---------------------------------------- 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] (TXT) [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.