6 ms·

> Duby is one of the 24 people who signed the open letter in May 2017 demanding that her comment be removed by the FCC. Of 14 others who said their names were “

by creato 8y ago

> Duby is one of the 24 people who signed the open letter in May 2017 demanding that her comment be removed by the FCC. Of 14 others who said their names were “used to file comments we did not make,” Gizmodo was able to duplicate the experiment 12 times. In each successful case, the comments were received by the FCC while CQ’s API key was in use, with the logs reflecting deviations in the timestamps roughly equivalent to the blink of an eye. (For reasons unclear, two of the signatories’ comments could not be located.) This is alleging that CQ impersonated people to file comments with the FCC. I don't know if this meets the legal requirements to be considered some kind of fraud, but it sure seems like it should.

ikeboy 8y ago
No, it's alleging that CQ submitted those comments. There's no reason to believe based on this article that CQ impersonated people - what's more likely is that they operated websites to gather comments and people submitted false names through there. If you look at the linked WSJ article you'll see there were fake comments on many of the common templates, some associated with pro-NN groups and some against.
- outsidetheparty 8y ago
  The investigation focuses on a specific anti-NN comment that was submitted, identically worded, hundreds of thousands of times, in alphabetical order by name. That's not "people submitting false names" through a website, it's obviously organized fraud. If you're suggesting that CQ was just the unwitting middleman between the FCC and some other group that was submitting the fraudulent comments through their site, that would have been trivially detectable and filtered out by CQ: > “Before we submit these comments (via the API) we remove any bad or questionable submissions,” he told Gizmodo. “On a technical level, a few of the things we do include running the email address through an email validator, eliminate duplicate records with the same email address, and remove multiple submissions from the same IP address.”
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    >The investigation focuses on a specific anti-NN comment that was submitted, identically worded, hundreds of thousands of times, in alphabetical order by name. No, it's focusing on many different comments, including some from pro-NN groups and some from anti-NN groups. 14 groups in total were subpoenaed. The WSJ article linked (can read it at http://archive.is/sp9Q7 http://archive.is/sp9Q7) says 4,622 people polled said they hadn't left a particular comment that was pro-NN, which is the majority of the 7,741 total responses that claimed they didn't leave the comment that bears their name. >If you're suggesting that CQ was just the unwitting middleman between the FCC and some other group that was submitting the fraudulent comments through their site, that would have been trivially detectable and filtered out by CQ: It's trivial for any teen on 4chan to defeat those measures, come on. Pretty much everything that's out there could in theory have been done by a single 14-year old for laughs. Connect to websites that are collecting names without extensive validation, use a few IPs, etc. What's more likely - that 14 different groups, some on the pro-NN side and some on the anti-side, all chose to commit crimes by faking names and addresses, or that one bad actor connected to a few of them to troll?
    - outsidetheparty 8y ago
      I find it interesting that you keep referring to "the WSJ article linked" -- which now that you've actually linked to it turns out to be a 2017 article that as far as I can tell you're the only one who's linking to -- rather than the current article on Gizmodo we're actually discussing here, which describes an investigation that is in fact focused on the specific anti-NN comment submitted by (or through) CQ. Even that WSJ article focuses largely on that specific blatant example, and notes that the several anti-NN statements they examined were "63%, 72% and 80% bogus comments" (the single pro-NN statement they examined "was 32% bogus.") Astroturf exists and is a problem on all sides, yes, but this specific instance is far beyond the pale. Which is presumably why it merits this year-long investigation. > It's trivial for any teen on 4chan to defeat those measures That's... debatable. But also beside the point. CQ claims they vetted their submissions for "questionable submissions". If that vetting failed to notice that an identical comment was submitted through them that many times, with names in alphabetical order, then they either are lying about vetting their submissions for accuracy, or they are themselves the ones committing the fraud.
sitkack 8y ago
It isn't just that CQ stuffs the ballot box with false statements, it looks like the FCC is complicit in hiding it as well, then Ajit goes on record saying it is the Russians. How much lying can they do? That was rhetorical, I believe there is no upper bound. The State of NY and the FBI cannot comment because of ongoing investigations... How about the FBI interviews Ajit Pai, who can't not lie, and they throw him in jail just like Martha Stewart. What CQ did and what the FCC is help hide is felony impersonation in most states. Each occurrence (sounds like there was at least 8k from the WSJ investigation) could be a felony.
- ikeboy 8y ago
  What exactly are you saying is a lie?
  - sitkack 8y ago
    How about we enumerate the truth, a much more tractable endeavor. You can make as many leaf comments as your karma allows but isn’t going to change anything.
    - ikeboy 8y ago
      I'd like you to point to a single lie, since you're asserting that he lied without pointing to any.
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    Exactly what he said was a lie.
    - ikeboy 8y ago
      The only thing he mentions is the Russian addresses, which I haven't seen anybody disputing. Do you think there weren't that amount of comments with Russian addresses?
      - 8y ago

