While the focus on music piracy dominated the media for years, an equally important (and far less discussed) phenomenon occurred during the transition from broadcast radio to streaming. People were no longer beholden to the gatekeepers known as DJs. Today, listeners have the entire history of music at their fingertips. Each person is now their own DJ.
If it's free, you are the product
Though this might appear empowering, every advancement comes at a cost. Because listeners changed how they consumed music (namely, from radio broadcasts to personalized online streams), companies had to change their monetization strategy. Now, you are the product.
When you curate a playlist, you are inadvertently sending tons of data to different companies, with Spotify, YouTube, and Apple Music leading the way. As it turns out, according to a new study from Israeli researchers — Ariel University's Dr. Ron Hirschprung and Tel Aviv University's Dr. Ori Leshman — your musical tastes reveal more about your personality than you likely ever imagined.
Musical selection is a quasi-identifier
There are different ways in which you can be identified. Identifiers, such as your social security number, are highly specific and unique to you. But then there are quasi-identifiers — things like age, gender, and occupation — that can also give away your identity. The authors claim that musical selection is a quasi-identifier, and they argue that, as with other forms of sensitive data, our playlists should be considered when constructing privacy laws.
In their paper, they write, "[T]he combination of Big-Data, together with the availability of computational power — which is notoriously known for its potential of privacy violation — introduces a privacy threat from an unexpected angle: listening to music."
To prove their point, the researchers divided undergraduate students into four groups with roughly 35 volunteers in each. Every member submitted three songs from their playlist of favorite tracks. Then, the researchers picked five members at random in each group, and the remaining volunteers were asked to vote to determine if they could match the members with their playlists.
Photo: cherryandbees / Adobe Stock
Even to the surprise of the researchers, the participants were right between 80 percent and 100 percent of the time. Incredibly, these students did not know one another well and were not aware in advance of anyone's musical preferences.
There are many outward signs that mark us in the eyes of others: what we wear, what we eat, how we style our hair, our mannerisms and posture, and even where we stand at parties. Other people pick up on these subtle clues, which in turn allows them to predict our personalities. In this study, the volunteers were able to identify the musical preferences of strangers simply by observing their outward appearances.
Of course, companies notice similar things and are able to exploit what they learn about us. In a press release, the authors stated:
"Music can become a form of characterization, and even an identifier. It provides commercial companies like Google and Spotify with additional and more in-depth information about us as users of these platforms. In the digital world we live in today, these findings have far-reaching implications on privacy violations, especially since information about people can be inferred from a completely unexpected source, which is therefore lacking in protection against such violations."
Musical preference isn't the only way in which you can be identified online. For instance, your browsing history can give away your identity. Listening to your favorite tunes while searching Google for a new recipe isn't as innocuous as you might think.--
Stay in touch with Derek on Twitter and Facebook. His most recent book is "Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."
Do you ever go a day without being online? Unless you're taking a conscious break, the answer is most likely no. This is why it's crucial for you to grab a two-year subscription to Private Internet Access VPN which is on sale for a limited time.
The service boasts over ten years of experience in the virtual private network space, resulting in a VPN that's one of the best-reviewed and highest-rated platforms around. For example, it's earned 4.7 out of 5 stars on the App Store, 4.5 out of 5 on Google Play, and CNET named it one of the Best VPN Services of 2021.
With Private Internet Access, your connection will be paired with the largest global server network so you'll have access to whatever you want, no matter where you are. For instance, if you're back to traveling and there's online information that's restricted in the area you're in, this VPN is a way around that.
On the flip side, anonymity is another major feature, ultimately protecting you from any hackers attempting to gain access to your private data. Every time you get online, you'll have an invisibility cloak covering you. You won't have to worry about all these fancy benefits slowing your connection down either. The VPN guarantees tip-top speed and also allows up to 10 devices to simultaneously connect to it.
There's no doubt this is what your WFH setup has been missing all along. Don't wait; take advantage of the over 70% discount on a two-year subscription to Private Internet Access VPN (regularly $258).
Prices subject to change.
When you buy something through a link in this article or from our shop, Big Think earns a small commission. Thank you for supporting our team's work.
If ever there were a reason to wear masks, the insurrection at the Capitol last week would have been it. But many of those present believed the anti-mask rhetoric being used as a distraction from the nation's skyrocketing death rate. In fact, the day might even prove to have been a superspreader event, with at least two congresspeople becoming infected after the siege.
