Emily Stewart, Vox; 9 questions Congress should ask Mark Zuckerberg
"In prepared testimony to the House committee released ahead of the hearing, Zuckerberg will tell lawmakers he’s sorry for what happened. “We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake,” he plans to say.
Facebook has announced a number of steps it plans to take on its own to address concerns about its practices in recent weeks and days, including enacting new measures to prevent election meddling and spelling out its terms and data policy more clearly. Zuckerberg also took part in an hour-long Q&A session with reporters last week. All of that is likely an effort to avoid fireworks in Congress if at all possible. “I’m assuming that his people are not planning to have him break news,” Rebecca MacKinnon, an internet freedom advocate and director of Ranking Digital Rights, said. “They broke all their news last week so that he doesn’t have to break it in the hearings.”
I’ve spoken with a variety of experts, observers, and stakeholders in recent days to find out what sorts of questions Congress can and should ask."
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
State of America’s Libraries 2018; American Libraries, April 9, 2018
American Libraries; State of America’s Libraries 2018
"On April 9, the American Library Association (ALA) released The State of America’s Libraries report for 2018, an annual summary of library trends released during National Library Week, April 8–14, that outlines statistics and issues affecting all types of libraries. The report affirms the invaluable role libraries and library workers play within their communities by leading efforts to transform lives through education and lifelong learning...
"On April 9, the American Library Association (ALA) released The State of America’s Libraries report for 2018, an annual summary of library trends released during National Library Week, April 8–14, that outlines statistics and issues affecting all types of libraries. The report affirms the invaluable role libraries and library workers play within their communities by leading efforts to transform lives through education and lifelong learning...
Through an analysis of the number of books challenged, the OIF produced the “Top Ten Most Challenged Books” of 2017, which includes:
- Thirteen Reasons Why, by Jay Asher
Reason: Suicide - The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, by Sherman Alexie
Reasons: Profanity, Sexually Explicit - Drama, written and illustrated by Raina Telgemeier
Reason: LGBT Content - The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini
Reasons: Sexual Violence, Religious Themes, “May Lead to Terrorism” - George, by Alex Gino
Reason: LGBT Content - Sex is a Funny Word, written by Cory Silverberg and illustrated by Fiona Smyth
Reason: Sex Education - To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
Reasons: Violence, Racial Slurs. - The Hate U Give, by Angie Thomas
Reasons: Drug Use, Profanity, “Pervasively Vulgar” - And Tango Makes Three, by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson, illustrated by Henry Cole
Reason: LGBT Content - I Am Jazz, written by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings, illustrated by Shelagh McNicholas
Reason: Gender Identity
Additional information regarding why books were challenged, a Top Ten List video announcement, and infographics regarding the 2017 Top Ten List of Most Challenged Books are available on the OIF’s Banned and Challenged Books page."
Congress wants to 'inflict pain’ on Mark Zuckerberg. Is he ready for it?; Guardian, April 10, 2018
Olivia Solon, Guardian; Congress wants to 'inflict pain’ on Mark Zuckerberg. Is he ready for it?
"Taking the stand will be a major test for Zuckerberg’s communication skills. Unlike when he deals with the media, his public relations team won’t be there to cherry-pick questions from friendly parties. And Congress wants its pound of flesh.
“Congress is theatre. More than what they are going to want to learn [about the data lapses], they are going to want to inflict pain. They are going to want to be seen as being responsive to public disgruntlement with how Facebook handled the issue,” said Ari Ratner, founder of communications consultancy Inside Revolution and former Obama administration official...
Zuckerberg will want to come across as authentic and apologetic, and will, according to his testimony published on Monday, highlight the sweeping changes that the company has announced already to its privacy tools and to the way third parties can access data on the platform as well as a verification process for political advertisers and page administrators. He will probably also want to talk about Facebook’s global compliance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a broad set of privacy protections being introduced in the European Union in May."
"Taking the stand will be a major test for Zuckerberg’s communication skills. Unlike when he deals with the media, his public relations team won’t be there to cherry-pick questions from friendly parties. And Congress wants its pound of flesh.
“Congress is theatre. More than what they are going to want to learn [about the data lapses], they are going to want to inflict pain. They are going to want to be seen as being responsive to public disgruntlement with how Facebook handled the issue,” said Ari Ratner, founder of communications consultancy Inside Revolution and former Obama administration official...