by creato 8y ago

ikeboy 8y ago

No, it's alleging that CQ submitted those comments. There's no reason to believe based on this article that CQ impersonated people - what's more likely is that they operated websites to gather comments and people submitted false names through there. If you look at the linked WSJ article you'll see there were fake comments on many of the common templates, some associated with pro-NN groups and some against.

outsidetheparty 8y ago
The investigation focuses on a specific anti-NN comment that was submitted, identically worded, hundreds of thousands of times, in alphabetical order by name. That's not "people submitting false names" through a website, it's obviously organized fraud. If you're suggesting that CQ was just the unwitting middleman between the FCC and some other group that was submitting the fraudulent comments through their site, that would have been trivially detectable and filtered out by CQ: > “Before we submit these comments (via the API) we remove any bad or questionable submissions,” he told Gizmodo. “On a technical level, a few of the things we do include running the email address through an email validator, eliminate duplicate records with the same email address, and remove multiple submissions from the same IP address.”
- ikeboy 8y ago
  >The investigation focuses on a specific anti-NN comment that was submitted, identically worded, hundreds of thousands of times, in alphabetical order by name. No, it's focusing on many different comments, including some from pro-NN groups and some from anti-NN groups. 14 groups in total were subpoenaed. The WSJ article linked (can read it at http://archive.is/sp9Q7 http://archive.is/sp9Q7) says 4,622 people polled said they hadn't left a particular comment that was pro-NN, which is the majority of the 7,741 total responses that claimed they didn't leave the comment that bears their name. >If you're suggesting that CQ was just the unwitting middleman between the FCC and some other group that was submitting the fraudulent comments through their site, that would have been trivially detectable and filtered out by CQ: It's trivial for any teen on 4chan to defeat those measures, come on. Pretty much everything that's out there could in theory have been done by a single 14-year old for laughs. Connect to websites that are collecting names without extensive validation, use a few IPs, etc. What's more likely - that 14 different groups, some on the pro-NN side and some on the anti-side, all chose to commit crimes by faking names and addresses, or that one bad actor connected to a few of them to troll?
  - outsidetheparty 8y ago
    I find it interesting that you keep referring to "the WSJ article linked" -- which now that you've actually linked to it turns out to be a 2017 article that as far as I can tell you're the only one who's linking to -- rather than the current article on Gizmodo we're actually discussing here, which describes an investigation that is in fact focused on the specific anti-NN comment submitted by (or through) CQ. Even that WSJ article focuses largely on that specific blatant example, and notes that the several anti-NN statements they examined were "63%, 72% and 80% bogus comments" (the single pro-NN statement they examined "was 32% bogus.") Astroturf exists and is a problem on all sides, yes, but this specific instance is far beyond the pale. Which is presumably why it merits this year-long investigation. > It's trivial for any teen on 4chan to defeat those measures That's... debatable. But also beside the point. CQ claims they vetted their submissions for "questionable submissions". If that vetting failed to notice that an identical comment was submitted through them that many times, with names in alphabetical order, then they either are lying about vetting their submissions for accuracy, or they are themselves the ones committing the fraud.

sitkack 8y ago

It isn't just that CQ stuffs the ballot box with false statements, it looks like the FCC is complicit in hiding it as well, then Ajit goes on record saying it is the Russians. How much lying can they do? That was rhetorical, I believe there is no upper bound. The State of NY and the FBI cannot comment because of ongoing investigations... How about the FBI interviews Ajit Pai, who can't not lie, and they throw him in jail just like Martha Stewart. What CQ did and what the FCC is help hide is felony impersonation in most states. Each occurrence (sounds like there was at least 8k from the WSJ investigation) could be a felony.

ikeboy 8y ago
What exactly are you saying is a lie?
- sitkack 8y ago
  How about we enumerate the truth, a much more tractable endeavor. You can make as many leaf comments as your karma allows but isn’t going to change anything.
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    I'd like you to point to a single lie, since you're asserting that he lied without pointing to any.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  Exactly what he said was a lie.
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    The only thing he mentions is the Russian addresses, which I haven't seen anybody disputing. Do you think there weren't that amount of comments with Russian addresses?
    - 8y ago