Can more invasive social contact by others indicate shrinking boundaries around our privacy?
It’s nearly 10 p.m., and you’re at home, brushing your teeth. Your iPhone starts screaming. You snap to attention, no thanks to that inherent anxiety that accompanies living as a young single woman in an urban environment. You grudgingly answer the phone, hoping to be greeted by an automated pharmacy reminder’s monotone, and not a friend needing a ride at this time of night. Instead, it’s some dude asking if you’ve heard about Prop Something for the third time and if you have a few minutes to talk. You grit your teeth and try muster up some manners.
Sound like last night? Join the club.
As you all know elections are today, November 6th. While we’re excited to be casting our ballots, we believe we can speak for nearly all in lamenting over the amount of recent “encouragement” we’ve received to cast those votes. Just this week alone, we’ve received half a dozen calls from local campaigns encouraging either a vote for a particular candidate, or a yea or nay on a particular measure (We’re looking at you, “Yes on Prop 32″-ers.) It’s a given that building support through direct contact methods like telephone calls is far from new, but we’d like to make a case for some boundaries around the use of those methods. Call us old-fashioned, but we fondly regard that old (and apparently outdated) custom of refraining from calling a lady after dark.
Posted in: Sci/Tech
, big brother
, Big Brother is watching you
, election 2012
, generation y
, girls around me
, internet privacy
, mobile app
, presidential elections
, social media
Print This Post
Sunday Shout-Out picks out the week’s stories that simply slipped our minds.
What can we say about yesterday’s game? (Without bursting into hysterical tears, that is.) [DailyCal]
There, there—drown your sorrows in a glass of red wine. Or, hey, how ’bout this handful of blueberries? Wash it all down with some tasty peanuts and you might guarantee yourself a few extra years. Nom nom resveratrol. [UCB Wellness Letter]
Americans agree: Behavioral targeting is creepy. No! Really? There’s nothing dystopian-novel-esque about “following consumers’ actions and then tailoring advertisements for the consumers based on those actions.” Nothing at all. [Media Newswire]
According to wisdom garnered from the UC Berkeley Media Technology Summit, newspapers need to “be part of the disruption.” Good thing we wrote the book on disruption, yo. [Media Bistro]
Image Source: Victoria Chow, Daily Cal [ASIB]
Earlier: Get Some!