Zuckerberg will want to come across as authentic and apologetic, and will, according to his testimony published on Monday, highlight the sweeping changes that the company has announced already to its privacy tools and to the way third parties can access data on the platform as well as a verification process for political advertisers and page administrators. He will probably also want to talk about Facebook’s global compliance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a broad set of privacy protections being introduced in the European Union in May."
Monday, April 9, 2018
A Tough Task for Facebook: European-Type Privacy for All; The New York Times, April 8, 2018
Natasha Singer, The New York Times; A Tough Task for Facebook: European-Type Privacy for All
"Next month, a comprehensive new data protection law goes into effect in the European Union, placing greater requirements on how companies like Facebook and Google handle users’ personal information. It also strengthens individuals’ rights to control the collection and use of their data.
Last week, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, said his company would offer its users all over the world the same privacy controls required under the European law.
What would that look like for Facebook users? That is still a work in progress. A Facebook spokeswoman said the company would provide more details about its plans in the coming weeks.In the meantime, here are some of the general requirements and rights under the new European law.
Although some of the practical steps that companies must take are still being worked out, several European privacy and consumer advocates, who had pushed for the new law, offered their thoughts on what Facebook might need to do to extend the protections to its users worldwide."
BEYOND FACEBOOK: IT’S HIGH TIME FOR STRONGER PRIVACY LAWS; Wired, April 8 2018
Jessica Rich, Wired; BEYOND FACEBOOK: IT’S HIGH TIME FOR STRONGER PRIVACY LAWS
"This is an issue of personal security and safety. Just as we needed safety laws for seat belts and cigarettes, we need common-sense laws for online privacy.
Here’s a good place to start. Let’s require companies to post clear information about their data practices—no, not buried in privacy policies or Terms of Service, but prominently displayed in a simple, easy-to-understand, and standardized “dashboard” so consumers can compare companies’ practices. Let’s give consumers an easy, consistent way to say 'yes' or 'no' to data uses that go beyond the reason they provided it, and 'yes' or 'no' to having their data shared with third parties like Cambridge Analytica."
"This is an issue of personal security and safety. Just as we needed safety laws for seat belts and cigarettes, we need common-sense laws for online privacy.
Here’s a good place to start. Let’s require companies to post clear information about their data practices—no, not buried in privacy policies or Terms of Service, but prominently displayed in a simple, easy-to-understand, and standardized “dashboard” so consumers can compare companies’ practices. Let’s give consumers an easy, consistent way to say 'yes' or 'no' to data uses that go beyond the reason they provided it, and 'yes' or 'no' to having their data shared with third parties like Cambridge Analytica."
YouTube should be fined billions for illegally collecting children's data, privacy groups claim; CNBC, April 9, 2018
Sam Meredith, CNBC; YouTube should be fined billions for illegally collecting children's data, privacy groups claim
"YouTube, one of the world's most popular websites, has been accused of improperly collecting the personal data of young children.
In a complaint filed to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Monday, a coalition of more than 20 advocacy, consumer and privacy groups claim that Google's video platform is violating U.S. child protection laws by collecting personal data on users aged less than 13 years old.
The coalition is calling for Google to change how it manages content for younger audiences and wants YouTube to pay a fine worth billions of dollars for allegedly profiting off children's viewing habits."
"YouTube, one of the world's most popular websites, has been accused of improperly collecting the personal data of young children.
In a complaint filed to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Monday, a coalition of more than 20 advocacy, consumer and privacy groups claim that Google's video platform is violating U.S. child protection laws by collecting personal data on users aged less than 13 years old.
The coalition is calling for Google to change how it manages content for younger audiences and wants YouTube to pay a fine worth billions of dollars for allegedly profiting off children's viewing habits."
Conspiracy videos? Fake news? Enter Wikipedia, the ‘good cop’ of the Internet; The Washington Post, April 6, 2018
Noam Cohen, The Washington Post; Conspiracy videos? Fake news? Enter Wikipedia, the ‘good cop’ of the Internet
"Although it is hard to argue today that the Internet lacks for self-expression, what with self-publishing tools such as Twitter, Facebook and, yes, YouTube at the ready, it still betrays its roots as a passive, non-collaborative medium. What you create with those easy-to-use publishing tools is automatically licensed for use by for-profit companies, which retain a copy, and the emphasis is on personal expression, not collaboration. There is no YouTube community, but rather a Wild West where harassment and fever-dream conspiracies use up much of the oxygen. (The woman who shot three people at YouTube’s headquartersbefore killing herself on Tuesday was a prolific producer of videos, including ones that accused YouTube of a conspiracy to censor her work and deny her advertising revenue.)
