Re: [projectvrm] The marketing/cybercrime symbiosis

[M a r y H o d d e r < >]

I've been thinking about this, TRob, since you posted it.

So the forced disrobing done to various women a couple of weeks ago, by 
hacking their iCloud backups through the back door using law enforcement 
software,
.. that to me was a sexual crime. It doesn't matter to me that it was 
digital..  or the perpetrators have never met their victims.

Regarding invading my intellectual space, the forced grabbing of my 
attention.. when I'm out, in physical space or visiting another online site.. 
I don't have a problem with that.
At least that's what I tell myself.. it's the bargain for going to public 
commercial spaces.

But the notion that marketers can come into my home or my own personal cloud, 
to do invade my space without my permission, is another matter.

I don't have a word for it either.

But the key violation with sex crimes, rape, sexual abuse of children, etc. 
is that the perpetrator is violently communicating to the victim that "the 
victim doesn't control their own body"
or their body isn't theirs to self-determine. The victim has no choice and 
therefore has to live forever feeling and reliving the violation of that 
reality.

This communication, which becomes deeply rooted in the victim's body, known 
to them all the time, which is why the act changes people's lives and causes 
them 
to develop things like severe PTSD, OCD and other severe mental illness.

So.. the thing I've been wondering the past few days is whether there is an 
intellectual equivalent:  we are intellectually invaded out there.. online or 
in person, but we
choose to go to those places, knowing there may be intellectual invasion.

But when we are in our own space, what does it do to us to be intellectually 
invaded?

We, the US, as well as many other places that have bought into our ways of 
creating advertising and media as the internet's influence is far reaching 
the past couple of decades.... 
We have bought into the notion that this is all okay and we take public 
intellectual invasion by choice.

But what happens to us psychologically when we are personally intellectually 
invaded? Is the message similar to rape? "You don't own your own mind; we 
do." 
or "You can't control your own inputs, and therefore your thoughts are not 
yours to control."

I don't have an answer, but I do think it's very interesting to contemplate. 
We are a culture that is becoming more deeply addictive, which is one of the 
things that often happens
to those who lose control over their own bodies via external attacks. I 
wonder if we aren't also becoming addictive (looking for relief from our own 
pains by using things
to feel better, needing those things for relief) due to intellectual invasion.

In the past I've thought about our increasingly addictive nature as a culture 
as something that people chose because the advertisers of all things we might 
"use" 
are so alluring.. but ultimately it's a choice.  But maybe increasing 
addictiveness is also due to intellectual invasion, where we cannot face the 
loss of our own 
autonomy and choice, head on.

So we are even more susceptible to the marking of things we might use to feel 
better.

Anyway.... 

(Sunday afternoon ramblings...).

Mary


On Sep 17, 2014, at 2:44 PM, T.Rob wrote:

