Renting in the panopticon
June 10, 2016 8:21 AM Subscribe
A British startup has created a system for offering landlords continuous surveillance of their tenants' online activity to determine whether they are likely to be asset risks. The system, named Tenant Assured, connects to the tenants' social media accounts and mines their status updates, photos and private messages, feeding them to an algorithmic model, which is claimed to find potential signs of financial stress (which include posts with keywords like “loan” or “staying in”) or crime. The landlord gets an online dashboard, showing the tenant's social connections, and a histogram of their online activity times, as well as flagging up any potential danger signs, as well as a five-factor psychometric profile of the tenant, annotated with what a landlord should look for.
Do you not want to rent to black, brown, pregnant, poor, or blue collar people but also wish to avoid discrimination lawsuits?
Sign up for FgLf today! Data driven removal of applicants according to your biased needs.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:25 AM on June 10, 2016 [35 favorites]
Sign up for FgLf today! Data driven removal of applicants according to your biased needs.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:25 AM on June 10, 2016 [35 favorites]
There's no way to monetize it, but the first app designed around creating active countermeasures to this kind of crap is going to suffer from having WAY TOO MANY developers offering to contribute to it. I can't wait for the first wave of stories after some enterprising landlord pays $20 for a background check on someone, and gets back a a shiny dossier with a profile picture taken straight from goatse.
posted by Mayor West at 8:26 AM on June 10, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by Mayor West at 8:26 AM on June 10, 2016 [19 favorites]
Holy crap, this is horrible.
posted by Kitteh at 8:27 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 8:27 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's the next step in democratizing the surveillance state.
posted by Bovine Love at 8:30 AM on June 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Bovine Love at 8:30 AM on June 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
Okay who wants to start up a competing service that sanitizes the social media accounts tied directly to your name? Just filling up an entire Facebook and Twitter history with stuff like "I love paying rent on time!" and "I don't get what the big deal about not getting your security deposit back is!"
posted by griphus at 8:30 AM on June 10, 2016 [102 favorites]
posted by griphus at 8:30 AM on June 10, 2016 [102 favorites]
This means that I, as a renter, am going to be able to thoroughly check out my landlord's background and psychological profile too, right? Right?
Probably. I mean if you pay this company they'll probably monitor the social media of anyone you want.
Do you not want to rent to black, brown, pregnant, poor, or blue collar people but also wish to avoid discrimination lawsuits?
I'm pretty sure either this is intended for places where it's not illegal to discriminate on the basis of family status, or else it's a pretty crappy way to defend against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, since it literally alerts the landlord any time the person mentions the word pregnancy.
Anyway, I assumed before clicking that this would be mining public data, which is a weird sort of thing. Publicly published data are not private, yet it feels icky to have everything one publishes compiled and analyzed. It somehow feels like the analysis results should be private somehow, even if the data from which it is derived aren't.
But it's actually analyzing PRIVATE data, including private messages (so not even anything published). They're getting, inherently coerced, consent to do that, and you have no actual power to coerce the landlord back even if you did want to do that...Still, I would love to see someone say "Sure, but I also subscribe to this service, so only on the condition that I also monitor you." And I would love for them to record it and place the recording of the sputtering landlord on the internet for my entertainment.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:34 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Probably. I mean if you pay this company they'll probably monitor the social media of anyone you want.
Do you not want to rent to black, brown, pregnant, poor, or blue collar people but also wish to avoid discrimination lawsuits?
I'm pretty sure either this is intended for places where it's not illegal to discriminate on the basis of family status, or else it's a pretty crappy way to defend against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, since it literally alerts the landlord any time the person mentions the word pregnancy.
Anyway, I assumed before clicking that this would be mining public data, which is a weird sort of thing. Publicly published data are not private, yet it feels icky to have everything one publishes compiled and analyzed. It somehow feels like the analysis results should be private somehow, even if the data from which it is derived aren't.
But it's actually analyzing PRIVATE data, including private messages (so not even anything published). They're getting, inherently coerced, consent to do that, and you have no actual power to coerce the landlord back even if you did want to do that...Still, I would love to see someone say "Sure, but I also subscribe to this service, so only on the condition that I also monitor you." And I would love for them to record it and place the recording of the sputtering landlord on the internet for my entertainment.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:34 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
After your would-be landlord sends you a request through the service, you’re required to grant it full access to your Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and/or Instagram profiles.
Why would anyone ever agree to this?
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:34 AM on June 10, 2016 [33 favorites]
Why would anyone ever agree to this?
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:34 AM on June 10, 2016 [33 favorites]
One consequence of this will be the death of the use of Facebook for socialising and/or communicating about things that matter. If you're competing for desirable accommodation against other people, then you will have to outrun the herd in terms of matching the algorithm's model of a good tenant. Facebook for the poors will be a parole mechanism, where they report to their algorithmic overseers in the form of a fictionalised dialogue with semi-fictional clean-living friends. Perhaps acting badly on Facebook (posting drunkfaced party selfies, talking about how skint you are, &c.) will be itself a sort of peacock tail for those who are already financially secure and not in need of renting. Of course, with Facebook being a bureaucratic chore (you'll get penalised for empty profiles), there'll be an underground industry who know the latest news and gossip on the algorithm and will, for a monthly fee, fill in a profile for you and keep it updated.
Another consequence could be that the bohemians, the poors who like to live rather than just run on their employers' and landlords' treadmill, will up their tradecraft; anything outside of the pantomime of being a good tenant/employee will be conducted on encrypted zero-knowledge messaging systems, just like drug-dealing ISIS terrorists or something. Those who like to habituate dive bars or other places they'd get flagged for will carry two phones: the one that reports to their superiors, and the one which doesn't snitch and officially doesn't exist.
posted by acb at 8:35 AM on June 10, 2016 [23 favorites]
Another consequence could be that the bohemians, the poors who like to live rather than just run on their employers' and landlords' treadmill, will up their tradecraft; anything outside of the pantomime of being a good tenant/employee will be conducted on encrypted zero-knowledge messaging systems, just like drug-dealing ISIS terrorists or something. Those who like to habituate dive bars or other places they'd get flagged for will carry two phones: the one that reports to their superiors, and the one which doesn't snitch and officially doesn't exist.
posted by acb at 8:35 AM on June 10, 2016 [23 favorites]
The Score Assured website is evidently a work-in-progress, what with all the lorem ipsums, but, as well as their prospective service for landlords, I see they also have a similar one in mind for employers…
posted by misteraitch at 8:36 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by misteraitch at 8:36 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
It features a "New to country alert".
"Immigrant Siren" would sound bad.
posted by BinaryApe at 8:36 AM on June 10, 2016 [44 favorites]
"Immigrant Siren" would sound bad.
posted by BinaryApe at 8:36 AM on June 10, 2016 [44 favorites]
Why would anyone ever agree to this?
Because they're on the wrong end of a power imbalance.
posted by migurski at 8:37 AM on June 10, 2016 [142 favorites]
Because they're on the wrong end of a power imbalance.
posted by migurski at 8:37 AM on June 10, 2016 [142 favorites]
If there isn't a social network/database for tracking bad landlords, that seems like a big opportunity. Probably free for residential, premium for commercial (or selling background checks on landlords) would be a fair way to make it financially viable.
posted by michaelh at 8:37 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by michaelh at 8:37 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why would anyone ever agree to this?
If getting a tenancy becomes a matter of either agreeing to this or paying £200 a month extra as a “human dignity premium” (because the rich are more sensitive and have more needs for that sort of thing than the robust poors), not many will choose the Sartrean radical freedom of starving under a bridge somewhere.
I imagine this'll go hand in hand with mass deployment of anti-homeless spikes, just in case, though.
posted by acb at 8:38 AM on June 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
If getting a tenancy becomes a matter of either agreeing to this or paying £200 a month extra as a “human dignity premium” (because the rich are more sensitive and have more needs for that sort of thing than the robust poors), not many will choose the Sartrean radical freedom of starving under a bridge somewhere.
I imagine this'll go hand in hand with mass deployment of anti-homeless spikes, just in case, though.
posted by acb at 8:38 AM on June 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
Why would anyone ever agree to this?
What if landlords' insurers demanded the landlords used something like this, and then most of them did. You'd not get much choice. Social housing is being killed off and mortgages are too expensive now.
posted by BinaryApe at 8:39 AM on June 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
What if landlords' insurers demanded the landlords used something like this, and then most of them did. You'd not get much choice. Social housing is being killed off and mortgages are too expensive now.
posted by BinaryApe at 8:39 AM on June 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Reposting this article, because it's relevant here as well - There Is No Such Thing as “Public” Data:
I hear arguments like this all the time. Websites that post mug shot photos to shame people say they’re just using public records. Harassers who take “upskirt” photos of women say they are blameless because their activities occurred “in public.” Police say they are free to use powerful technologies to surveil anyone for as long as they like as long as they are “in public.”
This justification is fundamentally wrong. Not just because we should be able to expect a certain amount of privacy in public, but because, despite frequency of use and seeming self-evidence, we actually don’t even know what the term public even means. It has no set definition in privacy law or policy. I often ask people to define the term for me. Common responses include “where anyone can see you” or “government records.” But by far the most common response I get is “not private.” Fair enough. But thinking of publicness this way only leads us to the equally difficult question of defining privacy.
Frankly, this argument is dangerous. People are wielding the notion of publicness as a sort of trump-all-rebuttals talisman to justify privacy invasions. By itself, this concept of publicness has no exculpatory power. How could it? We can’t even define it. We should be more critical of appeals to the publicness of data to justify its collection, use, and disclosure.
