Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ACLU Uses Data Mining to Profile Donors/Members

Posted by michael on from the stupid-stupid-stupid dept.

slutdot writes "This NYT story tells of the ACLU's use of data mining in order to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort. The ACLU's own website has a page dedicated to privacy and technology."

34 comments

  1. Makes me glad I never gave them money... by IO+ERROR · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...otherwise they'd be data-mining me right now.

    Most of this seems to be focusing on the executive director, Anthony Romero. I think the ACLU would be well served by getting rid of him.

    Of course, I have my own beef with the ACLU, namely that they are very selective about which civil rights they will and will not defend.

    --
    How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    1. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by More+Trouble · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Of course, I have my own beef with the ACLU, namely that they are very selective about which civil rights they will and will not defend.

      These a good links, providing a nuanced view of the question. For instance, ACLU says:
      If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
      This seems like a reasonable perspective on the interpretation of the second amendment.

      :w
    2. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by ancientreader · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, I am now compelled to join the organization, and encourage more reasonable people to do the same.

      If we are to effect change in how the entrenched, narrow-minded management of the organization define and practice civil rights, it must be virally from within instead of pitching stones from without. Our words have much more power and poignancy when our own asses are most on the line.

    3. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by IO+ERROR · · Score: 1
      The Department of Justice takes a somewhat different view than the ACLU. I would have included this link earlier but it was forwarded to me by an anonymous coward after I made the grandparent post.

      The only limitation on the Second Amendment espoused by the DOJ is to restrict it from those who aren't responsible enough to keep and bear arms. (i.e. the mentally ill, etc.)

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    4. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by ibbey · · Score: 1

      I haven't read the entire document that you linked above, but you need to be careful to not misinterpret it. Note that it isn't actually a legal opinion, but a statement of opinion of the Attorney General. Specifically, it is the opinion of John Ashcroft. You might disagree with me on this point, but in my opinion, Ashcroft hasn't always been overly concerned with what the constitution actually says, only what he wants it to say. Little things like the seperation of church and state and freedom of speech have little meaning to him. In reality, the document has basically no bearing on the actual law, only on how it will be enforced under Ashcroft.

    5. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2, Insightful


      If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to speech in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess porn, KKK hate mail, death threats against the President, and even child porn, for they, like political speech, gossip and political smear campaigns, are speech. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the government without such speech. Yet few, if any, would argue that the First Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to utter any speech they please.
      </witty alteration>

      As much as I hate what I deem the morally horrible speech of others, I still support their right to say it. And as much as I hate the idea of my neighbors owning a nuclear device, I still support their right to own one. It is both speech and means which provide for the defense of men. It scares me more than anything when any means of defense is wholly entrusted to the government; that is scarier to me than entrusting defense in my neighbor, for I know who he is, and he can easily be retaliated against for his misdeeds.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    6. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by IO+ERROR · · Score: 1

      You should read it. Ashcroft's name isn't in there anywhere, not even on the signatures at the bottom.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    7. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by ibbey · · Score: 1

      I stand (slightly) corrected. I had read the title as "Memorandum of opinion of the Attorney General", instead of "Memorandum of Opinion FOR the attornet general". However, my basic point still stands. This is a document created by attorneys, appointed by Ashcroft, and stating THEIR OPINION OF THE LAW. In the article, they even state The Supreme Court has not decided among these three potential interpretations, and the federal circuits are split. The Executive Branch has taken different views over the years. This is a document basically creating the official Bush administration policy on the matter. Under any other president, this will have little more legal standing then a similar paper writen by me or you.

    8. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by tm2b · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right... because there's so much danger to the second amendment from the Bush Administration.

      I don't think it's reasonable to expect one private organization to do everything, or to agree with you (or me) on every major issue. If you are concerned about both the first amendment and the absolute interpretation of the second amendments, give to both the ACLU and the NRA, like I do. No big deal.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    9. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by jazman_777 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms.

      They need to read the papers more. About Iraq.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    10. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, the Iraqis who are resisting are doing so with cars full of explosives, RPGs, and AKs aren't they?

    11. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by we3 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget mortars, artilery shells, anti-aircraft missles, anti-tank missles, heavy-machine guns, and pretty much anything else that is man portable.

    12. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Man portable or can fit in a truck, anyway.

    13. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms.

      This is a common way to pooh pooh the second amendment, but it doesn't hold water if you think about it.

      It's certainly true that in a stand-up fight, rebels with deer rifles wouldn't have a prayer against a modern military force, but there are two fallacious assumptions here. First, that rebels would choose (or be forced to accept) a stand-up fight and second, that they would be facing a modern military force.

      As to the first, guerrillas have proven time and time again that they can give any military force a very hard time. Granted, they usually obtain better arms than deer rifles, but the rifles provide an adequate starting point, allowing them to become a force that someone will arm or that is capable of stealing better arms from the military forces they face.

