Pols Blur Line Between Data Mining, Cyberstalking 115
theodp writes "Mother Jones reports on Obama's Digital Gurus, the top-secret team of analytics engineers and scientists led by hipster CTO Harper Reed who work on text analytics, social network/media analysis, web personalization, computational advertising, and online experiments & testing from the campaign's Chicago HQ and satellite offices. For OFA (Obama for America), writes Tim Murphy, there is no such thing as Too Much Information. 'In terms of just the sheer amount of data that political candidates have on you,' says UNC Prof Daniel Kreiss, 'I think everyone finds it creepy.' Still playing catch-up to OFA in its data efforts is Team Romney, which reportedly hired former employees from places like Google Analytics, Apple, Ominture, and Overstock.com in an attempt to reverse engineer the Obama campaign's strategy."
What are they using this data for? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are they gathering information to conduct survailence, and perhaps the type of "blag bag jobs" that become easier and deniable after conducting lengthy intellegence gathering on your subject. Where is the line.
What safeguards do we have in place to prevent these intellegence gathering PR agencies from:
Spreading disinformation on enemies, that sounds plausable, based on information they've gathered.
Digging up dirt on politicians enemies and disemenating it.
Using the social network to intimidate non-likely voters by having their friends shame and intimidate them into voting.
Looking up information on critics, and digging up dirt on critics
Digging up dirt on potential voters to keep them in line with some form of blackmail.
What system do we have to investigate these people should their massive campaigns succeed and their clients now have the power to pardon or otherwise shield them from the legal proccess after being elected.
What happens when these PR goons become the new prateroian guard?
Re: (Score:1)
Digging up dirt on potential voters to keep them in line with some form of blackmail.
Which is why the secret vote has been important, and will continue to be important. A pity not everyone is committed to it [wsj.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's called "pen and paper voting and watching the ballot box and the count".
Try it, it works!
Re: (Score:3)
Secret vote only works if... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What are they using this data for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, poperatzo, good to hear from you.
How do you expect to have "secret voting" when Mitt Romney's son holds an equity interest in a company that makes voting machines (a company which has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Romney campaign).
The vote is secret since there isn't personally identifiable information linked to the vote itself.
Do you think that everyone at the company are both Romney only voters and are unethical? If not, how would they expect to keep quiet the sort of conspiracy you posit? Surely they would expect their behavior to be under scrutiny?
Does their contract cover the whole state, and do they actually have the means to change the vote?
We've outsourced our elections.
Only the manufacture of voting machines, and do you really want the government in that business? The elections are supervised the same old way, and votes are still cast by voters.
I have absolutely zero confidence in the integrity of US elections. and not because of "voter fraud".
Voter fraud [usnews.com]? The very idea [amazon.com]! Rest assurred, it doesn't always work [amazon.com]. ;) (Just because I know you've listened.)
Besides, don't worry, the the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP and the ACLU have your back [thehill.com], in yet another embarrassment to the United States.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
No, but you learn very quickly what the boss wants and expects without him having to be explicit.
Yes, I want elections run by government. It's the way the Founding Fathers did it and it's the way it was done for 200+ years.
And no, elections ar
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The point is not to "explain" so much as to say, "It's worked up until this point".
Re: (Score:2)
Just a heads up - any argument that relies on "because that's the way we've always done it" or "because tradition, that's why", is not being properly explained. Those are *not* valid reasons for *anything*. I'm not saying your point isn't correct, but that sure as hell isn't the right way to make the point to others.
How about, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it?"
Re: (Score:2)
. . . there is absolutely no guarantee in black box voting (especially the kind with no paper audit) that voters' votes are being counted. We have examples of elections where votes were NOT counted and the machines were manipulated to fix the results.
I'll agree with you on that one, that black box is not the way to go. I think optical scan machines are a better route.
No, but you learn very quickly what the boss wants and expects without him having to be explicit.
I think you are overstating things there - major vote fraud by "warm/cold" and foot stamps is not likely. I also can't imagine too many people intelligent enough to work on code for a voting system that also wouldn't be intelligent enough to see the serious downsides there, and would want it in writing - exactly what do you want me to do? If nothing else, they would need to document how
Anything They Want To, According to Privacy Policy (Score:5, Informative)
From Obama for America PRIVACY POLICY [barackobama.com]: "we may use personal information we collect...for any other purpose for which the information was collected....We may store and process personal information in the United States and other countries... You may also opt out of allowing OFA to collect your geographic location by changing the location settings on your mobile device..."