The “public data” concept is gaining steam in both policy and our everyday lives. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed excluding public data sets from research oversight because, in its view, doing so presents low risk of harm. People who seek some sense of privacy on social media are ridiculed because “Twitter is public.” It’s time to abandon the misguided notion that public information is fair game.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:41 AM on June 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
I hear arguments like this all the time. Websites that post mug shot photos to shame people say they’re just using public records. Harassers who take “upskirt” photos of women say they are blameless because their activities occurred “in public.” Police say they are free to use powerful technologies to surveil anyone for as long as they like as long as they are “in public.”
This justification is fundamentally wrong. Not just because we should be able to expect a certain amount of privacy in public, but because, despite frequency of use and seeming self-evidence, we actually don’t even know what the term public even means. It has no set definition in privacy law or policy. I often ask people to define the term for me. Common responses include “where anyone can see you” or “government records.” But by far the most common response I get is “not private.” Fair enough. But thinking of publicness this way only leads us to the equally difficult question of defining privacy.
Frankly, this argument is dangerous. People are wielding the notion of publicness as a sort of trump-all-rebuttals talisman to justify privacy invasions. By itself, this concept of publicness has no exculpatory power. How could it? We can’t even define it. We should be more critical of appeals to the publicness of data to justify its collection, use, and disclosure.
The “public data” concept is gaining steam in both policy and our everyday lives. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed excluding public data sets from research oversight because, in its view, doing so presents low risk of harm. People who seek some sense of privacy on social media are ridiculed because “Twitter is public.” It’s time to abandon the misguided notion that public information is fair game.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:41 AM on June 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
One consequence of this will be the death of the use of Facebook for socialising and/or communicating about things that matter.
Which is exactly why you can expect Facebook to ban/block this company from ever using their services forthwith. In fact I’m pretty sure this kind of thing is already against the ToS. Either they’re acting outside the FB ToS & opening themselves up to being sued or they think they’ve found a legal way to get the data they want without infringing the ToS.
Either way, I predict that these shitheads are not going to be able to do this for very long.
posted by pharm at 8:41 AM on June 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Which is exactly why you can expect Facebook to ban/block this company from ever using their services forthwith. In fact I’m pretty sure this kind of thing is already against the ToS. Either they’re acting outside the FB ToS & opening themselves up to being sued or they think they’ve found a legal way to get the data they want without infringing the ToS.
Either way, I predict that these shitheads are not going to be able to do this for very long.
posted by pharm at 8:41 AM on June 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
While the idea behind systems like these is noxious, I feel that they are mostly half-baked stunts rather than fully-functional systems people seriously use (Peepl!). Notoriety is exactly what they want, and so it's best to ignore them. Talking about them now won't prevent them from gaining a foothold in the market and may actually help them.
posted by praemunire at 8:42 AM on June 10, 2016
posted by praemunire at 8:42 AM on June 10, 2016
"Immigrant Siren" would sound bad.
We come from the land of the ice and snow
From the apartments where the landlords blow.
posted by griphus at 8:43 AM on June 10, 2016 [48 favorites]
We come from the land of the ice and snow
From the apartments where the landlords blow.
posted by griphus at 8:43 AM on June 10, 2016 [48 favorites]
you’re required to grant it full access to your Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and/or Instagram profiles.
"required to grant it full access" to accounts i don't even have? good luck with that one buddy.
posted by poffin boffin at 8:43 AM on June 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
"required to grant it full access" to accounts i don't even have? good luck with that one buddy.
posted by poffin boffin at 8:43 AM on June 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
Why aren't our laws protecting us from things like this?
posted by oceanjesse at 8:43 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by oceanjesse at 8:43 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why would anyone ever agree to this?
Money. It reminds me of something some auto insurance companies are trying here in the US where they attach a monitoring device to your vehicle's OBD port to offer you a rather modest discount on your insurance. I said "hell no", but if everyone was doing it, and the discount was enough, I hope my principles would keep me from saying yes, but if my financial situation changed, I might not have that luxury.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:44 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Money. It reminds me of something some auto insurance companies are trying here in the US where they attach a monitoring device to your vehicle's OBD port to offer you a rather modest discount on your insurance. I said "hell no", but if everyone was doing it, and the discount was enough, I hope my principles would keep me from saying yes, but if my financial situation changed, I might not have that luxury.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:44 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
No, we shouldn't ignore this sort of bullshit, because while this entrant might not be serious, future entrants may be. This shit needs to be nipped in the bud.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:44 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:44 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
"required to grant it full access" to accounts i don't even have? good luck with that one buddy.
Then lack of said accounts will be held against you.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:45 AM on June 10, 2016 [22 favorites]
Then lack of said accounts will be held against you.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:45 AM on June 10, 2016 [22 favorites]
One consequence of this will be the death of the use of Facebook for socialising and/or communicating about things that matter.
Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. I am continually astounded by the percentage of people who keep their Facebook data completely open to the public.
posted by skewed at 8:45 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. I am continually astounded by the percentage of people who keep their Facebook data completely open to the public.
posted by skewed at 8:45 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's awful. However I would like to point out that small landlords already check Twitter and other social media informally simply because there are a lot of bad tenants out there - and by 'bad' I simply mean 'trash the property and do not pay.'
posted by Coda Tronca at 8:45 AM on June 10, 2016
posted by Coda Tronca at 8:45 AM on June 10, 2016
It's funny how the hypothetical future dystopia where we fight for gasoline and ammo in a lifeless hellscape ruled by mutant warlords just feels less awful than the one in which we are required to maintain a LinkedIn account to rent housing
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:46 AM on June 10, 2016 [67 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:46 AM on June 10, 2016 [67 favorites]
I've always thought the Fair Housing Act was ineffectual. But given as I'm currently in Europe in a tight rental market desperately looking for a new rental- and given the total weirdness of being asked about things that simply couldn't be asked about -- yeah, I can totally see why people would sign up for such a thing. If all the landlords ask for it, or if you don't have time to be picky about your landlord - you do what you have to to get housing.
posted by nat at 8:47 AM on June 10, 2016
posted by nat at 8:47 AM on June 10, 2016
Then lack of said accounts will be held against you.
Shouldn't be overlooked that this kind of shit is only possible because of Facebook's draconian real name policy. This is exactly the kind of use they envisioned from the beginning.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:47 AM on June 10, 2016 [32 favorites]
Shouldn't be overlooked that this kind of shit is only possible because of Facebook's draconian real name policy. This is exactly the kind of use they envisioned from the beginning.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:47 AM on June 10, 2016 [32 favorites]
Why aren't our laws protecting us from things like this?
For one, some 40% of Westminster MPs are buy-to-let landlords, compared to 4% of the population. It's like the Good Old Days when only property owners could vote.
Also, "free markets", "laissez-faire light-touch regulation" and "personal responsibility".
posted by acb at 8:47 AM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
For one, some 40% of Westminster MPs are buy-to-let landlords, compared to 4% of the population. It's like the Good Old Days when only property owners could vote.
Also, "free markets", "laissez-faire light-touch regulation" and "personal responsibility".
posted by acb at 8:47 AM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
And this kind of idiocy is why when I signed up for facebook, I gave them a fake name and birthdate, and have never "upgrade[d my] page's security by adding a phone number" no matter how many times they've requested it.
posted by easily confused at 8:48 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by easily confused at 8:48 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Publicly published data are not private, yet it feels icky to have everything one publishes compiled and analyzed.
I don't think it's a contradiction.
It's like the difference between someone overhearing your conversation in a restaurant because they happen to be sitting at the next table, and someone hiring a person to follow you around any time you go out in public to report on what you say.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:54 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think it's a contradiction.
It's like the difference between someone overhearing your conversation in a restaurant because they happen to be sitting at the next table, and someone hiring a person to follow you around any time you go out in public to report on what you say.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:54 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
This sounds like a pretty great way to get low cost housing to people who otherwise cannot afford it. The landlord lowers their risk of asset loss, enabling them to offer the property at a discount. The tenant is incented* to maintain an income stream and continue to be a productive member of society. The wise and all-knowing market is allowed to allocate resources in the most efficient manner possible.
*yes.
posted by indubitable at 8:57 AM on June 10, 2016
*yes.
posted by indubitable at 8:57 AM on June 10, 2016
hypothetical future dystopia where we fight for gasoline and ammo in a lifeless hellscape ruled by mutant LANDlords
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:57 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:57 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
From their FAQ:
Do TenantAssured pass on the data it collects to third party companies?
TenantAssured never pass on any data, except for the purpose for which permission was granted by the applicant. All data is confidential and is only ever used for reference by a landlord and his agent.
That is hilarious.
posted by rtha at 8:58 AM on June 10, 2016 [17 favorites]
Do TenantAssured pass on the data it collects to third party companies?
TenantAssured never pass on any data, except for the purpose for which permission was granted by the applicant. All data is confidential and is only ever used for reference by a landlord and his agent.
That is hilarious.
posted by rtha at 8:58 AM on June 10, 2016 [17 favorites]
No, we shouldn't ignore this sort of bullshit, because while this entrant might not be serious, future entrants may be. This shit needs to be nipped in the bud.
