# data[].attributes.body
This is a website used for finding people. By just searching a name, I was able to narrow down a person that can quite possibly be the one and only Mr. John Andrew Brannon of Larchmont Charter School. He used to live in Florida, and currently resides about 24 minutes from school.

Orwell warned us about this in 1984. In his book, the party could find out as much information about a person as they wanted to at any given moment. With this site, I can do the same thing. If I paid a small fee of about $0.95, I would've been able to confirm if it was you, and have access to your contact information, social profiles, as well as some other personal information. I was able to find this information in about five minutes. Of course, If it is a different John A Brannon, then this whole artifact just sounds odd and out of place. However, if it is you, then I am proving my point perfectly.

This is something we should be concerned about because this site is something that allows anyone with a computer to access very personal information about one's personal lives and family.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spokeo profile page for John Brannon in Duarte. John Brannon, age 34, lives at 1235 Stonewood Dr. Found 6 phones and emails, and 12 previous address locations. Find social profiles, pictures and more for John Brannon.

# data[].attributes.body
This artifact is a political cartoon regarding our private information on our cellphones. It was created for the average American, by Mike Keefe. It portrays the fact that none of our emails are private, and that our phones are being monitored by the government.

In 1984, Orwell warns us about technology being used to track us and take our personal information. With cellphones, the government is now able to see all of our personal account information, emails and texts. The fact that we all have cellphones is similar to how most people in 1984 had telescreens. It allows the government to keep track of the vast majority of people.

We should be concerned because most of us have these devices and they are tracking us and using all of our information. Nothing that we do on our phones is private.

# data[].attributes.body
This artifact is a song written by Michael Jackson about the invasion of his privacy by the paparazzi. He wrote it in 2001, and it is geared towards his fans and paparazzi followers.

In 1984, Orwell warns us about privacy invasions, and the status of the wealthy Party Members. The party members are able to break all rules and have a lot of wealth. Michael Jackson was able to do the same thing. However, unlike in 1989,  Celebrities have their private information leaked to the public. The Party was mostly able to keep their personal lives personal. With celebrities however, their private lives are spilled more than the average person's. This is one area where Orwell was accurate to an extent, but not entirely. However, it is really similar in that we are all able to view celebrities lives and personal information, just like Big Brother can view the citizens'.

We should be concerned because even though famous people are famous, they are still people who's private lives are at stake. Stalkers are real, and disrupting the peace of these people to the point where it can sometimes be dangerous.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aint the pictures enough, why do you go through so much To get the story you need, so you can bury me Youve got the people confused, you tell the stories you choose You try to get me to lose the man I really am You keep on stalking me,

# data[].attributes.body
This is an article written by a former Facebook executive who worked on the ads that Facebook Displays. The intended audience is Facebook users. This article says that Facebook can use your personal information in order to make ads show up that will make you more likely to buy certain products.

In 1984, Orwell warns us about this idea that our personal information will be collected. In his book, people are harshly penalized for possession of personal items. It is frowned upon to have any secrets from the government. This article basically states the same thing. It states that Facebook collects personal data in order to make certain things that you would enjoy show up on your Facebook feed. It takes recent internet searches, one's address, age, ethnicity, and preferences in order to create a page that suits each person.

We should be concerned about this because Facebook is collecting personal and private information without permission, for profit. It is another invasion of privacy, and shows how much of our online lives are really private. The answer is that not much of it is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For two years I was charged with turning Facebook data into money, by any legal means. If you browse the internet or buy items in physical stores, and then see ads related to those purchases on Facebook, blame me. I helped create the first versions of that, way back in 2012.

The ethics of Facebook's micro-targeted advertising was thrust into the spotlight this week by a report out of Australia. The article, based on a leaked presentation, said that Facebook was able to identify teenagers at their most vulnerable, including when they feel "insecure", "worthless", "defeated" and "stressed".

Facebook claimed the report was misleading, assuring the public that the company does not "offer tools to target people based on their emotional state". If the intention of Facebook's public relations spin is to give the impression that such targeting is not even possible on their platform, I'm here to tell you I believe they're lying through their teeth.

Just as Mark Zuckerberg was being disingenuous (to put it mildly) when, in the wake of Donald Trump's unexpected victory, he expressed doubt that Facebook could have flipped the presidential election.

Facebook deploys a political advertising sales team, specialized by political party, and charged with convincing deep-pocketed politicians that they do have the kind of influence needed to alter the outcome of elections.

