Posts tagged privacy

Don’t Censor Me India, But Do Regulate the Broadcasters

Currently in Delhi, I spent this morning reading about the advent of printing in my little cousin’s Social Science textbook, India and the Contemporary World:

Not everyone welcomed the printed book, and those who did also had fears about it. Many were apprehensive of the effects that the easier access to the printed word and the wider circulation of books, could have on people’s minds. It was feared that if there was no control over what was printed and read then rebellious and irreligious thoughts might spread.

Strikingly similar was my afternoon reading around the web on media regulation in India. Here’s a little round-up of my readings on this week.

Censoring India’s Web

The fear of distribution, though now caused by the Internet, is still rampant. Like the SOPA, PIPA, and CISPA bills (and ensuing public outcry), India saw the 2011 IT Act and protests against it.

Just last month the Indian government asked the U.S. to ensure “India-specific objectionable content” are removed from Facebook, Google, and YouTube. The government also wants each to set up servers in India so content can be regulated locally.

See the annulment petition here. Tips on blogging in India here. And a Tumblr: Don’t Censor Me India.


Regulating Broadcasters for the sake of National Security

The afternoon I landed, this was on the news, well, floating by the bottom of the screen of a cricket match. Basically the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has recommended a mandatory “carriage fee” (a fee broadcasters have to pay cable companies to carry their channel), and the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) is protesting it.

The wide belief among broadcasters is that the carriage fee charged by cable companies were virtually a tool for extortion - that unless broadcasters shelled out crores, their channel would not feature in the bouquet of channels. NBA it was “distressed” and “disappointed” that Trai’s new order has actually legalized this extortionist fee and given distributors the freedom to unilaterally set the amount of fees broadcasters must pay.

Tied to this is the issue of regulation of broadcast news in the first place. Recently, Congress MP Meenakshi Natarajan moved a privately proposed bill called “Print and Electronic Media Standards and Regulation Bill, 2012,” which would have given the government power to fine, ban, or suspend coverage of any event that “may pose a threat to national security from foreign or internal sources,” as well as suspend a media organization’s operations for up to 11 months. Or cancel its license. Harsh, right? But that is, in many ways, the rationale behind the Internet censorship act too.


Regulating Broadcasters for the sake of Journalism

And amidst all this, an editorial came out today by Press Council of India (PCI) Chairman Markandey Katju, who very strongly argues that an independent body is needed to monitor Indian media, because self-regulation bodies (like the NBA) don’t work.

Media people often talk of self-regulation. But media houses are owned by businessmen who want profit. There is nothing wrong in making profits, but this must be coupled with social responsibilities…The way much of the media has been behaving is often irresponsible, reckless and callous. Yellow journalism, cheap sensationalism, highlighting frivolous issues (like lives of film stars and cricketers) and superstitions and damaging people and reputations, while neglecting or underplaying serious socio-economic issues like massive poverty, unemployment, malnourishment, farmers’ suicides, health care, education, dowry deaths, female foeticide, etc., are hallmarks of much of the media today. Astrology, cricket (the opium of the Indian masses), babas befooling the public, etc., are a common sight on Television channels.

I am far from an authority on this (and much less a resident of India), but after a few days of flipping channels, it seems kind of true. At least the celebrity/cricket/baba stuff.

Katju suggests:

If the electronic media also comes under the Press Council (which can be renamed the Media Council), representatives of the electronic media will also be on this body, which will be totally democratic. Why then are the electronic media people so furiously and fiercely opposing my proposal?

It’s worth a read, as are the comments.

So, travel across the world and you still find the usual, never-ending debates on privacy vs. freedom of speech, which we’ve discussed quite often on here. If interested in following media things in India (including thoughts on the future of Indian journalism), read The Hoot. I’ll explore its archives tomorrow. —Jihii

