Trump’s data-hungry, invasive app
technologyreview.com
technologyreview.com
I’d be much more interested to read about how cellphone location tracking is used to geotarget campaign ads to unwilling recipients who have not opted in to receive messages from the campaign, or have their location data shared.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-political-groups-are-harves...
> In the event that a campaign or committee (a) fails for 60 days to cash a check from ActBlue which includes your contribution (after ActBlue makes repeated attempts to work with the campaign to ensure all checks are cashed), or (b) affirmatively refuses a contribution earmarked through ActBlue, your contribution will be re-designated as a contribution to ActBlue. Contributions to social welfare organizations which are similarly not cashed or affirmatively refused will be kept by ActBlue and used generally to support its social welfare activities. Contributions to charitable organizations which are not cashed or affirmatively refused will go to ActBlue Charities.
There is nothing unethical in what you posted.
"The use of Bluetooth is especially notable because it can capture data and target people with political messages as they travel through a physical space. This practice has jumped to politics from the advertising industry. In one recent example, Bluetooth beacons (the radio transmitters used to track cell-phone users via Bluetooth signals) were found in campaign yard signs [https://mashable.com/article/beacons-location-tracking-repub...]. In another, people were surveilled using these practices when they went to church. Our team has been exploring how this phenomenon—which we term geo-propaganda—has increased."
Both of those campaigns siphoned data from Facebook without consent of any of the users. Trump famously used Cambridge Analytica, while Obama for America's Director of Data Integration and Media Analytics built up a huge database of every American voter using data siphoned from the API used by Cambridge Analytica. [1]
At least now they're explicitly asking for permission (and you actually have to download an uber-partisan app in the first place).
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebooks-ru...
Specifically, it can be dangerous to your immediate health.
mob style?
That is where these apps become useful. Most of the messages pushed by these apps are not positive messages about the candidate - instead they are negative messages about the opposition .
The key is to always keep your voters eager to vote. In fact, I would argue that democrats need this kind of an app much more than Republicans as their voters are much more fickle.
Even outside politics, it allows a malicious actor to target their ads to vulnerable targets (whether it’s kids for scammy “games” full of in-app purchases, dubious “medication” for sick & desperate people, or malware to non-tech-savvy people) while flying under the radar of those who would be able to fact-check and call out the scam.
Furthermore we already know different "better" advertisement models.
I'm not following US politics close enough to know anything about it. But why should the democrats try to push an person into power which might have memory problems caused by age??
Or: short video snippets with little context tell little about anything
Links, please? DDG turns up only these among credible sources:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/07/2020-demen...