US newspapers are deleting old crime stories, offering subjects a ‘clean slate’; The Guardian, January 4, 2025

Sam Levin, The Guardian; US newspapers are deleting old crime stories, offering subjects a ‘clean slate’

"Civil rights advocates across the US have long fought to free people from their criminal records, with campaigns to expunge old cases and keep people’s past arrests private when they apply for jobs and housing.

The efforts are critical, as more than 70 million Americans have prior convictions or arrests – roughly one in three adults. But the policies haven’t addressed one of the most damaging ways past run-ins with police can derail people’s lives: old media coverage.

Some newsrooms are working to fill that gap. 

A handful of local newspapers across the US have in recent years launched programs to review their archives and consider requests to remove names or delete old stories to protect the privacy of subjects involved in minor crimes.

“In the old days, you put a story in the newspaper and it quickly, if not immediately, receded into memory,” said Chris Quinn, editor of Cleveland.com and the Plain Dealer newspaper. “But because of our [search engine] power, anything we write now about somebody is always front and center.”

Quinn pioneered a “right-to-be-forgotten” experiment in 2018, motivated by the many inquiries he would receive from subjects describing the harms of past crime coverage and pleading for deletion. “People would say: ‘Your story is wrecking my life. I made a mistake, but … I’ve changed my life.’”

It was long considered taboo in media to retract or alter old stories, particularly when there are no concerns about accuracy. But Quinn said he felt an ethical obligation to rethink those norms. “I couldn’t take it any more … I just got tired of telling people no and standing on tradition instead of being thoughtful.”"

What's in a Name Anyway? Trademark Basics for Community Associations; The National Law Review, December 6, 2024

 Erica B. E. Rogers of Ward and Smith, P.A. , The National Law Review; What's in a Name Anyway? Trademark Basics for Community Associations

"This article explores the essentials of trademark rights, their relevance for community associations, and the balance between protecting these trademarks versus respecting the free speech of homeowners...

IV. VALUE PROPOSITION FOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Trademark rights are crucial for protecting the identity and reputation of a community association. They help prevent confusion among property owners and prospective residents by ensuring that the association's name and symbols remain distinct. However, while trademarks are valuable tools for community associations to deter unauthorized use, they cannot be used to silence opinions or criticisms. Understanding this balance is essential for effectively managing and enforcing trademark rights in a manner that respects both legal protections and fundamental freedoms of the property owners."

How To Avoid AI Misinformation: 2 Essential Steps For Smarter Research; Forbes, November 21, 2024

 Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D., Forbes; How To Avoid AI Misinformation: 2 Essential Steps For Smarter Research

"AI can be a powerful ally or a risky gamble, depending on how you use it. If you’re relying on AI for research, taking shortcuts can backfire—and cost you your credibility. To avoid AI misinformation, follow these two essential steps:

1. Ask for references.
2. Verify those references yourself.

Here’s why these steps are critical."

Indian news agency sues OpenAI alleging copyright infringement; TechCrunch, November 18, 2024

 Manish Singh, TechCrunch; Indian news agency sues OpenAI alleging copyright infringement

"One of India’s largest news agencies, Asian News International (ANI), has sued OpenAI in a case that could set a precedent for how AI companies use copyrighted news content in the world’s most populous nation.

Asian News International filed a 287-page lawsuit in the Delhi High Court on Monday, alleging the AI company illegally used its content to train its AI models and generated false information attributed to the news agency. The case marks the first time an Indian media organization has taken legal action against OpenAI over copyright claims.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Justice Amit Bansal issued a summons to OpenAI after the company confirmed it had already ensured that ChatGPT wasn’t accessing ANI’s website. The bench said that it was not inclined to grant an injunction order on Tuesday, as the case required a detailed hearing for being a “complex issue.”

The next hearing is scheduled to be held in January."

