Slashdot Mirror
Smartphone Surveillance Tech Used To Target Anti-Abortion Ads At Pregnant Women (rewire.news)
VoiceOfDoom writes: Rewire reports: "Last year, an enterprising advertising executive based in Boston, Massachusetts, had an idea: Instead of using his sophisticated mobile surveillance techniques to figure out which consumers might be interested in buying shoes, cars, or any of the other products typically advertised online, what if he used the same technology to figure out which women were potentially contemplating abortion, and send them ads on behalf of anti-choice organizations?"
Regardless of one's personal stance on the pro-choice/anti-abortion debate, the unfettered use of tracking and ad-targeting technology which makes this kind of application possible is surely a cause for concern. In Europe, Canada and many other parts of the world, the use of a person's data in this way would be illegal thanks to strict privacy laws. Is it time for the U.S. to consider a similar approach to protect its citizens? Google has been reportedly tracking users on around 80 percent of all 'Top 1 Million' domains. Facebook is doing something similar. A recent report shows that Facebook uses smartphone microphones to identify the things users are listening to or watching based on the music and TV shows its able to identify. Facebook says the feature must be turned on, and that "it's only active when you're writing a status update."
Regardless of one's personal stance on the pro-choice/anti-abortion debate, the unfettered use of tracking and ad-targeting technology which makes this kind of application possible is surely a cause for concern. In Europe, Canada and many other parts of the world, the use of a person's data in this way would be illegal thanks to strict privacy laws. Is it time for the U.S. to consider a similar approach to protect its citizens? Google has been reportedly tracking users on around 80 percent of all 'Top 1 Million' domains. Facebook is doing something similar. A recent report shows that Facebook uses smartphone microphones to identify the things users are listening to or watching based on the music and TV shows its able to identify. Facebook says the feature must be turned on, and that "it's only active when you're writing a status update."
Pro-life is more likely to be pro-death (penalty). So the moniker doesn't appear accurate. It's not about "life". It's about control. When you are seeing a doctor that performs abortions, one side wants you to have two choices. The other, only one. So one is pro-choice. And the other is anti-choice.
Pro-choice is also anti-abortion. A pro-choice person is more likely to support condom distribution and use, which decreases abortions. So pro-choice is more anti-abortion than anti-choice people. Anti-choice is about power and control (and punishment), not the baby.
Learn to love Alaska
LOL at "reproductive rights".
Let's start at the beginning: how exactly are hundreds of thousands of supposedly intelligent women becoming pregnant 'by accident' every year, in the UK alone? Haven't they heard of contraceptives? Why aren't their male partners wearing condoms?
Don't tell me. "Condoms fail". Well actually, condoms never fail - it's their USERS that fail to use them, and then LIE about them 'breaking'. Do you see the tests they perform on condoms when they are manufactured? They are blown up like a balloon, to test for holes and flaws in the material. There are NO scientific tests of condoms being used, which show them 'breaking'. All we have are ANECDOTAL reports from users, who have a vested interest in LYING about them 'breaking', when actually they didn't actually use a condom that time.
So what's the real issue? What's really going on? Well, the real issue is that too many women are sleeping with men who don't find them sufficiently attractive to maintain an erection while putting a condom on, or who don't feel sufficiently comfortable with them to maintain an erection while putting a condom on. Both parties feel ashamed of this fact - the man because he thinks others will doubt his virility, and the woman because she thinks others (including her partner) doubt her attractiveness.
These are the REAL reasons there are so many abortions each year, let alone the fact that lots of women try to trick men into marriage (or just staying with them) by getting pregnant 'by accident' ("Oh, I forgot to take the pill"), and it doesn't work, and the man doesn't want to stay with her, so she has to have an abortion.
Abortion is the worst atrocity imaginable, and it happens because of incredibly selfish people.
Furthermore, we can work out scientifically that women who have had an abortion are far more likely to have STDs than women who haven't. Women who sleep with men who don't wear condoms are obviously far more likely to have STDs than women who refuse to sleep with men who don't wear condoms, and those men will also most likely have slept with other women, without wearing a condom too. Abortion should be illegal because too many women are using it as a form of birth control, because for some reason they seem to be incapable of finding a decent man who wouldn't dream of sleeping with anybody without wearing a condom (unless they were deliberately trying for a baby).
And of course, the pro abortion industry don't want you to see what the unborn baby IS. They want to hide all mention of the word 'baby', so they use the scientific term 'fetus'. Gee... I wonder why?