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."

6 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Double standard by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I realize that people are emotional about abortion, but objectively this is no more creepy or unethical than anything else in the advertising industry.

  2. VoiceOfDoom, *FUCK YOU*!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TFA:

    ... on behalf of anti-choice ...

    Fuck you, VoiceOfDoom

    What is the fucking point of inserting an inflammatory / accusatory 'anti-choice' label in the article?

    This is Slashdot, not some pro-choice / pro-life forum

    VoiceOfDoom, go fuck youself !

    1. Re:VoiceOfDoom, *FUCK YOU*!! by rworne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That may be less inflammatory, but the subject is abortion, not reproductive rights as a whole.

      I do like the nice, friendly and progressive sounding "pro-choice" moniker. And the cuddly, protective, "pro-life" one.

      But why not just call it what it is and be done with it?

      pro-abortion/anti-abortion

      No need to sugar coat it. If you need to sugar coat it to make it palatable, there is something wrong with it.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    2. Re: VoiceOfDoom, *FUCK YOU*!! by jmac_the_man · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "anti-choice" is an insane way to describe anti-abortion activists. (It's also inaccurate in this story. The ads were sold to Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which help women in need have their baby.)

      That said, "anti-choice" only appears in a direct quote from the ridiculous article. VoiceOfDoom uses the phrase "anti-abortion."

    3. Re:VoiceOfDoom, *FUCK YOU*!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because nobody I know who is pro-choice is pro-abortion. Every one of them would prefer there be fewer abortions. Note, it's the pro-choice people that are involved in reporoductive rights issues that lead to lower pregnancy rates. The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the fewer the abortions. So many (almost all I know) pro-choice people are anti-abortion.

      Pro-choice and anti-choice seems to sum up the sides more accurately. One side wants to allow a legal choice. The other doesn't. The rest is emotional smokescreen.

    4. Re: VoiceOfDoom, *FUCK YOU*!! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Crisis Pregnancy Centers exist to give women a very firm push towards making the decision the center operators want her to make, and they aren't above the use of deception or emotional manipulation to achieve that goal.