These kinds of systems (like that SF "rent auction" company) run, at least in part, on network effects. They only flourish if people use them, if they become a standard. Media coverage only legitimizes them and spreads the idea that "everyone's using them." Complaining about them, especially in their nascent stage, isn't going to nip them in the bud. It may, however, give them an aura of being established practice.
posted by praemunire at 8:59 AM on June 10, 2016
These kinds of systems (like that SF "rent auction" company) run, at least in part, on network effects. They only flourish if people use them, if they become a standard. Media coverage only legitimizes them and spreads the idea that "everyone's using them." Complaining about them, especially in their nascent stage, isn't going to nip them in the bud. It may, however, give them an aura of being established practice.
posted by praemunire at 8:59 AM on June 10, 2016
This sounds like a pretty great way to get low cost housing to people who otherwise cannot afford it. The landlord lowers their risk of asset loss, enabling them to offer the property at a discount. The tenant is incented* to maintain an income stream and continue to be a productive member of society. The wise and all-knowing market is allowed to allocate resources in the most efficient manner possible.
So basically, permanent parole for the poor. (“Poor” being potentially expandable to include all non-property-owners.)
posted by acb at 8:59 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
So basically, permanent parole for the poor. (“Poor” being potentially expandable to include all non-property-owners.)
posted by acb at 8:59 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, my social feeds are already pretty innocuous, but I would definitely pay a few bucks a month for someone to run a few social media accounts full of sanitized, apolitical, non-identifying "good citizen" content on the off chance I need to show someone my "social media presence" someday.
posted by Rock Steady at 8:59 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Rock Steady at 8:59 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
we actually don’t even know what the term public even means.
Fair enough. But though we may not know exactly where the line is and there are certainly many things that could plausibly be argued to be on either side of that line, there are also many things that we-know-it-when-we-see-it as either private or public. What's under your clothes is private. What you publish is public.
I think it's not exactly right that "we should be able to expect a certain amount of privacy in public." I get the instinct, but I feel like this comes back to the "analysis" rather than the "Data" themselves. As an example, consider two people who are in a public restaurant behaving amorously. The "data" here is what you would literally see if you were standing there. "There's a man and a woman. They are both sitting at the same small table. They touch each other's hands from time to time. They share bits of their food. They look into each other's eyes. They smile. They laugh." It's not the case that these people don't want anyone to see them doing these things or have a right not to be seen doing these things. If you don't want anyone to see you eat; you don't eat in a restaurant.
But it's possible that the people don't want these data to be combined in any way from other data, even public data. Say they are both married to other people who expect that they be monogamous. Obviously there are lots of non-public ways of knowing people are married, but let's stick with the "public" data here. A neighbour looking out the window one day sees the man and a woman (not the one in the restaurant) depart their home one day in seperate limousines. She in a white dress. He in a tux. They return in one limousine with a "just married" sign and have a big party. Or maybe this man's woman works at the bank, and has a picture of the man, whom she identifies as her husband, in her office where clients see it.
So say the neighbour and the bank client are the restaurant and observe this new data of the man and woman behaviour amorously, and puts two and two together and makes the "four" public. It seems like it is not the two or the two that were private. Those were both public things, but it does seem like combining public things can create an analysis result that should be private.
And that's what many of these companies are doing (not this one, which takes actual private data, but all those marketing companies that know 15 year olds are pregnant before their parents even know because they watched them shop at target). They're taking a whole bunch of public information and somehow combining it to get something private.
So we need some sort of guideline for figuring that out. Saying something is publicly available data doesn't cut it even when it's true. So finding the public/private line for data isn't enough and is kind of misguided. We need a way to figure out how to draw a line that says "once you put public things together in particular ways, the results become private." We need a definition of "particular ways." I have no idea what that definition looks like.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:00 AM on June 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
Fair enough. But though we may not know exactly where the line is and there are certainly many things that could plausibly be argued to be on either side of that line, there are also many things that we-know-it-when-we-see-it as either private or public. What's under your clothes is private. What you publish is public.
I think it's not exactly right that "we should be able to expect a certain amount of privacy in public." I get the instinct, but I feel like this comes back to the "analysis" rather than the "Data" themselves. As an example, consider two people who are in a public restaurant behaving amorously. The "data" here is what you would literally see if you were standing there. "There's a man and a woman. They are both sitting at the same small table. They touch each other's hands from time to time. They share bits of their food. They look into each other's eyes. They smile. They laugh." It's not the case that these people don't want anyone to see them doing these things or have a right not to be seen doing these things. If you don't want anyone to see you eat; you don't eat in a restaurant.
But it's possible that the people don't want these data to be combined in any way from other data, even public data. Say they are both married to other people who expect that they be monogamous. Obviously there are lots of non-public ways of knowing people are married, but let's stick with the "public" data here. A neighbour looking out the window one day sees the man and a woman (not the one in the restaurant) depart their home one day in seperate limousines. She in a white dress. He in a tux. They return in one limousine with a "just married" sign and have a big party. Or maybe this man's woman works at the bank, and has a picture of the man, whom she identifies as her husband, in her office where clients see it.
So say the neighbour and the bank client are the restaurant and observe this new data of the man and woman behaviour amorously, and puts two and two together and makes the "four" public. It seems like it is not the two or the two that were private. Those were both public things, but it does seem like combining public things can create an analysis result that should be private.
And that's what many of these companies are doing (not this one, which takes actual private data, but all those marketing companies that know 15 year olds are pregnant before their parents even know because they watched them shop at target). They're taking a whole bunch of public information and somehow combining it to get something private.
So we need some sort of guideline for figuring that out. Saying something is publicly available data doesn't cut it even when it's true. So finding the public/private line for data isn't enough and is kind of misguided. We need a way to figure out how to draw a line that says "once you put public things together in particular ways, the results become private." We need a definition of "particular ways." I have no idea what that definition looks like.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:00 AM on June 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
Facebook would basically be worthless for this sort of thing if the default setting was that non-friends could only see your name and maybe profile pic, but not your post history. That would be contrary to FB's weird philosophy of openness, so they keep the default to share everything. But I've always wondered what use that really is? Except for (possibly innocent) curiosity about people who are not your friends, what legitimate use could a stranger's posting history have?
I can only see the attempted monitization of this information continuing and growing, but at what point would the greater population start to get nervous about it, and would FB start to see that as a threat to their status as the place for people to come and post their random thoughts and pics of their weekend? FB has rightly given up on being "cool", I think, they just want to be ubiquitous. I wonder if they see this use of their member's info as a threat or an acceptable way to generate revenue.
posted by skewed at 9:03 AM on June 10, 2016
I can only see the attempted monitization of this information continuing and growing, but at what point would the greater population start to get nervous about it, and would FB start to see that as a threat to their status as the place for people to come and post their random thoughts and pics of their weekend? FB has rightly given up on being "cool", I think, they just want to be ubiquitous. I wonder if they see this use of their member's info as a threat or an acceptable way to generate revenue.
posted by skewed at 9:03 AM on June 10, 2016
At this point, the only place online where I post anything that isn't either A: nature photos or B: work-related is right here on MetaFilter. This place feels like the old web, where you could be pretty sure that your words would remain pseudonymous unless someone really went digging. Anywhere else, I assume that my words will be immediately scraped by the worst sort of scumbags, processed by some brain-dead algorithm, and turned back against me in some unexpected way.
The web used to be a place where people could talk pretty freely about almost anything without fear of their words being used against them. Outside of a few specific contexts, that is just no longer true. It means that I use the internet a lot less now, except for Officially Sanctioned Purposes like buying products.
The web has been thoroughly co-opted at this point and is now the domain of governments, large corporations, and the ownership class. It's not a safe place to play anymore. I've taken most of my playtime back to the real world. Nobody bothers me when I'm in my kayak, and if I don't want to be tracked I can leave my phone behind.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:04 AM on June 10, 2016 [35 favorites]
The web used to be a place where people could talk pretty freely about almost anything without fear of their words being used against them. Outside of a few specific contexts, that is just no longer true. It means that I use the internet a lot less now, except for Officially Sanctioned Purposes like buying products.
The web has been thoroughly co-opted at this point and is now the domain of governments, large corporations, and the ownership class. It's not a safe place to play anymore. I've taken most of my playtime back to the real world. Nobody bothers me when I'm in my kayak, and if I don't want to be tracked I can leave my phone behind.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:04 AM on June 10, 2016 [35 favorites]
Yeah, my social feeds are already pretty innocuous, but I would definitely pay a few bucks a month for someone to run a few social media accounts full of sanitized, apolitical, non-identifying "good citizen" content on the off chance I need to show someone my "social media presence" someday.
Yep. And then you don't get rented to / hired because you look boring.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:04 AM on June 10, 2016
Yep. And then you don't get rented to / hired because you look boring.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:04 AM on June 10, 2016
> Which is exactly why you can expect Facebook to ban/block this company from ever using their services forthwith.
I would expect Facebook to provide this company with some kind of API access to more easily get the information TenantAssured wants. After all, we're talking about Facebook here.
posted by Gev at 9:05 AM on June 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I would expect Facebook to provide this company with some kind of API access to more easily get the information TenantAssured wants. After all, we're talking about Facebook here.
posted by Gev at 9:05 AM on June 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yep. And then you don't get rented to / hired because you look boring.
So hire some better profile doctors. It's a free (black) market.
posted by acb at 9:05 AM on June 10, 2016
So hire some better profile doctors. It's a free (black) market.
posted by acb at 9:05 AM on June 10, 2016
Why would anyone ever agree to this?
Why does anyone who's a renter (in the US, anyhow) "agree" to have a prospective landlord run a credit and/or background check now, and pay for the privilege?
It's not that complex.
posted by blucevalo at 9:06 AM on June 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Why does anyone who's a renter (in the US, anyhow) "agree" to have a prospective landlord run a credit and/or background check now, and pay for the privilege?
