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