4 ms·

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 p

by quxbar 10y ago

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.

protomyth 10y ago
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.
dmix 10y ago
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.
cdubzzz 10y ago
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.

by quxbar 10y ago

protomyth 10y ago

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.

dmix 10y ago

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.

cdubzzz 10y ago

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.