Recently the video, The Innocence of Muslim was tied to the violence occurring in Libya and other countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa, as Grace posted about earlier this week.  YouTube hosted the video, but decided to take down the video in Egypt and Libya even though they had already determined that it did not violate their terms of service.  Why did Google decide to violate its normal ways of regulating YouTube?  They issued a statement saying these were extenuating circumstances.  In this case, the fact that violence was tied specifically to this video shows that Google tried to make the situation better with the options that were available to them.  Other countries, including the U.S., requested that Google remove the video from YouTube, and were denied. Numerous countries that made this request did not have any violence occurring that was tied to the video. Not to mention, Google rarely ever complies with such requests, so any acquiescence would have been unusual. If Google had complied, their role in regulation would increase, which evidently Google wants to prevent.

Other videos exhibiting acts of violence like the video showing the former U.S. Ambassador to Libya moments before his death have also not been taken down.  You may wonder if this maybe classifies as an extenuating instance, but this video has not incited violence nor is it hate speech.  Taking down videos like this could make Google more susceptible to the numerous requests they receive concerning the removal of videos.        While legally Google does have the right to take down any video, whether they use it or not people are similarly free to use Google’s services or not.  I feel that Google has chosen to give the power back to the people as much as possible through their lack of interfering with what is posted on Youtube.  Having the video on YouTube, doesn’t force anyone to watch it.  Google leaves it up to the current laws of a nation and the choices of its people to regulate.

Google’s business and moral interests are in alignment:  they largely do not want to control speech.  They’ve mostly taken a hands-off approach to regulation that coincides with the country the company originated in.  Some incidences occurred where Google played the moral police in subtle ways, like in the case of Ashley Madison website.  Google removed this website which helps to facilitate extramarital affairs, from autocomplete – making it more difficult to find unless you know what you’re looking for—and blocked its ads in the Google Content network.  Google had no right to begin blocking their ads or the website and should have followed their own rules of taking smaller role in regulating speech.  Look at it this way, if Google took a more active stance in regulation everyone would be aware of the beliefs of the people in charge.  If they were homophobic, chances are all of the videos concerning homosexuality would be removed.  If they were religious, anything that violated their beliefs could be removed.  If they hated violence, perhaps the Call of Duty commercials would no longer exist on YouTube.  Wouldn’t you rather they took a hand-off approach to regulation except for extenuating incidences like The Innocence of Muslims video?

Despite requests from the government of the United States, Bangladesh, and Russia, Google has maintained the video on its main site, and only blocked it in India and Indonesia, where it violates local law.  To justify its decision, Google asserts that the video does not violate its terms of service or constitute hate speech because it is directed against Islam, not Muslims as a group.

This recent controversy brings to light grave ethical and political implications.

Should Google be the only party to have jurisdiction over YouTube?  What does freedom of speech and press look like in a realm that transcends national, religious, and geopolitical boundaries?

Google’s recent actions are problematic in 3 ways:

1. In an effort to preserve free speech, Google premises its defense on imposing a blanket principle that other countries and cultures may not subscribe to.  Satire of Islam may not qualify as hate speech in the United States, but it certainly does figure into the definition that many countries, such as Bangladesh, espouse.  (For different standards of hate speech around the world, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech). By refusing to take down the video, Google is forcing these countries’ hands in banning YouTube altogether – which is what Bangladesh has done, and what Russia is considering.
2. By refusing to assume a “Big Brother” role, Google is ironically becoming “Meta-Big Brother.”  Although protests have erupted in more than twenty countries, Google has only temporarily blocked the video in Egypt and Libya.  In response to U.S requests to take the video down in other protest-ridden nations, Google has responded that it will do so if these situations become exigent.  This begs the question, since when did Google become the main arbiter of geopolitics? Given that Google removes videos that violate local copyright law, it should accede to local standards for hate speech as well.  With regard sensitive videos such as “The Innocence of Muslims,” Google can be “hands-off” by allowing governments to make the final call.
3. Finally, Google needs more restrictions on permissible video content beyond its terms of service and prohibiting hate speech.  Although the “Innocence of Muslims” may not hit close to home for many Americans, the video of the former U.S Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens certainly does.  While it is certainly within the purview of Google’s policies to allow the video of former Ambassador Steven’s brutal treatment to be shown, is it ethical to allow the footage in light of the recent tragedy?

Google needs to recognize that the line between inaction and action is a dubious one.  Although it wants to be as unobtrusive as possible, the plight of the Modern Day Big Brother is that it has no choice but to involve itself in governing the internet realm.  Whether it chooses to keep the video up or to take it down is setting an unmistakable precedent.  Given that Google has already conceded that free speech needs to be reined in under certain circumstances, it should take the first step in further defining its place in the YouTube community.