Over at the Columbia Journalism Review, Ryan Chittum writes about the ethics of social news apps. In particular, he notes that while there’s much we may want to share, most people don’t understand the extent of what we share. For example, one partner in a relationship reading an article about breaking up that then appears in his or her Facebook timeline. Facebook calls this frictionless sharing. Chittum believes that publishers need to be more transparent about what their Facebook apps are going to do and share. Using the highly successful Washington Post app as an example, he writes: The tagline [to the app] is “share what you read with your friends!”, which sounds innocent and useful enough. I like to share links to stories I think other people should read. Up high it says, “Okay, Read Article,” and when you push that button, it installs the app. There’s nothing telling you directly that you’re installing an app. A box in the bottom corner says “This app may post on your behalf, including articles you read, people you liked and more,” but how many people actually read that?… …Not only does this stuff show up in my news feed several times a day (Yahoo’s app is also a frequent offender), but you can also go in there and click on your friends who have the app to see what they’ve read. The history goes back months. Jeff Bercovici reported back in the fall that even if you set the Post’s Social Reader to not let anyone see what you’ve read, friends can still go in and see what you’ve read. That’s egregious. The solution, of course, comes back to the reader. First, monitor your app settings. Although, the Bercovici article gives pause as to whether that would even work. Second, contact publications about their apps and the concerns you have with them. Ryan Chittum, Columbia Journalism Review. The Ethics of Social News Apps.

Over at the Columbia Journalism Review, Ryan Chittum writes about the ethics of social news apps.

In particular, he notes that while there’s much we may want to share, most people don’t understand the extent of what we share. For example, one partner in a relationship reading an article about breaking up that then appears in his or her Facebook timeline.

Facebook calls this frictionless sharing.

Chittum believes that publishers need to be more transparent about what their Facebook apps are going to do and share. Using the highly successful Washington Post app as an example, he writes:

The tagline [to the app] is “share what you read with your friends!”, which sounds innocent and useful enough. I like to share links to stories I think other people should read. Up high it says, “Okay, Read Article,” and when you push that button, it installs the app. There’s nothing telling you directly that you’re installing an app. A box in the bottom corner says “This app may post on your behalf, including articles you read, people you liked and more,” but how many people actually read that?…

…Not only does this stuff show up in my news feed several times a day (Yahoo’s app is also a frequent offender), but you can also go in there and click on your friends who have the app to see what they’ve read. The history goes back months. Jeff Bercovici reported back in the fall that even if you set the Post’s Social Reader to not let anyone see what you’ve read, friends can still go in and see what you’ve read. That’s egregious.

The solution, of course, comes back to the reader. First, monitor your app settings. Although, the Bercovici article gives pause as to whether that would even work. Second, contact publications about their apps and the concerns you have with them.

Ryan Chittum, Columbia Journalism Review. The Ethics of Social News Apps.

The sale of Instagram brings a harsh reality into focus, the realization that the secret rooms or private spaces online where we can share, chit-chat and hang out with our friends are fading. The few safe havens that do exist are quickly being encroached upon or are next on the shopping list for a company like Google, Apple or Facebook. The few proposed alternatives are still in their infancy… And it is clear that our personal data and online interactions are so valuable that they are powering the Web’s future.

Jenna Wortham uses the sale of Instagram to raise the question, is there anywhere on the internet where we can just hang out with our friends and enjoy our privacy?

Read more: Digital Diary: Instagram and the Internet’s ‘Secret’ Places - NYTimes.com (via onaissues)

FJP: If you’re concerned about how Facebook might use all the data that Instagram collected from you (checkins, geolocation, etc.), The Next Web has an article showing you how to export your account and all that’s in it before deleting it in its entirety.

The New York Times

While the Bush administration treated whistleblowers unmercifully, the Obama administration has been far worse. It is actually prosecuting them, and doing so under the Espionage Act — one of the most serious charges that can be leveled against an American. The Espionage Act is an archaic World War I-era law meant to go after spies, not whistleblowers. Strangely, using it to target the media and sources is the brainchild of neo-conservative Gabriel Schoenfeld, who would have sources who disclose information to reporters, journalists who then write about it for newspapers, the newspapers that publish the information and the publisher itself all be held criminally liable.

Everyone wants to know why Obama, with his pledge to “protect whistleblowers,” would do this. After all, Obama’s transition agenda recognized that “[o]ften the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled.” That’s not just a broken promise, it’s a complete reversal.

Jesselyn Raddack, Salon. Obama Targets Journalists.

Related: See Glenn Greenwald — also from Salon — from this past weekend.

In an article about Laura Poitras, an Oscar-and Emmy-nominated documentarian, he writes that she is detained for questioning — and has her analog and digital belongings (think footage, notes, etc) investigated — “virtually every time” she enters the United States.