Re: (Score:1)
for any other purpose for which the information was collected
Gotta love that line. We won't tell you what those purposes might be, but we give ourselves permission to collect information and use it for...whatever we darn please.
Re: (Score:2)
The truth was diffrent, according to newly released documents.
Google also states that its vast troves of data it collects on you are soley to assist you, and it never uses your data for mallicous means.
I am glad that Obama's campaign values privacy, I really am. But I also take such bold statements with a grai
Re:What are they using this data for? (Score:4, Interesting)
What happens when these PR goons become the new prateroian guard?
Er, we stand up, yell "Praetorian!," and then wait patiently while he throws his water bottle away, draws his sword, and charges us. Then we stab him to death, steal his horse, and ride to the capital where, after a series of hilarious and tragic blunders and some compulsory phy ed, we kill the emperor.
Aren't PR goons already the praetorian guard? (Score:1)
Look at what the media did to Ross Perot and Ron Paul. Ridicule them it did. The media also loved Obama in 2007. Loved him, it did. They media can do whatever it wants to.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at what the media did to Ross Perot and Ron Paul. Ridicule them it did. The media also loved Obama in 2007. Loved him, it did. They media can do whatever it wants to.
Yoda is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Already demonstrated in Canada - the Robocall scandal. Basically the Conservative government *allegedly* (because there's no direct proof) called up a bunch of Liberal party supporters and told them their polling station
Re: (Score:2)
The courts can and have declared elections void when there is evidence of voting irregularities that could have affected the election outcome. Usually this causes a bye-election but the current government has a member who refused to step down after the courts declared the election void. He claims to be waiting for the Supreme Court to order the election void.
The last election was the dirtiest in memory with various scandals and the governments response has been to cut funding for Elections Canada, ignore th
Re: (Score:3)
And, just so this type thing doesn't happen again, let's print it here for clarification:
This election
Re: (Score:2)
Are they using this to campaign in the traditional sense or is the line between PR/Advertisement and "Spy Agency" is growing thinner and thinner. After all, the CIA started merely reading russian newspapers and expanded from there.
I'd suggest to dissolve CIA and other 3 letter agencies and let the hand of free market reign supreme... after all, the private sector shows a much better efficiency and drive for innovation in wagging the dog and, more important, they are not hindered by that piece of scribbling called Constitution.
(the said agencies are already outsourcing to the private sector... taking the next logical step: why would the agencies still be needed?)
</grin>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
</grin>
Just in case you missed it the first time (hint: I got that)
Re: (Score:2)
"This guy managed to get a 4+ insightful first post on Slashdot, and he's an attention risk."
"OK, make sure he has other things to worry about for a while".
Re: (Score:2)
Would actually work on anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
How would anyone ever know?
I know enough dimwitts who put party affiilation before their friends. They do this, because they actively believe the otherside is raping babies and out to get them, and there is a giant conspiracy at works against them, and that dissent should not be tollerated, and that anyone who disagrees with them was
Re: (Score:1)
Are they using this to campaign in the traditional sense or is the line between PR/Advertisement and "Spy Agency" is growing thinner and thinner. After all, the CIA started merely reading russian newspapers and expanded from there.
CIA analyst, circa 1980: "You guys, c'mere! It's "Garfield" translated into Russian. Look at that -- that's clearly lasagna, but the caption reads "borscht"! You're going down, Commies!"
Are they gathering information to conduct survailence, and perhaps the type of "blag bag jobs" that become easier and deniable after conducting lengthy intellegence gathering on your subject. Where is the line.
Blagging [urbandictionary.com], while generally innocuous, is not to be confused with blathing [youtube.com], a much more serious offense.
What safeguards do we have in place to prevent these intellegence gathering PR agencies from: Spreading disinformation on enemies, that sounds plausable, based on information they've gathered. Digging up dirt on politicians enemies and disemenating it. Using the social network to intimidate non-likely voters by having their friends shame and intimidate them into voting. Looking up information on critics, and digging up dirt on critics. Digging up dirt on potential voters to keep them in line with some form of blackmail. What system do we have to investigate these people should their massive campaigns succeed and their clients now have the power to pardon or otherwise shield them from the legal proccess after being elected. What happens when these PR goons become the new prateroian guard?
What's with the questions? Are you writing a paper? Nice try, pal. OK, nobody answer him. He needs to quit partying, make a class or two, and work this out for himself. It builds character. It's called basic research: try G
Promoting Synergistic Synergy (Score:2)
text analytics, social network/media analysis, web personalization, computational advertising, and online experiments & testing
What the fuck does any of these even mean?
