University of Washington: Struggling with Ethics 101
October 18, 2021
Like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, some professionals at these esteemed institutions are struggling with Ethics 101. A typical syllabus includes such questions as these from the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point Introduction to Ethics course:
- What theoretical principles guide our moral behavior?
- What makes an action right or wrong?
- What factors (theoretical and practical) ground moral disputes?
- Is there hope that we will resolve moral disputes?
The syllabus includes this statement:
If you commit any acts of academic dishonesty (such as plagiarism on written work or cheating on an exam) you will earn a zero for that work (and possibly other disciplinary actions).
Well, this is a basic class. How well did the University of Washington do? (We already know that MIT accepted some Jeffrey Epstein goodness and participated in the digital hair shirt ritual.)
Navigate to “University of Washington Settles DOJ Claims of Grant Fraud.” You will learn that one of those who appears to have flunked Introduction to Ethics engaged in some search engine optimization. I learned from the article:
The University of Washington has agreed to pay more than $800,000 to settle Justice Department allegations that a professor submitted false documentation relating to a highly competitive grant. The grant documents were submitted to the National Science Foundation by Mehmet Sarikaya, a professor in the university’s Materials Science and Engineering Department…
Keep in mind that some academics engage in citation exchanges and other crafty techniques to burnish their reputation as big time thinkers.
If the Department of Justice is correct, the get out of jail card cost the university providing Amazon-type and Google-type graduates a mere $800,000.
A PR-savvy university professional is quoted as saying“The UW takes very seriously the responsibility of stewarding public funding of scientific research,” university spokesman Victor Balta said in an email. “We are grateful this issue was brought to light and pleased to have it resolved.”
Abso-fricking-lutely. “Grateful.”
The issue is one that St. Thomas Aquinas might have enjoyed pondering. Why fool around with Aristotelian ethics when one can do what’s necessary to be a winner. The text of these thoughts might be called Macho invento and authored by a group of recent University of Washington graduates who volunteer their time to advance ethical thought.
Stephen E Arnold, October 18, 2021
Zuck: A Puck for the Stop Facebook Team
October 18, 2021
Slap shot! Upper left corner of the net. The goalie did not react.
That’s how I interpreted “New ‘Stop Facebook’ Campaign Demands Ban on Data Harvesting and Corporate Surveillance.”
The write up explains:
A new campaign is calling for federal action to “shut down Facebook’s surveillance machine” including passing legislation to ensure strong data privacy protections.
The write up continues:
The campaign argues that the fuel driving Facebook’s business model is the trove of user data the company amasses to power algorithms that generate ad revenue and corporate profits.
I am not sure if regulation can do the trick. There’s lobbying, funding, and speaking engagements in play. Plus a job for a loser middle child can be an inducement for some politicians to adopt interesting postures. At least, the kid is not in the basement playing video games and watching Twitch Pools’ content.
Worth watching, of course. Will the campaign work? I am on the fence.
Stephen E Arnold, October 18, 2021
Human Editors and Subject Matter Experts? Dinosaurs but Just from a Previous Era
October 15, 2021
I read “Bugs in our Pockets: The Risks of Client-Side Scanning.” The embargo is amusing, and it underscores the issues related to confidential information and the notion of information wants to be free. Amusing, maybe not?
The write up looks a bit like a paper destined for a pay-to-play publisher or an outfit which cultivates a cabal-like approach to publishing. (Hello, ACM?) The paper includes 13 authors, and I suppose the idea is to convey consensus or a lead author who wishes to keep his or her head below the concrete bunker in order to avoid direct hits from those who don’t agree with the write up.
I neither agree nor disagree. I interpreted the write up as:
- A clever bit of SEO, particularly the embargo and the availability of the paper to certain saucy online information services
- A way to present some entities, although with the titles and email contacts favored by some link hunters
- A technical bit of push back for assorted government mumbling about privacy, security, and another assault on personal freedoms.
Yep, the sky is falling.
Please, read the paper. One business executive allegedly said, “There is no return to normal. Today’s environment is the new normal.”
Is it possible this paper triggers Apple TV or YouTube to cue 1973 hit “The Way We Were”?
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2021
Apple: Oh, One More Thing
October 15, 2021
I am not sure about the British Broadcasting Corporation. It’s a news maker, not just a news purveyor. Let’s assume that “Apple Takes Down Koran App in China” is on the money. The write up asserts:
Quran Majeed is available across the world on the App Store – and has nearly 150,000 reviews. However, Apple removed the app at the request of Chinese officials, for hosting illegal religious texts, the company said.
The Beeb tried its best to contact China and the iPhone outfit, saying:
Apple declined to comment, but directed the BBC to its Human Rights Policy, which states: “We’re required to comply with local laws, and at times there are complex issues about which we may disagree with governments.”
I find this interesting. If information is not available online, does it exist? If an entity removes content from an online service, how does one know that content has gone missing? Allegedly Microsoft faced a Chine moment. What did that company do? Disappeared the service. Here’s a report, but it will cost you money to read the news. (For a person without resources, is there a difference between disappearing content and services and censorship?)