Via Greenwald:

[Poitras] has had her laptop, camera and cellphone seized, and not returned for weeks, with the contents presumably copied. On several occasions, her reporter’s notebooks were seized and their contents copied, even as she objected that doing so would invade her journalist-source relationship. Her credit cards and receipts have been copied on numerous occasions. In many instances, DHS agents also detain and interrogate her in the foreign airport before her return, on one trip telling her that she would be barred from boarding her flight back home, only to let her board at the last minute. When she arrived at JFK Airport on Thanksgiving weekend of 2010, she was told by one DHS agent — after she asserted her privileges as a journalist to refuse to answer questions about the individuals with whom she met on her trip — that he “finds it very suspicious that you’re not willing to help your country by answering our questions.” They sometimes keep her detained for three to four hours (all while telling her that she will be released more quickly if she answers all their questions and consents to full searches).

If war correspondents were to be perceived as potential witnesses for the Prosecution, they may shift from being observers of those committing human rights violations to being their targets.

Journalists Protected Internationally But Not in the U.S.?

The U.N. Tribunal quoted above ruled that journalist Jonathan Randal could not be compelled to provide testimony in the case of a Bosnian official accused of ethnic cleansing. Apparently, that protection is not necessarily afforded to journalists in the U.S.

via CPJ:

A case playing out in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston highlights the lack of protection for conflict reporters under U.S. domestic law. Ed Moloney, an award-winning Irish journalist who has covered the conflict in Northern Ireland since 1979, and researcher Anthony McIntyre are fighting to keep their confidential sources secret. Moloney, a permanent resident of the United States, directed “The Belfast Project,” an oral history project documenting “The Troubles” that was deposited at Boston College in an archive that would be sealed, according to the terms of the project, until the participants granted permission or died.

The British government is now seeking access to the oral history project for an investigation into the 1972 killing of Jean McConville, a mother of 10 in Belfast whom the IRA has admitted to killing because she was suspected of being an informant. 

Under the terms of a bilateral agreement, U.S. authorities are cooperating with the UK investigation and have served Boston College with a subpoena to produce the materials. Moloney says these include confidential journalistic material he used for his book and documentary. If the subpoenas are successful Moloney may be legally obliged to verify the material so it can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings, something he says he will not do.

Meanwhile, Moloney and McIntyre have filed a legal challenge of their own asserting that they should be allowed to participate in the case so they can fully defend their interest in keeping the interviews under wraps. Their lawyers have argued that releasing the documents would violate Moloney’s rights under the First Amendment and could endanger the life of McIntyre because of his IRA connections.

A ruling is expected in the coming weeks. 

But while the legal issues in the Moloney case may be complicated, the principle is not. Journalists covering conflict, particularly those reporting on human rights violations and crimes of war, must be able to protect their confidential sources in order to be able to do their critically important job with some modicum of safety. While that principle has been upheld at the international level in the Randal case, it has not been established in the United States.

FJP: Upsetting as this sounds, it is what it is. Key takeaway: CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon’s point that conflict reporters in the US must understand they can be subpoenaed as part of an international investigation and, if they are, their ability to protect their confidential sources is unclear. We await the ruling on this case and hope our journalists receive the protection they deserve.

What If Your Emails Never Went to Gmail and Twitter Couldn’t See Your Tweets?

A new tool under development by Oregon State computer scientists could radically alter the way that communications work on the web. Privly is a sort of manifesto-in-code, a working argument for a more private, less permanent Internet. 

The system we have now gives all the power to the service providers. That seemed to be necessary, but Privly shows that it is not: Users could have a lot more power without giving up social networking. Just pointing that out is a valuable contribution to the ongoing struggle to understand and come up with better ways of sharing and protecting ourselves online. 

“Companies like Twitter, Google, and Facebook make you choose between modern technology and privacy. But the Privly developers know this to be false choice,” lead dev Sean McGregor says in the video below. “You can communicate through the site of your choosing without giving the host access to your content.”

Through browser extensions, Privly allows you to post to social networks and send email without letting those services see “into” your text. Instead, your actual words get encrypted and then routed to Privlys servers (or an eventual peer-to-peer network). What the social media site “sees” is merely a link that Privly expands in your browser into the full content. Of course, this requires that people who want to see your content also need Privly installed on their machines.

Read more.

Via theatlantic:

The Atlantic

Your Face Will be Recognized

A Japanese company is set to release a surveillance camera system that can search through 36 million images per second to match faces with those captured via still and video cameras.

