User:Stellasuperba/sandbox

Lead Section

 * The lead contains a clear introductory sentence that gives useful insight into broader topic covered.
 * The lead refers to most of the articles major sections. There are some which are not explicitly stated in the lead (United States Safe Harbor Program), which may better fit under an already listed heading (politics?), or may merit an entirely new section (e.g. International Standards?).
 * All of the information in the article fulls under the umbrella of subjects outlined in the lead with the exception of "Authorities", which may require acknowledgement in the lead, but may also be encapsulated in the subject "legal". That said, there is nothing outlined in the lead that is not covered in the article.
 * The lead is extremely concise. There may be room for expansion, although I don't have any specific suggestions at the moment. Hard to say, given that "Information Privacy" is more of a general idea.

Content

 * The content all appears to to relevant to the topic. The content seems a little sparse, but this is hard to say given the general ambiguity of the topic and its scope.
 * Article also appears up-to-date, although there has likely been new development in terms of legislation and political salience. I don't know if these would necessarily be included on the page (or potentially linked to a separate page), but there is likely more that can be added.
 * As mentioned above, there is certainly content that could be added, depending on the level of depth appropriate/expected for each topic. Most of those potential deep-dives (at least, those I can think of) are mentioned in passing elsewhere in the article.
 * I think the article could potentially spend more time on the social (or legal interpretations) of informational privacy. Many of the sub-categories refer to either methods of extracting information or ways to protect yourself from information, both of which are relevant, but don't necessarily speak to the contemporary social implication. Could include a section called "Modern Debate" or "Applications."
 * The article does not specifically discuss matters of equity/discrimination in information privacy practices. Would probably be a good addition, given that these issues often lay front-and-center for this topic, both in terms of data/information acquisition protocols as well as the instrumental value of personal data. I suppose, in that sense, there is likely a "content" or "equity" gap.

Tone and Balance

 * Article is written from a neutral tone.
 * The article appears to be generally free of bias.
 * There are no minority or fringe viewpoints--none of the content covered is subject to controversy (at least, in the context that it is covered). May actually be worth including some material about controversial takes on modern dilemmas.
 * There are no attempts to persuade readers towards any particular conclusion.
 * Except, potentially, the content under the "Internet" heading, which prompts users to "exercise caution when posting anything online." This isn't exactly a controversial stance, but there is certainly a value judgement hidden in there. Could be written more objectively.

Sources and References

 * Content is generally well-sourced, with the exception of the section on "Protection of Privacy in Information Systems." Information on "Policy Communication," "Policy Enforcement," and "Protecting Privacy on the Internet," are not directly cited.
 * The sources cited are, for the most part, up to date. Those that are a little dated generally refer to information which has likely remain unchanged.
 * Information about P3P, XACML, EPAL, and WS-Privacy (under protection of privacy in information systems heading) should be cited and potentially hyper-linked.
 * The sources are thorough for what they cover. Again, I am not sure at what point a magnified look at a specific topic merits its own page. (If you were writing an article on "Birds" you wouldn't feel compelled to list every species of bird, or talk about the entire diversity of flight/migration patterns.)
 * Sources cited in the article seem to be authored by a semi-diverse crowd, at least in terms of gender, though even that aspect appears male-dominated.
 * Links seem to be in good working-order.
 * Much of the information is cited from news sources (albeit, generally credible ones). There are likely more centralized, wide-scope academic journals to be sourced on the same material (and to provide addition insights.

Organization and Writing Quality

 * Article is generally concise and well written. That said:
 * Sub-section on "Education" uses a particularly long quote that could stand to be paraphrased.
 * The content under the heading "cable television" is a little unclear. The quote which comprises the majority of the content in the section is loosely correlated to the topic, but does not follow clearly from the topic sentence and also lack the contextual support to make sense of it.
 * Section on "United States Safe Harbor Program," despite containing pertinent information, is a little oddly placed. As mentioned elsewhere, an entire section devoted to "International Standards" or "Contemporary Debate" may be warranted.
 * The lead references individual subjects (computer security, data security, and information security). Some of these are not clearly covered in the article, while others are sporadically touched upon under broader headings. These may each merit their own heading, followed by sub-headings such as "Applications," "Risks," "Protective Measures," etc. Again, may be outside the scope of the article.
 * I do not see any clear grammatical errors.
 * The article is somewhat well organized, at least for the information it covers. That said, the entire organization scheme could be re-thought. Information privacy is both a technological and a normative issue, each pertaining to very different (yet overlapping) subject matter. Attempting to restructure the page in a way that generally captured these aspects might be useful. For instance, the section on "Information Types" would stay put, but could be followed by something along the lines of "Accessing Information" (working title), which might better explain the various ways of capturing, storing, and protecting information. The next portion of the article might be dedicated to modern outlooks on privacy measures, potential conflicting interests, industry standards, legislation, current debates, etc. Structuring the article as such might also make it a better avenue for routing people to more in-depth information about these topics.