‘Trump Too Small’ Trademark Case Morphs Into Free Speech Debate; Bloomberg Law, June 18, 2024

 Laura Heymann , Bloomberg Law; ‘Trump Too Small’ Trademark Case Morphs Into Free Speech Debate

"The US Supreme Court’s June 13 decision in the “Trump Too Small” trademark case revealed a potential rift among the justices on First Amendment jurisprudence but did little to advance intellectual property law...

Trademark law, the Supreme Court has said in prior cases, is primarily about two goals: preventing confusion among consumers by ensuring accurate source identification and preserving trademark owners’ reputation and goodwill. For these justices, the names clause passed muster because prohibiting the registration of personal names without consent was self-evidently reasonable in light of these purposes; no further analysis was required."

Sentencing Thursday for two accused in Carnegie Library rare book theft; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 14, 2020

Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Sentencing Thursday for two accused in Carnegie Library rare book theft

"It doesn’t matter that the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh was insured by Traveler’s Insurance, and has received, to date, $6.5 million paid in three separate installments.

“The library will need to work to build its reputation and standing within the community and gain the trust of collectors and patrons,” wrote the appraisal group, Pall Mall Art Advisors. “The long-term effect is actually far greater than the value they may have lost in the tangible assets.”...

In asking for an aggravated sentence, Deputy District Attorney Brian Catanzarite wrote, “The scope, breadth and impact of the crimes perpetrated by John Schulman and Gregory Priore cannot be overstated.

“The devastating financial loss to the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh pales in comparison to the irreparable damage that the defendants caused the community.”...

Kornelia Tancheva, Hillman University librarian and director at the University of Pittsburgh, urged Judge Bicket to sentence the men to prison to send a message that a crime like theirs has consequences.

“The theft of special collections from any library, but especially from a public library, is an egregious crime against the integrity of the cultural record and against the public good,” she wrote. “It compromises the public trust in cultural institutions and sets a precedent that goes against everything that libraries stand for — unfettered access to information for all, curation and preservation of materials important not just now but for the whole future of humanity, as well as public support for cultural institutions.”"

For Jeffrey Epstein, MIT Was Just a Safety School; Wired, May 4, 2020

Noam Cohen, Wired; For Jeffrey Epstein, MIT Was Just a Safety School

"The MIT and Harvard reports are most illuminating when read together. They overlap in revealing ways and share certain observations...

In part, we can chalk up the difference to bad timing. Harvard came first in Epstein’s mind, which, I suppose, says something about its reputation among status-obsessed faux-intellectuals. When Harvard was accepting Esptein’s donations, it was dealing with a disreputable character; MIT, by contrast, was dealing with a convicted sex offender...

What remains is the hard-baked irony that MIT, which got relatively little from Epstein, drew the bad headlines; whereas Harvard, which took 10 times as much of Epstein’s money, could almost claim its hands were clean. MIT announced last year that it would be donating to a charity benefiting sexual-abuse survivors all of its Epstein monies ($850,000 collected before and after his conviction). Harvard on Friday announced that it would be donating to organizations that support victims of human trafficking and sexual assault exactly what was left over from Epstein’s multimillion-dollar donations: $200,937."

Harvard’s Epstein corruption deserves a full airing — even amid a pandemic; The Washington Post, May 4, 2020

Charles Lane, The Washington Post; Harvard’s Epstein corruption deserves a full airing — even amid a pandemic

[Kip Currier: Fortuitous to see this story -- and the call for this "cautionary" real world case study to be investigated  -- as I’ve included this as a case study in the syllabus for my new graduate course, The Information Professional in the Community, launching next week.

In one of the course’s weekly units, we'll be exploring Harvard's deeply concerning ties to the late disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and, in columnist Charles Lane's parlance, "the cutting of ethical corners", within the broader context of critically examining Fiscal Considerations, Legal/Ethical/Policy Issues, and Risk Management in Collaborations and Partnerships.] 

"Such grotesque money-grubbing at the pinnacle of U.S. academia — a school, to be sure, that has positioned itself an ethical leader, especially in the movement against sexual assault and gender bias on campus — deserves a full airing, even amid the novel coronavirus pandemic...

