No but it was the headline story. I think it was a mistake to use it to raise a different issue.
Things like that happen all the time already, and the individuals being reported on aren't even told about it or given any means to correct or dispute information being reported on them. These things are all problems.
Okay, some of these things are problems, maybe, and some of them maybe aren't so much. I think it is important to recognise the difference, and to recognise when journalists are trying to confound the issues by disguising one as the other.
It's a very common and effective narrative technique to start out a story about a general or sort of abstract phenomenon by beginning the discussion with a concrete example. That's all that article is doing. They found a very specific example of someone's purchasing information being mined for markers of private medical information and resulting in a large corporation accurately predicting something that the person had not even revealed to her family yet; so it's a very effective attention-grabbing device. It's sort of like synecdoche, where a part or subset of a phenomenon is used to personalize and drive home the significance of the greater issue at hand.
The specific example they offered is not meant to convey the scope of the issue, but to illustrate at the outset of the article the sort of thing that is already happening as a result of these tactics.
I interpreted that story from the perspective of the girl who had her information exposed to her family without her consent, rather than from the father's, BTW.
The specific example they offered is [...] to illustrate at the outset of the article the sort of thing that is already happening as a result of these tactics.
You make it sound like it is the issue after all, lisarea.
I interpreted that story from the perspective of the girl who had her information exposed to her family without her consent, rather than from the father's, BTW.
I think [that interpretation requires us*] to surmise, and more importantly believe in, more of the background detail than we have been given. We don't know how badly she wanted to keep it a secret. We don't know how she was persuaded to let her father in on it. I'm not that confident the story isn't made up, in part or as a whole. I take it you are, and that's okay.
* ETA for clarity
__________________
... it's just an idea
Last edited by mickthinks; 02-19-2012 at 09:57 PM.
The specific example they offered is [...] to illustrate at the outset of the article the sort of thing that is already happening as a result of these tactics.
You make it sound like it is the issue after all, lisarea.
I interpreted that story from the perspective of the girl who had her information exposed to her family without her consent, rather than from the father's, BTW.
I think we need to surmise, and more importantly believe in, more of the background detail than we have been given. We don't know how badly she wanted to keep it a secret. We don't know how she was persuaded to let her father in on it. I'm not that confident the story isn't made up, in part or as a whole. I take it you are, and that's okay.
Chill out, mick. I don't necessarily assume the anecdote is entirely accurate. I just don't care as much as you do about the device they used to lead in to the story, because I am more interested in the topic at hand than I am in the hook they used as lead-in for one of the articles.
It's a very common and effective narrative technique to start out a story about a general or sort of abstract phenomenon by beginning the discussion with a concrete example.
It's even often a recommended and taught technique for speeches and articles.
I just renewed my DNR and bought the proxy service because I didn't have it before because of stupid
I understand this information is upsetting, but I don't think it merits a Do Not Resuscitate order.
Whatever, domain name whatsit...do not resuscitate...same thing
I hope you were a little more specific when designating your proxy, and didn't just sign over your medical decision making to some domain name reseller.
DNR is correct usage for Domain Name Resolution, so you didn't say anything wrong. I was just telling a lol.
I am torn on stuff like this, because it might actually be really useful in some cases.
Thing is, I would love it if people would, say, not show me ads for shit I don't care about. It would reduce the nuisance value of ads. Or if I magically got coupons for stuff I would have bought anyway.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
But it'd be easy enough to let people opt in to targeted marketing. The issue is that they're being opted in whether they like it or know about it or not, and the dataminers and marketers are intentionally obfuscating what they're doing so that people don't tweak to it and demand privacy regulations.
... I am more interested in the topic at hand than I am in the hook they used as lead-in for one of the articles.
I think the topic in hand—consumer profiling and targeted marketing—is better understood if it isn't shrouded in a cloud of spin-doctored emotion. I'm saying that, notwithstanding any other reasons you have for opposing such practices, the story you have linked to doesn't strike me as problematic. If you think it is problematic, perhaps you'll be willing to say why.
... the dataminers and marketers are intentionally obfuscating what they're doing so that people don't tweak to it and demand privacy regulations.
The marketers are certainly going out of their way to avoid upsetting their potential customers. You've made "not causing concern" seem like an underhand thing.
Chill out, mick. lol That's just code for "don't argue with my opinions when I tell you you're wrong"
... I am more interested in the topic at hand than I am in the hook they used as lead-in for one of the articles.
I think the topic in hand—consumer profiling and targeted marketing—is better understood if it isn't shrouded in a cloud of spin-doctored emotion. I'm saying that, notwithstanding any other reasons you have for opposing such practices, the story you have linked to doesn't strike me as problematic. If you think it is problematic, perhaps you'll be willing to say why.
What's ironic here is that I linked to two versions of effectively the same story. The first version, from Forbes, is the one titled with the anecdote. I linked to that one first for people who might not feel like reading the far more detailed version of the story, which I linked to second.
My reasoning being that people might like to see the shorter and less substantive version before deciding whether they wanted to read the longer, more in depth version.
Neither article is exclusively or even primarily concerned with the anecdote that's pulled out in the title of the shorter story. However, you don't seem to have read either one beyond the title.
The 'Target accidentally revealing a teenager's pregnancy to her father' aspect is not the point of either story.
Quote:
Chill out, mick. lol That's just code for "don't argue with my opinions when I tell you you're wrong"
No. You are continuing to assume that I'm somehow fixated on or even really interested in the interpersonal drama aspect of the story after I told you I'm not.
You're wrong, and this whole line of discussion is boring and pointless.
The 'Target accidentally revealing a teenager's pregnancy to her father' aspect is not the point of either story.
No, the point of both stories is "you should be upset by consumer profiling", and the daughter's secret being revealed is the example that is intended to upset us. I don't think it is upsetting, though, and I've said so. Do you disagree with me about that, or did you take issue with my opinion for some other purpose?
You're wrong, and this whole line of discussion is boring and pointless.[ It's a discussion you seemed determined to have at 18:09 today. What's changed your mind?
The guy shouldn't have chosen pregnancy for the article. He should know that few people care about privacy issues surrounding a vagina.
When Walmart starts collecting information like the serial numbers of the guns we buy or the volume of ammunition we purchase, then things are going to get serious.
__________________
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the night. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm the rest of his life.
Surely the point of the story is "data-mining can have unforeseen and potentially upsetting results, and currently they are within a grey area of privacy law."
Spinning them as purchaser profiling alarm-ism is just that, emotive spin. Not terribly honest.
The former well-worn story of consumer data mining from days of yore: a major airline decided to send thank-you cards to flyers, as in "Thank you Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds for flying to vacation destination X!"- the only problem being that some of those duo-vacations didn't actually include the supposed Mrs. Reynolds, but rather another lady friend. Making for some awkward conversations with the real Mrs. Reynolds and angry calls to the airlines, who promptly stopped sending out thank-you notes.
As to the OP: I'm mostly the same name or a slight variation, though in hindsight it is a little long and probably irritating to type. I use one different handle to comment on articles by Megan McArdle because I'm embarrassed to be there I think, and I decided to try something shorter.
What I've noticed lately is surfing for info has become harder as more sites are behind "free registration" or requirements to log in via Facebook or other social media, after which there are more than a few steps to remove oneself from getting constant email updates, your every use of their site posted to your Facebook account, and other intrusive bullshit just so you can see what someone replied on Answer.com or the like.