[danso]

Instagram's search-by-geo-coordinates endpoint is one feature that makes the API so valuable and interesting...Other services have it, of course, but Instagram's version has higher value because geolocation is turned on by default...I read somewhere that maybe 2-5% of Tweets have geodata, whereas Instagram content is at 30 to 50%.

The investigative newsroom ProPublica (disclosure: my former employer) had a fun use-case, in which they knew of a lobbyist-politician ski resort retreat, looked up the location of the resort, and then used Instagram's location/date filters to see who was on the trip (at least one lobbyist posted a photo from their own publicly identifiable account): http://www.propublica.org/nerds/item/a-super-simple-tool-to-...

[maxerickson]

We need to develop a social norm that sharing something is not necessarily permission to publicize it. There's lots of contexts where it is probably fine, but I think there are also quite some contexts where it isn't so fine.

I'm not trying to get up on a high horse and preach, it's just kind of gross to completely change the sort of attention that is being directed at something that someone shared.

I know that some of the response to this will be to not post it publicly if you don't want people to see it, but that's exactly the thought I want to push back against, just because something is available at a public url doesn't mean it is a cool thing to point reddit at it.

[danso]

I agree that social norms need to become better (i.e., people need to be better and more decent), but you have to consider why publicizing this info (not in this particular case, but for any given person and any given content) is not considered illegal in the United States, currently: such a law would almost certainly be used to squash freedom of expression.

This has been the case long before Instagram and the Internet becoming mainstream, including the denial of requests for public government records and the photography of police actions on the purported concern for privacy.

I know you're only talking about social norms...but such things influence and are influenced by law and regulations...I'm just pointing out that it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

[maxerickson]

Sure.

I suppose part of the problem is that we talk about privacy, when really it's publicity that has changed. The situation where basically every individual can create recordings and publish them to the entire world is actually somewhat novel. We reach for analogies about privacy, but really we need to think about what sort of rights people have to their own publicity.

[greggman]

What about the idea that maybe our ideas of privacy / publicity are shaped by what we're used to rather than any universal laws. In other words, if we were to grow up in a society that didn't experience much privacy maybe we'd just accept it as the norm.

I'm not making a judgement which is better. The old way or some other way. Only trying to point out the fact that we had more privacy in the past isn't in and of itself better. It just is.

[maxerickson]

I only expressed it implicitly above, but I am making a judgement about what is better. I would absolutely prefer it if people did not casually direct the internet ray-beam at people that are not interested in its attention. At the same time, I would like those other people to be able to use the internet without paying intense attention to the consequences of each action they take.

If that makes me some sort of stodgy conservative that has been shaped by the past, so be it.

[cinquemb]

I think people like yourself who acknowledge the situation we find ourselves today in context to what has come before is probably the best thing an individual can do to rid themselves of their cognitive dissonance.

I think that is preferable than to join the choir of whining isn't taking steps to protect themselves and their communications with others when they feel is necessary, insisting that others to protect it for them, and not change their behaviors. All of which enable others to capitalize.

Then again, some people may not want to rid themselves as such. Maybe they enjoy being tortured by the way reality presents itself to them.

[hpriebe]

Really interesting to hear that ProPublica used this sort of feature in a news context.

What other methods did you guys use to investigate "unpublicized" events/occurrences? What barriers did you face to finding that info in general?

[danso]

I'm no longer at PP so I can't speak for them (also didn't work on the aforementioned lobbyist story, but I admired the clever use of known data)...but I think invariably, every investigative story starts from traditional ways: a tip from a source on your beat or just plain research and knowledge of the domain. These newer techniques are just more domain-knowledge...lobbyist registration and activities can be found, in part, at House.gov. From that data, and records of Congressional travel, and patience to comb through PDFs, you can get more leads. If you mean engineering methods, such as machine-learning...I think the use of that is limited...not that people haven't tried (both in academia and in the news business) but because the datasets aren't organized or large enough to justify it.

[Dwolb]

I guess it's fairly obvious but it never really occurred to me that lobbyists and politicians go on retreats together. Is this beneficial? Is it ethical?

Does ProPublica track these types of gatherings?