Yes We Can (Profile You): a Brief Primer On Campaigns and Political Data

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yes We Can (Profile You): a Brief Primer On Campaigns and Political Data

Posted by Soulskill on Friday February 3, 2012 @12:20PM from the your-vote-is-one-cell-in-a-database dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In the Stanford Law Review Online, Professor Daniel Kreiss discusses 'the history of political data, focusing on the recent proliferation in voter data and development of new voter-modeling techniques,' and how 'these data practices undermine privacy and democratic practice, even as they increase participation and voter turnout.' He writes: 'Underlying all of this is a vast data infrastructure that has made targeted online advertising and marketing possible, and has contributed to a revival of field campaigning over the last decade. Online advertising and field campaigning rely on voter modeling based on hundreds of data points culled from surveys, public records, and commercial information sources such as credit histories. This data details the location, demographics, political affiliations, social networks, behavior, and interests of citizens.'"

25 of 48 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:You are not a unique as you think you are. by jhoegl · 2012-02-03 12:30 · Score: 2

Yeah, there was this 16 year old kid who said "you guys better not laugh at me when I get on Ventrillo".
I said... "There are 6 billion people in the world, get over yourself."
I have a hard time getting too upset about this by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-02-03 12:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

Anyone who wants to predict how I personally will vote in the 2012 election (or any election, really) will have an easy enough time doing so -- because I talk about politics all the time, in person and online, and I don't make any effort to keep my views a secret. This isn't a violation of my privacy, because I chose to put that information out there. As far as using demographic data to decide where to focus campaign efforts, politicians have been doing that as long as there have been elections. The methods they use now may be more sophisticated than they used to be, but it's silly to pretend this is something new and dangerous.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
1. Re:I have a hard time getting too upset about this by skids · 2012-02-03 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  I don't make much of a secret of these things, either, but I have to say, none of TFA seems to apply to the people who send me all these "special invitations" to be part of the "Republican Inner Circle." Even if I wasn't a solid registered Democrat it would still be pretty silly to expect anyone in my MA college town to be a mark for these silly scams.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
2. Re:I have a hard time getting too upset about this by yuna49 · 2012-02-04 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Like you, I kept wondering why this surprised anyone. It's not like ward bosses and precinct captains didn't know everything about everyone in their neighborhoods. I suspect their information on each voter was a lot more detailed than you could get from the Facebook or Google profiles, too. I'm also sure they didn't spend much time in 1890 trying to get people to the polls who weren't likely to vote, or to vote their way, either.
  Let's take the author's three points in order. First, he worries about data breaches, a reasonable concern, of course, but no different than our concerns about credit-rating agencies or any of the numerous other large organizations that maintain profiles on nearly every American. I'm all in favor of strict regulations, and more importantly substantial penalties, to enforce more care in the protection of our personal information. Let's make rules that apply to Experian and political organizations alike.
  Second, he argues that privacy encourages anonymous freedom of speech, a claim that probably most of us would agree with. But what institution has provided a better outlet for anonymous speech than the Internet itself? What better examples for the power of speech, both self-identified and anonymous, can we point to besides this week's Komen fiasco and the revolt against SOPA/PIPA? I don't think peoples' reactions to these events would have been diluted had the commentators been more aware of privacy issues.
  Third, he talks about "informational asymmetries" that give additional power to wealthier candidates and groups. He points in particular to the Iowa Democratic Party requiring candidates to pay $100K for access to its database in 2008. I wonder how much it would have cost each campaign to assemble the same information on its own. I'm going to guess that the cost could easily have been more than $100K.
  So, when all was said and done, the author proposed no specific policies or legislation to address these supposed threats to the integrity of our political system. I'm sure it looks good on his resume that he has an article in the Stanford Law Review, but honestly, this article says nothing we don't already know, and proposes no solutions to address the issues he raises.
3. Re:I have a hard time getting too upset about this by Qwertie · 2012-02-04 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Politicians aren't interested in one data point, you.
  
  The problem is this: rich guys who run for high office can now afford to analyze "location, demographics, political affiliations, social networks, behavior, and interests of citizens" and then tell voters in a specific area and demographic exactly what they want to hear. They can then give different messages to different people, and they can perhaps even risk playing different messages that contradict each other to different audiences.
  
  Since most people have minimal political engagement, they will vote for the guy who is saying exactly what they want to hear, and the majority will fail to notice that the same guy is giving different messages to different groups of people. In contrast, candidates without enormous wealth cannot pull off this trick, and ethical candidates (who take a consistent position on an issue, regardless of their audience) wouldn't be willing to pull off this trick. Therefore, the risk we face here is that only unethical rich people will win important elections.
Privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 12:50 · Score: 1

It's like when the census chick came by my place.
She wanted to know all this personal information, but then got all offended when I took my clothes off.
I just don't get it.
Re:Profile away by hsjserver · 2012-02-03 13:34 · Score: 1

You fall under the "we don't give a shit because he doesn't vote and never will" category. The most useful information they can acquire is the little bit that tells them if you're for my guy, and I can get you to show up to vote. Past that, it doesn't matter all that much.
Re:Profile away by MetaDragon · 2012-02-03 13:41 · Score: 1

Good to know that there are other rational people on slashdot besides myself. Lately I'd begun to think they'd all left.
What if voting was compulsory? by Maclir · 2012-02-03 13:42 · Score: 2

Like in Australia - every person eligible to vote has to enrol and vote. Maybe that would help drown out the extremists?
1. Re:What if voting was compulsory? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-02-03 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  If a person doesn't take an interest in politics and inform himself about what the issues are that distinguish between the candidates, his opinion is of no value.
  You might as well give him a coin to flip when he goes in the voting booth.
2. Re:What if voting was compulsory? by Salgak1 · 2012-02-03 14:41 · Score: 2
  
