from the the-check-is-coming-due-for-apathy dept.
Rampant Data Broker Sale Of Pregnancy Data Gets Fresh Scrutiny Post Roe:
For decades now, privacy advocates warned we were creating a dystopia through our rampant over-collection and monetization of consumer data. And just as often, those concerns were greeted with calls of "consumers don't actually care about privacy" from overly confident white guys in tech.
Nothing has exposed those flippant responses as ignorant quite like the post-Roe privacy landscape, in which basic female health data can now be weaponized to ruin the lives of those seeking abortions, or those trying to help women obtain foundational health care. Either by states looking to prosecute them, or individual right wing hardliners who often have easy, cheap access to the exact same information.
The latest case in point: Gizmodo did a deep dive into the largely unaccountable data broker space and discovered there are currently 32 different data brokers selling pregnancy status data on 2.9 billion consumer profiles.
Via browsing, app, promotion, and location data, those consumers are quickly deemed "actively pregnant" or "shopping for maternity products." Another 478 million customer profiles are actively labeled "interested in pregnancy" or "intending to become pregnant." As is usually the case, companies (the ones that could be identified) claimed it was no big deal because the data is "anonymized":
Related: Okay, Google: To Protect Women, Collect Less Data About Everyone
Related Stories
We the users want Google to delete our intimate data. Our rights depend on it.:
This is a moment I've long worried would arrive. The way tens of millions of Americans use everyday Google products has suddenly become dangerous. Following the Supreme Court decision to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, anything Google knows about you could be acquired by police in states where abortion is now illegal. A search for "Plan B," a ping to Google Maps at an abortion clinic or even a message you send about taking a pregnancy test could all become criminal evidence.
There is something Google could do about this: Stop collecting — and start deleting — data that could be used to prosecute abortions. Yet so far, Google and other Big Tech companies have committed to few product changes that might endanger their ability to profit off our personal lives. Nor have they publicly committed to how they might fight legal demands related to prosecuting abortions.
[...] Most of us understand on some level that Google and other tech companies invade our privacy. But Silicon Valley has made us think the stakes are quite low. Google provides useful products, and in exchange we might be targeted with annoying ads. Big whoop.
Until now. The danger of all that data feels different after the end of Roe, said Shoshana Zuboff, an emerita Harvard Business School professor who popularized the term "surveillance capitalism" to describe Google's business. "Every device becomes our potential enemy," she told me.
Zuboff, whose writings are like the "Silent Spring" of the digital age, is very concerned about where our surveillance society goes from here. "The harsh reality is that while we're now worried about women who seek abortions being targeted, the same apparatus could be used to target any group or any subset of our population — or our entire population — at any moment, for any reason that it chooses," she said. "No one is safe from this."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 16 2022, @10:58AM (11 children)
Pregnancy data shouldn't be particularly privileged. Rather all personal data should be privileged. Been beating this drum for awhile now. Big Tech is not entitled to scoop up the data on every person. It is congress' job to protect all of us.
Or, stated another way, it takes a real scumbag to pry into a woman's sex life and pregnancy status. It takes an equally scummy bag to pry into any person's intimate personal information.
Private citizen's lives should be private.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16 2022, @12:31PM
I think almost everybody agrees with that in principle, but a lot of people also don't act on principle. People too easily accept an "ends justify the means" approach when it comes to an issue they say they care about, and it only becomes an affront to their principles when it starts to affect them negatively. People and politicians will gleefully exploit the information from these data brokers to score political points or to make themselves feel morally superior, but things will change if the tables are turned and data broker information gets weaponized against them.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Username on Tuesday August 16 2022, @12:39PM (3 children)
If it was some kind of eavesdropping, I'd agree but People are consenting, and volunteering this info. They are typing it right into Facebook, Amazon, Google etc.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 16 2022, @02:08PM
For a pretty stretchy definition of "Consent".