It joins a lengthening list of cautionary tales of fundraising excess, such as the admissions-for-cash episode involving athletic teams at Yale, Stanford, the University of California at Los Angeles, the University of Southern California and Georgetown, among others...

The need for cash is probably at or near an all-time high, and so is the risk, reputational and otherwise, of cutting ethical corners to raise it.

Professors and administrators can ill afford the moral arrogance that characterized the dealings of some at Harvard with Epstein, or their sloppiness, or their cluelessness...

Not everyone at Harvard — much less everyone in higher ed — is to blame for this sorry episode. Every college and university can learn from it."

Metro’s ethics changes are welcome. But they’re only a start.; The Washington Post, September 29, 2019

Editorial Board, The Washington Post; Metro’s ethics changes are welcome. But they’re only a start.

"THE REPUTATION of former Metro chairman Jack Evans wasn’t the only thing that was tarnished amid the swirl of allegations that he used his public office to advance his private interests. Public trust in the Metro board was also badly shaken after it completely botched its handling of the allegations. It’s encouraging, then, that the board has taken a first step in its own rehabilitation by amending its code of ethics.

 

“The reforms will improve transparency, accountability and fairness of all parties,” board chairman Paul C. Smedberg said of revisions to the ethics policy that were approved on Thursday. The changes include a clearer definition of conflicts of interests, putting the transit agency’s inspector general in charge of investigations and opening the process to the public with requirements for written reports and discussions held in public."

Andrew Gillum’s Florida Ethics Troubles Just Got Worse; Slate, January 25, 2019

Mark Joseph Stern, Slate; Andrew Gillum’s Florida Ethics Troubles Just Got Worse

"However Gillum chooses to proceed, it’s clear that Friday’s findings undermine his account and, by extension, his credibility. Throughout the campaign, he insisted that he paid his share of the lavish excursions and never accepted gifts from lobbyists. That narrative is now almost impossible to believe. True, Gillum never performed favors for lobbyists in exchange for their largesse, which would be a federal offense. But even without a quid pro quo, his cozy relationship with lobbyists did not seem to comport with Florida law.

Should Gillum run for office down the road, this blunder will likely be used as a cudgel, risking his ability to win a primary, let alone a general election. Perhaps it is too soon to write off his political career. But if he ever again throws his hat in the ring, his opponents will be ready to pounce with a sordid—and substantiated—tale of corruption."

Did Uber Steal Google’s Intellectual Property?; The New Yorker, October 22, 2018 Issue

Charles Duhigg, The New Yorker; Did Uber Steal Google’s Intellectual Property?

"Levandowski, for his part, has been out of work since he was fired by Uber. It’s hard to feel much sympathy for him, though. He’s still extremely wealthy. He left Google with files that nearly everyone agrees he should not have walked off with, even if there is widespread disagreement about how much they’re worth. Levandowski seemed constantly ready to abandon his teammates and threaten defection, often while working on an angle to enrich himself. He is a brilliant mercenary, a visionary opportunist, a man seemingly without loyalty. He has helped build a technology that might transform how the world functions, and he seems inclined to personally profit from that transformation as much as possible. In other words, he is an exemplar of Silicon Valley ethics.

Levandowski is upset that some people have cast him as the bad guy. “I reject the notion that I did something unethical,” he said. “Was I trying to compete with them? Sure.” But, he added, “I’m not a thief, and I’m not dishonest.” Other parents sometimes shun him when he drops his kids off at school, and he has grown tired of people taking photographs of him when he walks through airports. But he is confident that his notoriety will subside. Although he no longer owns the technology that he brought to Google and Uber, plenty of valuable information remains inside his head, and he has a lot of new ideas."

There is no way this man should be running the Justice Department; The Washington Post, November 9, 2018

Editorial Board, The Washington Post; There is no way this man should be running the Justice Department

 

"Finally, and fundamentally most damning, is Mr. Whitaker’s expressed hostility to Marbury v. Madison, a central case — the central case — in the American constitutional system. It established an indispensable principle: The courts decide what is and is not constitutional. Without Marbury, there would be no effective judicial check on the political branches, no matter how egregious their actions.