Wikipedia, with its millions of articles created by hundreds of thousands of editors, is the exception. In the past 15 years, Wikipedia has built a system of collaboration and governance that, although hardly perfect, has been robust enough to endure these polarized times."
"Although it is hard to argue today that the Internet lacks for self-expression, what with self-publishing tools such as Twitter, Facebook and, yes, YouTube at the ready, it still betrays its roots as a passive, non-collaborative medium. What you create with those easy-to-use publishing tools is automatically licensed for use by for-profit companies, which retain a copy, and the emphasis is on personal expression, not collaboration. There is no YouTube community, but rather a Wild West where harassment and fever-dream conspiracies use up much of the oxygen. (The woman who shot three people at YouTube’s headquartersbefore killing herself on Tuesday was a prolific producer of videos, including ones that accused YouTube of a conspiracy to censor her work and deny her advertising revenue.)
Wikipedia, with its millions of articles created by hundreds of thousands of editors, is the exception. In the past 15 years, Wikipedia has built a system of collaboration and governance that, although hardly perfect, has been robust enough to endure these polarized times."
Should Chimpanzees Be Considered ‘Persons’?; The New York Times, April 7, 2018
Jeff Sebo, The New York Times; Should Chimpanzees Be Considered ‘Persons’?
"The idea of nonhuman personhood does raise difficult questions. One question is which rights nonhumans can have. For instance, if Kiko and Tommy can have the right to liberty, can they also have the right to property? What about the right to free expression or association, or the right to political representation or participation?
Another question is which nonhumans can have rights. For instance, if Kiko and Tommy can have rights, can bonobos and gorillas have rights too? What about cats, dogs and fish? What about chickens, cows and pigs? What about ants or sophisticated artificial intelligence programs?
These questions are unsettling. They are also reasonable to ask. After all, we might think that we need to draw the line somewhere. So if we decide not to draw the line at species membership — if we decide to accept that at least some nonhumans can have at least some rights — then it is not immediately clear where to draw it instead, or even, on reflection, whether to draw this particular kind of line at all."
"The idea of nonhuman personhood does raise difficult questions. One question is which rights nonhumans can have. For instance, if Kiko and Tommy can have the right to liberty, can they also have the right to property? What about the right to free expression or association, or the right to political representation or participation?
Another question is which nonhumans can have rights. For instance, if Kiko and Tommy can have rights, can bonobos and gorillas have rights too? What about cats, dogs and fish? What about chickens, cows and pigs? What about ants or sophisticated artificial intelligence programs?
These questions are unsettling. They are also reasonable to ask. After all, we might think that we need to draw the line somewhere. So if we decide not to draw the line at species membership — if we decide to accept that at least some nonhumans can have at least some rights — then it is not immediately clear where to draw it instead, or even, on reflection, whether to draw this particular kind of line at all."
Mark Zuckerberg Can Still Fix This Mess; The New York Times, April 7, 2018
Jonathan Zittrain, The New York Times; Mark Zuckerberg Can Still Fix This Mess
"There are several technical and legal advances that could make a difference.
On the policy front, we should look to how the law treats professionals with specialized skills who get to know clients’ troubles and secrets intimately. For example, doctors and lawyers draw lots of sensitive information from, and wield a lot of power over, their patients and clients. There’s not only an ethical trust relationship there but also a legal one: that of a “fiduciary,” which at its core means that the professionals are obliged to place their clients’ interests ahead of their own.
The legal scholar Jack Balkin has convincingly argued that companies like Facebook and Twitter are in a similar relationship of knowledge about, and power over, their users — and thus should be considered “information fiduciaries.”...
Given the blowback around current privacy and advertising practices — and the threat of regulation, especially from the European Union — companies like Facebook should do the right thing and commit to representing users’ interests. And the law could nudge them in that direction without outright requiring it. These actions might reduce Facebook’s growth or profitability, but that is not a compelling reason to stop doing something harmful. It may be that aspects of an advertising-based business model are indeed incompatible with ethically serving users, as polluted streams are incompatible with ethically mining coal."