It often doesn't include even signing up for a service and agreeing to a ToS, but merely visiting their website is enough for them to have a colophon with "*By the way we're watching everything you do and selling it" link.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Tuesday August 16 2022, @02:09PM
> People are consenting, and volunteering this info
Sometimes, some of the info. Who owns your credit card history (Experian)? Who owns your online shopping history (Amazon)? Who owns your vehicle logs (Tesla)? Who owns your phone history and address book (Apple)
I'm sure many, or all, of these have an EULA that disclaims your right to your data ownership. But if all car manufacturers, and credit card outfits, and cell phone companies, and online sales outfits, sell your data, if workplaces and food companies require credit cards and cell phones and cars to function, it becomes impossible to escape.
Cashless society is coming, always connected cars are coming, cell phones are already required by most workplaces (TFA).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 16 2022, @02:52PM
Yeah, I agree with you that people volunteer information, and consent to tracking. If you have one of those gas discount cards (who doesn't want to save 10 cents on every gallon?) then you have voluntarily consented to the convenience store chain (or whoever) tracking your purchases.
On the other hand, Facebook has no tracking privileges. As ikanreed has already noted, Facebook has shadow accounts, and keeps track of people who have never clicked a Facebook link.
What's more, all those Big Tech companies that do track you auctions the data they collect to whoever wants it. I mean, it's perfectly alright for a corporation to track their interactions with you, for internal use. But, auctioning that data off?
Let's get real here: Despite all the squawking about women's reproductive rights, Facebook, Google, and all the rest will auction women's secrets to the highest bidder. In fact, they'll probably automate it, so they can collect the "bounty" for turning a woman in when she violates a state abortion law. Profit is profit, and investors will scream bloody murder about fiduciary duty if Google doesn't collect those bounties!!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GlennC on Tuesday August 16 2022, @12:40PM (1 child)
Congress, along with the Executive Branch, abdicated that job long ago.
They're more interested in protecting themselves and their "campaign contributions."
I thought this was common knowledge.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16 2022, @04:34PM
They were convinced by the neoliberal logic that everything has a price and there is no other inherent value to anything except the money you get for it. Privacy is just a commodity - how much are you prepared to pay for it? Human rights, oooh expensive! Laws, ditto. If the weak can't defend themselves, screw them *CHEERING*
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 16 2022, @03:28PM
Yes, but: If a proposal comes through to do this for pregnancy status, then you should support it on the grounds that part of your desired policy is better than none of your desired policy. That doesn't change what your goal is, but do take what you can get.
Among other things, if that new law exists, and is enforced, that will establish that "yes, the government can regulate what megacorps do with personal data", which will make it easier to get the rest of what you want.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday August 16 2022, @04:07PM
Yeah, well if you don't like it, move to Europe [gdpr.eu]. Or somehow tie it to electronics compatibility [npr.org], and force US companies to de-facto standardize on making the data private if they don't want to maintain multiple systems across their markets. Wait a sec...
(Score: 2, Redundant) by darkfeline on Tuesday August 16 2022, @06:15PM
Privacy generally does not cover crimes. For example if you get treated for gunshot wounds, there's obligation to report that to legal authorities.
Anti-abortionists see abortion as murder, and knowledge of murder has to be reported irrespective of personal privacy.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by iamjacksusername on Tuesday August 16 2022, @07:02PM
I agree and take it to the next step. The solution is to create statutory liability for classes of information with civil action being allowed from every citizen. If your data is breached, the company should be civilly liable for each person and incident with statutorily defined damages. We cannot rely on government to initiate the lawsuits- it will never happen. But, if citizens can suddenly sue a company for $10K per person per incident, companies are going to start keeping a lot less personal data.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Tuesday August 16 2022, @12:06PM (28 children)
With how children these days have a bright future only as a slab of broiled meat, people should be encouraging abortions.
