In a perfect world people would use this as an opportunity to tell the government to shove it. But, sadly, it's not a perfect world.
In your vision of a perfect world. Personally, I’m fine with this. They aren’t using call logs or other private data. Information on social media is public or semi-public. Fair game, and I’m curious about the results.
(Agree that a more productive public debate is needed. But that shouldn’t start by presuming values.)
One problem with the current state of the privacy debate is this sort of hyperbole.
No, I’m not. I delineate between information people intentionally cast publicly—even if they don’t understand the consequences of doing so—and information that occurs in public. My location, tracked by my phone and router to various apps’ servers, occurs in public. My tweets, on the other hand, are intentionally broadcast. There is a lot of grey area between these poles, but intent broadly inspires my thinking.
Extending “I’m fine with the U.S. military analysing social-media posts” to “okay with someone following you 24/7/365 every moment that you step outside your house” is hyperbolic. Framed as a question, on the other hand, it invites discussion.
As such, my point stands.
> Information on social media is public or semi-public. Fair game, and I’m curious about the results."
These “should we do X” questions tend to be useless. If it can be done, it will be done, absent multilateral action. Being able to predict social upheaval for humanitarian and geopolitical positioning purposes is obviously useful.
The government using such models to suppress activism in the U.S. is bad. But knowing how such phenomenon work is also a precursor to preventing its abuse.
Perfect world achieved!