I had a brief Facebook conversation with a local LA political figure about 'www.eightmaps.com', the mashup of political donation data that's currently generating a little controversy.
Short version: some genius got the idea to take the publicly available donor lists and map them on Google, so that everyone can see who donated to the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California (note that we still have our "No on 8" poster in the window facing the street...we're diehards).
Predictably, the usualy trolls and idiots have harassed them:
A college professor from the University of California, San Francisco, wrote a $100 check in support of Proposition 8 in August, because he said he supported civil unions for gay couples but did not want to change the traditional definition of marriage. He has received many confrontational e-mail messages, some anonymous, since eightmaps listed his donation and employer. One signed message blasted him for supporting the measure and was copied to a dozen of his colleagues and supervisors at the university, he said.
"I thought what the eightmaps creators did with the information was actually sort of neat," the professor said, who asked that his name not be used to avoid becoming more of a target. "But people who use that site to send out intimidating or harassing messages cross the line."Get used to it, some reply - and widen the net of posting data about potentially controversial positions. The Memphis Commercial Appeal has set up a database of CCW holders in Tennessee.
Joseph Clare, a San Francisco accountant who donated $500 to supporters of Proposition 8, said he had received several e-mail messages accusing him of "donating to hate." Mr. Clare said the site perverts the meaning of disclosure laws that were originally intended to expose large corporate donors who might be seeking to influence big state projects.
"I don’t think the law was designed to identify people for direct feedback to them from others on the other side," Mr. Clare said. "I think it’s been misused."
The problem, of course is that all ofthese things are a two-edged sword.
Someone will soon set up a mirror site, showing "No on 8" donations (I actually may set one up showing all the donations; that'd be an interesting project), and soon fundamentalist church members who quietly support gay marriage will find their pastors taking them aside for some counselling, and businesses with gay-friendly owners in conservative communities will find themselves facing the kind of pressure that the San Fracisco cases above noticed.
I think this is a really bad thing - first, as a tactic for gay marriage supporters, who need the support of the "squishy middle" to win, and come across as bullies in this case - and for our conception of politics as a 'meeting place' where I can choose to be public (stand up and speak) or private.
And viscerally, I don't like that change.
But practically, I don't see a way around it. Maybe Bill Joy was right.
The "eightmaps" site was put up by a still-anonymous writer. He/she is trying to stay anonymous for a reason. The best way to stop this sort of thing would be to find out who put it up. Use every possible (legal) method available to make an example of him.
The people who do the harassing are also anonymous, and they probably didn't do such a good job of covering their tracks. Exposing the privacy-busters as quickly as possible might discourage others from trying the same thing.
Also, putting a poll up asking people if this kind of bullying turns people against a cause that they previously supported might also work. If these bullying efforts are having a demonstrably negative effect, it might discourage this tactic.
Except, the idea of a right to privacy for political contributions left the building long ago. (Neither is there a right to anonymity to commit assault or harassment.)
Generally I don't understand the evil of linking together various publicly available records.