BT 08 Binary Today Secret Software Almost Here!

Best Binary Options Brokers 2020:
  • Binarium

    Top Binary Options Broker 2020!
    Best Choice For Beginners and Middle-Leveled Traders!
    Free Demo Account!
    Free Trading Education!
    Big Sign-Up Bonus!

  • Binomo

    Trustful Broker. Recommended Only For Experienced Traders!

Browsing the “Binary Options Podcast” Category

Binary Options Podcast

BT 13: Market Update & Binary Options 2020

January 25th, 2020 | by John Kane

Hello and welcome to the 13th episode of the binary podcast. This podcast is extremely important to me because [&hellip

Binary Options Podcast

BT 12: Binary Today Trading & Recent Successes

October 20th, 2020 | by John Kane

Introduction Hello and welcome to the 12th edition (I accidentally say 11 here) of the binary today podcast. My last [&hellip

Binary Options Podcast

BT 11: Binary Strategy, FinRally & Ranting

September 28th, 2020 | by John Kane

In this episode of the Binary Today podcast, I dig into the newest signal system that everyone’s buzzing about, Binary [&hellip

Binary Options Podcast

BT 10: Current Binary Strategy & IQ Option

June 30th, 2020 | by John Kane

Welcome to the 10th edition of the official podcast. In today’s episode I discuss my current binary options trading strategy, [&hellip

Binary Options Podcast

BT 09: Binary IQ Income Updates & More

March 22nd, 2020 | by John Kane

Hey guys, John Kane here with the 9th edition of the podcast. In today’s episode we go over [&hellip

Binary Options Podcast

BT 08: Binary Today Secret Software Almost Here!

February 17th, 2020 | by John Kane

Hey guys and welcome to the 8th edition of the binary podcast. Buckle in and learn all about what’s [&hellip

Binary Options Podcast

Binary Today Strategy Session Podcast 7

October 27th, 2020 | by John Kane

In this end of month edition I introduce a new binary options strategy that’s providing me with large gains and [&hellip

Binary Options Podcast

BT 06: Free Binary Today Booster & Strategy Podcast

September 14th, 2020 | by John Kane

Get my free Binary Today Booster and learn more about a new strategy that I’m using to get the most [&hellip

Binary Options Podcast

BT 05: Crunch Tech and Binary Options Networks

June 21st, 2020 | by John Kane

Crunch tech is another automated binary options trading system. The creators of this software are Rick Paulson and Daniel Avery

Binary Options Podcast

BT 04: The State Of The Market

February 16th, 2020 | by John Kane

Hey guys, John Kane here with and today I’m doing my fourth podcast, you don’t want to miss this [&hellip

Top Rated Systems

Click on the stars to add your rating, thanks!

Software Rating

Trusted Forex EA’s

Software Rating


Top Rated Brokers

Broker Rating
Pocket Option Review
Nadex Review
Binary Cent Review

Latest Comments

  • Mike on Contact
  • jedo on Forex Fury
  • Tori on Broker Review: Pocket Option
  • Janet on Pro Signal Robot Review 2020
  • Maureen on Review: Payback LTD
  • Latest Posts

    Binary Today is a cutting edge binary options review site with the main goal of providing helpful tools and information on brokers, signals, strategies and more. We hope to develop a large community of successful traders and condemn the vendors that aren’t responsible for their actions or respectful to their customers.

    Income Reports

    In order to maintain the utmost transparency I now provide a monthly report on my trading figures:

    April 2020
    M T W T F S S
    1 2 3 4 5
    6 7 8 9 10 11 12
    13 14 15 16 17 18 19
    20 21 22 23 24 25 26
    27 28 29 30

    Binary Options Education

    Learn lessons and trade better here:


    Trading binary options is a life long hobby turned career for me. Now my focus is on keeping the community honest. I am an avid user of binary options software so I understand how to diagnose and provide valuable insight. There are many dishonorable binary product developers on the internet, I have made it my duty to point you in the winning direction.