Via Singularity Hub:

The scenarios that this system could be useful for are endless. The police, for instance, could find individuals from old surveillance video or pick them out of large crowds, whether they are suspects or people who’ve been kidnapped. Or if a retail customer is caught stealing something on camera, the system could pull up footage from each time the customer has been in the store to identify other thefts that went unnoticed…

… Interested parties have to contact [Hitachi Kokusai Electric] directly, which is probably wise in order to control whose hands it ends up in. And this means that soon, the only thing that’s going to be anonymous anymore are the agencies and organizations using the software.

Somewhat Related: In a separate article, Singularity Hub profiles Face.com, an Isreali facial recognition company that provides apps and API services to third parties. To date they’ve identified 41 billion faces from the world’s online images and their algorithms include data such as gender and mood from the photos.

Their latest innovation: determining the approximate age of the person being analyzed.

These Are Girls Around Me (literally).


First answer these:

1. Is your Facebook page public?
2. Do you use Foursquare?

Then you’re probably game for search results on the app Girls Around Me, a geolocation based maps app that alerts you to girls (or guys) around you, based on your location. Using foursquare check-ins, the app finds girls in your neighborhood, and pulls their Facebook profile information for your viewing pleasure.

We tried it out and found these girls (above) around our office in NYC. It’s a little bit horrifying but a perfect example to consider the question we raised yesterday: how to decide what is public/private on Facebook and Twitter. Twitter seemed fair-game for pulling information from public tweets. But Facebook, once again, is complicated.

How many people actually bother to change their privacy settings when doing it seems so complicated?

via Cult of Mac:

Girls Around Me isn’t an app you should use to pick up girls, or guys for that matter. This is an app you should download to teach the people you care about that privacy issues are real, that social networks like Facebook and Foursquare expose you and the ones you love, and that if you do not know exactly how much you are sharing, you are as easily preyed upon as if you were naked. I can think of no better way to get a person to realize that they should understand their Facebook privacy settings then pulling out this app.

FJP: Now, if you want to make your Facebook private: Here is some help.

Photos: screenshots from the FJP’s trial run of the app.

The home of the future will harness information from appliances, computers, smart phones and other devices to intuitively meet the needs of its residents. Computer software will play the role of an intelligent agent by perceiving the state of a home’s physical environment and residents via sensors, interpreting this information using artificial intelligence, and automatically adjusting heating or cooling, lighting or other resources based on that information.
Larry Greenemeier, Scientific American, in a story about the future of home life, privacy, and the smart homes that already remind him of The Jetsons.
ObscuraCam! It’s well documented that authorities successfully review photos and videos created by activists and journalists from protests in order to circle back and arrest those who were present. Now, the Guardian Project and Witness.org have released and Android app to do something about it. It’s called ObscuraCam and it automagically locks in on people’s faces, processes the information and then pixelates the image of those you want “obscured”. As Witness, a human rights advocacy network focusing on video use, describes it, ObscuraCam “aims to protect the identity of those filming and those being filmed, protect relevant metadata, and integrate human rights standards of consent and intent into mobile video. Rather than rely on post-production editing, it will allow near real-time annotation of consent, and anonymization. It will integrate human rights considerations and practices into the work flow of filming with a mobile device.” ObscuraCam is part of a larger “SecureSmartCam” project that helps activists protect themselves and those that they are taking video and photos of with a growing suite of Open Source tools allow the camera owner to, for example, instantly delete all content on the phone if arrested. Or, the User can add more metadata — such as geolocation, timestamp and current cell ID — to images and videos. Important data for activist networks that need to know where people producing media actually are. The Guardian Project ObscuraCam with screencast | ObscuraCame in the Android Market | Source code from GitHub

ObscuraCam!

It’s well documented that authorities successfully review photos and videos created by activists and journalists from protests in order to circle back and arrest those who were present.

Now, the Guardian Project and Witness.org have released and Android app to do something about it.

It’s called ObscuraCam and it automagically locks in on people’s faces, processes the information and then pixelates the image of those you want “obscured”.

As Witness, a human rights advocacy network focusing on video use, describes it, ObscuraCam “aims to protect the identity of those filming and those being filmed, protect relevant metadata, and integrate human rights standards of consent and intent into mobile video. Rather than rely on post-production editing, it will allow near real-time annotation of consent, and anonymization. It will integrate human rights considerations and practices into the work flow of filming with a mobile device.”