  . . .after which, someone will discover a conspiracy where someone is handing out rigged coins for voter coin flips.
  My solution: EVERY ballot has a "none of the above" choice. If NOTA gets more than a given percentage (say, 20-30%), ALL the candidates lose, and new candidates would have to run. . .
3. Re:What if voting was compulsory? by artor3 · 2012-02-03 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  And who governs in the meantime? Don't say "nobody", because the government has some essential functions and we can't just shut down the country every time we don't like the candidates. And if the answer is "whoever is currently in power", then voting "none of the above" is essentially a vote for the incumbent.
4. Re:What if voting was compulsory? by cvtan · 2012-02-03 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  That means there is a chance that all that campaigning will have to be inflicted on the public AGAIN? Forget it.
  
  --
  Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
5. Re:What if voting was compulsory? by bky1701 · 2012-02-03 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  Extremists - yes. Knowledgeable voters more likely to choose a good candidate than a random number generator - also yes.
  
  I've heard too many stories about pre-vote drinking to take the idea of compulsory voting seriously. That and the fact that the Australian government seems to be one of the most corrupt and extreme western democracies, with their constant efforts at censorship. No, the solution to political problems has to not be "drown out" anyone with noise, but rather make it so the outcome is not extreme OR random.
  
  --
  Great Intellect...
6. Re:What if voting was compulsory? by larys · 2012-02-03 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  That would be nice. I would be concerned over people who don't want to vote feeling bothered with the obligation and intentionally picking people they feel may damage the system -- as a sort of immature show of revenge. I actually know a person (unfortunately) who refuses to vote who would likely do this. Another concern would be, if these people don't want to vote or don't care, what will their choices then be? Simply because they're obligated doesn't mean they'll be informed or make an informed or logical decision. They may just end up voting for the candidate whose name they heard the most often (psychologically, familiarity leads to the increased likelihood that someone will grow to like something/someone). They may pick someone based on who's commercials they saw on tv more often. Either of these results would make election more dependent upon who has more money to buy commercials and radio air time. Considering that more often than not, it's the rich (the 1% minority) that gets elected for presidency far more often than any of the greater population, this would (hypothetically) just make things worse. Instead, I wish there were a way to push people to care -- and not just to care but to be informed (oh, look, a flying pig). That being said, in my mind, laziness and stupidity are probably the largest epidemics to ever exist. And now to the realm of science and medicine: find a cure! Quickly! Before we destroy ourselves...more... *sigh*
7. Re:What if voting was compulsory? by Salgak1 · 2012-02-04 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the point being, it would incentivize politics to stop running such utter douchenozzles as candidates. . .
Democracy by mynamestolen · 2012-02-03 14:10 · Score: 2

Coupled with the fact that the USA and Canada don't have democracy (proportional voting + multimember electorates), but have FPP instead, things don't look so rosy.

--
work in progress
1. Re:Democracy by MightyMartian · 2012-02-03 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  This claim about democracies always bothers me, because it rests on the fallacious notion that there is only one kind of democracy.
  Besides, look at Israel, which has an electoral system built on all the great post-war innovations. What happened? Fringe parties end up becoming kingmakers and swinging governments in directions in many cases directly opposed to the views of the majority. Do you consider that a democracy?
  Or what about many European nations, like Germany, where parties form what amount to permanent coalitions, basically super-parties that may split up during elections, but re-coalesce afterwards. How exactly is this any different than the results one might get from a FPTP election?
  While I agree electoral reform is important, I find your claim idiotic, and your idea that somehow your private definition of "democracy" does in fact deliver the goods highly questionable.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Democracy by mynamestolen · 2012-02-03 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  back to school for you. Do you even know what FPP is? It's the system that got Hitler into power. We first need to define terms. Do you have a better defn of democracy, other than the relativist fallacy?
  
  --
  work in progress
3. Re:Democracy by MightyMartian · 2012-02-03 16:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You know, I always love it when some fucking retard tries to lecture me about how Hitler came to power. The Nazis did not have a plurality of seats in the Reichstag. The reason Hitler came to power is because von Papen told Hindenburg that Hitler could be controlled, and thus convinced the ailing (and increasingly senile) President to name Hitler Chancellor. Hitler wasn't elected to that position because he did not command a majority in the Reichstag.
  Maybe you need to learn something about how parliaments work, fucktard.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:Democracy by mynamestolen · 2012-02-04 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Primary school maths. You still show no evidence of understanding FPP. 5 candidates put themselves up for election. They get A 21% B 20% C 20% D 20% E 19% Everyone who doesn't vote for A, puts A last - that's 79% (and for obvious reasons I'll refrain from calling you names) Do you seriously think electing A is democratic by any reasonable definition?
  
  --
  work in progress
5. Re:Democracy by micheas · 2012-02-05 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  My estimates are that first past the post are mostly partisan contests (in the US). Most non-partisan races are true run off elections that tend to produce drastically different results than first past the post.
  
  --
  Work bio at MMWD
Re:Profile away by fotbr · 2012-02-04 16:01 · Score: 1

Actually, I vote in every election, and have since I turned 18 and could. I vote on the local ballot issues, since they're the only things that directly affect me.
Re:Profile away by unitron · 2012-02-05 05:36 · Score: 1

But how can we oppress and ridicule you for your beliefs if we don't know what they are?

--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Re:Profile away by hsjserver · 2012-02-06 13:32 · Score: 1

Unless you pay no State or Federal taxes, you're quite wrong about that.