And Now We Worry

Ambinder reader TDE on Barack Obama's sophisticated database-building operation:

I donated a small amount and supplied my work contact information below before the California primary. A few days later, I get a message on my home answering machine – not the numbers below and _not_ a listed number – thanking me for my support and inviting me to an event “at a neighbor’s house” two blocks from my house (miles away from the information I supplied below). I was not contacted at my work address. So they took my name from the donation and then located my unlisted home phone number and unprovided home address and put it in their database so they could contact me for a neighborhood meet up.

Not sure we need to give this team access to even the NSA's legal powers, much less it's new Bush-era unrestrained spying power. Just saying.

Comments

Did this person put their phone number on their voter registration form, or fill it out at an event anywhere? It sounds like they just matched up their name from their finance database with their voter file. Not exactly rocket science.

Posted by Anonymous | May 9, 2008 5:58 PM

Actually, it is a demonstration of just how little NSA needs all the powers that the Bush administration has been demanding. There's tons of information already freely available on the web. All it takes is a little savvy, and a little time and effort, and it's yours.

Posted by wj | May 9, 2008 6:00 PM

Not only what anonymous said, but they're required to do that kind of due diligence about supporters to comply with FEC regulations. Using it for further solicitation of donations and organizing is a bit of a gray area, and what this guy has described falls on the "creepy" side of that area in my estimation.

But it's not illegal, and it would be extremely distressing if Obama's campaign WEREN'T checking up on each every donor. One and a half million donors means keeping a great deal of very careful records simply to make sure you're following the laws (limits, no money from foreigners, keeping the 'no lobbyists' pledge).

And yes, the kool-aid tastes lovely.

Posted by James Hare | May 9, 2008 6:02 PM

The database is set up by congressional districts and precincts. I'm sure they just cross-referenced his name. Just a neighborhood worker bee doing her thing.

Posted by Mocha Dem | May 9, 2008 6:04 PM

Why, of course, that makes perfect sense- Obama looks like some kind of scary guy because of his database building operation, so you'll, uh, what? exactly? Kinda missing the second part of the sentence here, and not finding it in the post.

Frankly, considering the number of false positives on the no-fly list, it might even be a relief to deal with a gang that could shoot straight for a change.

Face it, that horse has left the stable, and it's going to take some strong wranglers to get it back in.

Posted by serial catowner | May 9, 2008 6:05 PM

Definitely not rocket science. I doorbelled for Obama in Washington State and came across plenty of bad addresses. I wish he'd had NSA-like powers. I would have wasted a lot less time.

Posted by Chris | May 9, 2008 6:05 PM

Hillary for you and me. Bring back our Democracy!!

Posted by Bill | May 9, 2008 6:09 PM

By comparison, I gave ten bucks to both McCain and Huckabee in January, when it seemed like both campaigns needed money (and I needed the entertainment.)

Huckabee hasn't stopped e-mailing. From the McCain campaign? One e-mail, one piece of direct mail. No followup e-mail, no constant begging, etc. Bully for Obama's people (but it's likely just picking the right subcontractor, something the Bush people don't seem to be able to do.)

Posted by Not this time | May 9, 2008 6:12 PM

As a Obama supporter who has done data entry for the Obama campaign in Oregon, the data they are working with is either internal or among the publicly available voter registration data.

There is no there there.

Posted by Mikelx | May 9, 2008 6:16 PM

Bill, that song is on my iPod...ironically...but it's on there alright. Hill-ar-ry...for-you-and-me!

Posted by Hassan | May 9, 2008 6:17 PM

Obama knows where you live. Be Very Afraid. Vote McCain.

Posted by SqueakyRat | May 9, 2008 6:18 PM

Indeed; the campaign uses the voter file- which is public information- to match it up with people who have given money, signed up to volunteer, etc. Then, Obama volunteers- VOLUNTEERS- invite known Obama supporters to their houses for a "neighborhood meeting", where they discuss how they can help Obama GOTV in their own neighborhoods. People divide up tasks, get other supporters energized, and it culminates in identifying all supporters precinct-by-precinct and getting them out on Election Day.

Please; there's nothing sinister about this- it's all done with voter file information, all available publicly for a price.

Before you reprint bulls--t stories, please please please know what you're talking about! Do a little investigation, ok?