ObscuraCam is part of a larger “SecureSmartCam” project that helps activists protect themselves and those that they are taking video and photos of with a growing suite of Open Source tools allow the camera owner to, for example, instantly delete all content on the phone if arrested.

Or, the User can add more metadata — such as geolocation, timestamp and current cell ID — to images and videos. Important data for activist networks that need to know where people producing media actually are.

The Guardian Project ObscuraCam with screencast | ObscuraCame in the Android Market | Source code from GitHub

via Social Times: The waves of the Reddit sea have grown tumultuous as Internet privacy laws like SOPA have threatened to derange the treasured free speech of the web.  Reddit, a staunch critic of any move to restrict freedom, have drafted a crowd-sourced privacy bill that would protect web user’s rights. Creators of the act seek to prevent any kind of internet censorship, yet simultaneously protect copyrighted work. The suggested timetable leads to a completed documented by April 1, the same day the European Citizen’s Initiative site opens. Toward international reach, Downing_Street_Cat, author of the timetable, calls for “a bit of research into internet laws in different countries.” A good idea indeed. I wonder how the free speech vs. privacy debate will play into this. The act is being drafted on a Google Doc, which has been updated since Social Times reported it and discussion is still pretty dynamic. Check out these quick links to follow the action: The Free Internet Act Subreddit The FIA Discussion Page The Google Docs To get an understanding of the act, I’d read the 24th February view-only version, which has some pretty interesting editing suggestions on it, and then check the discussion page for updates. This evening, the “editable” version is a fun-to-watch live document of tremendous nonsense, periodically deleted of all relevant content and then replaced again.

via Social Times:

The waves of the Reddit sea have grown tumultuous as Internet privacy laws like SOPA have threatened to derange the treasured free speech of the web.  Reddit, a staunch critic of any move to restrict freedom, have drafted a crowd-sourced privacy bill that would protect web user’s rights.

Creators of the act seek to prevent any kind of internet censorship, yet simultaneously protect copyrighted work. The suggested timetable leads to a completed documented by April 1, the same day the European Citizen’s Initiative site opens. Toward international reach, Downing_Street_Cat, author of the timetable, calls for “a bit of research into internet laws in different countries.” A good idea indeed. I wonder how the free speech vs. privacy debate will play into this.

The act is being drafted on a Google Doc, which has been updated since Social Times reported it and discussion is still pretty dynamic. Check out these quick links to follow the action:

To get an understanding of the act, I’d read the 24th February view-only version, which has some pretty interesting editing suggestions on it, and then check the discussion page for updates. This evening, the “editable” version is a fun-to-watch live document of tremendous nonsense, periodically deleted of all relevant content and then replaced again.

Network, by Michael Rigley

If looking, you will find us hiding under our beds.

Via the transcript:

Most individuals will have over a million pieces of information spanning the past 45 months already in their provider’s [read: AT&T, Verizon, et al] possession. A third party, owning nearly four years of your life…

…If you use this network, your four years of information is extracted and sold without consent, contributing to the nearly $34,000 accumulated every second by the information sector.

The specifics of nearly all digital interactions are sold to a variety of entities among them are ad servers that assign individuals a demographic based on their digital histories. 

Once assigned, individualized information is deployed to the user. Location data is filtered into intrusive localized advertising. Facebook likes transform into custom Walmart ads. And search engine results are narrowed to a limited scope.

The global Internet becomes the personal Internet and information ceases to be information at all.

Free Speech vs. Privacy: Should we be worried?

At the end of January, the European Commission released its official data protection rules, including a new directive, “the right to be forgotten,” which adheres to European law that protects information privacy, such as France’s le droit à l’oubli, sometimes translated at the right of oblivion. This right allows criminals who have served time to object to the publication of facts of their conviction.

What exactly does this new privacy right entail in Europe in the online world? Commentary is rampant East and West of the Atlantic.

How might we be affected here in the States? At issue is privacy rights vs. free speech rights. Here’s a breakdown.

1. The Internet owns us. (via the Atlantic) 

Surely all people suffer from some unknown horror embarrassing them online, from an old photo or comment, up to a Gawker post. The Internet owns us. Our social networks, our blog comments, our quotes in newspapers, our Yelp ratings, Amazon reviews, e-mails, all our personal data, from our birthday to our home state, the Internet knows. But should it always? Or do we Internet users bear an innate “a right to be forgotten” online? It’s natural for people to want to control their online reputations. 