I was at Facebook in 2012, during the previous presidential race. The fact that Facebook could easily throw the election by selectively showing a Get Out the Vote reminder in certain counties of a swing state, for example, was a running joke.

Converting Facebook data into money is harder than it sounds, mostly because the vast bulk of your user data is worthless. Turns out your blotto-drunk party pics and flirty co-worker messages have no commercial value whatsoever.

But occasionally, if used very cleverly, with lots of machine-learning iteration and systematic trial-and-error, the canny marketer can find just the right admixture of age, geography, time of day, and music or film tastes that demarcate a demographic winner of an audience. The "clickthrough rate", to use the advertiser's parlance, doesn't lie.

Without seeing the leaked documents, which were reportedly based around a pitch Facebook made to a bank, it is impossible to know precisely what the platform was offering advertisers. There's nothing in the trade I know of that targets ads at emotions. But Facebook has and does offer "psychometric"-type targeting, where the goal is to define a subset of the marketing audience that an advertiser thinks is particularly susceptible to their message.

And knowing the Facebook sales playbook, I cannot imagine the company would have concocted such a pitch about teenage emotions without the final hook: "and this is how you execute this on the Facebook ads platform". Why else would they be making the pitch?

The question is not whether this can be done. It is whether Facebook should apply a moral filter to these decisions. Let's assume Facebook does target ads at depressed teens. My reaction? So what. Sometimes data behaves unethically.

I'll illustrate with an anecdote from my Facebook days. Someone on the data science team had cooked up a new tool that recommended Facebook Pages users should like. And what did this tool start spitting out? Every ethnic stereotype you can imagine. We killed the tool when it recommended then president Obama if a user had "liked" rapper Jay Z. While that was a statistical fact - people who liked Jay Z were more likely to like Obama - it was one of the statistical truths Facebook couldn't be seen espousing.

I disagreed. Jay Z is a millionaire music tycoon, so what if we associate him with the president? In our current world, there's a long list of Truths That Cannot Be Stated Publicly, even though there's plenty of data suggesting their correctness, and this was one of them.

African Americans living in postal codes with depressed incomes likely do respond disproportionately to ads for usurious "payday" loans. Hispanics between the ages of 18 and 25 probably do engage with ads singing the charms and advantages of military service.

Why should those examples of targeting be viewed as any less ethical than, say, ads selling $100 Lululemon yoga pants targeting thirtysomething women in affluent postal codes like San Francisco's Marina district?

The hard reality is that Facebook will never try to limit such use of their data unless the public uproar reaches such a crescendo as to be un-mutable. Which is what happened with Trump and the "fake news" accusation: even the implacable Zuck had to give in and introduce some anti-fake news technology. But they'll slip that trap as soon as they can. And why shouldn't they? At least in the case of ads, the data and the clickthrough rates are on their side.
Antonio Garcia-Martinez was a Facebook product manager (2011-2013) and is the author of Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For two years I was charged with turning Facebook data into money, by any legal means. If you browse the internet or buy items in physical stores, and then see ads related to those purchases on Facebook, blame me. I helped create the first versions of that, way back in 2012.

# data[].attributes.headline
CBS This Morning Conversation Regarding the Use of an Amazon Echo in a Court Case.

# data[].attributes.subject
CBS This Morning Conversation Regarding the Use of an Amazon Echo in a Court Case.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a news story about the Amazon Echo being used for a court case. It happened on CBS This Morning, with the intended audience being the average consumer. It talks about how the Amazon Echo is useful in court due to the fact that it may record everything said even when it is not supposed to be listening.

In 1984, Orwell portrays constant surveillance through the use of things called telescreens which sit in peoples homes listening and watching everything that happens in everyone's homes. It is only supposed to record when turned on. However, at the end of the book we realize that the telescreens were recording Winston's activity even when they were off. This is the same concept as the Amazon Echo. It is not supposed to record until you say the trigger word. However, this case proves that it is constantly listening and recording things that happen.

We should be concerned about this because owning one of these devices means that everything we say gets recorded and can be listened to again. It is a personal invasion of privacy, and it is happening without our direct knowledge. The device doesn't advertise this feature. Instead, it is in the fine print that nobody ever reads.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can Amazon Echo data be used as evidence in murder case?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Investigators in Arkansas have a search warrant to collect data from an Amazon Echo belonging to James Bates, charged with the murder of a man in his home last year. "48 Hours" correspondent Erin Moriarty joins "CBS This Morning" to discuss what could be a first-of-its-kind request.

# data[].attributes.body
George Orwell warns his audience about constant government surveillance and manipulation.