"There are several technical and legal advances that could make a difference.
On the policy front, we should look to how the law treats professionals with specialized skills who get to know clients’ troubles and secrets intimately. For example, doctors and lawyers draw lots of sensitive information from, and wield a lot of power over, their patients and clients. There’s not only an ethical trust relationship there but also a legal one: that of a “fiduciary,” which at its core means that the professionals are obliged to place their clients’ interests ahead of their own.
The legal scholar Jack Balkin has convincingly argued that companies like Facebook and Twitter are in a similar relationship of knowledge about, and power over, their users — and thus should be considered “information fiduciaries.”...
Given the blowback around current privacy and advertising practices — and the threat of regulation, especially from the European Union — companies like Facebook should do the right thing and commit to representing users’ interests. And the law could nudge them in that direction without outright requiring it. These actions might reduce Facebook’s growth or profitability, but that is not a compelling reason to stop doing something harmful. It may be that aspects of an advertising-based business model are indeed incompatible with ethically serving users, as polluted streams are incompatible with ethically mining coal."
Sunday, April 8, 2018
Open Access: On Learning I Won’t Die Of My Grandmother’s Disease; The Georgetown Voice, April 7, 2018
Rebecca Zaritsky, The Georgetown Voice; Open Access: On Learning I Won’t Die Of My Grandmother’s Disease
[Kip Currier: This past week's Information Ethics course module explored and reflected on the pluses and minuses of DNA testing. This article is a thought-provoking first-person account of one person's 23andMe DNA test results.
The author raises some positive aspects of genetic testing, as well as some potential downsides. She offers a "go-between" strategy for mitigating those possible impacts, concluding that "It’s not fair to the patients to expose them to information without an explanation."
Lots of practical challenges and legal and ethical questions are raised by the writer's suggested remedy though, regarding who, when, and how someone would make the grey decisions about what constitutes "serious medical information that affects the individual’s life" and what constitutes "non-medical or “trivia” information". Who would bear responsibility for making these "tough calls"? Who or what entities would be charged with oversight and enforcement?
No easy answers. But the author raises important questions for law- and policymakers, ethicists, and consumers about the implications of this increasingly touted technology and information tool.]
"The results were, generally speaking, good news. A gene for hypertension doesn’t scare me, and if I die of heart disease, at least I’ll still die as me. I was excited, intrigued, and overall relaxed by what I found. In hindsight, I’m only sorry I waited so long.
Still, what if that hadn’t been my experience? What if I did have copies of APOE4, or a mutation in a familial Alzheimer’s gene, or another disorder that nothing could be done about? I could have found out some serious, life-changing information for only $10 and a couple of clicks. Would I have been able to deal with that? I can’t say for certain. Not everyone who does these tests will have the same outcome as I will, and some will undoubtedly find information they weren’t prepared for and didn’t want. If I found out I had a mutation in BRCA, a gene conferring a high-risk for breast cancer, would I have spent my whole life worrying?
More commonly, there’s the potential for misinterpretation."
Saturday, April 7, 2018
The Ethics Of Tech; NPR, Weekend Edition Saturday, April 7, 2018
NPR, Weekend Edition Saturday; The Ethics Of Tech
"NPR's Scott Detrow talks with former Google engineer Yonatan Zunger. He argues the tech industry should operate with a "higher standard for care."
"NPR's Scott Detrow talks with former Google engineer Yonatan Zunger. He argues the tech industry should operate with a "higher standard for care."
SCOTT DETROW, HOST:
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be facing tough questions when he appears before Congress in the coming days. At the top of the list, the scandal involving Cambridge Analytica. That's the company that's been accused of improperly obtaining data from millions of Facebook users, then using that information for its work on political campaigns, reportedly including the Trump campaign.
Let's hear now from someone with a long history in Silicon Valley. Yonatan Zunger, the former Google engineer, recently wrote in The Boston Globe that this scandal is just more evidence that the entire tech industry faces an ethical crisis..."
So 2 Goats Were Stuck On A Beam Under A Bridge ...; NPR, Goats and Soda, April 6, 2018
Marc Silver, NPR, Goats and Soda; So 2 Goats Were Stuck On A Beam Under A Bridge ...
[Kip Currier: Amidst many "heavy" and thorny ethics-related stories/topics lately, here's a feel-good story about compassion, ingenuity, and persistence, from right here in Western Pennsylvania.