It's not that complex.
posted by blucevalo at 9:06 AM on June 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
This place feels like the old web, where you could be pretty sure that your words would remain pseudonymous unless someone really went digging.
I'd have assumed the secret police were all over this website. Many posters will also be police.
posted by Coda Tronca at 9:06 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd have assumed the secret police were all over this website. Many posters will also be police.
posted by Coda Tronca at 9:06 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would expect Facebook to provide this company with some kind of API access to more easily get the information TenantAssured wants. After all, we're talking about Facebook here.
Depends on whether this is a PR nightmare for them. If the public are resigned to this, and/or accept this as a reasonable extension of natural law/property rights, they might go along with it, if not invest in the startup or possibly clone their operation themselves. If, however, the consensus is that it looks creepy, and this isn't coming entirely from the paranoids with EFF stickers over their laptops' cameras, then there's a chance that they'll drop it like a hot potato (though perhaps explore ways of implementing parts of it more subtly next time).
posted by acb at 9:09 AM on June 10, 2016
Depends on whether this is a PR nightmare for them. If the public are resigned to this, and/or accept this as a reasonable extension of natural law/property rights, they might go along with it, if not invest in the startup or possibly clone their operation themselves. If, however, the consensus is that it looks creepy, and this isn't coming entirely from the paranoids with EFF stickers over their laptops' cameras, then there's a chance that they'll drop it like a hot potato (though perhaps explore ways of implementing parts of it more subtly next time).
posted by acb at 9:09 AM on June 10, 2016
Why aren't our laws protecting us from things like this?
We were content to put our faith in our tech utopians not to be a force for constantly punching downward, and they failed us. I feel like legislation should be a last resort, but yeah, it's time.
posted by phooky at 9:10 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
We were content to put our faith in our tech utopians not to be a force for constantly punching downward, and they failed us. I feel like legislation should be a last resort, but yeah, it's time.
posted by phooky at 9:10 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm waiting for the Fawlty Towers reboot where Basil is totally indignant about the stream on his smartphone on what's happening in Room 3.
posted by adept256 at 9:10 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by adept256 at 9:10 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd have assumed the secret police were all over this website. Many posters will also be police.
So what we need is some sort of site reachable only through Tor, with pseudonyms (perhaps randomly-generated three-word tuples or something), where one can be honest. Or, as Oscar Wilde said, give a man a mask and he'll tell you the truth.
The problems are that, (a) sooner or later, if enough people know of your pseudonym, decent analytics will unmask you, and (b) if the site is private and anonymous, in the interim, you're likely to be sharing it with distinctly unsavoury people (think *chan, only with more Nazis, paedophiles and umpteen types of sex-creeps).
posted by acb at 9:13 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
So what we need is some sort of site reachable only through Tor, with pseudonyms (perhaps randomly-generated three-word tuples or something), where one can be honest. Or, as Oscar Wilde said, give a man a mask and he'll tell you the truth.
The problems are that, (a) sooner or later, if enough people know of your pseudonym, decent analytics will unmask you, and (b) if the site is private and anonymous, in the interim, you're likely to be sharing it with distinctly unsavoury people (think *chan, only with more Nazis, paedophiles and umpteen types of sex-creeps).
posted by acb at 9:13 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
This place feels like the old web, where you could be pretty sure that your words would remain pseudonymous unless someone really went digging
I'd not be surprised if analysis tools that fingerprint your prose style exist right now, and that they are capable of matching anonymous text to text by a known person.
posted by thelonius at 9:15 AM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'd not be surprised if analysis tools that fingerprint your prose style exist right now, and that they are capable of matching anonymous text to text by a known person.
posted by thelonius at 9:15 AM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Well yeah Coda, but it's not like I have no filter here. I'm just not so tightly circumscribed in terms of making sure that everything I say is utterly innocuous and impersonal. This is still a public forum where words are recorded indefinitely, and the pseudonymity here is hardly unbreakable—but that's how the web has always been.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:16 AM on June 10, 2016
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:16 AM on June 10, 2016
I'd not be surprised if analysis tools that fingerprint your prose style exist right now, and that they are capable of matching anonymous text to text by a known person.
The science on this is solid; and I'd be surprised if a PRISM-scale surveillance network, which may be tasked for finding the authors of anonymous texts (think terrorist communiqués), hasn't at least partially automated this (perhaps aggregating profiles by site-specific identifier and finding profiles on other sites with similar fingerprints).
posted by acb at 9:19 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The science on this is solid; and I'd be surprised if a PRISM-scale surveillance network, which may be tasked for finding the authors of anonymous texts (think terrorist communiqués), hasn't at least partially automated this (perhaps aggregating profiles by site-specific identifier and finding profiles on other sites with similar fingerprints).
posted by acb at 9:19 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am continually astounded by the percentage of people who keep their Facebook data completely open to the public.
Hey, if my future landlord wants to look at photos of me dressing my dog in costumes, he's welcome to it.
posted by maxsparber at 9:22 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hey, if my future landlord wants to look at photos of me dressing my dog in costumes, he's welcome to it.
posted by maxsparber at 9:22 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I wonder what they'd think of some, um, hypothetical person who only posts to MetaFilter and PianoWorld.
posted by lagomorphius at 9:25 AM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by lagomorphius at 9:25 AM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
In a weird way the crappiest thing is that the landlords would probably not even read your posts; they'd read a report on your posts, based on algorithms looking for certain words, which would only sometimes give them any clear idea of what kind of person you are, much less what kind of tenant you are.
Other than whether you were black/immigrant of course, but then, they already discriminate on that in my experience because you already meet them in person to fill out forms/give them a deposit. You don't need social media to find out what color someone is.
So not only is it horrifying, it's not all that useful even to racist asshole landlords.
So much of this automated surveillance stuff seems that way to me; maybe useful to a dystopian government overlord (or at least a good way of suppressing speech and chasing people off the internet) but not actually that useful to the capitalist assholes it's supposedly aimed at. Do my Tweets say much about my value as an employee in X job? Or as a tenant in X house? Not really. And if instituted, as pointed out upthread, people would simply abandon social media platforms or limit themselves to the blandest of posts. So it would become less and less "useful" over time and generate more garbage.
posted by emjaybee at 9:25 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Other than whether you were black/immigrant of course, but then, they already discriminate on that in my experience because you already meet them in person to fill out forms/give them a deposit. You don't need social media to find out what color someone is.
So not only is it horrifying, it's not all that useful even to racist asshole landlords.
So much of this automated surveillance stuff seems that way to me; maybe useful to a dystopian government overlord (or at least a good way of suppressing speech and chasing people off the internet) but not actually that useful to the capitalist assholes it's supposedly aimed at. Do my Tweets say much about my value as an employee in X job? Or as a tenant in X house? Not really. And if instituted, as pointed out upthread, people would simply abandon social media platforms or limit themselves to the blandest of posts. So it would become less and less "useful" over time and generate more garbage.
posted by emjaybee at 9:25 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Then lack of said accounts will be held against you.
landlord: we're not renting to you because you don't have a facebook
me: i don't have a facebook because im gay and my family is homophobic
me: are you denying me housing because i am gay
me: i will make a twitter just to tell the world about this situation
me: here is the instagram publicly documenting our communications on this matter
me: have a gr8 day
posted by poffin boffin at 9:26 AM on June 10, 2016 [28 favorites]
landlord: we're not renting to you because you don't have a facebook
me: i don't have a facebook because im gay and my family is homophobic
me: are you denying me housing because i am gay
me: i will make a twitter just to tell the world about this situation
me: here is the instagram publicly documenting our communications on this matter
me: have a gr8 day
posted by poffin boffin at 9:26 AM on June 10, 2016 [28 favorites]
I know plenty of people who have more than one Facebook profile -- one with highly restricted visibility and a strictly curated friends list, and the other more open to public consumption -- because they are, e.g., a public school teacher. I have a hard time understanding why someone couldn't simply link the landlord into a bland and sanitized "public account." Of course, it's also mystifying to me that people still don't understand, despite the many infamous examples of those who paid a heavy price for not understanding, that anything you put out on social media is effectively blasted out to the whole internet with a firehose.
posted by slkinsey at 9:28 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by slkinsey at 9:28 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd not be surprised if analysis tools that fingerprint your prose style exist right now, and that they are capable of matching anonymous text to text by a known person.
On a tangent: I wonder what the state of countermeasures to this is. I would be surprised if, say, the CIA didn't have software (developed as part of the millions it spends funding natural-language processing research) which can sanitise a piece of text rendering it immune to stylometry whilst preserving its meaning (if not nuance); perhaps they have it as Word macros for field agents, or even a policy that all emails are to be passed through it. And if they have it, presumably others (both other spy agencies, private contractors and possibly paranoid hobbyists) have something similar as well.
(One could get a similar effect by running text through Google Translate to and from different languages, but the result would probably look like garbage. I'm thinking of dedicated tools, perhaps for paraphrasing into something like Simple English and normalising any other quirks that might have slipped through, which stylometry software might pick up on.)
posted by acb at 9:30 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
On a tangent: I wonder what the state of countermeasures to this is. I would be surprised if, say, the CIA didn't have software (developed as part of the millions it spends funding natural-language processing research) which can sanitise a piece of text rendering it immune to stylometry whilst preserving its meaning (if not nuance); perhaps they have it as Word macros for field agents, or even a policy that all emails are to be passed through it. And if they have it, presumably others (both other spy agencies, private contractors and possibly paranoid hobbyists) have something similar as well.