Images and Media

 * There is no images or media embedded in the page.

Talk Page Discussions

 * Article is part of a couple of different ongoing projects: "WikiProject Computing," "WikiProject Internet," and "WikiProject Mass Surveillance." It is rated as c-class, and is marked as high priority.
 * Primary ongoing conversation is about an article name-change. People are arguing for the change on a grammatical basis, as well as questioning what, exactly, is including under that heading. There is a call for more legal scholarship (I agree), as well as some minor conversations about tone and sourcing.

Overall Impression

 * Article is a good start, but it is a start. There will need to be some concrete organizational changes in order to better navigate content changes. The article does a good job giving a general overview of the breadth of the topic, but does not adequately suss out the individual aspects which may be better described when approached from the vantage point of various disciplines. In this sense, I believe that the article is somewhat under-developed. Starting from discipline-specific understandings of the topic may provide a better framework for structuring the article

Lead Section

 * Introductory sentence clearly describes the articles topic.
 * The lead does not adequately outline all of the material covered in the (already underdeveloped) article, it does not refer to application, cases, or modern interpretations.
 * There is reference in the lead to the European Convention on Human Rights, where the article was drafted, but no information in the article about the convention or the drafting of the document.
 * The lead is clear and concise. Could definitely stand to be lengthened as the content in the article is expanded

Content

 * The content available in the article is relevant to the topic.
 * There is no content that does not belong, but there is definitely a bunch of content that is missing.
 * The article needs a section on background. What prompted the drafting of the document? Was there deliberation about what was to be included? How about wording?
 * Definitions of the protected criteria ("family life," "home," and "private life") all need to be expanded upon, including citations of case law which have sussed out these meaning.
 * Article needs a section on applicability. What are the various ways in which the law has been enforced in its individual components? What has been learned through those applications? How has that shifted modern application?
 * Article needs a section on exceptions. Given that the topic is broad-sweeping privacy law (or "treaty"), under what circumstances can those be disregarded, either by the individual or a government entity (surveillance, incarceration, etc.)?
 * Article also makes a quick mention of implications on environmental policy--this could merit its own section.
 * There are mild equity/content gaps in the article. It addresses the implications of the treaty (and subsequent case law) involving the usage of the treaty in response to LGBT specific issues, but there is undoubtedly more, especially given that it is an international treaty (and thus captures not only tradition issues of domestic privacy, which can tend to be exacerbated with certain demographics, but also issues that arise in surveillance between nations.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is written in a neutral tone.
 * There are some statements that portray subjective opinions as universal facts. For instance, under the "Right" section, it says "Article 8 is considered to be one of the conventions most open-ended provisions," where it should say that "many believe that Article 8 is one of the conventions most open-ended provisions."
 * There is a section devoted to the specific utility of the treaty in regards to one marginalized community (LGBT), but could potentially include sections pertaining to others. (That said, I'm not sure if any sections devoted to marginalized communities are necessarily appropriate for the article. They are, in some sense, a separate issue.)
 * There are no explicit attempts to persuade. That said, it is a law (sort of), and as such, is open for interpretation. Some of the wording implies absolute interpretations (i.e. "Respect for private life must also comprise to a certain degree the right to establish and develop relationship (sic.) and develop relationship with other human beings.) There may be other ways to write this, including citing case law which substantiated this claim as a current interpretation.

Sources and References

 * The citations available are generally reliable.
 * That said, there is a lot of content which needs sourcing and citation, particularly in some of the most important section.
 * The section on "Family Life" that outlines the interpretation of one of the three important clauses has no citation.
 * There are also a number of cases discussed, including a small analysis of the outcomes, which are not cited. Each individual case needs it's own citation.
 * Some sources are more thorough than others. Many are news sources which offer passing statements about substantive portions of the article. Better sources (which may provide extra insight) are certainly available. There is a ton of academic writing available on Article 8, spanning a wide-range of topics.
 * Hard to make a statement about the diversity of the source authors based on their names. I can't really infer much more than gender.

