- ‹ previous
- 1795 of 2798
- next ›
Mapping Your Enemies
MAPPING YOUR ENEMIES....Rod Dreher:
Here is a Google map that allows you to find your way to the homes of people who donated money to Prop 8 in California. It's damn creepy, is what it is. What could possibly be the use of this kind of information, presented in this way? It's intended to intimidate people into not participating in politics by donating money. Do that, and you'll end up on some activist group's map, with hotheads being able to find your street address on their iPhones.
....You might be thinking: those haters deserve to be outed. But think about how this same technology can be used against gay folks and gay-marriage supporters in parts of the country that aren't inclined to support gay rights. Would you want some gay-bashing group to post to the Internet a map to the homes of contributors to a pro-gay marriage initiative?....What happens if there's another Islamic terrorist attack, and some vigilante group posts a Google map to the homes of donors to CAIR, or other Muslim causes?
Andrew Sullivan isn't impressed: "The second anyone does anything inappropriate with this information Dreher has a right to complain. Until then, it's public information."
I'm....not so sure about that. It's not as if I have an answer to this problem — like Dreher, I accept that political donations need to be public — but I have to say that I find it kind of creepy too. This sort of thing has been possible for quite a long time, of course, but it was inherently limited in scope because of the time and money it took. Technology has changed that: it probably required little more than a few hours of coding to create a map that identified every Prop 8 donor in the state. And that map isn't only in the hands of the folks who created it. It's out on the internet where it's practically begging to be abused by some nutball.
I dunno. I'm probably overreacting. And it is public information. But I remain a bit of a privacy crank who hasn't yet been reconciled to the inevitability of David Brin's "Transparent Society." I can at least see Dreher's point.
The middle part of the country?the great red zone that voted for Bush?is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead?and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.
It is creepy and wrong. And it's just a harbinger of things to come. The right to privacy is going to be a big big battle after the economy and other pressing issues are sorted out.
This is creepy but it isn't new. Huffpost put up similar type maps, noting who donated exactly how many $s to whom, what the address of the donor was, and a street map with a HUGE pin stuck where the address was located.
I was afraid my roof would develop a leak as a result of the pin. Fortunately they aimed it at the front yard. Unfortunately they didn't manage to at least impale one of my many dandelions.
What difference does it make when you display publicly available information in cartographic form? Unless one intends to attack the donors' houses with remotely-controlled drones, no difference that I can see.
How about keep such information on public records, but remove the ability to access it anonymously? It would be sort of like a library's records; one would have to "sign for it"...
As someone whose letters to the editor have sometimes incurred the wrath of local wingnuts, I think this is a bad idea. Just being listed in the phonebook was enough for me to receive hate mail; drawing a map just invites something a lot more serious. Remember how we howled when Michelle Malkin laid out the personal information for those UC Santa Cruz student protesters? This kind of stuff is why we find the right wing so revolting -- we should want no part of it.
It is viscerally creepy, I will give you that. Its like seeing a photo of yourself that had been taken when you were not aware it was being taken.
We tend to live by the maxim "everyone is crazy except me and you - and you I'm not sure about." I guess that is hard wired in our genes. Fortunately the real-life odds are a little better.
I'm not a big fan of contribution limits, and as such I find disclosure requirements the main anti-corruption mechanism I find acceptable. So, I don't have a problem with publicly-available lists of who gave how much to whom. But I would draw the line at listing addresses in the same source. That really is creepy.
The membership list of the British National Party (hard right, anti-immigrant) was outed recently in a similar way:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/19/bnp-list
>Unless one intends to attack the donors' houses with remotely-controlled drones, no difference that I can see.
Don't laugh too hard about that one. The cost and difficulty of that technology is falling fast.
Happy global-village fishbowl everyone!
I forget who said it (not me): privacy, you have none, get over it. one of the benefits of technology.
Certainly the Google mapping is but a small and incremental step. If one has an address, one can map its location and a route to it easily. Just as, before computer programs came along, one could have done by hand in not much more time.
The real issue, if there is one, has to do with public disclosure of small contributions. Maybe a certain largish total of contributions--upwards of $2000--should be make a public record, but not smaller contributions. Small contributions are healthy and should be encouraged--maybe more privacy would do some encouraging.
Or maybe a record should be required, but rendered less easily accessible by requiring a visit to an office where hard copy is filed.