 

If the Senate were consulted, it is impossible to imagine Mr. Whitaker getting close to the attorney general’s office. He should not be there now."

He Promised to Restore Damaged Hearts. Harvard Says His Lab Fabricated Research.; The New York Times, October 29, 2018

Gina Kolata, The New York Times; 
He Promised to Restore Damaged Hearts. Harvard Says His Lab Fabricated Research. 

"For Dr. Piero Anversa, the fall from scientific grace has been long, and the landing hard.

Researchers worldwide once hailed his research as revolutionary, promising the seemingly impossible: a way to grow new heart cells to replace those lost in heart attacks and heart failure, leading killers in the United States.

But Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, his former employers, this month accused Dr. Anversa and his laboratory of extensive scientific malpractice. More than 30 research studies produced over more than a decade contain falsified or fabricated data, officials concluded, and should be retracted. Last year the hospital paid a $10 million settlement to the federal government after the Department of Justice alleged that Dr. Anversa and two members of his team were responsible for fraudulently obtaining research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

“The number of papers is extraordinary,” said Dr. Jeffrey Flier, until 2016 the dean of Harvard Medical School. “I can’t recall another case like this.”"

Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg On Data Privacy Fail: 'We Were Way Too Idealistic'; NPR, April 5, 2018

Vanessa Romo, NPR; Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg On Data Privacy Fail: 'We Were Way Too Idealistic'

[Kip Currier: Interesting Public Relations strategy that Facebook's COO Sheryl Sandberg tested out with NPR.
What do you think--was it "idealistic" naivete, careless indifference, an intentional component of Facebook's business model and strategic planning, willful blindness, negligence, and/or something else?]

""We really believed in social experiences. We really believed in protecting privacy. But we were way too idealistic. We did not think enough about the abuse cases," [Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg] said.

Facebook, the world's largest social media company, is in the middle of a reputational crisis and faces questions from lawmakers and regulatory agencies after the political research firm Cambridge Analytica collected information on as many as 87 million people without their permission. Previous estimates had put the number of users affected at 50 million.

Now the company, which has lost about $100 billion in stock value since February, is reviewing its data policies — and changing some of them — to find better methods of protecting user data.

And its leaders are apologizing.

"We know that we did not do enough to protect people's data," Sandberg said. "I'm really sorry for that. Mark [Zuckerberg] is really sorry for that, and what we're doing now is taking really firm action."

The Federal Trade Commission is looking into whether Facebook violated a 2011 consent decree by allowing third parties to have unrestricted access to user data without users' permission and contrary to user preferences and expectations.

The penalties for violating the order would be devastating, even for Facebook. At $40,000 per violation, the total cost could theoretically run into the billions."

Who needs ethics anyway? – Chips with Everything podcast; Guardian, March 2, 2018

[Podcast] Presented by Jordan Erica Webber and produced by Danielle Stephens, Guardian; 

 Who needs ethics anyway? – Chips with Everything podcast

"Technology companies seem to have a bad reputation at the moment. Whether through honest mistakes or more intentional oversights, the likes of Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter have created distrust among consumers.

But as technology develops, and as we hand over more control to artificial intelligence and machines, it becomes difficult for developers to foresee the negative consequences or side-effects that might arise.

In October 2017, the AI company DeepMind, a subsidiary of Google, created an ethics group made up of employees and external experts called DeepMind Ethics & Society.

But are these groups any more than a PR strategy? And how can we train technology students to preempt an ethical disaster before they enter the workforce?

To discuss these issues, Jordan Erica Webber is joined by Dr Mariarosaria Taddeoof the Oxford Internet Institute, Prof Laura Norén of NYU and student Kandrea Wade."