Right, but some magic imaginary sky fairy says you can't do that.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16 2022, @12:33PM
Did the sky fairy say that, or did the sky fairy's gatekeepers say that? It is sometimes very hard to tell the difference for a lot of the things that come out of the gatekeepers mouths.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Username on Tuesday August 16 2022, @12:41PM (23 children)
People have an inalienable right to life that can only be removed by due process. Has nothing to do with anything sky or homosexual related.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 16 2022, @02:15PM (21 children)
"People" do yes. Bundles of cells incapable of thinking or feeling that you prioritize over the rights and needs of above the actual human who you enslave to be host? yeah, you need your sky fair to justify that one.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 16 2022, @03:39PM (7 children)
Also, about this particular sky-fairy invocation: That book that they claim is the complete source of all the rules that the sky-fairy imposes on us doesn't actually say what they claim it says about abortion. Most of the claims about what the sky-fairy said about abortion being made by the religious right date back no earlier than the 20th century. The standard rule before then was that fetus wasn't a person until an event known as "quickening", which was when mom first felt the baby moving around in there, which they attributed to the fetus acquiring a soul, and there's some Old Testament stuff that matches up with that idea while the issue basically gets no mention at all in the New Testament.
And you might claim that "Oh, but abortion didn't exist before then". You'd be wrong: There are quite a few known herbal abortificants which were well known and used to induce a miscarriage when an inconvenient pregnancy happened. And there were other causes that were addressed like violence towards mom.
So why do so many religious people think there's a sky-fairy-endorsed prohibition against abortion? Because a bunch of guys didn't like the idea of women having sex for fun and not being punished for it, so they made up the sky-fairy prohibition of abortion in the hopes that would prevent women from getting away with having sex.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16 2022, @08:16PM (6 children)
I don't know this sky-fairy you've set up your strawman argument against, but those religious guys seem like a bunch of bastards.
For those of us who believe God is the author of life and bother to read His word, we have a very high regard and respect for women. Perhaps you should read the Bible instead of beating up your strawmen.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 16 2022, @09:57PM (1 child)
I have. Have you? If you think I'm wrong about what it doesn't say, please cite where it says what you think it says.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2022, @12:43AM
I have. It's clear that God is the creator of everything starting in Genesis 1.
Human life begins in the womb and intentional abortion is murder:
God sets rights for pre-born children in Exodus 21:22-25
Job admits that God made him in the womb in Job 31:15
David reflects in his poetry multiple times that God was with him since before birth. Here's one: Psalm 71:6
Though the more famous one is probably Psalm 139:13-14
Other authors of the Psalms often have a high regard for children calling them a reward. Here's one from Solomon: Psalm 127:3–5
The author of Ecclesiastes says the soul of the person begins in the womb Ecclesiastes 11:5
God tells Jeremiah that He ordained a purpose for Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb Jeremiah 1:5
An angel prophesied to Elizabeth that John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Spirit from her womb Luke 1:15
A little later in Luke 1:26-38, an angel prophesies Jesus' conception.
Still in Luke 1:41, When Elizabeth heard Mary’s news, John leaped in her womb.
It's absolutely clear human life begins in the womb long before birth. And that isn't even getting into any of the many verses where God specifically condemned worshipers of Baal, Topheth, and Molech, which required child, infant, and even pregnancy sacrifices. God repeatedly declares the killing of any children an abomination and demon worship. Deuteronomy 12:31 is just one of many.
As for respecting women, Genesis 1:27 says men and women were both created in His image. Galatians 3:28 makes it clear we are all equal in Christ. Proverbs repeatedly lifts women up of which chapter 31 is by far the most famous which says that an excellent wife is worth more then jewels. Husbands are called in Ephesians 5:25 to love their wives as Christ loves the church (an exceptionally high standard! And a similar theme in Colossians 3 BTW).
Plus all throughout scripture, there are women who are hailed as exploratory. From the daughters of Zelophehad (Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah) who petitioned Moses & God and had the laws changed. To Esther, Hanna, Ruth, Mary, Anna, Lydia, Tabitha, and Phoebe (one of many in Romans 16 who are praised for their faith and deeds).