Organization and Writing Quality

 * The article has some clear grammatical and organizational errors.
 * The section labeled "Case Law" needs to be removed. Instead, those cases should be cited to analyze and expand upon various aspects of Article 8.
 * As mentioned above, there are new sections which might better organize the article (background, interpretation, application, exceptions, debate, modern implications, etc.)

Images and Media

 * No images or media embedded in the article.

Talk Page

 * Talk page is pretty barren. One person calling for a legal expert to expand on whether the UK is still within the jurisdiction given Brexit (good question). The other is a simple fix for a link.

Overall Impressions

 * The article is definitely underdeveloped. It gives a brief overview of some of the most basic and necessary facets, and thus gives an adequate description of the topic, but it could be expanded so much more.
 * Strong point of the article is the abundance of case law included. Unfortunately, they are not organized in a way that gives the reader a better idea of the scope of the Article.
 * The article is not complete. Should be expanded with at least some of the sections suggested above. It should also serve as a better link to other related articles.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

= Predatory Advertising = Predatory advertising, or predatory marketing, can be largely understood as the practice of manipulating vulnerable persons or populations into unfavorable market transactions through the undisclosed exploitation of these vulnerabilities. The vulnerabilities of persons/populations can be hard to determine, especially as they are contextually dependent and may not exist across all circumstances. Commonly exploited vulnerabilities include physical, emotional, social, cognitive, and financial characteristics. The history of the practice has existed as long as general advertising, but particularly egregious forms have accompanied the explosive rise of information technology. Massive data analytics industries have allowed marketers to access previously sparse and inaccessible personal information, leveraging and optimizing it through the use of savvy algorithms. Some common examples today include for-profit college industries, "fringe" financial institutions, political micro-targeting, and elder/child exploitation. Many legal actions have been taken at different levels of government to mitigate the practice, with various levels of success.

History
Maybe cigarettes? Other old examples? Find research.

Vulnerable Populations
Predatory advertising depends, in large part, on the deliberate exploitation of individuals based on specific traits, life circumstances, or membership within certain groups. It is important to understand that the "vulnerabilities" created by these characteristics are context-dependent, meaning they vary between markets and transactions. In other words, an individual with some or any of these traits is not rendered universally vulnerable within the marketplace. Furthermore, not all marketing or advertisements targeting these traits are necessarily "predatory," as the condition for the practice relies primarily on the intent of the advertiser. This distinction can be especially opaque given marketing's natural tendency--even within ethical bounds--to identify the "pain points" of potential consumers. Nonetheless, it can be helpful to delineate the most common forms of vulnerability. Some of the most common avenues of exploitation are :


 * 1) Physical Vulnerability, wherein certain biological or physiological traits render an individual less likely to engage in market transactions from a fair position. Examples of this may include the targeting of overweight individuals with ineffective weight loss supplements, or the advertisement of unregulated "medical" devices to those suffering from degenerative or other painful diseases.
 * 2) Cognitive Vulnerability, wherein cognitive deficiencies render an individual unable to fully comprehend and process advertising information that may be deceptive or manipulative. Examples of this are not limited to the cognitively disabled, and may include advertising that targets minors or the elderly.
 * 3) Motivational Vulnerability, wherein certain individual traits or extraordinary personal circumstances may inhibit a persons ability to resist or properly negotiate certain market advances. Examples of this may include the advertisement of price-inflated funeral services to freshly grieving individuals (a practice which has been addressed by the FTC's "Funeral Rule" )
 * 4) Social Vulnerability, wherein the social circumstances of an individual greatly increases their propensity to engage in unfavorable transaction. Examples of this include the marketing of for-profit colleges to combat veterans struggling to find gainful employment.
 * 5) Emotional Vulnerability, wherein the emotional states of individuals--temporary or persisting--are leveraged by advertisers to sell products that purportedly address these emotional ills. This avenue of exploitation has become especially pertinent as marketer access to data on individual users has become increasingly comprehensive, and algorithms have been able to return relevant advertisements in almost real-time.
 * 6) Economic Vulnerability, wherein an individuals economic circumstances either limits their ability to engage in alternative market transactions, or increases the chances they will be susceptible to other predatory marketing schemes. Examples of this include the marketing of high-interest payday loans to financially unstable individuals, who may have no other options.