      As to the second, if armed rebellion were to become needed in the US, it's likely that much of the standing military would sympathize with the rebels. They might just refuse to fight, or they might even join the rebels (perhaps taking some of their military weaponry with them). But I can't really see that happening until the stakes are raised by open violence, of the sort that requires some weaponry better than baseball bats and kitchen knives.

      A high-powered rifle with a good scope in the hands of a dedicated and skilled sniper is a very effective guerrilla weapon and an extremely effective assassination tool. Don't discount what can be done by dangerous people with relatively low-tech weapons.

      Now, opinions can, and will, differ over whether or not the benefits of an armed citizenry enabled by the second amendment are worth the cost of wide availability of deadly weapons. It's clear that if the government has escaped the control of the people, then an armed populace who is able and willing to overthrow that government and install one that does serve the people is a good thing. On the other hand, the misuse of deadly weapons by irresponsible, or just plain crazy, people is clearly a problem.

      Weighing the balance, I'm in favor of guns (and own several). I can see how others can disagree, but the argument that an armed populace is unable to overthrow a bad government does not carry any weight whatsoever.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by More+Trouble · · Score: 1

      Weighing the balance, I'm in favor of guns (and own several). I can see how others can disagree, but the argument that an armed populace is unable to overthrow a bad government does not carry any weight whatsoever.

      Just to be clear, you also seem to have a reasonable perspective on the issues involved. My post that you're replying to, quoting the ACLU position on the interpretation of the second amendment, is just a different well thought-out view. Both are perfectly respectable.

      :w

    15. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by swillden · · Score: 1

      My post that you're replying to, quoting the ACLU position on the interpretation of the second amendment, is just a different well thought-out view.

      But at least one part of the ACLU's position, that less than military grade weapons are insufficient to carry out a rebellion, is not well thought-out. Which was my point, of course.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by macdaddy · · Score: 1
      It's certainly true that in a stand-up fight, rebels with deer rifles wouldn't have a prayer against a modern military force, but there are two fallacious assumptions here. First, that rebels would choose (or be forced to accept) a stand-up fight and second, that they would be facing a modern military force.

      I'm sure your voice would have been redundant in Great Britain in the early 1770s. You would best hope however that you weren't still voicing that opinion there a decade later.

    17. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by (trb001) · · Score: 1

      That's really not his point. His point is the ACLU claims to be a group dedicated to protecting civil liberties, but the subtle connotation is all liberal civil liberties, i.e. the liberties that correspond to a liberal point of view. If I saw them standing against affirmative action (a decidedly racist program) but for equal opportunity (a decision without consideration of race, sex, etc), I might change my tune, but until then I will consider the ACLU to have a decidedly liberal slant.

      --trb

    18. Re:Makes me glad I never gave them money... by tsetse_fly · · Score: 1

      Much of these arguments assume the government is relatively benign. I'd like to remind people of the example of Hama, Syria in 1982. Bombard the city from long range, when its safe, move in and murder 30,000 or more, and then pave the WHOLE thing over to demonstrate the futility of resisting the regime....

      I think the problem is how to prevent a government from even getting anywhere near this stage. This is more a social/psychological problem IMHO. By the time the need for arms to be taken up arises, it could well be too late for any citizen miltia to do very much (unless it were armed with anti-tank missiles, nuclear bombs, etc., but then you have the potent problem of how do you prevent fiefdoms of private power from arising -- see Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.).

      All in all, not a simple subject, and one that I don't believe has a simple answer. However, I appreciate the respectful tone, and myself certainly don't believe all 2nd amendment supporters are out in left field.

      --
      Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
  2. First by jZnat · · Score: 1

    The standard geek, already afraid of needles, is now further pushed to not donating anything of their already feeble body...

    --
    'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    1. Re:First by jZnat · · Score: 1

      So goes the saying "the best way to a man's heart is through his wallet". Excuse the weirdness.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  3. Except for when it suits our purposes. by msmercenary · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The A.C.L.U. certainly feels that data privacy is an extremely important issue

    Really, does this come as a surprise to anyone? Let's see, they're a giant organization with a board and a headquarters... All they need is a stock ticker or the authority to tax to become what they fight against.

    I have always applauded the ACLU for its stand on first amendment rights, but they've never had any of my money for lack of consistency. Until they defend all of other amendments (such as the second and tenth) as vigorously as they defend the first and fourth.

    1. Re:Except for when it suits our purposes. by msmercenary · · Score: 1

      Until they defend all of other amendments (such as the second and tenth) as vigorously as they defend the first and fourth, they are nothing more than a shill for the left.

    2. Re:Except for when it suits our purposes. by CokeBear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree that the second amendment is just as important as the first and the fourth. The second amendment, however, has its very own organization (several, in fact). The ACLU should stick to what it does best: defending the first and fourth amendments, and leave then second amendment to the NRA.

      --
      Reality has a liberal bias
    3. Re:Except for when it suits our purposes. by ibbey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So Neo Nazis are a leftist group? The KKK? The people who claim that the ACLU are left-wingers are idiots. The ACLU fights to protect the first amendment. This is an ammendment that applies to ALL americans, not just those of one political stripe or another. If you have any unpopular opinion (and you want to voice them), then you should support them in their work, even if you aren't willing to do so financially.