--May make your palms sweat a bit, picturing these unshrinking Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Samaritans and two plucky goats...]
""The initial plan was to try and separate the goats so we could could grab the goat facing the wrong way and turn it around," McCarthy says. But the white goat wasn't cooperating.
"I said, 'I'm going for it,' " he recalls. "I grabbed the goat as tight as I could." And he lifted it into the bucket.
The white goat was deposited on the bridge and handed over to its owner's son. McCarthy then tapped the beam with a pole to encourage the brown goat to make its way back.
Asked about the possible cost of the rescue, Tilson says, "We didn't even calculate it. We were just trying to be a good neighbor and get the goats back safely."
McCarthy is a happy man. "In this day and age, when things can go terribly wrong," he says, "it was great to see things go right."
His success is a testimony to a value that is sometimes lost in our quick-attention-span age: persistence.
"There was no way," he says, "I was letting go of that goat."
Meanwhile, no word on how the goats are faring, but I'm sure they would agree with a classic proverb from Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav: "The whole world is a very narrow bridge; the important thing is not to be afraid.""
[Kip Currier: Amidst many "heavy" and thorny ethics-related stories/topics lately, here's a feel-good story about compassion, ingenuity, and persistence, from right here in Western Pennsylvania.
--May make your palms sweat a bit, picturing these unshrinking Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Samaritans and two plucky goats...]
""The initial plan was to try and separate the goats so we could could grab the goat facing the wrong way and turn it around," McCarthy says. But the white goat wasn't cooperating.
"I said, 'I'm going for it,' " he recalls. "I grabbed the goat as tight as I could." And he lifted it into the bucket.
The white goat was deposited on the bridge and handed over to its owner's son. McCarthy then tapped the beam with a pole to encourage the brown goat to make its way back.
Asked about the possible cost of the rescue, Tilson says, "We didn't even calculate it. We were just trying to be a good neighbor and get the goats back safely."
McCarthy is a happy man. "In this day and age, when things can go terribly wrong," he says, "it was great to see things go right."
His success is a testimony to a value that is sometimes lost in our quick-attention-span age: persistence.
"There was no way," he says, "I was letting go of that goat."
Meanwhile, no word on how the goats are faring, but I'm sure they would agree with a classic proverb from Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav: "The whole world is a very narrow bridge; the important thing is not to be afraid.""
Without data-targeted ads, Facebook would look like a pay service, Sandberg says; NBC, April 5, 2018
Alex Johnson and Erik Ortiz, NBC; Without data-targeted ads, Facebook would look like a pay service, Sandberg says
"The data of users is the lifeblood of Facebook, and if people want to opt out of all of the platform's data-driven advertising, they would have to pay for it, Sheryl Sandberg, the company's chief operating officer, told NBC News in an interview that aired Friday.
In an interview with "Today" co-anchor Savannah Guthrie, Sandberg again acknowledged that the company mishandled the breach that allowed Cambridge Analytica, the data analysis firm that worked with Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, to harvest information from as many as 87 million Facebook users."
"The data of users is the lifeblood of Facebook, and if people want to opt out of all of the platform's data-driven advertising, they would have to pay for it, Sheryl Sandberg, the company's chief operating officer, told NBC News in an interview that aired Friday.
In an interview with "Today" co-anchor Savannah Guthrie, Sandberg again acknowledged that the company mishandled the breach that allowed Cambridge Analytica, the data analysis firm that worked with Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, to harvest information from as many as 87 million Facebook users."
Friday, April 6, 2018
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."
[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."
Facebook admits it discussed sharing user data for medical research project; The Guardian, April 5, 2018
Amanda Holpuch, The Guardian; Facebook admits it discussed sharing user data for medical research project
[Kip Currier: Timely to see this article, after discussing HIPAA and medical research data in my lecture yesterday on "Legal and Ethical Issues of Research Data Management (RDM)". And after my post here, responding to John Podhoretz's "sorry, you are a fool" New York Post opinion piece.]
"Medical institutions are held to a higher privacy standard than Facebook because of laws such as the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or Hipaa, which makes it illegal for health care providers and insurers to share patient data without their permission.
But it is not clear how the proposed research would have complied with this strict health privacy law.