And that isn't even getting into all the Biblical lessons of how Christian men are called to lead, protect, and encourage women and children in the faith.
It's very easy to prove in scripture that human life begins in the womb long before birth and that women are to be cherished and respected.
Your turn. Where in scripture do you get your information about you claim it says? Or was your rambling as made up as the "sky fairy" you created for your strawman?
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday August 17 2022, @05:46AM (3 children)
Have you read the book you allegedly base your life on? Because it, and the god therein, doesn't really have a very high regard and respect for women. Women are basically trade goods and property according to that book.
Or do you mean you hold your women in high regard like your beautiful and expensive car and house? Some kind of trophy to show off to your fellow man and brag about.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 17 2022, @10:28AM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday August 17 2022, @02:47PM (1 child)
I like my black one, it goes so well with the wallpaper.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 17 2022, @05:56PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday August 16 2022, @03:44PM (10 children)
Since someone is almost guaranteed to pull out "but those cells are human":
Cancer is genetically human and even more biologically human than an early-stage pregnancy. How dare doctors terminate its life for the sake of its host?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday August 16 2022, @05:32PM (4 children)
Thank you for pointing that out.
I had never thought of it from that view before and will add it to my list of responses when someone tries to argue against a woman having authority and control over her own body.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday August 16 2022, @06:42PM (3 children)
My pleasure.
For the particularly stubborn who say it's different because the child is a separate organism, it may be amusing to pull out the factoid that the oldest "dog" in the world is an 11,000 year old transmissible tumor. Genetically, it's a dog. It's not the dog it's growing in, and it (well, parts of itself) has been leaving to take up residence in other dogs since long before Christianity existed. [instituteofcaninebiology.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 17 2022, @10:42AM (2 children)
Clue - cells that are the same over time don't have "mutations". Even budded clones only contain a fraction of the original matter, and you invoke the Ship of Theseus fallacy.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday August 17 2022, @01:12PM (1 child)
Umm, no.
Mutations may happen with every cell replication, and the very idea that you're a continuous individual is a Ship of Theseus fallacy - every mature cell in your body is replaced every ~7 years. The person you are today doesn't have any of the parts you had a decade ago. The only common thread is that they have most of the same DNA. (women's eggs remain in a sort of immature suspended animation and don't get replaced, but I believe that's the only exception)
Not all of it though - every time a cell replicates there's a chance of mutations, which is normally how you get cancer, moles, etc. - a cell divides, and the child cells aren't *quite* the same as the parent. If those cells are reproductive cells the mutations can be passed on to your offspring, but usually they just affect a small patch of your body. There is no one DNA sequence that is "you" - the one you had at conception is just the base template. And budded clones are fully within the normal genetic variation within an individual.
Among humans (and I *think* most mammals, and even most animals, are similar), each new individual averages about 42 mutations - almost all of which happened in the reproductive cell lines of their parents long before the child was conceived. But that's a tiny percentage of the ~30 trillion cells in their parents body, all of which have been subjected to similar mutation rates.
However, our DNA contains over three billion base pairs - that's a lot of territory to cover. Replacing just 1% requires phenomenal lengths of time.
I mean - consider chimpanzees. Our last common ancestor was about 6 million years ago and we've been accumulating mutations (aka evolving) in different directions ever since - and yet our DNA is still around 95-99% identical. All the variation between individual humans resides within the fraction of those remaining few percent that isn't responsible for making us different species.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 17 2022, @04:09PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16 2022, @07:55PM (1 child)
A fetus is a human in early development.
A infant is a human that has lived days/weeks.
A child is a human that has lived for less then 12 years.
A teenager is a human that has lived between 13-19 years.
A adult is a human that has lived over 18 years.
Cancer cells, no matter how long they are left to "live", will always be cancer cells and will never progress further. Cancer cells will never produce a human being.