It's not the shape of things to come; it's the shape of the past.
Back in the day when people talked politics, you knew where people stood, and that was that. Heck, you could tell by what newspaper they read, or had delivered. It wasn't a secret, and it wasn't considered tantamount to posting your bank statements on your front door.
This secrecy fetish is a weird, modern, principally US phenomenon.
And the fact that it's accessible on the net, well, so what? You're one of a million names. The volume brings with it anonymity. The only way I can see caring is if people whom you know also know these things, which brings us back to my first point -- that's the historical norm, not secrecy.
And as to those who say, "well, some weirdo might come after me," that's a modern phenomenon too, and it's borderline paranoia. The only reason people think that sort of thing happens is that the VERY rare instance gets splashed all over coast-to-coast media. In reality, attacks by strangers for whatever reason -- much less political -- are vanishingly rare.
Sorry, but this is OC suburban paranoia, nothing else. Get over it.
Search for "human flesh search engine." In China, netizens have chased down people, shamed them out of the country, attacked parents, ... it's rather scary.
privacy, you have none, get over it.
It was Scott McNealy, former CEO of Sun Microsystems, who said that.
It is an interesting site for someone house hunting. Might be good information to know when meeting the neighbors. Mouth firmly shut and non committal when invited to visit.
The wife voted for and I against 8. She got hooked on "marriage" for some reason.
It was a bit strange for a hetro to go to a gay wedding near our house and watch the couple kiss. I guess that after a while it would be "normal". In another couple of election cycles 8 will be history. Sooner the better.
But think, with something like this you could easily create your own list of Republicans to boycott.
Boycott Republicans! That's the real message.
If you know who they are, you know you can do better.
I'm a Mormon who was firmly against 8 (still am). It's interesting when looking at the West L.A. area--I personally know a large percentage of the listed donors and even consider a few friends, and the names of virtually all are familiar to me through church business.
I really don't think people realized the implications of their donations. The argument that giving money is simply an act of speech, and that nobody should ever face negative repercussions for speech, is nonsense.
I have a feeling that some bags of shit are going to be left on doorsteps.
I'd find it creepy if I didn't already know this information was for sale to anyone who wanted to plunk down the cash to companies like Aristotle International. I like knowing who and what the businesses where I spend my money contribute to, it helps me make my own choices. Harassment is a law enforcement issue and should be handled as such but I'm perfectly ok with my donor information being public.
Speaking as someone who appreciates privacy but is realistic enough to realize McNealy's likely correct, my question is: why do this? Not rhetorically, but sincerely, why? I have my own hypotheses, having to do with shaming/"outing" supporters, and the general tone of the response to Prop 8's passing from those against it. But I'd like to hear the rationale from the people who came up with the map. Anything out there?
You've enjoyed all the power you've been given, haven't you?
We have a secret ballet. Whats wrong with extending the (public) secrecy to small donors. Set some reasonable amount (say $250 or $500), and restrict the public dissemination of names/addresses below this limit.
I was appalled when I read about a fine arts director who was hounded out of his job because of his activities in support of eight. I didn't support 8, and think of its supporters as meanspirited, but there has to be some reasonable limits placed on this sort of thing.
The middle part of the countrythe great red zone that voted for Bushis clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not deadand may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.
I think part of the solution is making it so you have to work a bit to get some of this information. Like have names but for the addresses require a fair amount of work or some technical skill to actually do any batch processing.
That said, David Brin's Earth really does seem to make some pretty sound predictions.
On the other hand, the neighbors of mine who had the Yes on 8 sign didn't contribute any money. So they are just lip service bigots.
(Their sign ended up in my bushes, but not by me.)
Dreher frequently "has a point". It's just usually dripping with so much sanctimony and self-righteousness as to render it unpalatable.
As others have said -- not new. And for me personally, the fact that political contributions over $200 are readily available on sites like opensecrets.org has had a somewhat chilling effect on my own contributions. Sure it's unlikely that a would-be future employer will pass me up because he doesn't like who I support, but why take that chance?
But I'm still in favor of this info being public -- I don't see why anyone should have a right to spend money anonymously.
I have to admit I was somewhat taken aback when I Googled an online friend's name out of idle curiosity, and found myself looking at a satellite map to her house and knowing how much she donated to which candidate. That is just plain wrong. bigTom is right, there's got to be some sort of limit.