Two people who heard Facebook’s pitch and one person familiar with it told CNBC that the proposed project would mesh data from health systems (such as diagnoses and prescribed medications) with data from Facebook (such as age, friends and likes). The idea would be to match what is known about a patient’s lifestyle with their medical needs to customize care."
[Kip Currier: Timely to see this article, after discussing HIPAA and medical research data in my lecture yesterday on "Legal and Ethical Issues of Research Data Management (RDM)". And after my post here, responding to John Podhoretz's "sorry, you are a fool" New York Post opinion piece.]
"Medical institutions are held to a higher privacy standard than Facebook because of laws such as the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or Hipaa, which makes it illegal for health care providers and insurers to share patient data without their permission.
But it is not clear how the proposed research would have complied with this strict health privacy law.
Two people who heard Facebook’s pitch and one person familiar with it told CNBC that the proposed project would mesh data from health systems (such as diagnoses and prescribed medications) with data from Facebook (such as age, friends and likes). The idea would be to match what is known about a patient’s lifestyle with their medical needs to customize care."
Thursday, April 5, 2018
Sorry, Facebook was never ‘free’; The New York Post, March 21, 2018
John Podhoretz, The New York Post; Sorry, Facebook was never ‘free’
[Kip Currier: On today's MSNBC Morning Joe show, The New York Post's
John Podhoretz pontificated on the same provocative assertions that he wrote about in
his March
21, 2018 opinion piece, excerpted below. It’s a post-Cambridge
Analytica “Open Letter polemic” directed at anyone (--or using Podhoretz’s term,
any fool) who signed up for Facebook “back
in the day” and who may now be concerned about how free social media sites like
Facebook use—as well as how Facebook et
al enable third parties to “harvest”, “scrape”, and leverage—people’s personal data.
Podhoretz’s argument
is flawed on so many levels it’s challenging to know where to begin. (Full
disclosure: As someone working in academia in a computing and information
science school, who signed up for Facebook some years ago to see what all the “fuss”
was about, I’ve never used my Facebook account because of ongoing privacy
concerns about it. Much to the chagrin of some family and friends who have
exhorted me, unsuccessfully, to use it.)
Certainly, there is
some level of “ownership” that each of us needs to take when we sign up for a
social media site or app by clicking on the Terms and Conditions and/or End
User License Agreement (EULA). But it’s also common knowledge now (ridiculed by
self-aware super-speed-talking advertisers in TV and radio ads!) that these agreements
are written in legalese that don’t fully
convey the scope and potential scope
of the ramifications of these agreements’ terms and conditions. (Aside: For a clever
satirical take on the purposeful impenetrability and abstruseness of these lawyer-crafted
agreements, see R. Sikoryak’s 2017 graphic novel Terms
and Conditions, which visually lampoons an Apple iTunes user contract.)
Over the course of
decades, for example, in the wake of the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments and
other medical research abuses and controversies, medical research practitioners
were legally coerced to come to terms with the fact that laws, ethics, and
policies about “informed consent” needed to evolve to better inform and protect “human
subjects” (translation: you and me).
A similar argument
can be made regarding Facebook and its social media kin: namely, that tech
companies and app developers need to voluntarily adopt (or be required to
adopt) HIPAA-esque protections and promote more “informed” consumer awareness.
We also need more computer
science ethics training and education for undergraduates, as well as more
widespread digital citizenship education in K-12 settings, to ensure a level
playing field of digital life awareness.
(Hint, hint, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos or First Lady Melania Trump…here’s a mission critical for your patronage.)
Podhoretz’s
simplistic Facebook
user-as-deplorable-fool rant puts all
of the blame on users, while negating any
responsibility for bait-and-switch tech companies like Facebook and data-sticky-fingered
accomplices like Cambridge Analytica. “Free” doesn’t mean tech companies and
app designers should be free from enhanced and reasonable informed consent responsibilities they owe to their
users. Expecting or allowing anything less would be foolish.]
"The science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein said it best: “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Everything has a cost. If you forgot that, or refused to see it in your relationship with Facebook, or believe any of these things, sorry, you are a fool. So the politicians and pundits who are working to soak your outrage for their own ideological purposes are gulling you. But of course you knew.
You just didn’t care . . . until you cared. Until, that is, you decided this was a convenient way of explaining away the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 election.
