Is Your Neighbor a Democrat? There's an App For That

theodp writes "ProPublica's Lois Beckett reports that the Obama for America campaign's new mobile app is raising privacy concerns with its Google map that recognizes one's current location, marks nearby Democratic households with small blue flags, and displays the first name, age and gender of the voter or voters who live there (e.g.,'Lori C., 58 F, Democrat'). Asked about the privacy aspects of the new app, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign wrote that 'anyone familiar with the political process in America knows this information about registered voters is available and easily accessible to the public.' Harvard law prof Jonathan Zittrain said the Obama app does represent a significant shift. While voter data has been 'technically public,' it is usually accessed only by political campaigns and companies that sell consumer data. 'Much of our feelings around privacy are driven by what you might call status-quo-ism,' Zittrain added, 'so many people may feel that the app is creepy simply because it represents something new.'"

Comments

A good reason to go independent

[FreeUser]

It is creepy, and a good reason not to register as a member of either party...no matter how much you may want to vote in the primaries.

Re:A good reason to go independent

[sumdumass]

I don't know. I guess when you have democrat mayors so easily making statements of their intentions to use the government and public resources around them to economically harm a corporation because of free of speech by the CEO of a company made in a personal manner, you tend to think there are some people who will use information they do not agree with against you in ways that are not only unethical but illegal as well.

You are right, what part of freedom is that? But we were reminded recently of it so it is a concern.

Re:A good reason to go independent

[crymeph0]

The organizer of Chick-Fil-A appreciation day, Mike Huckabee, is a former, not current governor. I'm not sure if any active governors endorsed Chick-Fil-A appreciation day. But I'm not aware that any politicians expressing support for Chick-Fil-A were implying that they would spend government resources supporting Chick-Fil-A, e.g. by catering their department lunches exclusively from Chick-Fil-A. Several of the mayors who have spoken out against Chick-Fil-A, however, at least strongly implied, if not directly threatened, to use government resources to punish Chick-Fil-A for its president's personal opinion, by denying permits for new store locations, etc. Those opposed to the views of Chick-Fil-A's president have every right to protest and boycott, and the mayors would have been well within their authority to denounce the views of Mr. Cathy, including endorsing boycotts by private citizens, but using tools of government to punish individuals or corporations is not acceptable or legal. For what it's worth, I voted against a recent constitutional amendment in North Carolina that prohibits gay marriage, and disagree very strongly with Mr. Cathy's apocalyptic viewpoint on the issue, but I am even more firmly opposed to the government rewarding or punishing points of view.

Re:A good reason to go independent

[BakaHoushi]

I'm in agreement here.

I think Chick-Fil-A's president is an ignorant blowhard. However, he is entitled to the right to be an ignorant blowhard. The mayor can call him an ignorant blowhard and could even attend a "Chick-Fil-A's President Is An Ignorant Blowhard Parade" if he so chose.

But the second he threatens to use government resources to reprimand him? That's over the line.

However, I'd also like to point out that he is one man. I do not appreciate a lot of the comments I've noticed that imply everyone who disagrees with this man somehow must also endorse the mayor's intended sanctions. This ignorant display of identity politics needs to stop. It pops up in nearly every debate. Usually in the form of "A random idiot who belongs in Group X believes Something Stupid Y. Therefore, everyone who is a member of Group X believes Something Stupid Y."

Re:A good reason to go independent

[ArcherB]

Chick-Fil-A wasn't attacked because of the CEO's political opinions, it was attacked because of their donations to hate groups, particularly the one that is pushing quite successfully for Uganda to make homosexuality a capital crime.

Really? Then why did they start protesting only after Cathy made his comment? And if the uproar was over donations made by Chick-Fil-A, then maybe you should notify CNN and every other news outlet that thinks this is about what Cathy said. Here is a quote from a CNN story:

The controversy came about after an interview with the fast food restaurant chain's president and COO, Dan Cathy, appeared in The Baptist Press on July 16 and he weighed in with his views on family.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

Strange. No mention of Uganda at all.

Oh, and the whole Uganda story is bullshit anyway.

Re:A good reason to go independent

[sumdumass]

If they ban only the ones who practice constitutionally protected rights, I am equally outraged.

You see, the difference between banning strip clubs in general and only "Crazy Jack's lady emporium" is that in one, it is an across the board ban based on community standard or whatever they are using to justify the ban not related to the expression of first amendment rights, the other is singling a specific business out because of first amendment expression and religious freedom.

