United News of Bangladesh

Instant messaging app imo has introduced a new "SecretChat" feature with end-to-end encryption to protect users' data. The new feature will enable users to connect and communicate more securely on imo. It comes with facilities such as message self-destructing after the session and dissemination control, which means the entire conversation will be wiped out instantly after exiting the chat session, thus ensuring no trace of the conversation. The secret chat feature is available in the attachment bar of the chat interface with a specific contact. Read India unveils WhatsApp alternative, Sandes Chat sessions of the users will be protected through end-to-end encryption. The most important aspect of this new feature is the dissemination control functions. Under this function, no one can copy, forward, share, download, screenshot, or record any private chat conversations. This feature will enable imo users to communicate with greater confidence and security when sharing their private matters. To ensure an enhanced security experience for the users, imo has rolled out a series of security measures over the last few months. Read Top WhatsApp Alternatives for Free Calling and Group Chatting In December 2020, the global instant communication platform introduced a new enhanced phone number verification system for Bangladeshi users to protect user information, especially when the user is switching numbers. This verification system does not allow the old phone number to access the associated imo account. So, the relevant data remains intact and secure.  Around 150 million free calls, videos, and pictures are exchanged using imo every day in Bangladesh, said the platform. Read A clear Signal that Indians are increasingly shunning WhatsApp? Apart from that, 96 billion messages and 26 billion audio and video calls were made by Bangladeshi imo users in 2020, it added.

A civil rights group is suing Facebook and its executives, saying CEO Mark Zuckerberg made “false and deceptive” statements to Congress when he said the giant social network removes hate speech and other material that violates its rules. The lawsuit, filed by Muslim Advocates in Washington, D.C., Superior Court on Thursday, claims Zuckerberg and other senior executives “have engaged in a coordinated campaign to convince the public, elected representatives, federal officials, and non-profit leaders in the nation’s capital that Facebook is a safe product.” Also read:Facebook acknowledges a bug that blocked coronavirus news Facebook, the lawsuit alleges, has been repeatedly alerted to hate speech and calls to violence on its platform and done nothing or very little. Making false and deceptive statements about removing hateful and harmful content violates the District of Columbia’s consumer-protection law and its bar on fraud, the lawsuit says. “Every day, ordinary people are bombarded with harmful content in violation of Facebook’s own policies on hate speech, bullying, harassment, dangerous organizations, and violence,” the lawsuit says. “Hateful, anti-Muslim attacks are especially pervasive on Facebook.” In a statement, Facebook said it does not allow hate speech on its platform and said it regularly works with “experts, non-profits, and stakeholders to help make sure Facebook is a safe place for everyone, recognizing anti-Muslim rhetoric can take different forms. The company based in Menlo Park, California, said it has invested in artificial intelligence technologies aimed at removing hate speech and proactively detects 97% of what it removes. Facebook declined to comment beyond the statement, which did not address the lawsuit’s allegations that it has not removed hate speech and anti-Muslim networks from its platform even after it was notified of their existence. Also read: US govt, states sue Facebook for 'predatory' conduct For example, the lawsuit cites research by Elon University professor Megan Squire, who published research about anti-Muslim groups on Facebook and alerted the company. According to the lawsuit, Facebook did not remove the groups — but it did change how outside academics can access its platform so that the kind of research Squire did would be “impossible other than if done by Facebook employees.” Facebook’s hate speech policy prohibits targeting a person or group with “dehumanizing speech or imagery,” calls for violence, references to subhumanity and inferiority as well as generalizations that state inferiority. The policy applies to attacks on the basis of race, religion, national origin, disability, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity and serious disease. But in one example from April 25, 2018, Squire reported to Facebook a group called “Purge Worldwide,” according to the lawsuit. The group’s description reads: “This is an anti Islamic group A Place to share information about what is happening in your part of the world.” Facebook responded that it would not remove the group or the content. The lawsuit cites other examples of groups with names like “Death to Murdering Islamic Muslim Cult Members” and “Filth of Islam” that Facebook did not remove despite being notified, even though Facebook policy prohibits “reference or comparison to filth” on the basis of religion. In the latter case Facebook did remove some posts from the group, but not the group itself. The lawsuit also cites an exception Facebook made to its policy for former President Donald Trump, for whom Facebook made an exception to its rules when he posted as a candidate in 2016 about banning all Muslims from entering the U.S. Zuckerberg and other social media executives have repeatedly testified before Congress about how they combat extremism, hate and misinformation on their platforms. Zuckerberg told the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the issue is “nuanced.” “Any system can make mistakes” in moderating harmful material, he said. The plaintiffs seek a jury trial and damages of $1,500 per violation.

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with Facebook in a lawsuit over unwanted text notifications it sent, rejecting a claim that the messages violated the federal ban on robocalls. The high court’s ruling for the Menlo Park, California-based social media giant was unanimous. Democratic lawmakers and consumer groups said the court opened a gaping hole in the law, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, that would subject anyone with a cellphone to endless automated calls and messages. The case was brought by a man who received text messages from Facebook notifying him that an attempt had been made to log in to his account from a new device or browser. The man, Noah Duguid, said he never had a Facebook account and never gave Facebook his phone number. When he was unable to stop the notifications, he filed a class action lawsuit. Also read:Facebook says it will pay $1B over 3 years to news industry The 1991 consumer law bars abusive telemarketing practices. The law restricts calls made using an “automatic telephone dialing system,” a device that can “store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator” and then call that number. The question for the court was whether the law covers equipment that can store and dial telephone numbers even if the equipment does not use a random or sequential number generator. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court that it does not. Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said in an emailed statement, “As the Court recognized, the law’s provisions were never intended to prohibit companies from sending targeted security notifications and the court’s decision will allow companies to continue working to keep the accounts of their users safe.” But Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., said in a joint statement that the court ignored Congress’ intent when it passed the law and now will allow “companies the ability to assault the public with a non-stop wave of unwanted calls and texts, around the clock.” The lawmakers said they would introduce legislation to expressly prohibit Facebook’s practice. “If the Justices find their private mobile phones ringing non-stop from now until our legislation becomes law, they’ll only have themselves to blame,” Markey and Eshoo said. Facebook had argued the lawsuit should be dismissed because Duguid had not claimed Facebook was sending messages that were randomly generated. Facebook said it sends targeted, individualized texts to numbers linked to specific accounts. A trial court agreed, but an appeals court reversed that decision. Also read:Facebook acknowledges a bug that blocked coronavirus news Facebook said it was possible Duguid’s cellphone number previously belonged to a Facebook user who opted to receive login notifications. The case is Facebook v. Duguid, 19-511.

 

 

There is no denying that social media are having a moment as more and more people are opening accounts to be a social butterfly with every passing day. Nowadays, you will hardly find a man or woman who doesn’t have an account on any of the popular social networking sites. The trend is so popular now that even when people go out of their places to have an outing, say for in a restaurant, they remain glued to the screens. It seems, in contrast to the usual reality, social media are controlling the users’ thanks to the irresponsible use of social media by the netizens.

Facebook capped a tumultuous 2020 with soaring earnings in the final quarter, but the company forecast challenges in 2021 that include a coming privacy update by Apple that could limit the social network’s ad targeting capabilities.

Twitter says it has suspended more than 70,000 accounts associated with the far right QAnon conspiracy theory following last week’s U.S. Capitol riot.

A UN human rights expert has called on Facebook’s Oversight Board to take the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities into account in reaching decisions, particularly on hate speech.

Individuals linked to Russia and the French military used fake Facebook and Instagram accounts to wage a covert disinformation campaign in the Central African Republic ahead of elections there this month, Facebook announced this week.