You’re so invested in the idea that Trump stole the election, you are willing to believe anything other than that your candidate lost because she made a lousy argument and ran a lousy campaign and didn’t know how to run a race that would put her over the top in the Electoral College — which is how you prevail in a presidential election and has been for 220-plus years.
The rage and anger against Facebook over the past week provide just the latest examples of the self-infantilization and flight from responsibility on the part of the American people and the refusal of Trump haters and American liberals to accept the results of 2016.
Honestly, it’s time to stop being fools and start owning up to our role in all this."
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
A woman says an Ancestry.com DNA test revealed her father — her parents’ fertility doctor; The Washington Post, April 3, 2018
Lindsey Bever, The Washington Post; A woman says an Ancestry.com DNA test revealed her father — her parents’ fertility doctor
[Kip Currier: I've been lecturing on some of the upshots and the downsides of DNA testing the past few years in my Information Ethics course and for guest talks in a colleague's Research Data Management (RDM) course. Advertising for DNA testing has exploded this past year on television and radio. These ads, in my view, are very irresponsible in presenting DNA tests as utterly carefree and adventurous (connect with your ancestral homelands! find out the history of your long-lost ancestors!), without adequately alerting people to the very significant, potentially harmful aspects they can present.
This article is one cautionary tale about unexpected consequences of DNA tests.]
"After news of the lawsuit, a spokeswoman for Ancestry.com said in a statement Tuesday that DNA testing “helps people make new and powerful discoveries about their family history and identity.
“We are committed to delivering the most accurate results, however with this, people may learn of unexpected connections,” it read. “With Ancestry, customers maintain ownership and control over their DNA data. Anyone who takes a test can change their DNA matching settings at any time, meaning that if they opt out, their profile and relationship will not be visible to other customers.”
Since the situation came to light, Rowlette and her parents have been “suffering immeasurably,” the lawsuit says."
[Kip Currier: I've been lecturing on some of the upshots and the downsides of DNA testing the past few years in my Information Ethics course and for guest talks in a colleague's Research Data Management (RDM) course. Advertising for DNA testing has exploded this past year on television and radio. These ads, in my view, are very irresponsible in presenting DNA tests as utterly carefree and adventurous (connect with your ancestral homelands! find out the history of your long-lost ancestors!), without adequately alerting people to the very significant, potentially harmful aspects they can present.
This article is one cautionary tale about unexpected consequences of DNA tests.]
"After news of the lawsuit, a spokeswoman for Ancestry.com said in a statement Tuesday that DNA testing “helps people make new and powerful discoveries about their family history and identity.
“We are committed to delivering the most accurate results, however with this, people may learn of unexpected connections,” it read. “With Ancestry, customers maintain ownership and control over their DNA data. Anyone who takes a test can change their DNA matching settings at any time, meaning that if they opt out, their profile and relationship will not be visible to other customers.”
Since the situation came to light, Rowlette and her parents have been “suffering immeasurably,” the lawsuit says."
Why Scott Pruitt’s living arrangement raises ethics concerns; PBS News Hour, April 3, 2018
PBS News Hour; Why Scott Pruitt’s living arrangement raises ethics concerns
"The controversies and ethical questions surrounding EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt are piling up. Most recently, ABC News reported that Pruitt was occasionally renting a room in Washington from the wife of a lobbyist for the energy industry. William Brangham learns more from Eric Lipton from The New York Times and Kathleen Clark from The University of Washington St. Louis School of Law."
"The controversies and ethical questions surrounding EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt are piling up. Most recently, ABC News reported that Pruitt was occasionally renting a room in Washington from the wife of a lobbyist for the energy industry. William Brangham learns more from Eric Lipton from The New York Times and Kathleen Clark from The University of Washington St. Louis School of Law."
Facebook Privacy Scandal Unleashes Nationwide ‘Litigation Swarm'; Bloomberg, April 4, 2018
Christie Smythe, Bloomberg; Facebook Privacy Scandal Unleashes Nationwide ‘Litigation Swarm'
"Litigation Swarm
"Litigation Swarm
"Facebook’s having to fight on multiple fronts, with potentially conflicting strategies and obligations, is what will make this ‘litigation swarm’ problematic," said Marc Melzer, a New York-based attorney. The company will likely "want to move slowly and withhold as much as they can without antagonizing regulators or the courts that are presiding over the suits."