> At the suggestion of a list member I reworded a couple of sentences in the
> post.  We do not have a good word for the type of violation that occurs when
> someone forcibly invades your personal digital space, against your will and
> over your strongly voiced objections.  It isn't blackmail or bribery.
> Coercion doesn't begin to come close to describing it.  When it is in the
> real world and sexual we call it rape.  If you imagine being surrounded by a
> mob of aggressive marketers, all vying to get close enough to shove their
> message down your throat, rape may seem a good analogy.  It did to me at
> that moment.
> 
> However, if you've experienced that in the physical world the digital
> equivalent nothing else deserves to share the word.  Rather than diminish
> the word any further with the analogy, I've updated the post to compare
> Marketers to a horde of mindless zombies relentlessly pursuing you to get a
> piece of your brain.  We're back to something that falls far short of
> describing the violation of a Marketer bypassing consumer-side controls to
> surveill you, while asserting (and apparently believing) that they have an
> absolute right to exploit you in this way.  
> 
> So it's slightly less strong shit.  But thanks for the tweet. :-)
> 
> Kind regards,
> -- T.Rob
> 
> T.Robert Wyatt, Managing partner
> IoPT Consulting, LLC
> +1 704-443-TROB
> https://ioptconsulting.com
> https://twitter.com/tdotrob
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Doc Searls 
>> [mailto:
 ]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 17:25 PM
>> To: T.Rob
>> Cc: ProjectVRM list
>> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] The marketing/cybercrime symbiosis
>> 
>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:15 PM, T.Rob 
>> <
 >
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>> The marketing industry as a whole can never address the integrity
>>>> issue, because there's always someone who's willing to be a little
>>>> creepier, a little closer to the edge.
>>> 
>>> Let's hope that isn't true.  The problem is they lost sight of their
>> mission.  More thoughts here: http://iopt.us/1wq8LSW   (At 1805 words it's
>> a short one for me.)
>> 
>> For some reason my tweet about this doesn't show in my timeline, or the
>> timeline of the one guy who retweeted it. But here is what it said:
>> 
>> @tdotrob: The Marketing/Cybercrime Symbiosis: http://bit.ly/1o4297w
>> Strong shit. #VRM #marketing #security #privacy
>> 
>>>> The question is how many of the high- reputation brand advertisers
>>>> will split off from the bottom-feeders.
>>> 
>>> The most recent exploit in the news wasn't bottom feeders.  The entire
>> model based on circumventing consumer controls is indistinguishable from
>> malware.  It is in fact nothing more than legal malware.
>> 
>> That's a pull-quote.
>> 
>> Doc
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> -- T.Rob
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Don Marti 
>>>> [mailto:
 ]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 10:20 AM
>>>> To: Katherine Warman Kern
>>>> Cc: T.Rob; 
>>>> <
 >
>>>> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] The marketing/cybercrime symbiosis
>>>> 
>>>> The marketing industry as a whole can never address the integrity
>>>> issue, because there's always someone who's willing to be a little
>>>> creepier, a little closer to the edge.  The question is how many of
>>>> the high- reputation brand advertisers will split off from the bottom-
>> feeders.
>>>> 
>>>> A little history... We had a good tool against email
>>>> spam: a broad "private right of action"
>>>> in state antispam laws such as Washington's CEMA (
>>>> http://www.dwt.com/advisories/9th_Circuit_Deals_Blow_to_Professional_
>>>> CANSP
>>>> AM_Complaint_Mills_08_10_2009/
>>>> ).  The federal CAN-SPAM law, backed by the Direct Marketing
>>>> Association, pre-empted state antispam laws and we lost private right
>> of action.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, the DMA sided with spammers over its own members who send legit,
>>>> opt- in marketing email.
>>>> 
>>>> The same thing is happening now with the IAB and the creepy ads.
>>>> Existing organizations such as the DMA and IAB have been captured by
>>>> the intermediaries who sit between advertisers and content creators.
>>>> 
>>>> There's a growing recognition from both "ends" that the "middle"
>>>> isn't working.  The question is how to connect dissatisfied web
>>>> publishers to dissatisfied brand advertisers without the creepy stuff
>> in the middle.
>>>> Doc covers the problem here:
>>>> 
>>>> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2014/09/16/giving-respect-to-brand-
>>>> advertising/
>>>> 
>>>> Don
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> begin Katherine Warman Kern quotation of Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at
>>>> 06:49:33AM -
>>>> 0400:
>>>>> 
>>>>> T.Rob, I wish there were a way to convince the marketing industry to
>>>> address the integrity issue. The huge volume of both intentionally
>>>> malicious and unintentionally intrusive marketing makes it more and
>>>> more difficult and expensive for an advertiser with integrity to stand
>> out.
>>>>> 
>>>>> K-
>>>>> Katherine Warman Kern
>>>>> @comradity
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 8:01 PM, "T.Rob" 
>>>>>> <
 >
>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Recently I posted to this list a claim that marketing has become
>>>>>> the
>>>> R&D lab for cybercrime.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1.      Users find ways to stay anonymous and block ads.
>>>>>> 2.      Marketing devices new adtech to circumvent user controls.
>>>>>> 3.      Cybercriminals ride the rails marketing builds.
>>>>>> 4.      Rinse, repeat.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I asked whether marketing would ever voluntarily take
>>>>>> responsibility for their role and whether there is a line that even
>>>>>> Marketing won't cross.  In other words, will Marketing ever say
>>>>>> "just because we can doesn't mean we should" and find a business
>>>>>> model that does not support cybercrime.  To my surprise, it turns
>>>>>> out I'd overlooked some significant activity in this area.  The OTA
>>>>>> is saying the same thing, except they are saying it to Congress:
>>>>>> http://iopt.us/1r6io96
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "According to OTA research, malvertising increased by over 200% in
>>>> 2013 to over 209,000 incidents, generating over 12.4 billion
>>>> malicious ad impressions."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> " In the absence of policy and traffic quality controls, organized
>>>> crime has recognized malvertising as the "exploit of choice" because
>>>> it offers the ability to be anonymous and remain undetected for days."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Failure to address these threats suggests the needs for
>>>>>> legislation
>>>> not unlike State data breach laws, requiring mandatory notification,
>>>> data sharing and remediation to those who have been harmed."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> -- T.Rob
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> T.Robert Wyatt, Managing partner
>>>>>> IoPT Consulting, LLC
>>>>>> +1 704-443-TROB
>>>>>> https://ioptconsulting.com
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/tdotrob
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Don Marti
>>>> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
>>>> 
 
>>> 
>