Croatia’s top judge sues national ethics panel after it finds him guilty of plagiarism; Science, February 22, 2018

Mićo Tatalović, Science; Croatia’s top judge sues national ethics panel after it finds him guilty of plagiarism

"One of Croatia’s top judges is hitting back at the country’s national research ethics panel after having been found guilty of plagiarism. Miroslav Šeparović, president of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, announced last week that he has filed criminal complaints against all five members of the Committee on Ethics in Science and Higher Education (CESHE), after it concluded that Šeparović’s 2013 doctoral thesis about children’s rights in EU and Croatian law contained repeated instances of “incomplete and opaque citations” of other people’s work.

Šeparović confirmed to Science that he is suing the CESHE members—as a private citizen, not in his capacity of a judge—for misusing their positions and overstepping their jurisdiction, which his own court limited last year. “I am not happy for having to sue, but I have had no alternative,” says Šeparović, who says he seeks to “protect my right to honor and reputation.” Šeparović says he filed the charges on 28 November 2017, days after CESHE ruled against him, and decided to make them public last week after the committee’s unpublished report leaked to the press. Šeparović’s legal team has also called on the CESHE members to resign immediately."

There is a shriveled emptiness where Trump’s soul once resided; Washington Post, August 17, 2017

Michael Gerson, Washington Post; There is a shriveled emptiness where Trump’s soul once resided

"Every additional day of standing next to Trump — physically and metaphorically — destroys reputation and diminishes moral standing. The rationalizations are no longer credible. But resignation, in contrast, would be a contribution to the common good — showing that principled leadership in service to the Constitution is still possible, even in the age of Trump. When loyalty requires corruption, it is time to leave."

Comey’s testimony changed everything — and not in Trump’s favor; Washington Post, June 9, 2017

Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post; Comey’s testimony changed everything — and not in Trump’s favor

"Before Comey, Republicans and Democrats had many bones to pick with Comey. After Comey, both sides avoid questioning his integrity. Republicans carped about his refusal to rebuke the president in the Oval Office (for a group that has never seriously confronted Trump on much of anything, this is rich). They made hay out of — gasp!– a leak of unclassified materials after Comey was fired. Not once, however, did any senator say he disbelieved Comey’s account or try to shake his recollection. Aspects of Comey’s factual account can be supported now by others, which will further bolster his own credibility and diminish Trump’s. Comey may be prickly, overly concerned with his own reputation and even a little schoolmarmish, but few will argue that he is a liar."

Trump doesn’t understand how to be president. The Comey story shows why.; Washington Post, June 7, 2017

E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post; Trump doesn’t understand how to be president. The Comey story shows why.

"Here are the things Trump still doesn’t get: (1) Comey is his own person concerned with his own reputation and standing. (2) A president, unlike a despot, can’t unilaterally change the rules that surround a legal investigation. (3) People in government don’t work only for the president; their primary obligation is to the public. (4) Personal relationships matter a great deal in government, but they aren’t everything; Comey could not go soft on Michael Flynn just because Trump likes Flynn or fears what Flynn might say. (5) Because of 1, 2, 3 and 4, Comey was not going to do what Trump asked, even if this meant being fired...

There has been a lively debate among Trump critics about whether he’s dangerous because he’s inclined toward authoritarianism or because he’s incompetent. The Comey episode allows us to reach a higher synthesis in this discussion: Trump is incompetent precisely because he believes he can act like an autocrat in a constitutional democracy. This doesn’t work, and it makes him do stupid things."

Justice Dept. to review possible ethics conflicts involving Mueller’s former law firm; Washington Post, May 18, 2017

Matea Gold and Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post; Justice Dept. to review possible ethics conflicts involving Mueller’s former law firm

"Newly appointed special counsel Robert S. Mueller III will undergo a Justice Department ethics review that will examine possible conflicts of interest regarding his former law firm, which represents several figures who could be caught up in the probe into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election.

Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said Thursday that the agency will conduct a background investigation and detailed review of conflict-of-interest issues, a process outlined in the regulation governing special counsels under which he was appointed...

Ethics experts said they anticipate that the Justice Department will grant a waiver, noting that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein would have taken Mueller’s past employer into consideration when selecting him."