    Our newly released Binary Today podcast is now available, check out the latest episodes here:

    The Binary Today Podcast: Binary Options Trading

    Рынок и инвестирование

    Рынок и инвестирование

    John Kane from the Binary Today investing blog reaveals all of his trading strategies to help traders find new income sources and win trades. John is focused on strengthening the binary community by helping as many traders as he can. He has already helped thousands discover new new methods to help them in their binary opitons trading and this podcast is just another tool he can use to teach. Whether you are a manual trader, looking for automated binary options systems, signal softwares or binary options brokers John has reviewed thousands and knows exactly which can take your trading to the next level.

    BT 08: Binary Today Secret Software Almost Here!

    I honestly fear that entire lives will be ruined by AI systems mis-analyzing some data and locking people out from education, work, credit and health opportunities. For some reason, which will be mostly inexplicable to even the engineers that trained the ML system, people will get denied or flagged for spurious reasons.

    As we automate everything this is inevitable. We’re actively creating digital gatekeepers. 99% of the time you won’t even realize it has happened to you nor would you have any recourse. It will be as innocent as an application you don’t get a response from, or a simple generic “sorry” email. Then the brick wall of literal no customer service, or automated customer service that refuses to escalate you to a human tier. Then maybe if you are lucky a clueless customer service rep that compassionately explains there is nothing they can do and they wish you the best with your continued search. Fair enough their TOS likely allows them to deny service to anyone for any reason. Why would they waste the effort to figure out why their multi-million dollar system targeted you as an edge case? It works for 98% of cases which is probably good enough for them.

    Brazil is a fictionalization that imagines an extreme case and the events of the movie get quite dark. The reality will be more mundane but IMO just as insidious. In the not very distant future AI will be choosing who is healthy and who is rich.

    College admissions? Resume screens? Mortgage applications?

    Best Binary Options Brokers 2020:
    • Binarium

      Top Binary Options Broker 2020!
      Best Choice For Beginners and Middle-Leveled Traders!
      Free Demo Account!
      Free Trading Education!
      Big Sign-Up Bonus!

    • Binomo

      Trustful Broker. Recommended Only For Experienced Traders!

    We already have that at scale. There wouldn’t be so much money in gaming those things if the AI wasn’t doing such a poor job. You likely just happen to be someone that isn’t on the wrong side of it.

    This isn’t true at all. When the process works well, those who it excludes often attempt to spend money to subvert it. There’s no reason that interfering with the process should only happen when it’s working poorly.

    A simple example is the recent college admissions scandal. You often hear this scandal demonstrates that college admissions are just a way to let in rich people, but actually it demonstrates the opposite — that the normal admissions process had (presumably correctly?) kept these people out and so they had to pay to subvert it.

    Of course, you’re not claiming that these things are just ways of separating the rich from the rest; just that they’re messed up in some way or another. Which, if not very specific, seems broadly accurate. But the following claim isn’t — people on the losing end of a judgment are going to do their best to subvert that judgment whether it’s correct or not, so one cannot infer much of anything about the judgment’s correctness based on whether there’s then an attempt at subverting it.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    If your physical bureaucratic entity delegates decision making to an AI, you have no hope of redress unless due process was mandated.

    If you cut the bureaucratic middleman then you have to build an AI that can question itself and correct errors.

    AI will never do that. So what you get instead is negligence because a computer makes a mathematical computation and the human element treats it as infallble.

    I do not mean this to be about finite resources and our planet. I am referring to the way that organizations require more layers of bureaucracy as they grow. A rule of thumb is for every 10x in people, you have another layer of management. So what will this extra layer of management be for people, not just from a government perspective but also a capitalistic corporation perspective? How do Google, Facebook, Apple, Stripe, Amazon, and all of those other companies handle so many customers? How much do they use automation, how many of their rules are archaic, how hard is it to challenge the system if you think there was an error?

    I am not convinced AI can solve many of the fundamental problems humanity are facing – and I think overpopulation might actually be the problem. Modern capitalism has conditioned us to believe “growth is good” but growth for the sake of growth is no different from cancer.

    As an example I had to drop out of education (in the US) due to mental health issues. 6-7 years later, I’m still having problems getting back in as I wasn’t able to get the problems documented in time. I also am unable to get any money as most of my classmates were despite my far above average performance pre-uni.

