CNN; Mark Zuckerberg posts a Facebook message as he heads into Senate hearing
"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted a message to his page just before he heads into the joint committee hearing in the wake of Facebook's data scandal.
"In an hour I’m going to testify in front of the Senate about how Facebook needs to take a broader view of our responsibility -- not just to build tools, but to make sure those tools are used for good," Zuckerberg wrote. "I will do everything I can to make Facebook a place where everyone can stay closer with the people they care about, and to make sure it's a positive force in the world.""
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
A sea of Mark Zuckerberg cutouts has taken over the Capitol lawn; CNN, April 10, 2018
Andrea Diaz, CNN; A sea of Mark Zuckerberg cutouts has taken over the Capitol lawn
"The Avaaz campaign also includes an open letter in response to Zuckerberg's apology, which more than 850,000 people across the world have signed. Zuckerberg took out full-page ads in several British and American newspapers to apologize for a "breach of trust" in the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
The letter addresses four key elements the organization wants Facebook and other internet sites to address: tell the truth, ban the bots, alert the public and fund the fact-checkers.
"We want Facebook to tell the truth regarding the work that is being done to stop this and the scale of the fake news and fake post problem. We just want to know the transparency of the problem and what is being done to tackle it," [Avaaz campaign director Nell] Greenberg said."
"The Avaaz campaign also includes an open letter in response to Zuckerberg's apology, which more than 850,000 people across the world have signed. Zuckerberg took out full-page ads in several British and American newspapers to apologize for a "breach of trust" in the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
The letter addresses four key elements the organization wants Facebook and other internet sites to address: tell the truth, ban the bots, alert the public and fund the fact-checkers.
"We want Facebook to tell the truth regarding the work that is being done to stop this and the scale of the fake news and fake post problem. We just want to know the transparency of the problem and what is being done to tackle it," [Avaaz campaign director Nell] Greenberg said."
Government Ethics Officials Raise Red Flags On EPA Chief Scott Pruitt; NPR, April 10, 2018
Domenico Montanaro, NPR; Government Ethics Officials Raise Red Flags On EPA Chief Scott Pruitt
"The Office of Government Ethics on Monday issued a strongly worded letter (full letter at the bottom of this post) that lays out its case for why ethics matter.
"Public trust demands that all employees act in the public's interest, and free from any actual or perceived conflicts when fulfilling governmental responsibilities entrusted to them," writes David Apol, acting director and general counsel of the office.
What's more, Apol points out, Pruitt is not just any "employee" who has to be held to this standard.
"Agency heads in particular bear a heightened responsibility," he notes. That's because, according to the Code of Federal Regulations, agency heads are literally "required to 'exercise personal leadership in ... establishing and maintaining an effective agency ethics program and fostering an ethical culture in the agency.'"
Not only that, but the statute lays out the expectation that agency heads "enforce" ethics rules in their agencies and consider them in "evaluating the performance of senior executives.""
"The Office of Government Ethics on Monday issued a strongly worded letter (full letter at the bottom of this post) that lays out its case for why ethics matter.
"Public trust demands that all employees act in the public's interest, and free from any actual or perceived conflicts when fulfilling governmental responsibilities entrusted to them," writes David Apol, acting director and general counsel of the office.
What's more, Apol points out, Pruitt is not just any "employee" who has to be held to this standard.
"Agency heads in particular bear a heightened responsibility," he notes. That's because, according to the Code of Federal Regulations, agency heads are literally "required to 'exercise personal leadership in ... establishing and maintaining an effective agency ethics program and fostering an ethical culture in the agency.'"
Not only that, but the statute lays out the expectation that agency heads "enforce" ethics rules in their agencies and consider them in "evaluating the performance of senior executives.""
A Code Of Ethics In Research; Forbes, April 9, 2018
Scott McDonald, Forbes; A Code Of Ethics In Research
"A single-minded focus on matters of fact can still leave us blind to the ethical implications of our work...
What ethical guidelines guide the use of “secondary data” collected for some other purpose, but now used for research? What responsibility do researchers have to ensure that the data they are using were collected legally, without any deception? What rights do consumers have to know about and approve the uses to which their data are put? What obligations do researchers have to protect consumers from harm that might come from the misuse of their data? What ethical guidelines should govern profiling and highly-targeted communications?