Put away the gun, honey. I can't get to my car to back out of the driveway if you won't stop shooting.
My first thought is that you can use it to filter out the addresses you don't want to bother canvassing.
Sullivan's take doesn't strike me as sensible. Someone has a right to complain after something happens? I mean that's the kind of logic that we seem to follow with Homeland Security...it's reactive rather than proactive.
The fact is that something easily could happen and this is very problematic. It gives angry mobs weapons that angry mobs simply should not have access to. I believe that transparency is important but that a person's private address should be private. This is an example where I think the Internet needs government control and serious oversight.
I don't care how much I am angry at people who helped fund Prop 8. As a matter of principle, those who engage in public discourse need protection. Debate is fine. Walking past someone's home when there is family, etc that is not fine. Not fine at all. If Sullivan says we should wait for the other shoe to drop, I fear that he need not wait very long. Something should be done about this now while preserving constitutional rights, etc - but what?
Also, this is very bad for civic engagement. We'll soon have parents telling their kids not to be activists because it puts everyone in danger. A handful of news stories about that is all people need to create a wave of paranoia to guard them against civic engagement. Ours is a country that should encourage people of all kinds to be civically engaged. But civic engagement should not include intimidating people near or at their private homes. The net effect of this is discouraging for the future of civic engagement. I'm not sure what the law can do around this, but I imagine something intelligent can be drawn up that makes this activity illegal while still protecting freedom of speech. Perhaps something where it's stated that using physical intimidation tactics near someone's private home as punishment for their speaking, violates their privacy and safety and the safety of those around them, and so in essence, violates their freedom of speech.
Picketing an institution is an appropriate way to publicly confront people who oppose homosexual marriage, confronting individuals at their homes is not. Historically homosexuals have experienced harassment personally, so it is possible some individuals could mimic that behavior.
This is why we need automatic weapons for home protection.
I would hope that nobody uses this for any other reason than to not do business with staunch homophobes. For example, I clicked on the Orange County link, and clicked on a few markers and found that Veronica Nick, owner of Merry Maids contributed. I will not be using her business. Same with several lawyers and CPAs.
I'm a privacy hound (?) too, but this is most helpful if you want to vote with your wallet.
Luckily for us all, our new DHS head Spy Cam Jan is a real privacy freak and she'll work zealously to protect government overreach at least of Spy Cams.
For example, in Arizona they've mashed up spy cams with license plate scanners and scan cars on the freeway to spot the stolen vehicles. Then they keep the records of all drivers and where they've been spotted forever because there was no law asking Spy Cam Jan to do anything else and so she felt compelled to just archive and archive and archive.
It has been possible to do this easily ever since political contributions became publicly available via opensecrets.org.
And properly so. Participating in politics is a public act. You want to advocate for your opinions out of the public view? Stay out of the public arena!
What is really interesting to me is that all of you have cell phones with GPS(by law) that track your location and you worry about this?
I had a secret clearance for 15 years and the government knew much more about me than this. Which is why I guard my information more closely.
What I really find sad is that people think that if they support something they don't want anyone else to know about it. Do you hate blacks, Hispanics or democrats. What's the difference?
Do you not support your opinions with your life? The founding fathers did as do journalists the world over. Maybe you really need to consider your public opinions more closely if you are so concerned. People can use all types of information against you so maybe you should be less free with your condemnation of those who disagree with you. Compromise is the answer and not violence. Let us all try some diplomacy in our discussions.
What I really find sad is that people think that if they support something they don't want anyone else to know about it. ... The founding fathers did as do journalists the world over. Maybe you really need to consider your public opinions more closely if you are so concerned.
Stupid secret ballots.
Do you not support your opinions with your life? The founding fathers did as do journalists the world over.
Are you not aware that he Federalist Papers were originally published under the pseudonym "Publius?" Many of the anti-federalists published under pseudonyms as well.
I guess Andrew Sullivan is okay with the Nuremberg files, because the names of abortion doctors was compiled from public information.
And similar to the Nuremberg files, Andrew would be okay with a website looking just like the Nuremberg files but showing the names and addresses of people who opposed proposition 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_files#The_.22Nuremberg_Files.22
It's all just public information, no harm in letting people get access to it too easily.