That’s two more things but maybe just one at the end of a very long week in which more and more people are functioning as skilled, informed, and professional reference librarians.
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2021
Data Confidence: The Check Is in the Mail
October 15, 2021
Why are we not surprised? SeattlePI reports, “Americans Have Little Trust in Online Security: AP-NORC Poll.” Writer Matt O’Brien reveals:
“The poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and MeriTalk shows that 64% of Americans say their social media activity is not very or not at all secure. About as many have the same security doubts about online information revealing their physical location. Half of Americans believe their private text conversations lack security. And they’re not just concerned. They want something done about it. Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they support establishing national standards for how companies can collect, process and share personal data.”
Few have any hope such standards will be enacted by federal officials, however. Even after years filled with private sector hacks and scandals, we’re told 56% of respondents would trust corporations to safeguard their data before they would the government. The write-up continues:
“About 71% of Americans believe that individuals’ data privacy should be treated as a national security issue, with a similar level of support among Democrats and Republicans. But only 23% are very or somewhat satisfied in the federal government’s current efforts to protect Americans’ privacy and secure their personal data online. ‘This is not a partisan issue,’ said Colorado state Rep. Terri Carver, a Republican who co-sponsored a consumer data privacy bill signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis in July. It takes effect in 2023.”
The bill would give users in Colorado the right to access and delete personal information online, echoing similar legislation in Virginia and California. Predictably, Facebook and other tech companies opposed the bill.
Cynthia Murrell, October 15, 2021
Apple and Google: Just Being Responsive to Russia
October 15, 2021
What is an authoritarian regime to do? It is important to control one’s own citizens’ access to the Internet, yet one needs global social media platforms to spread misinformation to foreign populations. Never fear, U.S. big tech is here. Wait, what? The Conversation reports, “Russia Is Building Its Own Kind of Sovereign Internet—with Help from Apple and Google.” Writer William Partlett reveals:
“On September 17, the first day of Russia’s parliamentary elections, Apple and Google agreed to demands from the Russian government to remove a strategic voting app developed by opposition leader Alexei Navalny from the iOS and Android app stores. Apple then disabled its Private Relay feature (which enhances web browsing privacy) for users in Russia. Google also removed YouTube videos giving advice on how to vote strategically in the elections. In the past, large tech companies have generally ignored censorship requests from the Russian government. So why did the US tech giants finally cave in to pressure? The answer provides a glimpse into how Russia, a sophisticated cyber superpower, is building its sovereign internet. It is preserving control, but without isolating itself from the broader internet.”
Perhaps inspired by China’s Great Firewall, Russia has worked to digitally isolate itself. However, the government needs its connection to the World Wide Web to maintain its propaganda war on other countries. Partlett notes two main provisions Russia is relying on to keep this balance. One involves slowing down internet access to targeted platforms. Another is requiring social media companies with more than 500,000 daily Russian visitors to maintain employees in that country. Both provisions were used to coerce the removal of Nalvany’s voting app from the iOS and Android app stores. If the companies did not comply, we learn, there would have been these consequences:
“First, the state would prosecute Russia-based employees of Google and Apple. Second, it promised to slow down internet traffic to Apple and Google platforms in Russia, and shut down the Apple Pay and Google Pay services. Facing an escalating series of threats, the tech giants eventually backed down and removed the app.”
Of course they did, because both are corporations with their bottom lines top-of-mind. The motto “don’t be evil” was shelved a long time ago. (Though, to be fair, the welfare of their Russian employees probably played a role. We hope.) Partlett wonders: how can opposition movements proceed when they rely on big tech’s platforms to get the message out? Good question.
Cynthia Murrell October 15, 2021
A Simple Query, Interesting Consequences
October 15, 2021
The balance between effective tools for law-enforcement and civil liberties is, of course, a tricky one. Forbes discusses the thorny issue of keyword warrants in, “Exclusive: Government Secretly Orders Google to Identify Anyone Who Searched a Sexual Assault Victim’s Name, Address and Telephone Number.” The use of this specific warrant was inadvertently, and temporarily, unsealed by the Justice Department in September. Forbes was able to review the documents before they were sealed again. The write-up gives some relevant details of the Wisconsin case, but basically investigators asked Google for the Google account information and IP addresses of anyone who had searched for the victim’s name, two spellings of her mother’s name, her address, and her phone number on 16 specific days. Before this, we’re told, only two other keyword warrants had been made public. Write Thomas Brewster emphasizes:
“While Google deals with thousands of such orders every year, the keyword warrant is one of the more contentious. In many cases, the government will already have a specific Google account that they want information on and have proof it’s linked to a crime. But search term orders are effectively fishing expeditions, hoping to ensnare possible suspects whose identities the government does not know. It’s not dissimilar to so-called geofence warrants, where investigators ask Google to provide information on anyone within the location of a crime scene at a given time. … The latest case shows Google is continuing to comply with such controversial requests, despite concerns over their legality and the potential to implicate innocent people who happened to search for the relevant terms.”
