LOS ANGELES—The New York Times has a rather eye-opening story regarding the extent to which the Obama and Romney campaigns are purchasing personal data about voters and also engaging in data-mining themselves in order to, as the Times put it, "influence voting habits." The methods being used and the information being gathered are "at a scale never before imagined," the paper adds.
"In the weeks before Election Day, millions of voters will hear from callers with surprisingly detailed knowledge of their lives," writes Charles Duhigg for the Times. "These callers—friends of friends or long-lost work colleagues—will identify themselves as volunteers for the campaigns or independent political groups.
"The callers," Duhigg continues, "will be guided by scripts and call lists compiled by people—or computers—with access to details like whether voters may have visited pornography Web sites, have homes in foreclosure, are more prone to drink Michelob Ultra than Corona or have gay friends or enjoy expensive vacations."
It sounds like a movie plot, but it isn't. Despite some lip service about protecting the privacy of Americans, the campaigns are spending money to buy this information and are even data-mining themselves, according to the paper.
Obama campaign spokesperson Adam Fetcher claims, “We are committed to protecting individual privacy at every turn—adhering to industry best practices on privacy and going above and beyond what’s required by law."
Romney campaign mouthpiece Ryan Williams states, “The Romney campaign respects the privacy rights of all Americans. We are committed to ensuring that all of our voter outreach is governed by the highest ethical standards.”
"In interviews, however," the Times claims, "consultants to both campaigns said they had bought demographic data from companies that study details like voters’ shopping histories, gambling tendencies, interest in get-rich-quick schemes, dating preferences and financial problems. The campaigns themselves, according to campaign employees, have examined voters’ online exchanges and social networks to see what they care about and whom they know. They have also authorized tests to see if, say, a phone call from a distant cousin or a new friend would be more likely to prompt the urge to cast a ballot."
That does indeed sound as if they are getting into some rather intimate details, but it gets better.
Duhigg continues, "The campaigns have planted software known as cookies on voters’ computers to see if they frequent evangelical or erotic Web sites for clues to their moral perspectives. Voters who visit religious Web sites might be greeted with religion-friendly messages when they return to mittromney.com or barackobama.com. The campaigns’ consultants have run experiments to determine if embarrassing someone for not voting by sending letters to their neighbors or posting their voting histories online is effective."
The message is clear. In this brave new world, a citizen can henceforth assume that all intimate facts, relationships and habits are essentially the property of others, including political campaigns that may have every reason to encourage or discourage you from voting.
If this sounds familiar, it should.
According to Romney’s political director, “Target anticipates your habits, which direction you automatically turn when you walk through the doors, what you automatically put in your shopping cart. We’re doing the same thing with how people vote.”
Time will tell if the campaigns actually decide to use personal information to embarrass a potential voter.
“I’ve had half-a-dozen conversations with third parties who are wondering if this is the year to start shaming,” a Democratic consultant told the Times. “Obama can’t do it. But the ‘super PACs’ are anonymous. They don’t have to put anything on the flier to let the voter know who to blame.”
