Facebook witch hunt scanner is a tool or software designed to identify and flag posts or content on the social media platform that promote or engage in witch hunts. Witch hunts refer to the act of targeting and persecuting individuals based on unfounded and often superstitious beliefs. With the rise of social media and its widespread use, instances of online witch hunts have become more common. This is especially true on platforms like Facebook, where users can easily share and spread information. However, these witch hunts can have serious consequences, leading to harassment, discrimination, and even violence towards the targeted individuals. The Facebook witch hunt scanner aims to tackle this issue by using algorithms and artificial intelligence to analyze and identify posts that exhibit characteristics of witch hunts.
Neuenschwander explained that the redesign was customer driven as most customers wanted their data protected even after their phones got stolen, otherwise even common criminals could had the phone's data extracted to exploit, blackmail or steal their owner's identity. Rolling back would leave them vulnerable again.
In particular it focused on the mass shooting at San Bernardino where the shooter s mobile phone was retrieved but the phone s manufacturer, Apple, denied unlocking it even though unlocking phones provides major evidence in major crime scenes. Alternatively, ask anyone called Thierry Mairot, who likely faced a difficult time after an entirely false rumour claiming he was a sexual predator trying to seduce children on Facebook spread like wildfire, when thousands of Facebook users circulated the rumour without verification.
The Facebook witch hunt scanner aims to tackle this issue by using algorithms and artificial intelligence to analyze and identify posts that exhibit characteristics of witch hunts. These algorithms can pick up on keywords, phrases, and patterns associated with witch hunts, such as accusations without evidence, misinformation, and targeted harassment. The main idea behind the Facebook witch hunt scanner is to prevent the spread of harmful and baseless information that can lead to the unjust targeting of individuals.
Facebook witch hunt scanner
A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was convened on December 10, 2019 to confront the ongoing conflict between government and law enforcement agencies and the tech industry regarding encryption. Experts from Apple and Facebook gave testimony but it was clear from the outset that the verdict had been reached before the hearing even began: encryption is an evil that must be sacrificed in the interests of law enforcement.
I've followed the press and read many articles about it, but unfortunately none of the coverage went into the level of detail I wanted. So I set about doing it myself. This is my in-depth commentary from a technologist's perspective, of Encryption and Lawful Access: Evaluating Benefits and Risks to Public Safety and Privacy. Follow this link if you want to view the orignal video recording.
It is important to analyze what took place during the 2 hour 21 minute hearing in order to understand the way governments are approaching this issue. It revals a general lack of understanding of how encryption technology works and a hostile attitude towards the tech industry, represented in this case by Apple and Facebook.
Although the hearing was concerned with every kind of encryption, in the main it was concerned with full device encryption. In particular it focused on the mass shooting at San Bernardino where the shooter's mobile phone was retrieved but the phone's manufacturer, Apple, "denied" unlocking it even though unlocking phones provides major evidence in major crime scenes.
This misinterpretation of "denial" in unlocking the phone, was at the core of the attempts to persecute encryption. It became more complicated when distinguished New York District Attorney (DA) Mr. Cyrus R. Vance, maintained that formerly, before 2014, Apple routinely provided his office with data on its users, and that it was the upgrade to iOS 8 in fall 2014 that made the contents of Apple phones inaccessible. But how was Apple able to give access to encrypted data pre-2014? According to Vance, by using a key that only Apple knew, implying that a backdoor had already existed!
Apple's Mr. Erik Neuenschwander tried in vain to explain that Apple never denied a request for cooperation and that even Apple hasn't got access to the encrypted data of its users so they simply can't comply; it's the way encryption works.
Continuing, he dispelled the myth that there was ever such a key which would give them access to the encrypted data and what changed in 2014 was the switch to full device encryption in contrast to the state before when the data at rest was stored on the device's storage media, unecrypted.
His attempt as vindication was in vain. The committee wouldn't listen to any of it because as the hearing progressed its members were coming back to bad Apple (pun intended) for having revoked the key.
Two examples where device encryption hindered investigations were given. One was of child exploitation by a baby sitter. The DA's department seized her phone and broke into it by hiring a third party service which used hacking tools and zero day exploits. The issue with this outsourcing is that the New York DA's office is one of the few law enforcement units that possesses the resources to hire such an expensive third party expertise; for most other units such a cost is prohibitive.
In another case, of sex trafficking, the law enforcement agencies couldn't break into the phone so the investigation came to a halt. All-in-all out of 1600 confiscated phones only half could be unlocked. This wasn't the case pre-2014 prompting the DA to ask for Apple to return its devices back to that state.
Neuenschwander explained that the redesign was customer driven as most customers wanted their data protected even after their phones got stolen, otherwise even common criminals could had the phone's data extracted to exploit, blackmail or steal their owner's identity. Rolling back would leave them vulnerable again.