*Not everyone agrees with my views. In fact, Kristian will be posting a rejoinder on Wednesday. Stay tuned!

Credit: fsgm

Media censorship is always a contentious issue, but recently, the battleground has moved to scientific research.

According to an Economist article, “Influenza and its Complications,” the U.S’s National Scientific Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) asked the world’s two leading scientific journals, Science and Nature, to censor research on the H5N1 flu virus.

Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Centre, in Rotterdam, and Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison have been working on a strain of the avian flu that can be transmitted person-to-person and were on the verge of publishing their results. Fearing that the details of their work may be used as a bioterrorism blueprint, the NSABB asked for a moratorium on the publication of this work.

As a result, the World Health Organization met earlier this month to discuss how best to disseminate this “sensitive information” and carry out such research in the future. According to the New York Times, a panel of 22 experts convened in Geneva and ultimately, decided, against the U.S’s wishes, to continue the research and to publish the papers in their entirety.

For more background information, please see this CNN report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb-iEOqkRvc&noredirect=1

This case raises three main issues:

1. To what extent should the government regulate the dissemination of scientific research?
2. To what extent should the government limit the nature of research?
3. To what extent are scientists ethically responsible for how their scientific findings are used?

I think that the answer to the first question is rather clear cut.  The government should be able to censor any publication (scientific or not) that poses an imminent threat to our national security interests.  Given that the publication of the details of this work could facilitate the development of a killer pandemic virus, its dissemination should be limited.  Terrorists may currently lack the technology to create this strain, but the information itself poses an “imminent” threat.

Although the WHO ruled that the “theoretical risk of the virus’s being used by terrorists is far outweighed by the ‘real and present danger’ of similar flu viruses in the wild, and by the need to study them and freely share information,” I disagree that the information should be open to the public.  If their argument is that this information is not dangerous because only experts with the right technology could engineer this virus, then shouldn’t the information be confined to these experts in the first place?  I doubt that most of Science and Nature’s readers could contribute meaningfully to the study and surveillance of the H5N1.  In this case, a need-to-know basis for dissemination is sufficient.

However, I don’t think that the government should have jurisdiction over the nature of the research that is conducted. Instead, it can exercise influence through other means such as grants and safety regulations. For example, Dr. Kawoaka’s lab is classified as Biosafety Level 3-Agriculture, the highest level at the university and half a notch below the top level anywhere of BSL4.  His facility is constructed according to standards established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and undergoes routine federal inspection for safety and security.  Moreover, has received over $17 million in funding from the National Insitute of Allergy and Infectious diseases, a branch of the National Institutes of Health.

With regard to the second question, the answer is less obvious.  If terrorists create a deadly strain of avian flu based on Fouchier and Kawaoka’s research, are these university scientists culpable?  Were the scientists on the Manhattan Project morally responsible for the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I think that intentionality is the key.  Scientific research is meant to be a neutral field whose sole purpose is to advance knowledge. The aim of science is apolitical, as should be the driving intentions of scientists themselves. Although outside actors may manipulate scientific findings for good or evil means, science itself is supposed to be neutral.

Thus, insofar as Foucheir and Kawoka’s only intentions are the advancement of our knowledge on the H5N1 virus, I believe that they are not morally culpable for the application of their research.

That being said, given the realities of bioterrorism and today’s increasingly globalized world, it may be wise for scientists to submit to the “vetting” of their research in published works.  Science is no longer a bastion of knowledge and advancement but also a formidable weapon.

According to a recent Reuter’s article, a Chinese man in the Zhejiang province, Chen, was jailed for 10 days and fined 500 yuan for spreading online rumors that Japanese radiation had contaminated Chinese waters.  Chen posted a note via an online-message board to urge his family members and friends to stockpile salt, to avoid seafood, and to spread the message.

Censorship and individual liberties are clearly the defining issues in this case; however, the more interesting question is whether is posting “RADIATION” on the internet is the same as screaming “FIRE” in a crowded theatre.  Is one more morally “okay” than the other?

I think that there are two key distinctions between the two.  First: intentionality.  Whereas screaming “FIRE” in a crowded theatre is meant to incite panic and induce chaos for the fun of it, Chen’s radiation scare was an honest mistake (or so he claims).  Chen admitted to finding the information on the internet and passing it along to his family and friends “without thinking.”  One could even argue that if Chen truly believed the online message boards, he had a moral obligation to spread the information to protect his family members.  Had Chen been propagating these rumors maliciously, he would have been morally condemnable, but given his honest mistake and his intention to protect his family members, his blunder should have been pardoned.