Data Collection
The explosive growth of information technologies throughout the 21st century has brought with it entirely new privacy concerns, especially surrounding the collection and usage of personal data. As reliance on digital platforms has become almost necessary for participation in modern life, individuals have been asked to relinquish large amounts of personal information, either through direct submission or by inference from user engagement. Although access to personal information is generally agreed upon by participants, as outlined in end-user permissions agreements, questions of informed consent have brought forth numerous legislative efforts, including propositions to increase clarity in consent forms, as well as efforts to establish clear bounds of data usage.

The commodification of this data, which is highly valued across a number of sectors, has driven the exponential rise of a "data brokering" industry. Barring established industry norms and regulations (some of which can be hard to apply in the digital age), such as those in healthcare, finance, or other similarly protected sectors, data collected by individual entities like Google or Facebook, as well as that collected by third party brokerage agencies such as Acxiom, can have a wide range of applications. Though many of these are relatively benign or even positive, often being utilized to tailor personalized user-experiences, the availability of such data to unethical marketers has inflamed problems of predatory advertising.

Data extraction and aggregation occurs over a vast network of platforms and businesses. Much of the information originates from discrete sources, including social media engagement, loyalty programs and purchasing history from online retailers, web browser queries, government records, and mobile application usage and preferences. Information gathered is comprised of many personal data points, ranging from available payment methods to health conditions. In the case of large technology platforms, especially for whom a large part of the revenue stream is composed of ad sales, this information may often be sold--either directly to advertisers or to third party brokerage firms. These firms specialize in the aggregation and categorization of data from a number of sources, which is then sold on the market to advertisers and other interested parties.

The process of categorization is especially important to understanding the avenues of exploitation made possible by comprehensive data aggregates. A 2013 report by the Federal Trade Commission found that data brokerage companies compiled individuals into groups with labels such as: "Zero Mobility," "Credit Crunched: City Families," "Rural and Barely Making It," "Enduring Hardships," and "Tough Start: Young Single Parents."

Algorithmic Targeting
Whereas information pertaining to consumer vulnerabilities has been inferred through proxies for some time, such as the targeting of certain demographics based on specific television viewership, the drastic increase of direct access to information around the individual--especially coupled with methods of direct-to-consumer personalized advertisements--has intensified the accuracy and potency of predatory advertisement campaigns.

This information then allows advertisers to engage in online behavioral targeting, wherein advertisements are delivered to individuals based on personal information previously extracted from various sources. Complex algorithms, coupled with the aggregation of previously discrete data, have allowed advertisers to not only target increasingly precise individual characteristics, but also to draw inferences about individuals based on statistical corollaries requiring massive data sets. One consequence of this is that traditionally protected information, such as health outcomes, race, or private financial histories, can be inferred with greater certainty without ever collecting data on the specific item in question.

Once data has been collected, aggregated, and categorized, the connection between advertiser and consumer can be made. These are often fostered by intermediaries such as DoubleClick, a Google-owned company that offers marketers a wide range of websites to display their advertisements. The use of these intermediaries relieves websites of having to sell individual ad space, allowing algorithms to instead display personalized ads to users based on a complex mix of desirable metrics. This practice has sometimes been called "micro-targeting." While this process optimizes the ability to provide users with an individualized experience, it alleviates much of the culpability traditionally placed on ad-revenue dependent platforms to monitor their ad placements. Furthermore, when the algorithms are built using grouping labels such as those listed in the previous section (i.e. "Burdened by Debt: Singles"), advertisers looking to target and exploit specific characteristics can easily reach the most vulnerable populations.

It's important to note that the use of algorithms may result in such targeted advertisement despite being built without any malicious intent. Those utilizing Machine Learning will "train" themselves to display advertisements that result in user-engagement based on prior interactions, which may reinforce and increase the rate at which vulnerable populations receive advertisements that "speak" to those vulnerabilities.