From the moment of conception, if allowed to continue live, those "cells" will progress to a human adult. The description of fetus, child, adult, ect only describe the life stage of a human. There is no sudden transformation from "cells" to "human". From the moment of conception, the gamete begins life as a human being which when cared for will grow through the life stages into an adult human being.
Parents who are trying to have a baby are excited from the moment of confirmed conception. For those trying to get pregnant and seek IVF treatment, the success rate is defined as the point where the sperm and egg successfully pair. Note, this is only the first stage yet medical science in this field starts the description that this is a human being. Not when the mother gives birth (they have a whole different metric for measuring live births).
The **only** people who desperately want to believe that they are only a clump of cells are those that wish to kill them.
To equate a fetus with cancer and claim they are the same is just as logically stupid as equating a fetus with a banana. Anyone with any intelligent thought realizes how stupid this argument is.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday August 17 2022, @05:52AM
If you want to care for it, do it. How many orphans have you adopted so far?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 17 2022, @10:40AM (2 children)
Between meaningless, wrong, and not-even-wrong.
"The HeLa genome is no longer Henrietta Lacks's personal genome. Although the two share some DNA sequences, the similarity ends there. Lacks's genome had the usual number of 46 normal chromosomes, whereas most HeLa cells have 70–90 chromosomes and more than 20 translocations, some of which are highly complex."
-- https://www.nature.com/articles/501167d?error=cookies_not_supported&code=8785a895-798f-4e16-9bf5-8583bcc51f4c
Some are calling HeLa to be identified as *a different species*.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday August 17 2022, @01:25PM (1 child)
You're talking about a cancer that was unusual to begin with, and has continued to mutate for 70 years after killing its host. Yeah, it's going to be a bit different.
But it's also NOT typical of cancer cells. Cancer starts out with just a handful of mutations different than it's host, and continues to mutate at the same rate as the hosts other cells (per generation anyway - the big problem with cancer is that it reproduces much more frequently than normal cells)
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 17 2022, @05:57PM
You're closer to working out why what you previously said I classified as "meaningless". This is progress.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16 2022, @07:37PM (1 child)
No "sky fair" needed to have common sense. With extremely rare exceptions that are tiny fraction of a percent of the millions of babies killed through abortion, the "host" is never enslaved. People are fully aware that one outcome of sex, is procreation. It is a known result. They willingly chose to participate in the activity but don't want the consequences so they selfishly decide to kill their child.
It always has been and always will be a selfish murder from someone who absolutely knew the risks associated and chose to do it anyway.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday August 24 2022, @07:49PM
If you declare your stupid, terrible, inane, and baseless ideas "common sense" then no one is allowed to call you a fucking moron.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday August 16 2022, @06:53PM
People? What people? If a fetus is a child now, where can I cash my check for child support for it? How comes a miscarriage isn't considered homicide? Hell, maybe I shouldn't give the loons any more crazy ideas...
Life begins at birth and ends with your death. Before birth, you're for all possible definitions a parasite. After death, you're at best a set of spare parts. In between, you're you.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Opportunist on Tuesday August 16 2022, @06:49PM (2 children)
Really? Where does the sky fairy say that? The one I know actually gives you a how-to [biblegateway.com].
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16 2022, @08:08PM (1 child)
Numbers 5 isn't a how-to. I know you are probably just copy-pasta from some troll out there and haven't bothered to actually read the passage, but it says nothing of the sort.
For anyone that wants to read an proper rebuttal to the troll, I recommend Stand To Reason's post:
https://www.str.org/w/did-god-ordain-abortion-as-punishment-for-infidelity- [str.org]
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday August 17 2022, @05:43AM
I know, it's supposed to be a tool for a guy who doesn't want his woman to have a baby to get rid of the spawn before it hatches, and preferably of the woman (or at least making sure that fucking her won't result in any other unwanted side effects). Just pay your priest well to ensure the outcome is what you want her to be. From a convenient way to get her to fuck off by calling her a cheating whore to sterilizing the fucktoy to outright killing her, everything's on the table.