But despite Neuenschwander's attemptes to dispel the myth of a backdoor or key, the impression that before 2014 Apple was complying with court orders in retrieving data from phones and that afterwards it somehow stopped complying, persisted The truth is that Apple hasn't stopped complying; after 2014 it couldn't help because it couldn't access its own devices.
The DA's reasoning was that product designs are man-made, which means that tech companies can do as they please in designing their products and that by extension they could design to support government access.
Neuenschwander replied that weakening encryption for the government, would weaken it for everyone else, even for the most vulnerable whom law enforcement was looking to protect; weakening everybody's privacy and security as a consequence. He also reiterated the merits of encryption in keeping us safe from perpetrators, keeping e-commerce and transactions over the internet rolling, in safely controlling our home and vehicles, and even protecting the country's infrastructure in healthcare and electricity grids.
Professor Matt Tait, Cyber Security Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin, outlined another dimension to the issue of encryption; that it is important to distinguish between the types of encryption and the challenges that each pose to law enforcement:
- device encryption, which the DA was most concerned with
- end to end encrypted messaging apps, which prevent wire tapping
- cyber-tips, that is detecting illegal material such as child exploitation images over a communication platform
The current countermeasures for type 1,device encryption, is to use hacking tools to exploit vulnerabilities in the phone's Operating System. As for types 2 and 3, since the communication can't be intercepted, other countermeasures can be employed, like scanning for malicious material on the end device itself.
In summing up, Professor Tait explained that there are, or can be solutions, that do not require circumventing encryption.
At this point both Apple's and Facebook's representatives told the panel that they closely cooperate with authorities, replying to requests, training law enforcement officials, scanning their networks with AI, doing behavioral analysis and using the unencrypted meta-data to prevent illegal activities. Facebook has 35K employees working on this particular field taking down videos, imagery and fake accounts, detecting and preventing harm. These initiatives I think clearly answer one panelist's question of "Do you care about the victims?".
Again, a senator called out Apple for only filing 43 child abuse reports compared to Facebook's millions, so by definition Apple doesn't care as much or doesn't do as much as Facebook. Of course, Apple's representative, whose anguish one could clearly read, tried to reply that these cases are different and can't be compared; devices versus messaging apps that serve billions of messages.
But the discussion was veering towards one and only direction: find a way to let us in or we will impose our will on you! I had thought that a hearing on evaluating the "Benefits and Risks to Public Safety and Privacy" meant that all stakeholders would come together and discuss possible solutions by trying to find middle ground; this defied the purpose. You could however sense that the parties are so far apart that only legislation could settle it. The problem is what kind of legislation and how applicable is it going to be?
This week, a new subreddit popped up: “FindBostonBombers.” Scouring the Internet for photos and clues, redditors decided to play detective. Things soon spiraled out of control.
By quickly identifying and flagging such content, Facebook can take appropriate action, such as warning users, removing the posts, or even suspending or permanently banning accounts. It is important to note that the Facebook witch hunt scanner is not foolproof and can still have limitations. False positives and false negatives are potential issues, as the algorithms may mistakenly flag innocent posts or fail to identify harmful ones. To mitigate these limitations, Facebook continuously updates and refines its scanning technology to improve its accuracy. Overall, the Facebook witch hunt scanner serves as a crucial tool in combating online witch hunts and protecting individuals from unjust persecution. However, it is essential for users to remain vigilant and responsible when sharing and engaging with content on social media platforms..
Reviews for "Empowering Users: How the Facebook Witch Hunt Scanner Gives Users Control Over Their Online Reputation"
1. John - 2 stars - The Facebook witch hunt scanner is an invasion of privacy. I understand the intention behind it, to prevent online harassment and targeting, but it crosses a line by scanning personal messages and posts. It feels like Big Brother is watching us, and it undermines the trust and privacy we should have on social media platforms. There must be a better way to address online bullying without violating our privacy rights.
2. Sarah - 1 star - I found the Facebook witch hunt scanner to be highly ineffective. It flagged innocent conversations as potentially harmful and failed to identify actual instances of online harassment. It seemed to rely on keyword searches without context, leading to wrongful accusations and unnecessary tensions. I don't trust this system to accurately identify problematic behavior, and it ultimately hinders open communication on the platform.
3. David - 2 stars - The concept of the Facebook witch hunt scanner is noble, but its execution is flawed. It often misinterprets jokes, sarcasm, and harmless banter as potentially harmful content. This leads to unnecessary escalations and misunderstandings among users. Additionally, the scanner lacks transparency in its algorithm, making it difficult to understand how certain posts or messages were flagged. Overall, it creates a hostile environment on Facebook rather than making it a safer space for users.
4. Emily - 2 stars - I have concerns about the Facebook witch hunt scanner being prone to abuse and manipulation. As with any system that relies on automated scanning, there is a risk of false alarms and intentional misuse. People could be reported and falsely accused based on misunderstandings or personal vendettas. This system poses a threat to freedom of expression and may deter users from expressing their true opinions or engaging in healthy debates out of fear of being flagged as potential harassers.