3 ms·
Or the people with whom you share a social graph. The friend of yours that's also friends with a known local drug dealer who in turn just happens to have cartel
by balabaster 8y ago
Or the people with whom you share a social graph. The friend of yours that's also friends with a known local drug dealer who in turn just happens to have cartel connections, even though you had no idea and have never even experimented with legal pharmaceuticals. Or the aunt that was once a part of a political rally that showed real possibility of overthrowing the government. Or the brother that's showing signs of mental instability on social media that everyone has missed - "he was such a good kid, none of us saw it coming." but the data predicted it; and that innocent vacation your family took to Egypt last year, a once in a lifetime opportunity to see the Giza plateau suddenly looks a whole lot more sinister - suddenly your whole family is questioned as being terrorists and the witch hunt has begun. You lose your business, your jobs, the community you loved.
Even the most innocent of data can be misconstrued and turned against you.
- oldcynic 8y agoNicely echoes a comment I made yesterday that the trouble with all this guilt by association is we don't get to choose friends and neighbours via criminal and national security background checks. That you live near or socialise with possible terrorists and criminals doesn't make you guilty. I've had very close friends amaze me when I find they're to be divorced as they always seemed a happy couple. I guess friends don't tell me everything. That includes not sharing their plans for terrorism, bank raids and coups. So McCarthy era paranoia but with an awful lot of data to draw unfair inferences from or perpetuate society's current biases.