Posted by P | May 9, 2008 6:40 PM

Am I the only one who read the original comment from Ambers' correspondent NOT as "gee this is creepy" but rather "these guys are serious and isn't that admirable"?

Like other commenters here: It's a damn good thing that the Obama campaign is this organized, IMHO.

This is the same kind of detailed data-mining to help GOTV for which Rove et al were so famous, is it not?

Posted by DairyStateDad | May 9, 2008 6:42 PM

And P, I think MY was joking.

Posted by DairyStateDad | May 9, 2008 6:49 PM

I know this was a post-in-jest but its really simple: Google! Its likely this guy's info is somewhere freely available on the net.

Posted by fletcher | May 9, 2008 6:50 PM

Hah. It's hilarious to see people claiming "Obama's only data mining publicly available information!"

Where were you all when the controversy about Total Information Awareness was in full swing? I assume you all were completely supporting Admiral Poindexter, right? Suuuuure.

Posted by Al | May 9, 2008 6:54 PM

Oh noes! The white folks aren't gonna like this effectiveness. Obama should have just spent the money on shots (like a Clinton) or hookers (like a Republican) instead trying to be all elitist (and uppity). Dadgum!

Posted by ben | May 9, 2008 7:03 PM

If you're registered to vote, there is so much information about you available through databases for rent that I can practically smell you. We use them where I work. It goes from how often you vote to your opinions on the issues (the latter is less reliable - my record said I was a gun nut, for instance.) and then some.

Posted by margaret | May 9, 2008 7:03 PM

If you're registered to vote, there is so much information about you available through databases for rent that I can practically smell you. We use them where I work. It goes from how often you vote to your opinions on the issues (the latter is less reliable - my record said I was a gun nut, for instance.) and then some.

Posted by margaret | May 9, 2008 7:04 PM

If you're registered to vote, there is so much information about you available through databases for rent that I can practically smell you. We use them where I work. It goes from how often you vote to your opinions on the issues (the latter is less reliable - my record said I was a gun nut, for instance.) and then some.

Posted by margaret | May 9, 2008 7:05 PM

If you're registered to vote, there is so much information about you available through databases for rent that I can practically smell you. We use them where I work. It goes from how often you vote to your opinions on the issues (the latter is less reliable - my record said I was a gun nut, for instance.) and then some.

Posted by margaret | May 9, 2008 7:05 PM

If you're registered to vote, there is so much information about you available through databases for rent that I can practically smell you. We use them where I work. It goes from how often you vote to your opinions on the issues (the latter is less reliable - my record said I was a gun nut, for instance.) and then some.

Posted by margaret | May 9, 2008 7:05 PM

Even worse TDE was informed masturbation was OK if he and his wife couldn't resolve their sexual incompatibility. Who knew?!

Posted by steve duncan | May 9, 2008 7:24 PM

Looks like margaret is learning about the crappy Atlantic posting system. Matt, any chance you could kick in some of your vast trust fund to get it fixed?

Posted by ben | May 9, 2008 7:26 PM

Generally if I donate money using my credit card, they ask for the billing address, which is my home address. It's pretty standard operating procedure, I think.

Posted by David | May 9, 2008 7:36 PM

Generally if I donate money using my credit card, they ask for the billing address, which is my home address. It's pretty standard operating procedure, I think.

Posted by David | May 9, 2008 7:36 PM

Someone stop margaret from smelling me, it's probably not a very fun experience.

Use of technology: GOOD
Public oversight: GOOD
Bush: BAD
Secrecy: BAD

Scientist and author David Brin has some excellent ideas about open government and the development of technology at http://www.davidbrin.com/privacyarticles.html. The problem we have now is lots of new technology and absolutely NO oversight/openness of either public or private sources. From his writings and prior public policy, Obama would be the best candidate for pushing the public back into oversight of our goverment.

Once again, Team Obama demonstrates that the only experience that counts is the effective kind. That's how he overcame the biggest name-recognition margin in modern history to become the candidate (almost).

Posted by Jaycal | May 9, 2008 7:42 PM

The information out in the public is pretty scary.

You can access data such as what magazines people subscribe to.

And trust me... the Obama campaign has that information, as do most other large politically active organizations (such as politically parties, labor unions, etc...)

Posted by dave | May 9, 2008 8:24 PM

The Veronica Mars writers noted that it was tough to balance real-to-life PI work with fun-to-watch-on-tv PI work, because Veronica could have spent all her time sitting in front of a computer, pulling up all the info she needed.