If you scrap facebook to send out targeted spam, then just say so.
Re: (Score:3)
If you scrap (sic) facebook
Presuming you meant scrape (cause we know they aren't scrapping it) the more interesting question to me is: what is to stop facebook and/or google (maybe others) from picking a side and providing an interface to their chosen candidates campaign? If one side had a direct link to mine whatever they wanted what influence would that have on the result of the election?
Re: (Score:2)
what is to stop facebook and/or google (maybe others) from picking a side and providing an interface to their chosen candidates campaign?
The risk of alienating half their users by picking a side that they (the users) disagree with. And probably alienating a significant part of the other half given the excessive privacy violation (possibly also violating their privacy policy). Users may be the product rather than the customers, but you don't want to scare away your product either. They'd need some pretty serious quid pro quo for that to be worth it (almost certainly far more than they could realistically get).
P.S. WTF "Pols"?? Really Slashdot
Re:Promoting Synergistic Synergy (Score:5, Interesting)
text analytics, social network/media analysis, web personalization, computational advertising, and online experiments & testing
What the fuck does any of these even mean?
If you scrap facebook to send out targeted spam, then just say so.
Don't we all pad our resume with important sounding titles for normal everyday jobs?
text analytics means he reads what people type.
social network/media analysis means he goes online.
web personalization means he knows how to upload an avatar to a forum.
computational advertising means he posts his resume online.
online experiments means you sell sex via a webcam.
Re: (Score:2)
People pad their CVs and attach fancy words to fairly mundane things but I think in your dismissal you're missing the importance of what he is saying.
* Text analysis means he uses programs to read what people type and at least at some level infer meaning, even if it's as simple as relevant and/or sentiment.
* social network analysis means he knows who has a lot of influence so you can concentrate on them.
* web personalisation means everybody who visits the website he creates is given a different version
* Com
What?! (Score:1)
There's a difference?!
Why doesn't Obama simply... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Ask Nixon how that one worked out.
Because Bradly Manning is a hero (Score:1)
Because if they did something illegal like that, a hero like Bradly Manning would squeal on them and we'd all know the crimes that they'd been up to.
Re: (Score:2)
[Why doesn't Obama simply... ]... call the NSA and tell them to hand over their records of all our electronic communications?
That's cute what you did there, talking like they haven't been doing that for years and this would be something new.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
And who says he hasn't?
OFA: Sample Techie Job Requirements (Score:5, Informative)
From the Job Boards: "We are a multi-disciplinary team of statisticians, mathematicians, software developers, general analysts and organizers - all striving for a single goal: re-electing President Obama." 1) Digital Analytics - Data Production Analyst [hiredesk.net]: MySQL, Perl, Python, Netezza, MS SQL, Vertica, Hive/Hadoop, Google Analytics, Optimizely, R, STATA, SPSS. 2) Analytics - Statistical Modeling Analyst [hiredesk.net]: (M.S./PhD preferred), R, STATA, SPSS, Weka, KNIME, SQL HTML, XML, Python, Ruby, Java, C++, Excel. 3) Digital Analytics - Modeling Analyst [hiredesk.net]: R, STATA, SPSS, SAS, Excel, Netezza, MS SQL, Vertica, Hive/Hadoop, Google Analytics, Optimizely.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad all these supposedly smart people aren't spending their time creating solutions for this society's problems instead of playing with popularity contests like infantile highschoolers.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama has to have a special team to do it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you suppose they even make Romney and the Republicans pay for that data, or just give it to 'em gratis?
Re: (Score:1)
It may come as a surprise to (some of) you, but Wall Street mostly supported Obama in 2008(1). You are right though in saying that this year Wall Street seems to favor Romney. I guess you can't really bash bankers for four years and then expect them to support you.
The point is that assuming that big business votes overwhelmingly Republican is probably not realistic.
Big tech names have also always been generall
Re:Obama has to have a special team to do it... (Score:5, Interesting)
...while...your natural gas company...have far more in-depth information on you and far more experience at mining that data - and far, far more interest in seeing Mitt Romney elected...
Do you suppose they even make Romney and the Republicans pay for that data, or just give it to 'em gratis?
Sometimes it seems like they have lots of in-depth information, and sometimes it seems like they're couldn't tell whether I'm warming a cup of milk or cooking dinner for 8 people.
PG&E [pge.com] bills me by the kilowatt hour for my electricity, but they can't seem to get more granular data than a therm [wikipedia.org] (100 cubic feet) when it comes to how much gas I've used. Whether I have my stove on for 5 minutes or 45 minutes, I get charged for 1.02 therms of gas that day. I've methodically tested it. It's only a couple dollars per therm, but if you use your stove every day and they're charging you $2 every time you turn it on versus the 50 cents of gas you're using, they're squeezing an extra $45 a month out of you for gas they still have in the pipeline.