Those involved in the attempted coup d'état were not concerned about a virus. Nor, apparently, were they worried about shielding themselves from the tens of thousands of hours of recorded video taken by thousands of phones. In a strange merging of social media and dark web chat rooms come to life, separating actual insurrectionists from revolutionary tourists could prove to be a cumbersome vocation. One thing is certain: identifying them is not difficult.
Instagram-worthy sieges bring us to a longstanding existential question: should law enforcement be allowed to use AI and cell phone data to prosecute offenders?
Of the many security failures that day, one stood out: the small number of arrests for a breach of outsized magnitude. As the nation ogled at an unemployed actor turned conspiracy shaman behind the speaker's chair in real-time, scenes of horrendous violence took hours, even days, to be released. In a game of seemingly futile catch-up, federal agencies opened tip lines to identify the insurrectionists that should have easily been in their grasp.
But the public responded.
Brad Templeton: Today's Surveillance Society is Beyond Orwellian
There's the ex-wife of a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel whose neck gaiter was pulled down; the patriotic cohort of Internet detectives crowd-sourcing information for the FBI; the director of the infamous pseudoscience film, "Plandemic," praising the "patriots" that breached the building moments after he left the siege himself; and that unemployed actor who regularly attended QAnon events leaving the most public trail imaginable, and who is currently in custody facing serious charges.
Fish in barrels, all of them. What of the remaining thousands?
This privacy discussion is not new. Arthur Holland Michel, founder and co-director of the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, warned Big Think in 2019 about the dangers of surveillance technology—specifically, in this case, a camera known as Gorgon Stare.
"Say there is a big public protest. With this camera, you can follow thousands of protesters back to their homes. Now you have a list of the home addresses of all the people involved in a political movement. If on their way home you witness them committing some crime—breaking a traffic regulation or frequenting a location that is known to be involved in the drug trade—you can use that surveillance data against them to essentially shut them up. That's why we have laws that prevent the use of surveillance technologies because it is human instinct to abuse them. That's why we need controls."
Late last year, University of Miami students pushed back against school administrators using facial recognition software for potentially insidious means—a protest not limited to that campus. Can you place students refusing to attend classes during a pandemic with armed insurrectionists attempting to change the results of a democratic election? Not even close. More to the point, however, we should leave political leanings out of the equation when deciding who we think should be monitored.
Protesters enter the U.S. Capitol Building on January 06, 2021 in Washington, DC. Congress held a joint session today to ratify President-elect Joe Biden's 306-232 Electoral College win over President Donald Trump.
Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images
Shortly after the siege, the New Yorker's Ronan Farrow helped reveal the identity of the aforementioned lieutenant colonel while conservatives claim the riots were actually antifa—a conspiracy theory that's been peddled before. Politics simply can't be avoided in this age. Still, Albert Fox Cahn, founder of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, doesn't believe the insurrection attempt justifies an uptick in facial recognition technology.
"We don't need a cutting-edge surveillance dragnet to find the perpetrators of this attack: They tracked themselves. They livestreamed their felonies from the halls of Congress, recording each crime in full HD. We don't need facial recognition, geofences, and cell tower data to find those responsible, we need police officers willing to do their job."
The New Orleans City Council recently banned similar surveillance technologies due to fears that it would unfairly target minorities. San Francisco was the first city to outright ban facial recognition nearly two years ago. Cahn's point is that the FBI shouldn't be using AI to cover for the government's failure to protect the Capitol. Besides, the insurrectionists outed themselves on their own social media feeds.
When Pandora's box cracks open, it's hard to push the monster back in. Naomi Klein detailed the corporate takeover of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in "The Shock Doctrine." Real estate brokers, charter school companies, and government agencies didn't cause the flood, but they certainly profited from it. The fear is that companies like Clearview AI, which saw a 26 percent spike in usage of its facial recognition service following the attack, will be incentivized, as will police departments to use such technology for any means they choose.
Cahn comes to a similar conclusion: don't expose American citizens to the "anti-democratic technology" known as facial recognition. New Yorkers had to endure subway backpack checks for nearly a decade after 9/11; this slope is even slipperier.
As the US braces for further "armed protests" in all 50 states over the coming week, phones need to keep capturing footage. Bystanders need to remain safe, of course. But if last week was any indication, the insurrectionists have difficulty deciphering between social media and real life. Their feeds should reveal enough.--
Stay in touch with Derek on Twitter and Facebook. His most recent book is "Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."