Posted by Deborah | May 9, 2008 8:40 PM

My dream scenario:

Senior Democrat (eg Gore) sets Hillary an ultimatum: show by X May what your possible route to the nomination is, and if you can't do it drop out.

Posted by burning flock | May 9, 2008 8:54 PM

"it would be extremely distressing if Obama's campaign WEREN'T checking up on each every donor."

Precisely.

Posted by Rihilism | May 9, 2008 9:00 PM

What is scary is how naive this individual is. No wonder he supported Obama

Posted by d'oh! | May 9, 2008 11:45 PM

It is a little scary to think what would happen if someone ten times as Bush abused the office of the President but Obama isn't doing anything illegal, wrong, or even unethical here. This is all public information and it beats being called at work.

Posted by tom c | May 9, 2008 11:52 PM

It is a little scary to think what would happen if someone ten times as smart as Bush abused the office of the President but Obama isn't doing anything illegal, wrong, or even unethical here. This is all public information and it beats being called at work.

Posted by tom c | May 9, 2008 11:59 PM

Ah, the wonders of the EU Data Protection directive, keeping the US from basing border entry decisions upon whoever gets a halal meal.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 10, 2008 12:15 AM

From reading some of Brin's stories I get the impression Brin would be happy if people could retain the privacy they used to enjoy before microphones and cameras were everywhere and before the internet had everyone's information on it. However, he argues quite convincingly, that isn't going to happen. The only choice we have now is whether we allow wealthy corporations and governments to have all the information on everyone else while continuing to work in secrecy themselves, or whether NOBODY gets to have any privacy and your average citizen can find out exactly what his representatives are doing and what shenanigans large corporations are up to. Again, Brin argues quite convincingly that the latter state is more desirable then the former.

With regard to Yglesias' article, I'm inclined to think that this level of competence is good, whether the competence is displayed by bad guys or good guys. I would rather live in fear of my government having a sinister plot to pocket 5% of all tax dollars for themselves, then worrying about my government being so incompetent that the guy in charge accidentally starts a nuclear war because he hit the wrong buttons and thought he was ordering pizza.

Posted by Archimedes | May 10, 2008 12:30 AM

just sayin': Government shouldn't be allowed to do what private citizens are allowed to do. Period.

Obama is not the government of the United States, or of any single State, nor is his campaign an organ of any State or of the United States of America. They run by different rules than our government runs, so what's the issue?

This is the reality of the Brave New World: private entities record our comings-and-goings, our stops at the ATM, our filling up at the gas stations, our visits to 7-11, our walking past the local market, etc. Government is largely prohibited from doing that.

So what's the issue? That Obama's campaign is utilizing the tools available to the private sector but not to the government?

I wonder....

Posted by west coast | May 10, 2008 1:39 AM

just sayin': Government shouldn't be allowed to do what private citizens are allowed to do. Period.

Obama is not the government of the United States, or of any single State, nor is his campaign an organ of any State or of the United States of America. They run by different rules than our government runs, so what's the issue?

This is the reality of the Brave New World: private entities record our comings-and-goings, our stops at the ATM, our filling up at the gas stations, our visits to 7-11, our walking past the local market, etc. Government is largely prohibited from doing that.

So what's the issue? That Obama's campaign is utilizing the tools available to the private sector but not to the government?

I wonder....

Posted by west coast | May 10, 2008 1:40 AM

People always think an "unlisted" number is one no one can ever find. They forget about the thousands of forms they've filled out, or otherwise volunteered, with said number. Obviously, one of them that this person filled out is publicly available.

Posted by evie | May 10, 2008 5:16 AM

Please correct "its" for "it's." I know, it's a pet peeve. But you did go to Harvard, so. . .

Posted by George Smilivici | May 10, 2008 12:09 PM

Counter example:
I attended an Obama event in Philly just before I moved about a year ago. Even though I have donated five or six times from my new address in a state many miles away, all of the targeted e-mail I received this year was aimed at me as a Pennsylvania voter, not a voter in the new state, where I have lived, donated from, registered, and voted. The primary date in the new state was two months BEFORE the Pennsylvania primary, and I donated to Obama's campaign at least two months before that. So I don't think they have a know-everything spy machine that predicts our every move.

Posted by kajey | May 10, 2008 5:11 PM