The reality is that the ability of technology to collect data is outstripping the guidelines in place to ensure that sound business practices are being followed. Just because we can do something, it doesn’t mean we should. The Cambridge event is a reckoning, not a revelation.
Let me be clear. The issue is that we should establish and comply with ethical guidelines not to ward off government intervention, but because it is good for our business. Consumer data is not ours, it belongs to consumers, and if we possess it and use it any form, we have a responsibility to respect it – and the consumer who provided it.
To that end, the ARF has issued a call for development and establishment of guidelines and standards to govern consumer data collection and protection."
"A single-minded focus on matters of fact can still leave us blind to the ethical implications of our work...
What ethical guidelines guide the use of “secondary data” collected for some other purpose, but now used for research? What responsibility do researchers have to ensure that the data they are using were collected legally, without any deception? What rights do consumers have to know about and approve the uses to which their data are put? What obligations do researchers have to protect consumers from harm that might come from the misuse of their data? What ethical guidelines should govern profiling and highly-targeted communications?
The reality is that the ability of technology to collect data is outstripping the guidelines in place to ensure that sound business practices are being followed. Just because we can do something, it doesn’t mean we should. The Cambridge event is a reckoning, not a revelation.
Let me be clear. The issue is that we should establish and comply with ethical guidelines not to ward off government intervention, but because it is good for our business. Consumer data is not ours, it belongs to consumers, and if we possess it and use it any form, we have a responsibility to respect it – and the consumer who provided it.
To that end, the ARF has issued a call for development and establishment of guidelines and standards to govern consumer data collection and protection."
Privacy By Design Is Important For Every Area Of Your Business; Forbes, April 10, 2018
Heidi Maher, Forbes; Privacy By Design Is Important For Every Area Of Your Business
"The only solution -- the only way to change people’s behavior -- is to embed privacy in the very fabric of the organization. That’s why Privacy by Design, a decades-old application design and development strategy, is now being discussed as a foundational strategy for entire organizations...
Finally, the use of new technologies is evolving so fast it creates significant legal complexity. Who is at fault when an accident involves a self-driving car? Who can access the data collected by a fitness tracker or medical device implant?
While we may not be able to untangle all the legal and regulatory questions yet, we can do a better job of protecting the data. The seven original principles of Privacy by Design -- developed for software engineers by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada, the Dutch Data Protection Authority, and the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research – suggest the path forward..."
"The only solution -- the only way to change people’s behavior -- is to embed privacy in the very fabric of the organization. That’s why Privacy by Design, a decades-old application design and development strategy, is now being discussed as a foundational strategy for entire organizations...
Finally, the use of new technologies is evolving so fast it creates significant legal complexity. Who is at fault when an accident involves a self-driving car? Who can access the data collected by a fitness tracker or medical device implant?
While we may not be able to untangle all the legal and regulatory questions yet, we can do a better job of protecting the data. The seven original principles of Privacy by Design -- developed for software engineers by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada, the Dutch Data Protection Authority, and the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research – suggest the path forward..."
Full transcript: Apple CEO Tim Cook with Recode’s Kara Swisher and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes; Recode, April 6, 2018
Meghann Farnsworth, Recode; Full transcript: Apple CEO Tim Cook with Recode’s Kara Swisher and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes
"Recode’s Kara Swisher and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes interviewed Apple CEO Tim Cook in Chicago, IL. The interview was taped on Tuesday, March 27, and aired on Friday, April 6, 2018. Read the full transcript below.
The full video is not available online but you can listen to the full, uncut interview on Recode Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher. The audio is embedded below, or you can find the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Overcast or wherever you listen to podcasts."
"Recode’s Kara Swisher and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes interviewed Apple CEO Tim Cook in Chicago, IL. The interview was taped on Tuesday, March 27, and aired on Friday, April 6, 2018. Read the full transcript below.
The full video is not available online but you can listen to the full, uncut interview on Recode Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher. The audio is embedded below, or you can find the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Overcast or wherever you listen to podcasts."
9 questions Congress should ask Mark Zuckerberg; Vox, April 9, 2018
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."
"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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)