This is a byproduct of the Supreme Court equating money with speech. Since we can't regulate campaign spending effectively we have to ensure disclosure.
activists have been picketing people's houses for at least 20 years. Remember the operation rescue nut who murdered a doctor
by shooting him through the window of his house?
as a liberal donor in a 70% pro-Prop 8 town my neighbors are welcome to protest at my house as long as they stay on the sidewalk
Hell, the Rethugs in red states have been doing this list thing for 25 years. Helps keep blue thinking people out of meaningfull jobs with real wages. That keeps them from contributing to blue candidates.
Kevin, please find another pic to illustrate your point - preferably from Google Earth or the like.
This topic has almost nothing to do with retinal scanning and IDing people from a distance.
That's a topic for another post and a discussion of a different privacy concern.
I think this is kind of inevitable, and what it demands is a new kind of law enforcement and setting of social norms, and maybe new laws.
For instance, some kind of law about "no protesting at people's residences" would be a fair thing to me.
And even barring a new law, I think it makes sense for us to in the information age think about teaching law enforcement about harrassment and its typical patterns of escalation. If someone is being targeted & bombarded in an organized way, there really should be some kind of protection. It's kind of what stalked women have dealt with for decades, and it's a kind of lawbreaking that our enforcement entities don't take seriously and don't have a real understanding of. As information is easier to get, there should be a reaction to its misuse.
There really needs to be a new division between public/private spheres, and I think we should as a nation figure it out. Otherwise, the only people who will have meaningful privacy will be those who can afford gated communities and personal staff. Or those who are so mouse-ish that they never tick anyone off.
If law enforcement had protected homosexuals from harassment and violent attacks the past fifty years, homophobes being confronted for their bigotry would have a much better argument about their rights to priviacy. Homophobes have no problem if law enforcement drives around with infrared scanners looking for homosexuals engaging in unlawful sexual conduct within their homes or if homosexuals lose their jobs because of their sexuality.
The distinction between this and the secret ballot is the same as the distinction between soldiers capturing a sniper and capturing just anyone. They know the sniper shot their pal.
If you support Prop 8, you're still just part of a group, but if you vote for it on Election Day, then you're the sniper.
That's why a boycott is the clear solution. Just have nothing to do with these people.
The long-term consequence of this sort of information-gathering will be to decrease citizen participation in the political process. If some nutcase goes and kills a few CAIR members because he got their addresses of a Google map, that will be a horrible tragedy, of course. But all it will take is one isolated event -- or just the threat of one -- to have a broader dampening effect.
For instance, when the proposition to repeal Prop 8 gets on the ballot (and it will), the folks who contributed to Prop 8 will be less likely to contribute to the cause of keeping Prop 8, out of fear that their contribution, name, and address will end up on a map like this.
Now, I am all for repealing Prop 8, and so would be happy in the short term if social conservatives were scared away from funding the movement to keep it. But the broader repercussions would be worse. There would be a dampening effect on this type of political speech (i.e., money) on any controversial issue. And of course, the crazier the folks who oppose your cause, the less likely you are to contribute to that cause and thus expose yourself to potential retaliation from the crazies. Thus, our political system, combined with new technology, serves to help the crazies.
What is the justification for requiring public disclosure of contributions on a ballot initiative?
I can see the justification when you are talking about someone running for office -- disclosure is necessary to see how the candidates/officeholders may be influenced.
But I don't see how that applies to something like Prop 8. As far as I can tell, there is no legitimate reason for me to know whether my neighbor donated money for or against a particular ballot issue.
I actually found it kind of interesting. I'm in San Diego, and went poking around my neighborhood. Its San Diego, so sure enough there's a a handful of 500 and 1000 donations by various folks. But, there is one very large one. I thought that odd, so I saw the guys employer, googled him and sure enough, he went to BYU. Now he might not be a MO, but all signs point to yes. In other words, prop 8 passed becasue some neo-cult got its members in Utah and elsewhere to pony over large sums of money. Shame.
Brin's transparent society only works if it's bilateral. In addition to the searcher being able to see you, you can see the searcher. I would be a lot more comfortable with the ease of access to this information, if it was equally easy for me to see that Joe Smith at 123 Main Street, Anytown USA, has been doing hundreds of searches on people in a particular geographic area.
That searcher information is trackable (by Google) but it isn't public without law enforcement powers and subpoena or search warrant -- whereas the donor information is both trackable and public. That lack of symmetry needs to be addressed for a transparent social compact to work.