Without this distinction, then any government entity could ban or use the public infrastructure to interfere with the business of anyone who supports another candidate for office or a position that the political officer doesn't like. Would you find it equally tolerable if the mayor of New York banned Amazon or Starbucks (amazon's founder donates 2.5 million to defend Washington's gay marriage law, Starbucks says on their web page they support gay marriage and some are trying to create a gay starbucks appreciation day) from doing business there because they support rewriting marriage laws to allow gays to marry? That's a more appropriate comparison to what these mayors are doing and it is a matter of the first amendment and a government punishing specific companies based on their or their owner's expression of it. It is simply wrong whether you agree on the message or not.

Alcohol sales is a bit different because the repeal of prohibition specifically gives the states explicit control over alcohol which would allow them to limit the amount of bars and or times alcohol sales could happen in certain areas.

Re:A good reason to go independent

[davester666]

"While voter data has been 'technically public,' it is usually accessed only by political campaigns and companies that sell consumer data. "

Why is it automatically considered not a privacy issue if your information is sold?

Re:A good reason to go independent

[TFAFalcon]

So why are public funds spent on primary elections, when they are held by private clubs?

Re:A good reason to go independent

[Ly4]

Careful - that's a dangerously slippery slope. What if the company donated to planned parenthood? What if the mayor banned atheists from owning businesses?

In short, what about the first amendment?

Glenn Greenwald discussed this at length: http://www.salon.com/2012/07/30/free_speech_and_donations/

Re:A good reason to go independent

[BakaHoushi]

The problem is that other members are NOT responsible for what he said. Only he is. If tomorrow someone in a group I belong to says that he thinks all children everywhere should be beaten non-stop to build character, I don't need to publicly disagree with him. In fact, the only way you should hold his opinion against me is if I publicly pledge support for it. This is especially true when you consider that so many stupid things are said every day by all sides that if you had to apologize for every one said on your side, you'd never get to do anything else.

The real issue here is that, first of all, besides political parties not meaning much, "groups" like liberals, progressives, conservatives, radical religious nutjobs have very vague and subjective definitions, at least as far as our common usage of it. Many people hold views that could be regarded as a part of all of those. So who gets to decide what groups I belong to? I'm an atheist, but I'm sure some would define me as a religious nut because of that, or assume that means I agree with other atheists who say religion should be banned.

There's "available" and then there's "available"

[sootman]

> Harvard law prof Jonathan Zittrain said the Obama
> app does represent a significant shift. While voter
> data has been 'technically public,' it is usually
> accessed only by political campaigns and companies
> that sell consumer data.

"But the plans were on display..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well, the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice, didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Public shaming? Commies love it they use it a lot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Yes voter records are accessible to the public but so are criminal records and those
of sex offenders. Even the wages and salaries of federal employees are available online
for anyone curious enough btw.

I wonder what a given neighborhood would look like if we overlaid sex offenders and
criminal records with Obama voters. This is entirely feasible and entirely legal as well.

But yes for everybody else who didn't have the misfortune of living 30 years in a communist
country, commies love to use peer pressure. Right now they're planning to show who is
using how much electricity in a given neighborhood and giving discounts if _everybody_
reduces their energy use in a street. Yes, if only one neighbor exceeds the set quota
everybody 'loses' and everybody will know who is 'responsible'. Expect your neighbors
to come to your door and bitch at you.

So..

[Severus Snape]

This data is not 'creepy' when company's are using this data privately for profit, however when it's expressed publicly in a not-for-profit way it's a privacy concern. God bless America.

Re:So..

[TubeSteak]

This data is not 'creepy' when company's are using this data privately for profit, however when it's expressed publicly in a not-for-profit way it's a privacy concern. God bless America.

How many of your nearest thousand neighbors have you shared your political affiliation with?
That's what this does and that's why people find it creepy.

My new app...

[multiben]

...shows the private addresses of all politicians with a range of little icons over their houses showing what kind of scandals they have been involved with and what organisations they have been members of.

Re:Actually a Good Thing

[Mr. Underbridge]

You can't simultaneously thing wikileaks and government transparency are good things and this is a bad thing

The hell I can't. Government should be transparent, not people.

Also, there's a similar analogy to the difference between a six-shot revolver and an automatic weapon. The balance between openness and privacy was struck when the data was hard to get. Now that it's so easy to get en masse, that balance needs to be re-struck.

A problem of Vision

[SuperKendall]

If all you see is red and blue, I'd say it's time to get new glasses, metaphorically speaking...

If you start hating someone just because of one thing they believe, then the only person that has a real problem is you.