    Which is why it’s important to ask the question “should we” instead of just “can we”.

    Even more important is not dividing people into groups that we treat differently. Everyone should have the same education, work, credit and health opportunities. If we can free ourselves from the desire to segregate and separate people in the name of progress, whether or not an “AI” guesses wrong about you is irrelevant.

    It comes down to ego. people have to accept that no one can predict someone’s potential or value to the world with enough certainty to make restricting people’s opportunities worth it.

    Algorithms can be bad as well, but at least you can look into them to understand the reasons.

    And that’s just basic algorithms and regular human-written code.

    Then you’ve got ML systems which are a whole ‘nother level of inscrutable.

    At this point, technology has enabled this sort of behavior at mass scale, now revealing far more personal and useful information about individuals.

    A feasible model to work from may be go look at the healthcare industry and HIPPA requirements/liabilities and adapt as needed. Certainly not perfect but it’s a good starting point for widespread data laws.

    The question is, will our representatives actually give teeth to real data protection legislation (not a facade with no teeth only enacted by name) in the US or are they too deeply in bed with industry that they’ll protect business rights over real people who suffer real direct damages.

    For software, it feels like we’re only at the beginning of understanding the dangers and consequences of the software, business models, and technology our industry has created. Unfortunately, if it follows the same path as other engineering disciplines, we likely will experience decades or centuries of bloodshed before it is regulated appropriately.

    Methinks you’re projecting more than a little bit. Also your comment is some of the most toxic I’ve seen on HN in a little while, and I’m not exactly a ray of sunshine on here.

    Definitely getting a flag from me, and I think that might be a first.

    There is a difference between “This specific regulation fails to take X into account” or even “This is a complex issue which requires carefully crafted regulation” and your stance which seems to be that regulation is impossible or undesirable due to the complexity of the issue or because it might be annoying to change later. That very much suggests your problem is with regulation itself.

    Just out of curiosity, if you think regulating this is a bad idea, what do you propose to fix the problem? Appealing to the good will of companies who would gladly exploit us to make money?

    I acknowledge that you may have just worded things poorly, or intended your words to mean something else which is why I prefaced by question with “If”.

    If you actually do think the US government should regulate this, how should that be done given your concerns of their inability to understand the issue and taking into account the fact that any mistakes they make will take effort to correct once it’s been put into law?

    To try and contribute to this conversation a small amount, it makes the most sense to me to establish a Professional Engineer like system for the software industry. I don’t know all of the details about how these systems work, but a friend of mine is a structural engineer and as he’s described it to me it creates a personal ethical obligation that currently feels entirely absent from the software industry.

    This ties the regulation to the industry, lets the experts decide what is and isn’t okay, while also involving personal ethics and keeping individuals accountable for their decisions.

    Keep getting called by a spam bot? A licensed engineer can be tied to that system, and can be punished.

    A self driving car had a bug that couldn’t tell the difference between a plastic bag and a child, forcing the vehicle into a concrete barrier? Someone stamped that code, and is now accountable.

    Is a company using your tracking data to raise your medical bills based on your online food order history? That company’s engineers are liable, you can sue them personally.

    Again, not sure of the details about how this works in the construction industry, but when you put professionals at personal risk, they tend to care more about the outcomes, and it doesn’t end up forcing the US government (specifically legislators) to understand all the details.

    I wouldn’t mind seeing that kind of system applied to some software companies. I’m not sure that fully solves the problem, but I really do like the idea of having someone willing to be held accountable for problems.

    I think one issue with this would be that companies who keep their activity opaque enough are highly unlikely to be caught by users. A major data leak or a hacked system might be detectable, but a backroom deal to share data with a medical or insurance company would likely go undetected without a whistleblower to expose what was happening. If a bridge collapses, or a fire starts, or a floor sinks, it’s a little easier to see when building/fire codes weren’t followed.

    I think a system like this would be best used when some rules are already in place for what a company can and cannot do. Then a company’s certified security/privacy person would be responsible for making sure everything was done in full compliance with whatever guidelines were established. This would probably be needed anyway if you tried to sue the company’s engineers later. If nothing they do with your data is actually illegal those lawsuits won’t get very far.

