Chapter 4

Anita Gurumurthy, head of Indian civil society organization IT for Change, writes that “as the citizen becomes more and more legible to the state, the state becomes more and more opaque to the citizen,” although we might add corporations to the state in that observation.

印度民间组织 IT for Change 的负责人 Anita Gurumurthy 写道："随着公民对国家变得越来越清晰，国家对公民也变得越来越不透明。
Since it is the size of the data set (N) over which processors calculate that determines the quality of the proxies generated, there is no reason to stop collecting data. On the contrary, one must always try to gather more. This technique can appear on the ground as little more than wishful thinking, as this employee of the Los Angeles Police Department put it: “All we’re doing right now is, ‘Let’s just collect more and more and more data and something good will just happen.’”

由于处理器计算的数据集（N）的大小决定了生成的代用数据的质量，因此没有理由停止收集数据。相反，我们必须始终努力收集更多的数据。正如洛杉矶警察局的一名员工所说的那样，这种技术在实际工作中可能只是一厢情愿： "我们现在所做的就是，'让我们收集更多更多的数据，然后就会有好事发生'"。
Social knowledge becomes whatever works to enable private or public actors to modulate others’ behavior in their own interests (not disinterested social knowledge but social capture).

社会知识成为使私人或公共行为者为自身利益调节他人行为的任何作用（不是无私的社会知识，而是社会俘获）。
Wearables are likely to be only the start; a Swedish biohacker predicts that “all of the wearables we wear today will be implantable in five to ten years.”

可穿戴设备很可能只是一个开始；一位瑞典生物黑客预测，"我们今天穿戴的所有可穿戴设备将在五到十年内成为可植入设备"。
但这个情况似乎并没有发生。为什么？
In a similar spirit, NaMo, the social media app dedicated to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, encourages users to “earn badges” by competing “to do tasks.”

本着类似的精神，印度总理纳伦德拉-莫迪的社交媒体应用程序 NaMo 鼓励用户通过竞争 "完成任务 "来 "获得徽章"。
哈哈哈哈哈哈
Some uses of social data, perhaps by civic or public institutions, may be responsible, modest, and oriented to organizational self-reflection.

公民或公共机构对社会数据的某些使用可能是负责任的、适度的，并以组织自省为导向。
Car insurers are now relying increasingly on continuous surveillance devices installed in cars that tie reduced premiums and other rewards (and possibly even penalties) to the data collected about the driver’s performance. An example in the United States is Progressive’s Snapshot program. As the Snapshot website puts it, “Snapshot is a program that personalizes your rate based on your ACTUAL driving. . . . That means you pay based on how and how much you drive instead of just traditional factors.” This form of personalization gives insurers enormous leeway to vary the criteria on which premiums are adapted to behavior; Snapshot’s website lists different criteria for each US state.

现在，汽车保险公司越来越依赖于安装在汽车上的连续监控装置，将降低保费和其他奖励（甚至可能是处罚）与收集到的驾驶员表现数据挂钩。美国的一个例子是 Progressive 的 "快照 "计划。正如 "快照 "网站所说，"'快照'是一个根据您的实际驾驶情况为您提供个性化保险费率的项目。. . . .这意味着您支付的费用是基于您的驾驶方式和驾驶次数，而不仅仅是传统的因素"。这种个性化形式为保险公司提供了巨大的余地，使其可以根据行为改变保费标准；Snapshot 网站列出了美国各州的不同标准。
国内业界专家的评述如下：“这个模式国内有保险公司尝试过，据我所知平安车险就做过。我以前跟平安谈过这个玩法，平安车险的人回复说，尝试该模式之后并没看到客户人数和收益率的明显提升，不如直接在客户续保的时间投放折扣、加强客户沟通来得有效。车主对该模式的反馈也不太好，如果因为驾驶习惯不良就涨保费的话，客户会迅速选择太平或者人保，这两家也很愿意拿出折扣开挖别人的客户。平安、人保这种大公司，都是综合金融集团，持有很多牌照，盈利来源主要是利用保费获得投资收益，这个资金成本很低。倒不是依靠保险本身的收益。”
Such a model of the human subject, when combined with intense data collection, creates the possibility of “persuasion profiling”: data-driven persuasion that targets specific cognitive biases that marketers have tracked in data from their target groups. It was persuasion profiling that proved so controversial when it came directly to light in the Cambridge Analytica scandal in March 2018. Underlying persuasion profiling is a crude biologism. Michal Kosinski, the psychologist whose work inspired Cambridge Analytica, said recently that “I don’t believe in free will” since a person’s thoughts and behaviors “are fully biological. . . . They originate in the biological computer that you have in your head.”

这种人类主体模型与密集的数据收集相结合，创造了 "说服特征分析 "的可能性：数据驱动的说服，针对营销人员从目标群体的数据中追踪到的特定认知偏差。2018 年 3 月，剑桥分析公司丑闻直接曝光，正是说服剖析被证明是极具争议性的。说服特征分析的基础是一种粗糙的生物理论。米哈尔-科辛斯基（Michal Kosinski）是一位心理学家，他的工作启发了剑桥分析公司，他最近说，"我不相信自由意志"，因为一个人的思想和行为 "完全是生物性的。. . 它们起源于你头脑中的生物计算机"。
researchers from the University of Michigan and Northeastern University are challenging the constitutionality of the US government’s interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that prima facie would block researchers from running fairness tests on how platforms present the world.

密歇根大学和东北大学的研究人员正在质疑美国政府对《计算机欺诈和滥用法》的解释是否符合宪法，因为该解释表面上会阻止研究人员对平台如何呈现世界进行公平性测试。