(**Potential Outline** (FTC) A Call for Transparency pp.23-30)

For-Profit Colleges
The for-profit college industry has faced a number of law suits over the last decade, many of which surrounded their engagement in deceptive marketing campaigns. A study by the United States Government Accountability Office found that, of fifteen institutions selected, four engaged in outright fraudulent practices, while all fifteen were found to have made deceptive statements about enrollment, employment prospects, or tuition. While the advertisements were found to generally target low-income individuals, the large majority of marketing efforts were focused on veterans due to their access to G.I. Bill benefits. An executive order released during the Obama Administration found that following the post September 11th reinstatement of the Bill, which re-allocated funds towards higher education for veterans, for-profit institutions began aggressively targeting veterans and their families, with some institutions recruiting individuals with traumatic brain injuries as well as other deep emotional vulnerabilities. Much of the lead generation for these institutions is conducted using the data-driven instruments outlined above. (Expand; add O'Neil reference, "What states can do" reference; comb GAO report)

Predatory Lending
Predatory lending is the process of granting high-interest loans with unfavorable terms to financially-distressed individuals. The data landscape has made this individual's much easier to find. As mentioned above, this information can be ascertained through a number of correlated online behaviors. For instance, those who regularly search for coupons, "fringe" financial institutions, or low-paying jobs in their search browser may be disproportionately targeted with advertisement for these loans. Research has shown that "fringe" financial institutions such as check cashing outlets (CCO's), payday lenders, and pawnbrokers have a disproportionate presence in low-income neighborhoods, especially when compared to the relative under-representation of mainstream financial institutions in the same localities. The mixture of lacking alternative resources and savvy targeting methods have resulted in major increases in the prevalence of such loans, especially following the Great Recession. (Comb/Add "Innovation in Fintech Lending"; also "Predatory Inclusion in Consumer Credit")

Political Messaging
The use of data-driven micro-targeting has allowed politicians to tailor messages to specific individuals, speaking directly to the preferences, concerns, interests, and fears that they may have displayed through their online activity. While these practices may be largely benign, by allowing politicians to increase engagement by using individual names or campaigning on individually-relevant issues, there have been some disastrous effects on democratic processes. One of the most notable examples is the Cambridge Analytica scandal, wherein the consulting firm was found to have utilized large amounts of personal data to create highly-inflammatory targeted material, having purported impact on numerous international elections. (Add information about the fake news feedback loops based on user-engagement)

Legislative Measures
In the United States, many of the regulatory efforts put forth in response to predatory advertising practices, especially those involving the usage of personal data, have been spearheaded by the Federal Trade Commission. Congress too, has brought forth numerous legislative measures to address the informational asymmetry and privacy concerns of modern data-collection and advertising. Proponents of regulatory action have explained that data regulation can be exceptionally hard to craft for a number of reasons. Though many have called for greater transparency in data-collection efforts, critics claims that transparency alone falls short, as data is often repackaged and sold through many brokerage firms, leading to many uses that may not have been clearly outlined as the original purpose or intent. These critics suggest that direct parameters would be better placed on the operational uses of data in general. Opponents of regulatory reform say this would, perhaps unintentionally, drastically inhibit businesses ability to utilize the data for positive measures. Furthermore, because singular data points may be used across a large array of industries, sector-specific legislation may prove fruitless. To date, congress has introduced a few noteworthy bills, most of which were never passed:


 * Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2011 (Not Passed): Required data-collection entities, especially those involved in the sale and disclosure of personally identifiable information, to provide consumers notice upon any intent to use personal data for reasons unrelated to the original transaction. Also required outlined entities to provide consumers an option to request that their personal information not be used for any purposes outside of the transaction for up to five years. A similar version of the bill was introduced in 2015, but also died before making it to the vote.


 * Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011 (Not Passed): Established parameters on the purposes for which data could be collected and placed further limitations on the length of time that data could be retained. Also established and FTC protocol that would require covered entities (those collection data on 5000+ U.S. citizens in the span of any year) to: 1) Give individuals notice about the use and storage of their personal information; 2) Provide individuals opportunities to "opt-out" of data collection, especially as used in behavioral advertising; 3) Provide avenues to fix inaccurate information; 4) Allow data points with personally identifiable characteristics to be rendered.


 * Data Broker Accountability and Transparency Act of 2019 (Not Passed): Established requirements for entities that engage in the collections of personal data for the purposes of re-sale to third party entities. Also required that individuals be granted access to the information that is collected about themselves.