In this particular case, the warrant’s narrow scope probably prevented that from happening. Still, even the most carefully worded requests set precedent. And others have been broad enough to impugn the merely curious, as with these orders made to Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo during the investigation into 2018’s serial bombings in Austin. Those warrants called for the account information and IP addresses of anyone searching for certain addresses and terms like “low explosives” and “pipe bomb.” As the ACLU’s Jennifer Granick observes:
“Trawling through Google’s search history database enables police to identify people merely based on what they might have been thinking about, for whatever reason, at some point in the past. This is a virtual dragnet through the public’s interests, beliefs, opinions, values and friendships, akin to mind reading powered by the Google time machine.”
As Granick sees it, keyword warrants not only breach the Fourth Amendment’s protections from unreasonable searches, they also threaten the freedom of speech granted by First Amendment: Google users may hesitate to look up information if their search histories could be handed over to the government at any moment. It does not help, she notes, that this is all going down in secret. See the article for more information.
Cynthia Murrell October 15, 2021
A Compliance Hat Trick?
October 14, 2021
Apple, Google, and Microsoft have scored. I read “LinkedIn Caves Again, Blocks US Journalists’ Accounts in China.” I noted this passage:
LinkedIn — the business-oriented social media platform owned by Microsoft — has spent the last few years increasing its compliance with the Chinese government’s demands for censorship.
The write up points out that a reporter for Axios, another with-in online information service, has been disappeared.
The cited article provides links and more color for the Chinese action.
It appears that major US technology companies are complying with guidelines and regulations in the countries in which they operate.
Why?
One possible answer is revenue. Another may be a desire to avoid legal consequences for the firms’ in-country employees.
It seems reasonable to conclude that the era of the Wild West Internet is ending. Some large countries want to manage certain aspects of information and data flows.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? The answer depends on one’s point of view, where one lives, and how one generates revenue/income.
Stephen E Arnold, October 14, 2021
Facebook Targets Paginas Amarillas: Never Enough, Zuck?
October 14, 2021
Facebook is working to make one of its properties more profitable. The Next Web reports, “WhatsApp Reinvents the ‘Yellow Pages’ and Proves there Are No New Ideas.” The company will test out a new business directory feature in San Paulo, Brazil, where local users will be able to search for “businesses nearby” through the app. Writer Ivan Mehta reports:
“For years, Facebook and Instagram have been trying to connect you to businesses and make your shop through their platforms. While the WhatsApp Business app has been around, you couldn’t really search for businesses using the app, unless you’ve interacted with them previously. WhatsApp already offers payment services in Brazil. So it makes sense for it to provide discovery services for local businesses, so you can shop for goods in person, and pay through the platform. The chat app doesn’t have any ads, unlike Facebook and Instagram, so business interactions and transactions are one of the biggest ways for Facebook to earn some moolah out of it. In June, the company integrated its Shops feature in WhatsApp. So, we can expect more business-facing features in near future.”
India and Indonesia are likely next on the list for the project, according to Facebook’s Matt Idema. We are assured the company will track neither users’ locations nor the businesses they search for. Have we heard similar promises before?
Cynthia Murrell, October 14, 2021
Regulators Move, Just Slowly Toward Facebook
October 14, 2021
Finally, after 17 years a dim light flickers on. Vox Recode reports, “It’s Getting Harder for People to Believe that Facebook Is a Net Good for Society.” Though experts have been sounding the alarm for years, Facebook has insisted its ability to bring folks together far outweighs any damage perpetuated by its platforms. Now, though, more people are challenging that defense. Writer Shirin Ghaffary tells us:
“A new series of reports from the Wall Street Journal, “The Facebook Files,” provides damning evidence that Facebook has studied and long known that its products cause measurable, real-world harm — including on teenagers’ mental health — and then stifled that research while denying and downplaying that harm to the public. The revelations, which only strengthen the case that a growing chorus of lawmakers and regulators have been making for breaking up Facebook or otherwise severely limiting its power as a social media giant, could represent a turning point for the company. Already, the Journal’s reporting has prompted consequences for Facebook: A bipartisan Senate committee is investigating [Facebook-owned] Instagram’s impact on teenagers, and a group of legislators led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) is calling for Facebook to halt all development of its Instagram for Kids product for children under 13, which BuzzFeed News first revealed the company was developing in March.”
Ghaffary reminds us the wheels of government turn slowly and, often, to little effect. The investigations are in early stages and may not lead to any real changes or meaningful consequences. At least some politicians are more willing to question Facebook about the harm it causes, as some did at recent Congressional hearings. Unfortunately, Facebook is inclined to withhold damaging information even at the request of elected officials. We learn:
“When Rep. Rodgers and other Republicans followed up with Facebook and asked about the company’s internal research on the effects of its products on mental health, the company did not share the Instagram research results, according to Bloomberg, nor did it share them with Sen. Ed Markey when his office also asked Facebook to provide any internal research on the matter in April, according to letters provided by Markey’s office to Recode.”
But wait, there’s more. The Journal’s reporting also reveals the company’s VIP program, through which certain celebrities and politicians can break its rules (such as they are). It also shows that, in 2018, Facebook modified its algorithm to encourage the sharing of angrier content. Anything to generate traffic and revenues, whatever the consequences, it seems.
Cynthia Murrell, October 14, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
