JGD]

That could be the simple answer.

I have had a postal ballot for some time.

This does not stop a certain party dispatching a volunteer to offer me a lift to the polling station because I have not been "seen" to attend.

I diligently refuse to answer all questions about who I vote for when asked during election periods.

IMHO - the simple answer is they know, you know.

[Tim Lund]

I owe an apology to Syd & JGD here. Since suggesting before that the information about voting preferences would have come from the Party's canvass returns, which someone may have forgotten giving at a previous election, I've remembered a throw away comment a Labour Party member made to me a year or so ago, to the effect that it was amazing how Facebook was able to find voters they didn't know of. It struck me as odd, since local parties have access to the complete electoral roll - more than ordinary citizens - so how could Facebook know more than that? I realise now that (s)he would have meant information about voting history / intentions, and that the party would have been paying Facebook for this.

How terrible is this? Well, I'm not particularly inclined to blame the Labour Party here, but there clearly is a big issue when democracy gets distorted by groups who first latch on to the opportunities which a new technology presents for influencing elections / referendums. There's also the issue of whether what the Labour Party might have done in paying Facebook for information was illegal - I suspect not, however sneaky it may seem, although I can see why someone who feels aggrieved would want to know. In the case of Cambridge Analytica, the superb coverage from Carole Cadwalladr, focuses on the illegality of their dealings with Facebook, and does not, as far as I am aware, suggest that all commercial relationships between political parties and Facebook will be illegal.

In the long run, I think we as the wider public will wise up, and opposing political groups work out how to do the same. In the short term the damage, in my view, of Cambridge Analytica's apparently illegal activities, is pretty disastous, and the process of wising up has to involve a future meaningful vote on the recent referendum. At which point, I'd be happy for Admin to fork this thread into the Town Pub!

Another part of wising up is adjusting to how much people in general will know about us given today's information technology. I think we have to accept that other people will be able to find out a lot about us, not just having a fair idea of how we might vote, but also where we live and how well off we are. Society has to - and will - adjust by developing new norms, leveling up the ease with which people can find out this information, and saying how people can use it. The social change which always strikes me is that, when growing up, I could find the phone numbers and addresses of any of my school friends by looking them up in the phone book, which everybody would have. Some of us are still "in the phone book", but it's a very old fashioned phrase, and on line etiquette, exemplified by the disapproval of doxing, is that such information should never be shared.

[JGD]

Tim - thank you - but no need for the apology.

Your post is insightful and particularly describes what little we do understand about how our data can be put to use of one sort or another and not always to our benefit. To know that because of how you have been profiled you might be subject to a campaign of mis-information - or just plain propaganda - and might not recognise it for what it is, is more than worrying.

There's also the issue of whether what the Labour Party might have done in paying Facebook for information was illegal - I suspect not, however sneaky it may seem, although I can see why someone who feels aggrieved would want to know. In the case of Cambridge Analytica, the superb coverage from Carole Cadwalladr, focuses on the illegality of their dealings with Facebook, and does not, as far as I am aware, suggest that all commercial relationships between political parties and Facebook will be illegal.

In the long run, I think we as the wider public will wise up, and opposing political groups work out how to do the same. In the short term the damage, in my view, of Cambridge Analytica's apparently illegal activities, is pretty disastous, and the process of wising up has to involve a future meaningful vote on the recent referendum. .

On acceptability (or wising up) - are those of us of an age more disturbed by the ease with which this manipulation can be executed ? Are our younger counterparts less concerned ?

The lessons of history particularly of the 1930's and 40's when radio and film propaganda first became prolific resulted in some of the worst examples of "whole nation" brainwashing.

[Tim Lund]

The lessons of history particularly of the 1930's and 40's when radio and film propaganda first became prolific resulted in some of the worst examples of "whole nation" brainwashing.

Yes - this is a valid parallel I think of too, but I worry about about Godwin's Law ...

There are other cases of new media distorting politics - sometimes in ways we'd now welcome, however disturbing they were at the time to those in power. Just before the inter war rise of radio and film propaganda, Lord Northcote's popular newspapers, e.g. the Daily Mail, were very important, and far worse was the notorious Horatio Bottomley

Further back, William Russell pioneering modern war reporting in the Crimea was disturbing too - but that's one I'm happy with. Before that, there was William Cobbett's Political Register, writing for an emerging literate class, and avoiding regulations designed to keep the masses in ignorance. Radicals tend to admire Cobbett, but his anti-semitism was appalling

https://newrepublic.com/article/77373/t ... sm-england

So also was Martin Luther's, another new media pioneer

plus ça change ...

[JGD]

but I worry about about Godwin's Law

This has been raised almost ceaselessly this entire year.

I was conscious of ducking the issue and did not mention he-who-shall-not-be-invoked nor specifying any single nation.

Perhaps I was being too smug !

[Sydenham Syd]

I'm sure that however the Labour Party got information about (or guessed) your previous voting patterns, it won't have been by illegally tracing your ballot paper(s) through the unique number. If that sort of thing went on, we would have heard about it and it would constitute a major political scandal.

the windrush scandal has been going on for years so anything is possible. To be asked if I’d be voting Labour “again”was suspicious.

Did you ask 'how do you know who I voted for?' ??

[syd]

I owe an apology to Syd & JGD here. Since suggesting before that the information about voting preferences would have come from the Party's canvass returns, which someone may have forgotten giving at a previous election, I've remembered a throw away comment a Labour Party member made to me a year or so ago, to the effect that it was amazing how Facebook was able to find voters they didn't know of. It struck me as odd, since local parties have access to the complete electoral roll - more than ordinary citizens - so how could Facebook know more than that? I realise now that (s)he would have meant information about voting history / intentions, and that the party would have been paying Facebook for this.

How terrible is this? Well, I'm not particularly inclined to blame the Labour Party here, but there clearly is a big issue when democracy gets distorted by groups who first latch on to the opportunities which a new technology presents for influencing elections / referendums. There's also the issue of whether what the Labour Party might have done in paying Facebook for information was illegal - I suspect not, however sneaky it may seem, although I can see why someone who feels aggrieved would want to know. In the case of Cambridge Analytica, the superb coverage from Carole Cadwalladr, focuses on the illegality of their dealings with Facebook, and does not, as far as I am aware, suggest that all commercial relationships between political parties and Facebook will be illegal.

In the long run, I think we as the wider public will wise up, and opposing political groups work out how to do the same. In the short term the damage, in my view, of Cambridge Analytica's apparently illegal activities, is pretty disastous, and the process of wising up has to involve a future meaningful vote on the recent referendum. At which point, I'd be happy for Admin to fork this thread into the Town Pub!

Another part of wising up is adjusting to how much people in general will know about us given today's information technology. I think we have to accept that other people will be able to find out a lot about us, not just having a fair idea of how we might vote, but also where we live and how well off we are. Society has to - and will - adjust by developing new norms, leveling up the ease with which people can find out this information, and saying how people can use it. The social change which always strikes me is that, when growing up, I could find the phone numbers and addresses of any of my school friends by looking them up in the phone book, which everybody would have. Some of us are still "in the phone book", but it's a very old fashioned phrase, and on line etiquette, exemplified by the disapproval of doxing, is that such information should never be shared.

No need to apologise Tim.

My main problem is that I feel rather than giving us a exceptional neighbourhood with clean streets and great services it seems they’d rather trick us, like a forest troll.