(One could get a similar effect by running text through Google Translate to and from different languages, but the result would probably look like garbage. I'm thinking of dedicated tools, perhaps for paraphrasing into something like Simple English and normalising any other quirks that might have slipped through, which stylometry software might pick up on.)
posted by acb at 9:30 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Reposting this article, because it's relevant here as well - There Is No Such Thing as “Public” Data:
Oh no, common mistake - I think you mean "there's no such thing as private data."
posted by atoxyl at 9:31 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh no, common mistake - I think you mean "there's no such thing as private data."
posted by atoxyl at 9:31 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I have a hard time understanding why someone couldn't simply link the landlord into a bland and sanitized "public account."
Presumably the contract which mandates the linking of your social media accounts to the service will also say that omitting any account will be grounds for eviction and forfeiture of your deposit. Hey, they have the power to do this, and it's not like there's any law stopping them...
posted by acb at 9:31 AM on June 10, 2016
Presumably the contract which mandates the linking of your social media accounts to the service will also say that omitting any account will be grounds for eviction and forfeiture of your deposit. Hey, they have the power to do this, and it's not like there's any law stopping them...
posted by acb at 9:31 AM on June 10, 2016
Of course, it's also mystifying to me that people still don't understand, despite the many infamous examples of those who paid a heavy price for not understanding, that anything you put out on social media is effectively blasted out to the whole internet with a firehose.
Every day, thousands of people get on the road drunk, again, and nothing bad happens to them or anyone else. As a species we're not great at learning by example when all personal experience speaks to the opposite.
posted by griphus at 9:33 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Every day, thousands of people get on the road drunk, again, and nothing bad happens to them or anyone else. As a species we're not great at learning by example when all personal experience speaks to the opposite.
posted by griphus at 9:33 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hey, they have the power to do this, and it's not like there's any law stopping them...
Yeah, leases in nyc now tend to include clauses like "if you sue the landlord for any reason then you are 100% liable for their legal fees for the duration of the suit" which seems utterly insane to me but people are still signing them.
posted by poffin boffin at 9:34 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, leases in nyc now tend to include clauses like "if you sue the landlord for any reason then you are 100% liable for their legal fees for the duration of the suit" which seems utterly insane to me but people are still signing them.
posted by poffin boffin at 9:34 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Those were both public things, but it does seem like combining public things can create an analysis result that should be private.
I think Anticipation's comments are really close to the nugget. But both examples are something that historically have been related to 'shame' or 'negativity'. Let's try another example and maybe get closer: you're interviewing at another company without your current employer's knowledge.
Now we're at the crux: information asymetry and the counter-tactic, which is effectively espionage.
We're entering an age of broad-spectrum commercial espionage.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 9:37 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think Anticipation's comments are really close to the nugget. But both examples are something that historically have been related to 'shame' or 'negativity'. Let's try another example and maybe get closer: you're interviewing at another company without your current employer's knowledge.
Now we're at the crux: information asymetry and the counter-tactic, which is effectively espionage.
We're entering an age of broad-spectrum commercial espionage.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 9:37 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
1. Everything that can be automated will be automated.
2. Everything that can be informated will be informated.
3. Every digital application that can be used for surveillance and control will be used for surveillance and control.
posted by contraption at 9:37 AM on June 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
2. Everything that can be informated will be informated.
3. Every digital application that can be used for surveillance and control will be used for surveillance and control.
posted by contraption at 9:37 AM on June 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Yeah, leases in nyc now tend to include clauses like "if you sue the landlord for any reason then you are 100% liable for their legal fees for the duration of the suit" which seems utterly insane to me but people are still signing them.
The last job I applied for asked for a 5 year non-compete agreement for basic lab work. Your average person these days has no ability to fight abusive terms in contracts - everyone asks for them and there's always another person if you refuse, unless you are pretty exceptional.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:39 AM on June 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
The last job I applied for asked for a 5 year non-compete agreement for basic lab work. Your average person these days has no ability to fight abusive terms in contracts - everyone asks for them and there's always another person if you refuse, unless you are pretty exceptional.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:39 AM on June 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
fucking jimmy johns has you sign a non-compete. I have no idea if they've ever bothered enforcing them or if it's just some sort of weird CYA/Power Move chimera
posted by griphus at 9:42 AM on June 10, 2016
posted by griphus at 9:42 AM on June 10, 2016
Mod note: Couple comments removed; please don't do the whole tit-for-tat thing with linking to folks' social media profiles.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:49 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:49 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Foucault had this down in 1971. It is modern capitalism's nature to punish you incessantly with thousands of micro-agressions because the system needs docile bodies to grow.
posted by bukvich at 9:52 AM on June 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by bukvich at 9:52 AM on June 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
It's the next step in democratizing commercializing the surveillance state.
FTFY. In the quaint past, employers could run a credit report on you or use their connections in law enforcement to check on priors and outstandings. Now, if you can pay, or have the right connections, your employees, tenants, etc. are an open book.
posted by sudogeek at 9:57 AM on June 10, 2016
FTFY. In the quaint past, employers could run a credit report on you or use their connections in law enforcement to check on priors and outstandings. Now, if you can pay, or have the right connections, your employees, tenants, etc. are an open book.
posted by sudogeek at 9:57 AM on June 10, 2016
practically speaking, it comes down to one jerk after another trying to make a buck. or getting by, in the case of the aggressed bodies "willing" to play and perpetuate the game. haha such a fun game
posted by cotton dress sock at 9:59 AM on June 10, 2016
posted by cotton dress sock at 9:59 AM on June 10, 2016
Okay who wants to start up a competing service that sanitizes the social media accounts tied directly to your name?
That was my very first thought too.
I was thinking essentially a series of hosted CheapBotsDoneQuick style pro landlord scripts.
Everyone has two twitter feeds, one real one and another bot one, sanitised for landlord, employer, whomever.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 10:03 AM on June 10, 2016
That was my very first thought too.
I was thinking essentially a series of hosted CheapBotsDoneQuick style pro landlord scripts.
Everyone has two twitter feeds, one real one and another bot one, sanitised for landlord, employer, whomever.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 10:03 AM on June 10, 2016
In the quaint past, employers could run a credit report on you or use their connections in law enforcement to check on priors and outstandings. Now, if you can pay, or have the right connections, your employees, tenants, etc. are an open book.
That and the free-market era turning into neo-feudalism; in this case, the abolition of inalienable political rights in favour of a pure market-forces/contract-law regime is transforming the relationship between landlords and tenants into something more like that between lords and their peasants; not so much a limited commercial transaction as overarching power and everything that flows from that. Only with more of a touch of Bentham's Panopticon.
I wonder how long until droit de seigneur is back on the table.
posted by acb at 10:05 AM on June 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
That and the free-market era turning into neo-feudalism; in this case, the abolition of inalienable political rights in favour of a pure market-forces/contract-law regime is transforming the relationship between landlords and tenants into something more like that between lords and their peasants; not so much a limited commercial transaction as overarching power and everything that flows from that. Only with more of a touch of Bentham's Panopticon.
I wonder how long until droit de seigneur is back on the table.
posted by acb at 10:05 AM on June 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's the next step in democratizing commercializing the surveillance state.
FTFY.
Commercialization and democratization are not so far apart. When only the state can do something, you have no democratization. But if something is truly commercialized -- anyone who pays, gets -- you are on the road to democratization. The road gets rocky if the price is out of reach of most people, but if it gets progressively cheaper, you get increasingly democratized. This kind of service could pretty easily be "free" (i.e. ad or otherwise supported; there is very little operating cost here), so I stand by my belief it is the next step towards democratization, via commercialization.
posted by Bovine Love at 10:06 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
FTFY.
Commercialization and democratization are not so far apart. When only the state can do something, you have no democratization. But if something is truly commercialized -- anyone who pays, gets -- you are on the road to democratization. The road gets rocky if the price is out of reach of most people, but if it gets progressively cheaper, you get increasingly democratized. This kind of service could pretty easily be "free" (i.e. ad or otherwise supported; there is very little operating cost here), so I stand by my belief it is the next step towards democratization, via commercialization.
posted by Bovine Love at 10:06 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was thinking essentially a series of hosted CheapBotsDoneQuick style pro landlord scripts.
Everyone has two twitter feeds, one real one and another bot one, sanitised for landlord, employer, whomever.
Which will work until they upgrade the algorithms to detect the particular formula, scan the historical record of posts, and make an example of everybody they find.
posted by acb at 10:07 AM on June 10, 2016
Everyone has two twitter feeds, one real one and another bot one, sanitised for landlord, employer, whomever.
Which will work until they upgrade the algorithms to detect the particular formula, scan the historical record of posts, and make an example of everybody they find.
posted by acb at 10:07 AM on June 10, 2016
Why aren't our laws protecting us from things like this?
There are. And English housing law being kinda my bag, you are in luck.
1) An obligation to sign up for this is going to be an unfair contract term in a consumer contract. You can't enforce an unfair term, so feeding the landlord bullshit data would not be a breach. That wouldn't stop your landlord from using the no fault provisions of s21 Housing Act 1988, but it would mean that there would be no claim for damages from them, and no basis for seeking possession during the fixed term.
2) If this company provides inaccurate information to your landlord, that is libel, and likely to be actionable if your landlord evicts you on the basis of it.
3) If your landlord were to act unfairly toward you, or treat you less favourably, as a result of a protected characteristic, there will (depending on the PC and circumstances) be a cause of action under Equality Act 2010.