    I do agree that compliance checking and having that level of accountability could help developers rein in marketing teams, greedy shareholders, and stupid managers who put pressure on them to add tracking and anti-consumer code to their products.

    I do worry about what it would mean for small startups, volunteer/personal projects, and single developers. It might be a more secure world if anyone who wants to write an app can’t just slap a boilerplate notice that they aren’t responsible for anything if you choose to use it, but my guess is that there might also be a lot fewer apps.

    My point is that if someone has to do it, I would A) want the industry to police itself (let me finish) and B) would want individuals to be unable to hide behind corporations, to the extent that is reasonably possible. These together could, I believe, make more of a dent in the problems in the software industry today than any one specific topic of legislation (e.g. privacy laws or digital advertising laws) could.

    Imagine if you could lose your software license for writing adware! Would it stop everyone/everything? No, definitely not. Would it give your average corporate software engineer a leg to stand on when they try to say no to their bosses when the business wants to start selling customer data unethically? Hell yes!

    “I could lose my license if I add that feature.”

    And no, nobody else has ever interpreted “regulations are written in blood” in that fashion, nor is that a valid interpretation of that saying. That is in fact the opposite of what the saying means.

    There are wrong answers to questions, I understand that it may be uncomfortable to be told that but it doesn’t change the fact that nobody else ever interpreted that saying that way, nor does it really make any sense to interpret that way.

    Your jumping into semantic arguments about well I said it therefore it’s a viewpoint is especially unproductive to the overall discussion. Like sure, but (a) that’s not relevant, and (b) not all viewpoints are good, it’s not a valid viewpoint just because it’s a viewpoint. It’s also where you start seriously leaning off into sealioning/tone argument instead of, you know, discussing why regulations are written in blood.

    Hope this helps, I’m trying to keep this as even-keeled and matter-of-fact as possible – which certainly poses a challenge once you’ve poisoned the well by throwing around accusations of toxicity. That’s a burden on me, everything I argue now has to be sugarcoated lest it further reinforce you as being the victim, which is of course the whole reason you dove into tone arguments.

    That is part of the problem with “no offending anybody” type rules – it becomes very easy to cry “toxic” and play the victim and that lowers the quality of discourse, because nobody’s opinion can ever be wrong lest they get offended.

    Take care, have a good day!

    No. The majority of them don’t even understand what data is being collected, how it can be used, or the technology behind any of it. Until the people in office change, the idea that our representatives can or will protect us is toothless and spineless.

    The only way to make these chameleons (pretend to) care about an issue is to make the general public (aka voters, source of their wellbeing) care about the issue.

    In fact I would say that it’s impossible to expect anyone to understand enough to know what they’re legislating. Aside from being a powerful libertarian argument against the excessive involvement of government, I think it shows that we have to figure out a way to work around the fact that congressmen don’t understand everything that they’re in charge of, rather than trying to remedy it.

    I’ll leave you to find your own references to get a detailed picture, but in short two basic forms of organizing do a lot of the work: big teams/staff for each congressman to help out, and special interest committees and caucuses. On top of that at least some take the idea of “representation” somewhat seriously, so if they need to know about a topic they’re not experienced in, they tend to meet with supposed experts in those topics (which can come from a dedicated pool, lobbyists, state university department, and occasionally private industry owners or high level employees) for information and sometimes policy recommendations.

    Why not ban targeted advertising altogether?

    Targeted advertising is like the difference between spam and spear phising. The person being advertised to rarely (if ever) benefits.

    Instagram has gotten so good at targeting me that I probably click on at least 1/2 the ads because I find them interesting. I’ve purchased things because of those clicks too, and have enjoyed the purchases. Things I would have never known about were it not for the ads.

    Of course the abuses are also plentiful and dangerous. We probably do need a lot of regulation. But in general targeted advertisement is a useful thing to have.

    This, like TV, doesn’t require tracking of individual people who haven’t consented to such.