Users and investors have filed at least 18 lawsuits since last month’s revelations about Cambridge Analytica. Beyond privacy violations, they are accusing Facebook of user agreement breaches, negligence, consumer fraud, unfair competition, securities fraud and racketeering.
Zuckerberg, Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, and board members including Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel face additional claims from shareholders for allegedly failing to uphold their fiduciary duties and wasting corporate assets."
Facebook said the personal data of most of its 2 billion users has been collected and shared with outsiders; Washington Post, April 4, 2018
Craig Timberg, Tony Romm and Elizabeth Dwoskin, Washington Post; Facebook said the personal data of most of its 2 billion users has been collected and shared with outsiders
"Facebook said Wednesday that most of its 2 billion users likely have had their public profiles scraped by outsiders without the users' explicit permission, dramatically raising the stakes in a privacy controversy that has dogged the company for weeks, spurred investigations in the United States and Europe, and sent the company's stock price tumbling."
"Facebook said Wednesday that most of its 2 billion users likely have had their public profiles scraped by outsiders without the users' explicit permission, dramatically raising the stakes in a privacy controversy that has dogged the company for weeks, spurred investigations in the United States and Europe, and sent the company's stock price tumbling."
The Guardian view on Grindr and data protection: don’t trade our privacy; Guardian, April 3, 2018
Editorial, Guardian; The Guardian view on Grindr and data protection: don’t trade our privacy
"Whether the users were at fault for excessive trust, or lack of imagination, or even whether they were at fault at all for submitting information that would let their potential partners make a better informed choice, as liberal ethics would demand, the next thing to scrutinise is the role of the company itself. Grindr has now said that it will no longer hand over the information, which is an admission that it was wrong to do so in the first place. It also says that the information was always anonymised, and that its policy was perfectly standard practice among digital businesses. This last is perfectly true, and perhaps the most worrying part of the whole story.
We now live in a world where the valuations of giant companies are determined by the amount of personal data they hold on third parties, who frequently have no idea how much there is, nor how revealing it is. As well as the HIV status, and last test date, Grindr collected and passed on to third parties its users’ locations, their phone identification numbers, and emails. These went to two companies that promise to make it easier to deliver personalised advertisements to phones based on the users’ locations and to increase the amount of time they spend looking at apps on their phones. The data was in theory anonymised, although repeated experiments have shown that the anonymity of personal information on the internet is pretty easily cracked in most cases."
"Whether the users were at fault for excessive trust, or lack of imagination, or even whether they were at fault at all for submitting information that would let their potential partners make a better informed choice, as liberal ethics would demand, the next thing to scrutinise is the role of the company itself. Grindr has now said that it will no longer hand over the information, which is an admission that it was wrong to do so in the first place. It also says that the information was always anonymised, and that its policy was perfectly standard practice among digital businesses. This last is perfectly true, and perhaps the most worrying part of the whole story.
We now live in a world where the valuations of giant companies are determined by the amount of personal data they hold on third parties, who frequently have no idea how much there is, nor how revealing it is. As well as the HIV status, and last test date, Grindr collected and passed on to third parties its users’ locations, their phone identification numbers, and emails. These went to two companies that promise to make it easier to deliver personalised advertisements to phones based on the users’ locations and to increase the amount of time they spend looking at apps on their phones. The data was in theory anonymised, although repeated experiments have shown that the anonymity of personal information on the internet is pretty easily cracked in most cases."
Grindr Sets Off Privacy Firestorm After Sharing Users’ H.I.V.-Status Data; The New York Times, April 3, 2018
Natasha Singer, The New York Times; Grindr Sets Off Privacy Firestorm After Sharing Users’ H.I.V.-Status Data
"Grindr, the social network aimed at gay, bisexual and transgender men, is facing a firestorm of criticism for sharing users’ H.I.V. status, sexual tastes and other intimate personal details with outside software vendors.
The data sharing, made public by European researchers on Saturday and reported by BuzzFeed on Monday, set off an outcry from many users. By Monday night, the company said it would stop sharing H.I.V. data with outside companies."
"Grindr, the social network aimed at gay, bisexual and transgender men, is facing a firestorm of criticism for sharing users’ H.I.V. status, sexual tastes and other intimate personal details with outside software vendors.
The data sharing, made public by European researchers on Saturday and reported by BuzzFeed on Monday, set off an outcry from many users. By Monday night, the company said it would stop sharing H.I.V. data with outside companies."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)