So, in my view, no landlord who values not getting sued is going to take up this moronic product. It's far too risky from any reasonable business perspective.
posted by howfar at 10:09 AM on June 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
There are. And English housing law being kinda my bag, you are in luck.
1) An obligation to sign up for this is going to be an unfair contract term in a consumer contract. You can't enforce an unfair term, so feeding the landlord bullshit data would not be a breach. That wouldn't stop your landlord from using the no fault provisions of s21 Housing Act 1988, but it would mean that there would be no claim for damages from them, and no basis for seeking possession during the fixed term.
2) If this company provides inaccurate information to your landlord, that is libel, and likely to be actionable if your landlord evicts you on the basis of it.
3) If your landlord were to act unfairly toward you, or treat you less favourably, as a result of a protected characteristic, there will (depending on the PC and circumstances) be a cause of action under Equality Act 2010.
So, in my view, no landlord who values not getting sued is going to take up this moronic product. It's far too risky from any reasonable business perspective.
posted by howfar at 10:09 AM on June 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
That's why you pay extra for the bespoke service.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 10:09 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 10:09 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Finally, its payback time. How to commercialize all these innovations and inventions invested in for the past decade or so. Second such startup I've seen in the past week. Expect more.
posted by infini at 10:10 AM on June 10, 2016
posted by infini at 10:10 AM on June 10, 2016
Award-winning beer nerd. Professional social media junkie. Typical bacon ninja. Extreme responsible tenant.
posted by Metroid Baby at 10:14 AM on June 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Metroid Baby at 10:14 AM on June 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
So, in my view, no landlord who values not getting sued is going to take up this moronic product.
Now I understand you're an expert in English housing law, but I have watched many, many episodes of the People's Court and while I haven't had any faith in the general decency of landlords to begin with (save for Mrs. Battaglia, my former landlady) I have now completely lost faith in landlords acting like rational parties even if it gets them sued.
posted by griphus at 10:16 AM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Now I understand you're an expert in English housing law, but I have watched many, many episodes of the People's Court and while I haven't had any faith in the general decency of landlords to begin with (save for Mrs. Battaglia, my former landlady) I have now completely lost faith in landlords acting like rational parties even if it gets them sued.
posted by griphus at 10:16 AM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
So, in my view, no landlord who values not getting sued is going to take up this moronic product. It's far too risky from any reasonable business perspective.
Who's got the time and energy to sue them, the people who can't afford to buy?
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:17 AM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Who's got the time and energy to sue them, the people who can't afford to buy?
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:17 AM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Another reason for UK residents to vote down the Brexit. EU Data Privacy rules are the best in the world at the moment and should be able to block this company.
Of course I also think that it is a good idea to pressure Facebook and other Social Media company to shut this company down by stating that it violates the API terms of service.
posted by humanfont at 10:19 AM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Of course I also think that it is a good idea to pressure Facebook and other Social Media company to shut this company down by stating that it violates the API terms of service.
posted by humanfont at 10:19 AM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Who's got the time and energy to sue them, the people who can't afford to buy?
That includes huge proportions of the professional classes these days, particularly in London. And the risk is there. I'm sure that some idiot landlords will sign up for this (I have less faith in the sanity and intelligence of landlords than anyone here, I'm sure), but my view is that, overall, the risk to the landlord, and to the company itself, is just too great to make this a viable prospect.
posted by howfar at 10:23 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
That includes huge proportions of the professional classes these days, particularly in London. And the risk is there. I'm sure that some idiot landlords will sign up for this (I have less faith in the sanity and intelligence of landlords than anyone here, I'm sure), but my view is that, overall, the risk to the landlord, and to the company itself, is just too great to make this a viable prospect.
posted by howfar at 10:23 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, I'm going to email our media team on Monday and see what can be done about scaring landlords off this.
posted by howfar at 10:26 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by howfar at 10:26 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Who's got the time and energy to sue them, the people who can't afford to buy?
Tenants are pretty well protected under UK law generally. The days of monstrous slum landlords have been largely replaced by buy-to-let amateurs, with a whole set of other problems.
posted by Coda Tronca at 10:27 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Tenants are pretty well protected under UK law generally. The days of monstrous slum landlords have been largely replaced by buy-to-let amateurs, with a whole set of other problems.
posted by Coda Tronca at 10:27 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, I'm going to email our media team on Monday and see what can be done about scaring landlords off this.
I like the idea of this but have a feeling it would just end up being great PR for the tool.
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:28 AM on June 10, 2016
I like the idea of this but have a feeling it would just end up being great PR for the tool.
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:28 AM on June 10, 2016
Someday, having no online presence will be akin having no credit score.
posted by davel at 10:30 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by davel at 10:30 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
This seems super unlikely to work. People don't post on social media straightforward things like "I need a loan."
You know what would work? Put a sensor on each apartment door to track the times the tenant is in the apartment. You could probably come up with a pretty good estimate of how many hours they're working based on how much time they're out of the house (compared to a baseline taken during holidays/weekends when many workplaces shut down). Radical cutback in hours outside the home? Start worrying about rent payments.
posted by miyabo at 10:33 AM on June 10, 2016
You know what would work? Put a sensor on each apartment door to track the times the tenant is in the apartment. You could probably come up with a pretty good estimate of how many hours they're working based on how much time they're out of the house (compared to a baseline taken during holidays/weekends when many workplaces shut down). Radical cutback in hours outside the home? Start worrying about rent payments.
posted by miyabo at 10:33 AM on June 10, 2016
It features a "New to country alert".
As a two-time immigrant I can tell you that this is largely redundant.
All you need to stop immigrants from renting from you is a credit check and refuse to accept any international credit information (which is de rigueur with American credit check companies). I'm almost fifty and my wife and I are dual-income no-kids and have exemplary credit histories over three different countries and we were still going to be denied a one bedroom apartment rental in Chicago unless we could get a co-signer with a long and spotless credit history.
posted by srboisvert at 10:35 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
As a two-time immigrant I can tell you that this is largely redundant.
All you need to stop immigrants from renting from you is a credit check and refuse to accept any international credit information (which is de rigueur with American credit check companies). I'm almost fifty and my wife and I are dual-income no-kids and have exemplary credit histories over three different countries and we were still going to be denied a one bedroom apartment rental in Chicago unless we could get a co-signer with a long and spotless credit history.
posted by srboisvert at 10:35 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Someday, having no online presence will be akin having no credit score.
Like in China.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:35 AM on June 10, 2016
Like in China.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:35 AM on June 10, 2016
I like the idea of this but have a feeling it would just end up being great PR for the tool.
Eh, it's all over the place already. My guess is that the various landlords' associations will be fairly amenable to advising their members to steer clear. Of all the developments we have to worry about in English housing at the moment, this one ranks pretty low for me. Maybe I'm wrong and this will take off and not vanish in a puff of shit, but I'm sceptical of its prospects of success.
posted by howfar at 10:37 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Eh, it's all over the place already. My guess is that the various landlords' associations will be fairly amenable to advising their members to steer clear. Of all the developments we have to worry about in English housing at the moment, this one ranks pretty low for me. Maybe I'm wrong and this will take off and not vanish in a puff of shit, but I'm sceptical of its prospects of success.
posted by howfar at 10:37 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
* Politicians get paid a decent, but not amazing, middle-class salary
* If you are wealthy, it's illegal to be a politician
* Lobbying of specific politicians is illegal
* While in office, you cannot accept any recompense from private groups
* Meetings or activities with representatives of private industry or their agents are on-the-record
* You may hold one term; there is no party affiliation; familial "dynasties" are illegal
* Makeup of legislative bodies must match the population for all protected classes
* Eliminate campaigns in favor of impartial Q-and-A sessions
* Questions and their answers are always published and independently fact checked
* Political advertising is illegal or is scrupulously "equal time", with no qualifying factors
* Referendums are subject to very similar rules
* Mail-in and early voting are legal for all elections
* If you are a resident and not a minor, you may vote: period
And on and on:
* Omnibus bills are illegal
* Government may not "incent" private parties via public asset (including revenue) giveaways
* Legislation or laws may not advantage a specific industry, company, trade group or other enterprise
* "Austerity" is illegal
* "Poverty" is defined as "inadequate food, shelter, medical care or other essentials for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
* "Wealthy" is defined as "having a net worth, with no exclusions, over ten times the net worth of the average individual"
* Poverty is illegal is wealth exists
* Taxation is always progressive and always based on net worth, not income
* Corporate money which leaves the country is always taxed at the highest rate
* 234 other similar points
And finally on point:
* If you provide an essential public service, like housing, you may NOT vet your customers
posted by maxwelton at 10:38 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
* If you are wealthy, it's illegal to be a politician
* Lobbying of specific politicians is illegal
* While in office, you cannot accept any recompense from private groups
* Meetings or activities with representatives of private industry or their agents are on-the-record
* You may hold one term; there is no party affiliation; familial "dynasties" are illegal
* Makeup of legislative bodies must match the population for all protected classes
* Eliminate campaigns in favor of impartial Q-and-A sessions
* Questions and their answers are always published and independently fact checked
* Political advertising is illegal or is scrupulously "equal time", with no qualifying factors
* Referendums are subject to very similar rules
* Mail-in and early voting are legal for all elections
* If you are a resident and not a minor, you may vote: period
And on and on:
* Omnibus bills are illegal
* Government may not "incent" private parties via public asset (including revenue) giveaways
* Legislation or laws may not advantage a specific industry, company, trade group or other enterprise
* "Austerity" is illegal
* "Poverty" is defined as "inadequate food, shelter, medical care or other essentials for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
* "Wealthy" is defined as "having a net worth, with no exclusions, over ten times the net worth of the average individual"
* Poverty is illegal is wealth exists
* Taxation is always progressive and always based on net worth, not income
* Corporate money which leaves the country is always taxed at the highest rate
* 234 other similar points
And finally on point:
* If you provide an essential public service, like housing, you may NOT vet your customers
posted by maxwelton at 10:38 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Radical cutback in hours outside the home? Start worrying about rent payments.
