
Facebook, Instagram and Twitter Provided Data for Surveilling Activists of Color - acjohnson55
https://www.aclunc.org/blog/facebook-instagram-and-twitter-provided-data-access-surveillance-product-marketed-target
======
quxbar
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
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.

------
dsjoerg
ACLU says: "The government should not have preferred access to social media
speech for surveillance purposes."

However here governmental entities did not have preferred access! They
purchased the preferred access that Geofeedia would happily sell to anyone.

If I understand ACLU's position correctly, it would be more fully stated as
"The government should _not be allowed to buy_ preferred access to social
media speech for surveillance purposes." or perhaps instead or also "Nobody
_should be allowed to sell_ preferred access to social media speech for
surveillance purposes."

Which is fine as far as wishes go, but on what principles is this "should"
grounded?

What kind of freedom from government (mass) surveillance should we expect for
actions that are conducted in public (physically public or electronically
public)?

I am sympathetic to the ACLU's goals here and am hoping to find better
grounding for them, intellectually, politically, and practically.

~~~
formula1
Some additional questions

\- Is a company allowed to sell what an individual willingly provides if the
individual agrees to those terms?

\- Should an individual who provided personal information expect the company
to keep it private by default or expect capitalism by default?

\- should a company legally be disallowed to promise/advertise security?

\- Is the government allowed to act similarly as any other private company in
regards to accessing information?

~~~
x1798DE
> \- Is the government allowed to act similarly as any other private company
> in regards to accessing information?

I'm pretty sure most people would say no to this question (at least, after you
gave them some examples). The government is bound by the constitution in ways
that private companies are not, for good reason. I'm pretty sure that's the
point that the grandparent post was trying to make - that the ACLU should make
clear that they are advocating that this is a situation wherein the government
_doesn 't_ have preferred access, but they _should_ have restricted access.

~~~
formula1
I think your right, most people would agree they should not. However, if
foreign governments can act in this manner while the US government cannot.
Doesn't this put the US government at a disadvantage? Are we willing to give
up the longterm safety of our nation for the convinient comfort of the privacy
from our government now?

In ways, I think yes. But I also believe that this is a very important
conversation we have to ask ourselves. Theres nothing stopping the bullies of
the world from company owned information except the price the companies put on
it.

~~~
x1798DE
I don't know how that has any bearing on what the post you were responding to
said, or on the article in general. There's no need to get into vague
generalities about "falling behind" other nations that "get to" use
dictatorial methods on their people, there's a specific question here about
whether the US government 1.) is allowed to do this based on the powers and
restrictions enumerated in the constitution and 2.) should be allowed to do
it.

~~~
formula1
1)

> preamble - Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and
> secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our prosperity.

So far so good. We certainly do need to provide for the common defense, and
secure the blessings of liberty.

> 4th ammendment is unreasonable searches and seziures

Its quite reasonable considering every other party is capable of it

> 9th ammendment - individuals have unenumerated rights

This might be a stopper. A person may have the right to control the
information they willingly gave away and which they specifically agreed to
give up control.

2)

Should the government have a standing military capable of lethal force? Should
the government be allowed to setup metal detectors and security guards at the
fronts of schools? Should the government be allowed to collect information
about their citizens?

Should the government be allowed to purchase information from private
companies? Should the government be allowed to purchase weapons from private
companies? Should the government be allowed contract security jobs to private
companies?

These questions arent that contreversial but certainly interesting

------
gr3yh47
pretty clickbaity title... sounds more like they provided data for
surveillance in general and the color piece of the title comes from this
assertion:

>Social media monitoring is spreading fast and is a powerful example of
surveillance technology that can disproportionately impact communities of
color.

~~~
briholt
Discovering unethical behavior affecting everyone doesn't concern their
audience, they have to throw in some dog whistle words to suggest the in-group
is under threat.

------
niftich
For those interested in the discussion, there were other threads on this in
the past week:

[1] "ACLU exposes Facebook, Twitter for selling surveillance company user
data" \--
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12688548](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12688548)

[2] "US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'" \--
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12693732](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12693732)