2. So if you post up an embarrassing photo, yes you can request it be taken down. (via The New Republic) 

Since Facebook and other social networking sites already allow users to do this, creating a legally enforceable right here is mostly symbolic and entirely unobjectionable. It would also usefully put pressure on Facebook to abide by its own stated privacy policies, by allowing users to confirm that photos and other data have been deleted from its archives after they are removed from public display. 

3. But if your friends, or a tabloid, or an unidentifiable stranger reposts the photo, can you request it to be taken down? Should that be your right?

A year ago, when the right was first proposed, the answer was maybe. It has since been clarified. Still…

Some say, the answer is now: no. (via the Atlantic) 

Back then, the right would have potentially given people the ability to cull any digital reference — from the public record, journalism, or social networks — they deemed irrelevant and unflattering; today, the EU specifies that the data people have a right to remove is, according to Reding, “personal data [people] have given out themselves.” This provision is key. The overhaul insists that Internet users control the data they put online, not the references in media or anywhere else. 

Others say, the answer is most certainly yes. (via The New Republic)

If contacted by someone who regrets posting an embarrassing picture, Facebook must take “all reasonable steps” on its own to identify any relevant third parties and secure the takedown of the content…Moreover, the right to be forgotten can be asserted not only against the publisher of content (such as Facebook or a newspaper) but against search engines like Google and Yahoo that link to the content.

4. Any exemptions?

Yes, for “the processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes, or for the purposes of artistic or literary expression.” (original source)

At the very least, Facebook will have to engage in the kinds of difficult line-drawing exercises previously performed by courts. And the prospect of ruinous monetary sanctions for any data controller that does not comply—a fine up to 1,000,000 euros or up to two percent of Facebook’s annual worldwide income—might lead data controllers to opt for deletion in even ambiguous cases.

5. What about things other people post about me online?

The act treats such takedown requests for “truthful information posted by others” the same as it does photos you post yourself. Key point of controversy: As TNR’s Legal Affairs Editor explains, once you demand takedown, the social networking site or search engine has to prove that it falls within journalistic, artistic, or literary exception.

This could transform Google, Yahoo, and other hosts of third party content into censors-in-chief for the European Union, rather than neutral platforms.

7. Yikes. How about us here in the U.S.?

He continues:

Currently, American companies doing business in Europe enjoy some exemptions from E.U. law, under a 1995 agreement. But should that agreement be altered, the new right to be forgotten could be imposed on U.S. companies throughout Europe. 

Pending European Parliament approval, the law will go into effect in the European Union in 2014. 

8. While you’re at it, might as well read a bit about what India and China are up to. (via The Economist)

Building a single European data-protection regime is hard enough. Harmonising it smoothly with America will be harder. Reaching deals with Indian bureaucrats and Chinese mandarins set to defend the interests and the data of their countries’ rapidly growing online firms may be downright impossible. Welcome to the new world of data geopolitics. 

Extra Credit: Peter Fleischer’s widely read blog post on this topic last year, and Jerry Brit’s Time piece on why information wants to be free and why we’re so afraid of “censorship.”
 

We’re at the start of a revolution in the ways marketers and media intrude in — and shape — our lives. Every day, most if not all Americans who use the internet, along with hundreds of millions of other users from all over the planet, are being quietly peeked at, poked, analyzed and tagged as they move through the online world. Governments undoubtedly conduct a good deal of snooping, more in some parts of the world than in others. But in North America, Europe, and many other places, companies that work for marketers have taken the lead in secretly slicing and dicing the actions and backgrounds of huge populations on a virtually minute-by-minute basis. Their goal is to find out how to activate individuals’ buying impulses so they can sell us stuff more efficiently than ever before. But their work has broader social and cultural consequences as well. It is destroying traditional publishing ethics by forcing media outlets to adapt their editorial content to advertisers’ public-relations needs and slice-and-dice demands. And it is performing a highly controversial form of social profiling and discrimination by customizing our media content on the basis of marketing reputations we don’t even know we have.

Joseph Turow, The Atlantic. A Guide to the Digital Advertising Industry That’s Watching Your Every Click.

A longread excerpt from Turow’s new book The Daily You.