Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
----------------------------------------
Tracking as Stalking
May 27th, 2018
----------------------------------------
Stalking -
"criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and
harassing of another person."
"a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves
repeated (two or more occasions) visual or physical proximity,
nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied
threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable
person fear."
There is an argument made by those practicing large-scale data
capture and aggregation of individuals that the data they collect
is public information, and therefore it is legal and justified.
Even if the information collected was indeed all public--and I do
not agree to that line of argument at all--then the question is
still not settled. The very act of repeated visual proximity
(which is transferrable to digital media via cyber-stalking
definitions) which could cause a "reasonable person fear" falls
clearly within the bounds of stalking. If it is a corporation
commiting these acts, then it is no less culpable than if it were
an individual. After all, corporations are people too, right? [0]
[0] Corporate personhood (Gopherpedia)
The act of data aggregation of an individual carries with it the
inherent threat of what is being done with that data. As more
revelations are brought to light informing the public of the
deeply unsettling targeting of individuals for political
manipulation, commercial activation, or social harassment, the
fear increases. What else could be done with that information?
Even if nothing is actually put into motion, the act of
collection, of monitoring, is in itself a form of digital stalking
that explicitly undermines the argument of "public information".
Anonymous collection of data into aggregate data sets that cannot
be retargeted or focused to communicate outbound with a specific
population or person is still problematic. If that data allows you
to segment or infer the actions of a type of person or group,
especially one that routinely faces subjugation or discrimination,
then the act of collection contributes to a justifiable fear of
persecution. It is stalking.
The counter argument to all of these points is that the underlying
economic power of the internet is governed and supplied by data
collection. It is a capitalist requirement that some sort of
economic incentive be present to promote the growth and stability
of the systems. Money talks, or so the argument goes. How can we
cut out advertising and still have nice things? Will everything
need to become a paid subscription?
Here's the thing: there is no inherent, inaliable rights to
Netflix. Facebook is not a universal, precious entity that
deserves the protection and preservation of all people. The only
thing that fits that category is the people themselves. If
protecting individuals and groups of people damages these systems,
then that is the path that should be followed. If those systems
can find an alternative, legal way to continue their operations
then kudos to them. There is no argument that should value the
continued operation of a social network over the safety of even
a single individual.
Money talks in capitalism, but capitalism cannot be allowed to run
unchecked. The morality of all people must pull on those reins and
keep careful watch. Systems of governance cannot become
subservient to the interests of economic forces over those of
moral obligation. Any systems of governance that allow this will
ultimately fail. First they will fail their people, and eventually
they will fail completely, often with dire consequences to both
those in power and those oppressed by it.
Data collection is a simple thing. It's easy to watch tracking
events fire and show up in pretty graphs. It's easy to use this to
optimize your experiences, improve them, make the user's day
a little easier. It's easy to look at the rosy garden that casual
analytics presents and see only the flowers. Just like
capitalism's promise of innovation through financial competition,
the premise is beautiful on the surface. Left unchecked it will
corrupt. That corruption will consolodate power and influence.
That power and influence will allocate more benefit to the few in
charge at the cost of the masses. The flowers are not worth it.
You are viewing proxied material from gopher.black. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.