This is where the starting assumptions for algorithm design will fall apart. I'm a small business owner and I use a coworking space where I'm a long time community member. However, I've noted, that when work gets close to a deadline I tend to stay home so that I work in my jammies around the clock. This last push is what ensures the final invoice gets out the door, leading to the monies which are then metered out to the landlord on a monthly basis.
posted by infini at 10:45 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is where the starting assumptions for algorithm design will fall apart. I'm a small business owner and I use a coworking space where I'm a long time community member. However, I've noted, that when work gets close to a deadline I tend to stay home so that I work in my jammies around the clock. This last push is what ensures the final invoice gets out the door, leading to the monies which are then metered out to the landlord on a monthly basis.
posted by infini at 10:45 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The last thing I'd need would be worry about ridiculous software startups ruining my income generation patterns and alarming my already nervous Nellie of a landlady.
posted by infini at 10:47 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by infini at 10:47 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is there a Kickstarter where I can fund Anonymous to nuke this monstrosity from orbit? Hell, I don't even think people should be able to snail mail me coupons and catalogs without my consent.
posted by freecellwizard at 11:08 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by freecellwizard at 11:08 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
And if you were writing this in a short story, you'd have the scummy landlord, after implementing this ridiculous surveillance regimen, realize a (modest) rise in rents and overall greater rent stabilization. He feels he can finally afford to take out that loan, increase his business, buy more properties, become a bigger player in the rental market. The loan is going swimmingly, the loan officer and his lawyer are laboring over some clause, and the process is described to him:
'You see, in order to ensure that the loan is not anywhere in danger of default, the bank has decided to participate in a system offering lenders continuous surveillance of their debtors' online activity to determine whether they are likely to be asset risks...'
-fin-
posted by eclectist at 11:12 AM on June 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
'You see, in order to ensure that the loan is not anywhere in danger of default, the bank has decided to participate in a system offering lenders continuous surveillance of their debtors' online activity to determine whether they are likely to be asset risks...'
-fin-
posted by eclectist at 11:12 AM on June 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
howfar: "2) If this company provides inaccurate information to your landlord, that is libel, and likely to be actionable if your landlord evicts you on the basis of it."
I guess the question then, is whether the company or my landlord are under any obligation to let me know the contents of this report.
posted by RobotHero at 11:29 AM on June 10, 2016
I guess the question then, is whether the company or my landlord are under any obligation to let me know the contents of this report.
posted by RobotHero at 11:29 AM on June 10, 2016
I think Anticipation's comments are really close to the nugget. But both examples are something that historically have been related to 'shame' or 'negativity'. Let's try another example and maybe get closer: you're interviewing at another company without your current employer's knowledge.
I see your point about the negativity, but this example doesn't quite work either, since interviewing at another company isn't really public. I used the pregnant 15 year old example because it was a thing in the news, but one could equally point out that determining from watching someone buy hand lotion and we-don't-know-what-else-publicly-available(or at least not quite private) information that they are pregnant would constitute creating private information from public information, even if the woman in question were thrilled to be pregnant and in no way stigmatized for being pregnant. Ditto for spoiling someone surprise party or christmas present using publicly observable things,
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:34 AM on June 10, 2016
I see your point about the negativity, but this example doesn't quite work either, since interviewing at another company isn't really public. I used the pregnant 15 year old example because it was a thing in the news, but one could equally point out that determining from watching someone buy hand lotion and we-don't-know-what-else-publicly-available(or at least not quite private) information that they are pregnant would constitute creating private information from public information, even if the woman in question were thrilled to be pregnant and in no way stigmatized for being pregnant. Ditto for spoiling someone surprise party or christmas present using publicly observable things,
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:34 AM on June 10, 2016
Also, I can't figure out which Anticipation comment you're pointing to as the nugget.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:36 AM on June 10, 2016
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:36 AM on June 10, 2016
I would expect Facebook to provide this company with some kind of API access to more easily get the information TenantAssured wants. After all, we're talking about Facebook here.
Existence of this API would literally be biggest news in Silicon Valley since the first Snowden revelations.
posted by sideshow at 11:42 AM on June 10, 2016
Existence of this API would literally be biggest news in Silicon Valley since the first Snowden revelations.
posted by sideshow at 11:42 AM on June 10, 2016
Considering the info & links posted by howfar and humanfont on UK/EU tenants' rights, it's pretty clear that these parasites picked the wrong side of the Atlantic to set up shop. I'm sure they'll attend to the error presently.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 11:48 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 11:48 AM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
RobotHero, in the UK companies are required to provide copies of the data they hold about you on request. Which isn't to say that they would necessarily comply, since sanctions are minimal...
posted by threetwentytwo at 12:06 PM on June 10, 2016
posted by threetwentytwo at 12:06 PM on June 10, 2016
The internet is a resource which can be used for both good and bad, but bad seems to be winning by a wide margin.
posted by Beholder at 12:13 PM on June 10, 2016
posted by Beholder at 12:13 PM on June 10, 2016
Every day I get closer to just nuking all of my social media from orbit. Even if it's tantamount to social suicide these days. Staying plugged in and connected doesn't seem worth it anymore.
posted by naju at 12:25 PM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by naju at 12:25 PM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Why would anyone ever agree to this?
I've posted this story on mefi like 10+ times, but one of my friends lost out on a great paying summer job because she didn't give them access to her facebook.
...Because she didn't have one, but they didn't believe her, and their corporate hiring process was essentially "retrieve applicants facebook info" with no negative checkbox. They were convinced she had one under a false name.
So yea, not only could this become the norm, but you could also become a NonPerson by refusing to have social media. The idea of being refused an apartment because you don't have an fb/ig/twitter/etc is fucked up.
This honestly scares the fucking fuck out of me, and every few years when i'm applying for a new job i wonder if this is going to be the time that i either hand over my keys and bend over for the ass camera or walk away from the job.
Existence of this API would literally be biggest news in Silicon Valley since the first Snowden revelations.
There are already paid background check companies that have some bullshit way of getting this info. It might not be an API, but it's some kind of backdoor. They aren't the cheap ones, they're the ones that BigHugeCorp hiring processes use. Just like how instagram "officially" doesn't allow uploads from anything but mobile devices, but there's expensive social media presence tools that can do scheduled uploads from a workstation.
posted by emptythought at 1:21 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
I've posted this story on mefi like 10+ times, but one of my friends lost out on a great paying summer job because she didn't give them access to her facebook.
...Because she didn't have one, but they didn't believe her, and their corporate hiring process was essentially "retrieve applicants facebook info" with no negative checkbox. They were convinced she had one under a false name.
So yea, not only could this become the norm, but you could also become a NonPerson by refusing to have social media. The idea of being refused an apartment because you don't have an fb/ig/twitter/etc is fucked up.
This honestly scares the fucking fuck out of me, and every few years when i'm applying for a new job i wonder if this is going to be the time that i either hand over my keys and bend over for the ass camera or walk away from the job.
Existence of this API would literally be biggest news in Silicon Valley since the first Snowden revelations.
There are already paid background check companies that have some bullshit way of getting this info. It might not be an API, but it's some kind of backdoor. They aren't the cheap ones, they're the ones that BigHugeCorp hiring processes use. Just like how instagram "officially" doesn't allow uploads from anything but mobile devices, but there's expensive social media presence tools that can do scheduled uploads from a workstation.
posted by emptythought at 1:21 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
The last job I applied for asked for a 5 year non-compete agreement for basic lab work.
What the actual fuck. 5 years? That's unbelievable. I'd hope it's also unenforceable, but IANAL. Goddamn.
posted by Existential Dread at 1:53 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
What the actual fuck. 5 years? That's unbelievable. I'd hope it's also unenforceable, but IANAL. Goddamn.
posted by Existential Dread at 1:53 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've posted this story on mefi like 10+ times, but one of my friends lost out on a great paying summer job because she didn't give them access to her facebook.
...Because she didn't have one, but they didn't believe her, and their corporate hiring process was essentially "retrieve applicants facebook info" with no negative checkbox. They were convinced she had one under a false name.
That sucks in several ways but she probably dodged a bullet in terms of hellish places to work.
posted by emjaybee at 2:03 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
...Because she didn't have one, but they didn't believe her, and their corporate hiring process was essentially "retrieve applicants facebook info" with no negative checkbox. They were convinced she had one under a false name.
That sucks in several ways but she probably dodged a bullet in terms of hellish places to work.
posted by emjaybee at 2:03 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Existential Dread: What the actual fuck. 5 years? That's unbelievable. I'd hope it's also unenforceable, but IANAL. Goddamn.
Apparently they don't want to train people, only to have them leave to the competition. Which I can kind of understand, but from the perspective of your workers, that's called 'career advancement'.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:20 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Apparently they don't want to train people, only to have them leave to the competition. Which I can kind of understand, but from the perspective of your workers, that's called 'career advancement'.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:20 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've always felt the requirement for non-compete should be equal severance. You want a year non-compete? Then mandatory year severance, regardless of cause (though not voluntary severance, of course). They don't want you to work, they gotta cover the diff. Its about time regular workers got some parachutes.
posted by Bovine Love at 2:33 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Bovine Love at 2:33 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Bovine Love: Then mandatory year severance, regardless of cause (though not voluntary severance, of course).
