[EL] Changing Notions of Privacy

Wed Aug 8 15:30:05 PDT 2012

Campaigns are social and the social networking features of the Internet have found a place in modern politics. A few months ago I looked at the privacy policies for several campaign websites.

Barack Obama website has a pretty good online data policy.  They also have a very tech savvy following.  The app is an opt in option for users and before downloading anything having a reason to download it is a good start.  Unfortunately, there is no seal of approval for apps--you have to consider the source of the app and think about whether you trust it.  

Santorum's had the worse basically if you visit the campaign's website you give up all rights to privacy.

There is a need to revisit the availability of public records in digital form because today the uses or abuses can be unexpected and  very broad.  The world is the audience for public online records.  The larger issue are secondary use of records for commercial purposes.  My personal view--I should control who has access to my data. 

There will be more political apps, but in the meantime what and app advertises that it does should also require disclosure of all features that collect, use or share personal information.  The Obama campaign are not newbies they know online social etiquette and it is very unforgiving if a rule is broken.

Campaign Obama managed very well last time--but this will be his last campaign unless he does a "John Adams." So the question should be what will happen to all of the data after November 6, 2012.

On Aug 8, 2012, at 12:30 AM, Michael McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu> wrote:

> This information has been freely available to the general public via ftp for
> years in two states. It is freely available or near free to anyone upon
> request in a few more states. There are a number of states that allow anyone
> to look up registration records (do a search on "voter registration
> lookup"). And there have been outside organizations that sought to publish
> voter registration information on the web. Perhaps someone knows their
> status as my casual search for those organizations was unsuccessful. 
> 
> The campaigns have merged these data with their donor lists, but that is
> something they do not want to publicly release since then other
> organizations would ask their donors for money. Campaigns jealously guard
> their donor lists.
> 
> Of course, the campaigns and state parties have had this information for
> decades. Campaigns would give their volunteers walk and phone sheets. The
> innovation is the delivery of these lists as an app, which makes a lot of
> sense to me since it will help canvassers go to the correct home more
> quickly and enter data. We get a little over-reactionary to new technologies
> in thinking that they will change the world. I recently tried to explain to
> a reporter that I did not expect Washington state's Facebook voter
> registration app would have a large effect on voter turnout. For it to have
> an effect, a person has to be interested in the election, has not registered
> through one of the many currently available methods, and will use the
> Facebook app. The same is true with this app. You have to be interested in
> downloading it and then go out canvassing. (Anyone who has organized local
> canvassing operations knows it is difficult to find volunteers to walk
> door-to-door.) The threat is someone who did not have the initiative to go
> to the campaign office in the past, and is a bad actor, will be motivated by
> this new app to harass their neighbors. Heck, there is a low-tech way to do
> this right now: look for yard signs. 
> 
> I suspect that the Obama campaign will find out for themselves if making
> this app publicly available instead of behind some firewall is worth it. The
> main threat as I see is for Romney supporters to download the app and enter
> fake data. Or, since this is probably Obama's persuasion target, if I were
> the Romney campaign I'd thank the Obama campaign for the gift by sending
> volunteers out to talk to these people to tell them how bad a person Obama
> is.
> 
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor, George Mason University
> Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
> 
>                             Mailing address:
> (o) 703-993-4191             George Mason University
> (f) 703-993-1399             Dept. of Public and International Affairs
> mmcdon at gmu.edu               4400 University Drive - 3F4
> http://elections.gmu.edu     Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Scott
> Bieniek
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:20 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: [EL] Changing Notions of Privacy
> 
> Consider the following article written on the new Obama iPhone app. I think
> it raises some of the issues that were raised by the plaintiffs in Doe v.
> Reed, and something that Justice Alito spoke of in his concurrence.
> (Disclosure: I represented the Plaintiffs while at Jim's firm).
> 
> http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/vip/~3/hhnueT2DHf8/obamas-new-iphone-app-
> is-questionably-loose-with-user-data-and-privacy
> 
> I don't think it is going to take long for donor lists to be accessed in the
> same way that the Obama campaign is now using primary participation, and
> perhaps other publicly available data to identify party ID.
> 
> In fact, with respect to Prop. 8 in California, there was a google maps
> "mash up" that laid donors over a map, allowing anyone to quickly locate
> neighbors with an opposing viewpoint.
> 
> This app takes it to a new level, as you can now receive turn-by-turn
> directions to any Democrats house based on your current location on your
> smart phone.
> 
> As databases grow, and costs decrease, the amount of information that can be
> appended is breathtaking.  I can tell you that I was shocked by the amount
> of data that could be appended to our lists on the Cain campaign.
> 
> Disclosure has been sold on anti-corruption, political spectrum arguments
> (tells us more about candidate or ballot measure).  The focus was on the
> candidate, not individual donors. But the Supreme Court has now given its
> blessing to using this data to contact donors, to have "uncomfortable"
> conversations with them.
> 
> But as this article points out, most folks have no idea that their primary
> participation or donation data can be used in this way.
> 
> Coupled with low disclosure levels, something I know even some folks on the
> other side of this debate agree need to be raised, I think we are headed in
> an alarming direction.
> 
> I think most folks are inherently private about their political beliefs.
> 
> I can't help but think that apps like this that will increase contact with
> voters/donors will only serve to lessen participation in the political
> process (think impact belief that juries are pulled from registered voters
> has on registration).
> 
> If this happens, you drive the coveted small donors out (they don't want to
> be hassled for a $50 donation). You are left with less speech, and a system
> controlled by special interests.
> 
> If we are going to make any progress on this issue, I think we have to start
> by recognizing there is a difference between the CEO of Chic-fil-A and the
> waitress that gives $20 to Obama or some ballot committee. One made a choice
> to make a very public statement on a very controversial issue. The other did
> what she could to ensure a candidate or committee has the resources to
> explain its position and let voters decide.
> 
> -Scott Bieniek
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election