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."
HIPAA?
AdFuel
So unless a company telling you to go and get a new product is willing to buy it for you, it's none of their business as well?
The entire point of ads is about making suggestions that company thinks you ought to do. While it certainly is none of their business what you actually end up doing, by the very definition of "advertising", it *IS* their business to tell you what they think you should do.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Yep, TFA is about convincing women to make the right choice. But for "progressives" some choices are more equal than others.
Choosing to have a baby makes you "anti-choice".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It has just as much meaning as the term "pro-choice". Which choice? What are the options?
That of a human fetus. Which — to millions of people world-wide — is already a human being. The choice, which you and VoiceOfDoom wish to preserve, has two options in these millions' opinion:
Because they consider abortion to be murder, they don't view this particular choice as legitimate.
Not sure, whether the organizations mentioned in TFA think so, or simply wish to increase the birth-rates in USA. But even in the former case, they are not "anti-choice" in general — they are against offering this particular choice.
No doubt, there are a lot of things you think ought to be illegal — even if abortion is not among them. That makes you "ant-choice" too, whenever the choice is between doing and not doing one of those things...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Is it wrong to target a problem drinker with ads for AA? How about targeting problem drinkers with free booze? What about targeting young mothers with ads for 'family planning' services, or as the article suggests pregnant women with 'pro-life' services? I'm sure there is a line there somewhere. Morality is a funny, fuzzy deeply personal thing... and I guess the line will vary from person to person.
Disclaimer: I am very strongly pro-choice (where choice is the right for a woman to seek an abortion if she wants).
"Reproductive rights"? That's a BS political misnomer. Having an abortion is not reproducing, if my biology is correct. Abortion is actually halting a human life with human DNA that will indeed become an adult if the fetus is not killed.
If you want to talk about perspective, maybe "pro-choice" should actually be called "anti-choice". Because the choice of a human child to live or die is taken away from him/her.
Don't try to argue that a fetus can't make that choice unless you're willing to acknowledge that a 2 year old can't, either.
And please don't use the words blastocyst or zygote because fetuses are being killed as well.
Having an abortion and saying it's not murder is just anti-science. Saying it's a woman's choice is worse than slavery.
And women's reproductive health clinics push them towards having abortions, and they aren't above the use of deception or emotional manipulation to achieve that goal.
That's how the world works. People push what they want. No surprises here.