Even that means your career is effectively dead-ended. You can't ever leave to get a better position.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:36 PM on June 10, 2016
Even that means your career is effectively dead-ended. You can't ever leave to get a better position.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:36 PM on June 10, 2016
But the disincentive on a non-compete would be so strong that it is highly unlikely you would see any non-competes of any serious length. And, of course, you could take a position that did not compete. I've been very lucky, and been able to negotiate my non-compete on three occasions; twice to reduce the scope, and once (most recently) to remove it. But the way they push around more juniors is pretty sickening.
posted by Bovine Love at 2:45 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Bovine Love at 2:45 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Even that means your career is effectively dead-ended. You can't ever leave to get a better position.There's no way you could spend a year doing something of value which does not directly compete against your former employer – like take some classes in an area you've been meaning to grow, do something at a non-profit which cannot afford to pay market rates, etc?
In any case, that's an edge case because there's currently almost no cost to being greedy. As soon as they had to pay someone to sit on the beach, they'd be dropped in all but a very few cases involving C-level executives, top sales people, etc. who are well-compensated and not negotiating from a position of weakness.
posted by adamsc at 2:49 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is probably getting to be a bit too far off-topic, but I think it does combine with the premise of the main article to show how intent forces seem to be to monitor and control workers.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:00 PM on June 10, 2016
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:00 PM on June 10, 2016
I realize Louisiana is one of the most backward-ass states in the country in most ways, but we do have one really cool law that was attached as a rider to the usually horrible Right to Work union-busting law, which is that non-compete agreements for blue collar workers pretty much aren't worth the paper they are printed on. You cannot sign away the right to be employed in a trade in which you are trained. I know people who have tried it and the judge has literally laughed in their faces.
There is still some cause if you're in sales or management and take your Rolodex with you, but if you service widgets and you take your skills to a competing widget service company, your old employer basically can pound sand.
posted by Bringer Tom at 3:15 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
There is still some cause if you're in sales or management and take your Rolodex with you, but if you service widgets and you take your skills to a competing widget service company, your old employer basically can pound sand.
posted by Bringer Tom at 3:15 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Someday, having no online presence will be akin having no credit score.
The horror I feel at this very likely possibility is palpable. Good god.
I, too, don't do social media for Reasons. The very thought of a potential employer not hiring me or a future mortgage broker denying my loan or a future insurance company refusing to insure me just because they can't find my social media presence is.... is... I don't even know. Is when I decide this world is too fucked to live in anymore?
Seriously, I can't even. The internet sure is a glorious and evil Thing.
posted by bologna on wry at 4:15 PM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The horror I feel at this very likely possibility is palpable. Good god.
I, too, don't do social media for Reasons. The very thought of a potential employer not hiring me or a future mortgage broker denying my loan or a future insurance company refusing to insure me just because they can't find my social media presence is.... is... I don't even know. Is when I decide this world is too fucked to live in anymore?
Seriously, I can't even. The internet sure is a glorious and evil Thing.
posted by bologna on wry at 4:15 PM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
some employees are already monitoring online gaming behaviour and using that to make hiring and firing decisions.
"Riot identified the 30 most toxic employees (all of whom were more junior Rioters, new to the working world) and classified them into two categories:
*this person needs a stern warning
*this person should leave Riot, because their in-game chat was unusually toxic
All prospective employees are asked for their in-game account names so their behaviour can be tracked. All are then rated on a traffic light system to highlight any potential troublesome proclivities."
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:36 PM on June 10, 2016
"Riot identified the 30 most toxic employees (all of whom were more junior Rioters, new to the working world) and classified them into two categories:
*this person needs a stern warning
*this person should leave Riot, because their in-game chat was unusually toxic
All prospective employees are asked for their in-game account names so their behaviour can be tracked. All are then rated on a traffic light system to highlight any potential troublesome proclivities."
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:36 PM on June 10, 2016
I think that situation is really different, especially considering a) this was for, arguably, workplace behavior considering that game is an extension of their workplace and b) they were essentially reprimanded/fired for harassment, not being a credit risk or whatever.
posted by griphus at 4:46 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by griphus at 4:46 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Given that Riot *makes* the game that they were monitoring, they were entirely within reasonable boundaries to fire employees who were abusive to people playing.
posted by tavella at 4:47 PM on June 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by tavella at 4:47 PM on June 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
I quit social media two years ago. The idea of being refused employment or housing because i value my privacy seems astoundingly anti democratic and very, very disturbingly close to real after posting this article. Thank you for sharing this.
posted by thebotanyofsouls at 5:48 PM on June 10, 2016
posted by thebotanyofsouls at 5:48 PM on June 10, 2016
Riot goes beyond employee monitoring, they mine past data from future hires (all chats are considered public) and run it through some presumably automated passive-aggressive comment detector, which is an early input in the hiring process. They are likely within their rights to do so, but I'm trying to think back to how many years ago I would have found this creepy.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:14 PM on June 10, 2016
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:14 PM on June 10, 2016
Wait for the counter apps. Don't worry; be happy. (Have you forgotten your credit rating already?)
The chum is already in the water. I guess mining data from the "social media" would be gathering the low hanging fruit. Isn't it already possible to gather all our fiscal data (everything we've ever purchased with a debit or credit card)? Plus other ways data miners have of scanning our market interests (URL searches), selling their lists to various marketers, so that we may get those wonderful phone calls at dinner time, the neat email notices, and the stacks of glossy stuff in snail mail. They are doing this for our benefit, right? They tailor the market to our needs. They just need to have us tell them a bit about us for their files. No fuss, they can put it together for us if we give them a username and register a password.
At what point of intel gathering may a collector infer individual deeds from meta-data? Is there really a bright line at which confidentiality is assumed to be our right?
If this program works as well as our credit ratings, then the clown buses have just begun to enter the arena. In that arena, already we've seen that 2+2 certainly equals four, but a sum 3 or 5 is perhaps close enough for their graph.
posted by mule98J at 8:09 PM on June 10, 2016
The chum is already in the water. I guess mining data from the "social media" would be gathering the low hanging fruit. Isn't it already possible to gather all our fiscal data (everything we've ever purchased with a debit or credit card)? Plus other ways data miners have of scanning our market interests (URL searches), selling their lists to various marketers, so that we may get those wonderful phone calls at dinner time, the neat email notices, and the stacks of glossy stuff in snail mail. They are doing this for our benefit, right? They tailor the market to our needs. They just need to have us tell them a bit about us for their files. No fuss, they can put it together for us if we give them a username and register a password.
At what point of intel gathering may a collector infer individual deeds from meta-data? Is there really a bright line at which confidentiality is assumed to be our right?
If this program works as well as our credit ratings, then the clown buses have just begun to enter the arena. In that arena, already we've seen that 2+2 certainly equals four, but a sum 3 or 5 is perhaps close enough for their graph.
posted by mule98J at 8:09 PM on June 10, 2016
I guess the question then, is whether the company or my landlord are under any obligation to let me know the contents of this report.
As has been noted, there is a legal obligation to disclose personal information to its subject. And, of course, the are formal disclosure procedures in the event of legal action.
It's possibly important to remember that, in English law, there is a "loser pays" principle,m meaning that responsibility for payment of everyone's legal costs nearly always follows the main judgment. Together with there being less layers of courts, this makes it less feasible that this company could "tie things up in litigation" in the US style (even if they get the VC money they'd need to do that).
There are so many circumstances where this could turn into an utter shitshow for the landlord and these clowns, I just don't think they're going to be lucky enough to avoid them for long.
That doesn't mean we don't need to think, seriously and promptly, about the options for legislation to provide specific protections in relation to social media data, but it does suggest, to me, that the changes we require are probably relatively small and manageable.
posted by howfar at 1:28 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
As has been noted, there is a legal obligation to disclose personal information to its subject. And, of course, the are formal disclosure procedures in the event of legal action.
It's possibly important to remember that, in English law, there is a "loser pays" principle,m meaning that responsibility for payment of everyone's legal costs nearly always follows the main judgment. Together with there being less layers of courts, this makes it less feasible that this company could "tie things up in litigation" in the US style (even if they get the VC money they'd need to do that).
There are so many circumstances where this could turn into an utter shitshow for the landlord and these clowns, I just don't think they're going to be lucky enough to avoid them for long.
That doesn't mean we don't need to think, seriously and promptly, about the options for legislation to provide specific protections in relation to social media data, but it does suggest, to me, that the changes we require are probably relatively small and manageable.
posted by howfar at 1:28 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Considering the info & links posted by howfar and humanfont on UK/EU tenants' rights, it's pretty clear that these parasites picked the wrong side of the Atlantic to set up shop. I'm sure they'll attend to the error presently.
Then again, given the polls showing Leave having a 10% lead in the referendum, they might not need to. Britain's Wealth Creators may soon find themselves liberated from the burden of tenants, employees and debtors having inalienable rights.
posted by acb at 4:54 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Then again, given the polls showing Leave having a 10% lead in the referendum, they might not need to. Britain's Wealth Creators may soon find themselves liberated from the burden of tenants, employees and debtors having inalienable rights.
posted by acb at 4:54 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Tony Awards That Let Everyone In on the Joke | Korra 2.0 - Space Lions Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by theraflu at 8:24 AM on June 10, 2016 [78 favorites]