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."

7 of 34 comments (clear)

  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 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
    3. 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.
  2. 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 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: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.