----------------------------------------

	----------------------------------------
	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.