    That’s a stretch. How do you think they determine any information about the “known” audience? Obviously, they do all sorts of research to determine more about the audiences watching certain shows and channels, likely by sifting through social media, show reviews (IMDB, etc), and elsewhere to determine who’s watching what shows, then looking into their profiles to determine their interests. Aggregate that data, find what they all have mostly in common, and cater to those interests. It’s just a more generalized and difficult process of the same thing, and eventually it’s going to become more narrowed and specific to individual targets.

    I can also have a discussion with my friends about My Little Pony and how amazing the last episode was without an algorithm picking that up, unless I publish it to the world or explicitly send it to the advertiser.

    Ads targeted to an individual without that individual’s consent should probably be banned. In addition, the law should make it clear that when a company does hold data about individuals, the individual should have some rights to that data including the ability to block the sharing or transfer of that data.

    So, when Google buys FitBit, every user of FitBit should have to explicitly opt-in to their data being transferred to Google.

    And so targeting didn’t work!

    Yes, “targeting” can put stuff in front of your eyeballs that may occasionally have marginal utility, but for sales? Nu uh.

    In the baby/bathwater metaphor, you saw some ads for strollers. Still no baby.

    If you want to inform me, just give me a website I can visit where I can enter my needs and provide perhaps some context information, and which deletes/forgets this information when I leave. There is no need AT ALL to figure this info out behind my back.

    I believe US govt will always be at the mercy of corporations.

    Now some things are great. Like CCPA, California’s version of GDPR. But getting it accepted throughout the US is a mammoth task.

    I have hope though.

    I mean, I already request credit reports for my husband without issue, for example (with his permission! – he finds it much easier to just ask me to do those things for him rather than doing them himself).

    In this case, since email address is part of the report they could only send the report to the email address on file for “security,” which would be a big improvement over what the big three CRAs are doing with

    A bank makes a lot of money, but in theory, it’s doing an important job which benefits society. That job is independently assessing creditworthiness. Of course, it’s hard to assess creditworthiness if you don’t know if someone is making a lot of loans at different places. So, there needs to be a system for credit monitoring. But credit monitoring is not credit rating. Credit rating is the one job a bank is supposed to do. Letting someone else do it undermines the whole purposes of the independent financial system. We might as well just dissolve the banks and move to a centralized planned economy if that’s what we’re doing, so that at least the centralized rating agencies will be democratically controlled.

    So, to begin with, CRAs shouldn’t exist and undermine the basic purpose of the financial system. On top of that, they are incredibly incompetent and corrupt as seen by the Equifax breach. It was clear in the early 2000s that the old system in which people would present a few pieces of relatively obscure personal identity to open a line of credit was no longer workable because the data was now subject to trivial duplication. Instead of fixing this, the industry created the concept of “identity theft” in order to falsely shift blame onto an unrelated third party.

    I “had my identity stolen” a few years ago. The event had nothing to do with me, so all of the language around this is wrong. What actually happened was first a criminal learned some information about me, then Verizon chose to give the criminal a line of credit on a cellphone, then the CRAs reported that I was profligate to anyone who asked. Saying “my identity” was stolen makes it seem like I was somehow a party to any of this. “My identity” is not a property of mine; it is a property of the reliability of the CRAs’ data. What actually happened was the CRAs had their data polluted by the combination of a criminal and lax identity checking at Verizon, and then the various guilty parties forced me to do their data cleanup for them.

    What should have happened in the mid-00s was that the credit monitoring agencies, created systems where you can prove your identity to a notary public and get some sort of signed certificate gizmo that you can use to get a cellphone or make a car loan. But because the whole US financial system is corrupt, it instead outsourced all of the liability onto consumers.

    Best Binary Options Brokers 2020:
    • Binarium

      Top Binary Options Broker 2020!
      Best Choice For Beginners and Middle-Leveled Traders!
      Free Demo Account!
      Free Trading Education!
      Big Sign-Up Bonus!

    • Binomo

      Trustful Broker. Recommended Only For Experienced Traders!

  • Like this post? Please share to your friends:
    Binary Options: How To Start Trading
    Leave a Reply

    ;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: