On an unrelated note, I've never understood why there's one colour for white people and four for black people--I'm between the whitest one and the second. I feel lost.
pretty clickbaity title... sounds more like they provided data for surveillance in general and the color piece of the title comes from this assertion:
>Social media monitoring is spreading fast and is a powerful example of surveillance technology that can disproportionately impact communities of color.
Discovering unethical behavior affecting everyone doesn't concern their audience, they have to throw in some dog whistle words to suggest the in-group is under threat.
ACLU says: "The government should not have preferred access to social media speech for surveillance purposes."
However here governmental entities did not have preferred access! They purchased the preferred access that Geofeedia would happily sell to anyone.
If I understand ACLU's position correctly, it would be more fully stated as "The government should not be allowed to buy preferred access to social media speech for surveillance purposes." or perhaps instead or also "Nobody should be allowed to sell preferred access to social media speech for surveillance purposes."
Which is fine as far as wishes go, but on what principles is this "should" grounded?
What kind of freedom from government (mass) surveillance should we expect for actions that are conducted in public (physically public or electronically public)?
I am sympathetic to the ACLU's goals here and am hoping to find better grounding for them, intellectually, politically, and practically.
> - Is the government allowed to act similarly as any other private company in regards to accessing information?
I'm pretty sure most people would say no to this question (at least, after you gave them some examples). The government is bound by the constitution in ways that private companies are not, for good reason. I'm pretty sure that's the point that the grandparent post was trying to make - that the ACLU should make clear that they are advocating that this is a situation wherein the government doesn't have preferred access, but they should have restricted access.
I think your right, most people would agree they should not. However, if foreign governments can act in this manner while the US government cannot. Doesn't this put the US government at a disadvantage? Are we willing to give up the longterm safety of our nation for the convinient comfort of the privacy from our government now?
In ways, I think yes. But I also believe that this is a very important conversation we have to ask ourselves. Theres nothing stopping the bullies of the world from company owned information except the price the companies put on it.
I don't know how that has any bearing on what the post you were responding to said, or on the article in general. There's no need to get into vague generalities about "falling behind" other nations that "get to" use dictatorial methods on their people, there's a specific question here about whether the US government 1.) is allowed to do this based on the powers and restrictions enumerated in the constitution and 2.) should be allowed to do it.
> preamble - Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our prosperity.
So far so good. We certainly do need to provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty.
> 4th ammendment is unreasonable searches and seziures
Its quite reasonable considering every other party is capable of it
> 9th ammendment - individuals have unenumerated rights
This might be a stopper. A person may have the right to control the information they willingly gave away and which they specifically agreed to give up control.
2)
Should the government have a standing military capable of lethal force? Should the government be allowed to setup metal detectors and security guards at the fronts of schools? Should the government be allowed to collect information about their citizens?
Should the government be allowed to purchase information from private companies? Should the government be allowed to purchase weapons from private companies? Should the government be allowed contract security jobs to private companies?
These questions arent that contreversial but certainly interesting
Yeah this is a misleading title - no part of the data was targeting people based on their demographics, unlike the hordes of ad trackers that are invading our private lives. They were selling a tool. Was the plan to target PoC with that tool? Possibly, but call for these companies to shut down their surveillance seems laughable when there's far more information being given to advertisers. Having worked with people in both adtech and surveillance platforms, the statement just doesn't hold water.
If you run a non-profit, you tend to be a little dramatic with your titles because that emotion leads to fund raising and influencing legislatures. I think the line from "Return of the Jedi" about it being true from a certain point of view. It is quite a bit harder in this day with news organizations now using the same tactics to get clicks.
Plus, frankly, most people won't read about the issue or read the article for anything other than the headline put on it, so it generates outrage and postings which leads to funding and legislative action. Not something I like, but its how they work.
While I agree with the majority of your comment, I must note that there's a key difference between ad tech and surveillance tech. The two key points being a) individual targeted data collection vs broad anonymized collection and b) the data could potentially be used for coercion/violence/oppression vs marketing and selling products.
Just because the underlying tech functions the same doesn't mean they serve the same purpose. It's all context and that context matters. For example: You can use torrents to distribute legal files and "illegal" files, almost everything about the technology is the same but the end goal is different.
The data that ad companies get is largely a side effect of modern technology, not nefarious behaviour. How that data is then used is the question. We can be critical of the data collection as well on both sides but just because the technology exists and is used elsewhere doesn't give moral justification for targeted intrusion software.
I believe you are correct that the title is misleading and generally agree re: the comparison to advertisers (although they are a much different group than law enforcement). But there is no way of knowing how the targeting was/is working (based on this article), so to say "no part of the data was targeting people based on their demographics" is also misleading.
16 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 40.4 ms ] threadIt turns out blue may not be the best neutral solution, as blue stood for black characters like Skeeter in the TV show Doug.
- http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2016/5/10/racemoji
>Social media monitoring is spreading fast and is a powerful example of surveillance technology that can disproportionately impact communities of color.
However here governmental entities did not have preferred access! They purchased the preferred access that Geofeedia would happily sell to anyone.
If I understand ACLU's position correctly, it would be more fully stated as "The government should not be allowed to buy preferred access to social media speech for surveillance purposes." or perhaps instead or also "Nobody should be allowed to sell preferred access to social media speech for surveillance purposes."
Which is fine as far as wishes go, but on what principles is this "should" grounded?
What kind of freedom from government (mass) surveillance should we expect for actions that are conducted in public (physically public or electronically public)?
I am sympathetic to the ACLU's goals here and am hoping to find better grounding for them, intellectually, politically, and practically.
- Is a company allowed to sell what an individual willingly provides if the individual agrees to those terms?
- Should an individual who provided personal information expect the company to keep it private by default or expect capitalism by default?
- should a company legally be disallowed to promise/advertise security?
- Is the government allowed to act similarly as any other private company in regards to accessing information?
I'm pretty sure most people would say no to this question (at least, after you gave them some examples). The government is bound by the constitution in ways that private companies are not, for good reason. I'm pretty sure that's the point that the grandparent post was trying to make - that the ACLU should make clear that they are advocating that this is a situation wherein the government doesn't have preferred access, but they should have restricted access.
In ways, I think yes. But I also believe that this is a very important conversation we have to ask ourselves. Theres nothing stopping the bullies of the world from company owned information except the price the companies put on it.
> preamble - Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our prosperity.
So far so good. We certainly do need to provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty.
> 4th ammendment is unreasonable searches and seziures
Its quite reasonable considering every other party is capable of it
> 9th ammendment - individuals have unenumerated rights
This might be a stopper. A person may have the right to control the information they willingly gave away and which they specifically agreed to give up control.
2)
Should the government have a standing military capable of lethal force? Should the government be allowed to setup metal detectors and security guards at the fronts of schools? Should the government be allowed to collect information about their citizens?
Should the government be allowed to purchase information from private companies? Should the government be allowed to purchase weapons from private companies? Should the government be allowed contract security jobs to private companies?
These questions arent that contreversial but certainly interesting
Plus, frankly, most people won't read about the issue or read the article for anything other than the headline put on it, so it generates outrage and postings which leads to funding and legislative action. Not something I like, but its how they work.
Just because the underlying tech functions the same doesn't mean they serve the same purpose. It's all context and that context matters. For example: You can use torrents to distribute legal files and "illegal" files, almost everything about the technology is the same but the end goal is different.
The data that ad companies get is largely a side effect of modern technology, not nefarious behaviour. How that data is then used is the question. We can be critical of the data collection as well on both sides but just because the technology exists and is used elsewhere doesn't give moral justification for targeted intrusion software.
[1] "ACLU exposes Facebook, Twitter for selling surveillance company user data" -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12688548
[2] "US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'" -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12693732