      True, the ACLU doesn't fight for the Second ammendment. The NRA does a good job of that. And since I don't see the NRA fighting to support the first ammendment (at least in a broad way), it seems to me that both organizations can happily coexist. Sure, they disagree on many issues, but taken together, they strive to protect your civil liberties. It's worth noting that most households in Hussein era Iraq owned guns. Clearly gun ownership without freedom of speech isn't the panacea that the right wing wants you to think it is.

    4. Re:Except for when it suits our purposes. by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      So Neo Nazis are a leftist group? The KKK?

      The obvious counterargument is that the ACLU picks up these very few cases so that it can claim consistency.

    5. Re:Except for when it suits our purposes. by ibbey · · Score: 1

      The obvious counterargument is that the ACLU picks up these very few cases so that it can claim consistency.

      And the obvious couterargument to that is that you haven't been paying attention. The ACLU regularly takes on unpopular cases on all sides of the political spectrum. This has caused them almost as much grief on the left as it has on the right. When the ACLU fought house-to-house searches in public housing they were widely lambasted on the left, and praised on the right (the linked article is on a gun rights site). Their Defense of nazis & the kkk have consistently lead to boycotts on the left.

      The reality of the situation is that Freedom of speech is a shockingly unpopular idea in the US. Everyone supports freedom of speech for those who they agree with. But supporting freedom of speech for the other guy is a different thing entirely. If you actually look at the cases that the ACLU take, you would almost certainly find that they are not substantially more left wing then they are right wing, with the exception of one area-- morals. Since the ACLU supports freedom of expression in just about any form it can take, the religious right will almost universally disagree with the ACLU. Of course, they are happy to have the ACLU defend them whenever they get sued, but otherwise, they oppose them completely.

    6. Re:Except for when it suits our purposes. by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it is uninformed... so it isn't a very good argument, is it?

    7. Re:Except for when it suits our purposes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NRA doesn't defend it, they try to dictate it.
      The Supreme Court ruled long ago that we do *NOT* have an indvidual right to bear arms.
      NRA propaganda takes the opposite view of this.
      They are defending the law, but not a basic right (as defined by the supremes) and definately NOT the second ammendment.

    8. Re:Except for when it suits our purposes. by ibbey · · Score: 1

      FYI, see the discussion at http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003093.html for a discussion of the ACLU & Christianity. There are several good points, but in particular, see the comment by Casey Holland, about 1/4 of the way doown the page. It starts "I'm only a lowly 2nd year law student at the University of Kentucky, but I fit the rest of the bill".

      Also see the page http://linkfilter.net/?id=68847 which contains several links to stories where the ACLU defended Christian groups.

      I realize that it's grossly oversimplistic to imply that Christianity=right wing, but the right does so all the time. In this case, I think that demonstrating that the ACLU defends Christian rights clearly demonstrates that labeling the ACLU as a leftist group is blatant political fearmongering.

  4. EFF by zenyu · · Score: 2, Informative

    In recent years I've concentrated all my civil liberties donations to the EFF. They seem to have their act together and not be infested by the professional charity clique that seem to only care about collecting money and using only a small percentage of the money for the charitable ends they supposedly collect it for.

    I still get lots of snail mail spam from the ACLU though.

    1. Re:EFF by ibbey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Both the EFF & ACLU are excellent organizations. While it is reasonable to choose to give to one over the other, it's unfair to characterize the ACLU as part of the "professional charity clique". Prior to the current administration, the ACLU has been extremely conservative in their fundraising, and while I don't know what percentage of their funding goes back to fundraising, historically it hasn't been enough to stop them from vigorously fighting for their goals.

      You should also realize that without the ACLU, the EFF wouldn't exist, and if they did, they would be powerless. It doesn't do much good to have online freedom of speech if you can be arrested the first time you say anything offline.

      The current leadership needs to go, but I will still wholeheartedly support the ACLU, and recommend that you do as well. You don't need to donate to them-- we all need to make choices as to where our dollars go, and the EFF deserves your money too-- but any support you can give them is quite well earned.

  5. So many questions ... by 2TecTom · · Score: 1
    Does power absolutely corrupt?

    Is this corruption inevitable?

    Is this actually leadership?

    Is this type of leadership worth paying so much for?

    Why do we the people tolerate an obviously biased, flawed, unfair and unjust compensation system?

    Why is it that already affluent people are not content with their current excessive levels of material comfort?

    Since we're told we need to pay top bucks for top people, does that mean we must pay bottom dollars for bottom people?

    Are people a commodity? Should we really be marketed?

    Is there not one large modern organization whose leadership is ethical, fair, legal, moral and responsible?

    Why is it this way? Why do we tolerate it?

    Doesn't anybody realize the cost?

    Are our leaders really this stupid?

    sigh, and no, these really aren't just rhetorical, see:
    --
    Words to men, as air to birds.