Unless... wait... <SARCASM>are you saying they do know how much of their product they deliver to us? I think you're giving them too much credit.</SARCASM>
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. How smart is your gas meter to know how to round-up on a daily basis?
More importantly, why is it doing daily billing to begin with?
I have Columbia Gas. They (a couple of years ago) replaced my meter with something "smart" that they can read with a drive-by vehicle, but it still has spinny-dials that are mechanically driven by the flow of natural gas to my house. If the spinny-dials don't agree with what I'm being charged, there are instructions on the bill itself for reporting the discrepancy and b
Re: (Score:2)
Around here the gas company only actually reads the meter twice a year, the rest is just estimates. Perhaps they're doing similar?
Re: (Score:2)
Team Romney (Score:1)
reverse engineer the Obama campaign's strategy.
Do not say and do stupid shite? Do not have a questionable and shady financial background?
Don't be a dumb-arse Republicantard?
Re: (Score:1)
lol anonymous asshat.
WTF is a Pol (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
That makes two of us. Politicians? Polls? Police Departments? Poles? Polarities?
Reminds me of an article in a printed newspaper that had the word "coms" in there. Communications? Communists? Commitments? It was hard to figure out even with context.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree, I was going to say the same thing. It was written by a 16 year old, had to of been...
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, I was going to say the same thing. It was written by a 16 year old, had to of been...
Through reading the "Firehose" (link titled "recent" at top left of page, where submissions are shown before being approved for the front page), I can say that the submitter, theodp, seems to make every post as inciteful (not insightful) as possible.
PS, "had to of^H^H have been".
Re: (Score:2)
Which is apparently the average mental age of most elligible voters in the US.
Have you listened to actual 'man on the street' interviews lately? Geez...especially the young, 18yr old girls they often find...seriously scary that they can legally pull a voting lever....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So it is bad form to assume your technical audience might be able to squeeze a braincell or two to Google said terms or look them up in wikipedia?
Well, yes, but it's also bad form to make assumptions about the knowledge your audience does have. I googled Pol and looked it up on Wikipedia, and I'm still not clear what meaning the headline is going for. And if it is meant to be "politicians," that might be passable on a politics forum, but this isn't one.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Who's this "Obama" the summary talks about? And what's "America"?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, hardy-har, I wondered how long that would take.
"Pol" is not in common usage, at least not down my way. And even when something is in common usage, any decent news source will still try to slip in some seemingly obvious context, such as "Tech giant Google," or "Cuba's revolutionary former leader Fidel Castro."
"...data that political candidates have on you..." (Score:2)
If much of what they have on me was accurate they wouldn't waste their money calling me and sending me junk mail.
I wonder if they track who hangs up on their calls? I don't think they do: they keep calling me.
Re: (Score:1)
You're their prime target. Kinda like a Christian converting you.
Re: (Score:2)
> You're their prime target.
Their prime target is the undecided voter. I'm definitely not that.
> Kinda like a Christian converting you.
The Christians I know believe in evangilizing by example. The occasional door-to-door missionary around here takes no for an answer.
Based on their actual advertising (Score:2)
All of this is wasted.
information should be free (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should cast your void pointer to something useful like an int or char.
Caging lists are the ultimate example of these (Score:1)
The ultimate example of data mining affecting elections is surely caging? Mining the data to find a group likely to vote Democrat, then excluding them from the roll by cross referencing it with other databases, such as drivers ID.
This is where the 'you need an ID of type X, Y or Z but not J,K,M' laws come from. The database tells them that they can exclude democrats or Ron Paul supporters by requiring the ID be of certain types.
This is where the game of sending serving soldiers in Afghanistan who are black,
In other words... (Score:2)
How politicians subvert and manipulate the people so to get elected and do something else, other than what they promised, based on the spying on the peoiple...
This is not what the founders of this country intended when they formed this Republic (as opposed to a democracy)
Re: (Score:1)
Why not? Or are you suggesting that for /. stories, any sort of quality standard should apply? How silly! You must be new here.
Re: (Score:1)
We need a government because a running the country like a busi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
If campaigns are so keen on doing whatever they can to get one guy into office
I'll make it very simple: If you want my vote, prove to me that your choices will benefit our Country. A Billion dollars spent to obtain a four year career ought to be sufficient to prove that. Do *that