Moreover, the nature of the internet is much different than that of a crowded theatre.  A theatre is enclosed, dark, and isolated.  A cry of “FIRE” would naturally induce chaos, mob mentality, and a threat to public safety.  The internet, however, is a free open space.  Sure, there are people who take whatever they read for the truth online, but the very nature of a posting on a message board screams, “TAKE ME WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.”  In a crowded theatre, when someone screams “FIRE,” the natural response is to flee, not to respond, “NO THERE’S NOT!”  On the internet however, for every radiation scare post like Chen’s, there are an equal number of rebuttals and postings mocking the radiation scare.  Although the internet is more accessible than a crowded theatre, its openness and room for contention makes a less dangerous medium (for temporary scares). The bottom line is this: Chen’s post, although founded in ignorance, is by no means a public safety threat.

Although it would be nice if only true information were posted on the internet, we cannot all be held accountable for the veracity of posts.  To expect this would be to move into a cyber-big-brother society.

iPhone tracking map, credit: computerworld.com

I don’t have an iPhone or any other kind of smart phone, not for any real reason. I just never felt the need to get one; I already have a decent cell phone. Now, however, I think I’ve found a reason to avoid them.

Last week, two developers found that iPhones log their users’ locations to a file called “consolidated.db,” each detailed with longitude-latitude coordinates and a timestamp. According to Time magazine blogger Erica Ho, Apple has been collecting this data for over a year in order to better assess where its users need service. Although it seems to be a mild enough excuse, I can’t shake the thought that this is more than a little bit creepy.

The information is stored on your computer – and if you have nothing protecting it, anyone can open up the “consolidated.db” file and see everywhere you’ve been with your iPhone. Not that I personally have anything to hide, necessarily, but I wouldn’t want my boss or my siblings or anyone, really, knowing my every move.

This reminds me of something I found out a few years back…With some phone companies, parents can track their children’s location through GPS. Although I’m not a parent, I can understand being concerned about your child’s whereabouts. However, there was a time not so long ago when there were no GPS or cell phones, so what did parents do back then when they wanted to have tabs on their kids every moment of every day?

There is a market for that, though, and I’m not going to criticize those who created the system. But I will question the parents themselves. I understand wanting to know where your kids are if you haven’t seen them in more than 24 hours or if you have reason to believe they might be skipping class or something like that. However, I strongly feel like this kind of technology will do nothing but further push parents to be unnecessarily overprotective. I don’t think my mom knew that this kind of technology existed when I was in high school, otherwise she would have (unnecessarily) used it. Or maybe she did, and I just didn’t know. Regardless, I don’t think it’s appropriate that she’s technically able to monitor my location at all times despite the fact that she really has nothing to be concerned about.

Similarly, if I were to have an iPhone that I occasionally charged or synched on my work computer, is it okay for my boss to look at that information? You could argue that he or she has a right to know where I go during work hours, but the information stored also contains details about my life off the clock. Furthermore, it’s not really any of his or her business!

Don’t fear, though, because you can encrypt the information, somehow, which prevents people from creeping on the files stored on your computer. It doesn’t, however, stop Apple from tracking your location. Because Apple’s motives are benign and you can actually protect your privacy, if you’re computer savvy, that is, I guess there’s no real harm done. Until this past week, though, information about the iPhone tracker has been kept under the radar. I’m sure people would have been much more receptive if the company had been open about it in the beginning and taught people how to keep their locations a mystery to everyone – except Apple, that is.

Photo via Pink Sherbet Photography

Could you go a day without using your cell phone? How about your laptop? TV? If you’re like most young adults today, you may answer these questions with a nervous laugh, say “Of course! I’m not dependent on it, I’m just, you know, fond of it…” while you reach protectively for your 4G technological gizmo. Don’t worry, you’re not alone.

A recent study found that college students who were asked to give up media for 24 hours experienced physical symptoms of withdrawal. The experiment, titled “Unplugged” tracked the lives over 1,000 young adults for a single day without any access to media. Participants reported feeling fidgety, anxious, insecure, and isolated, among other physical and psychological symptoms. It’s like experiencing withdrawal from hard drugs, only the drug of choice is, um, your Droid.

Results of the study point to an almost frightening dependence of young people on technology. But before we call for an end to Facebook, Twitter, and the iPhone28, let’s take a closer look at the way media functions in our society today. True, we do seem to rely more than ever on cyberspace for social networking, entertainment, and business endeavors. But that’s because, well, so much of life as we know it today has a significant virtual element to it. What choice do we really have? We e-mail, text, facechat, and BBM our colleagues, our employers, our family members. We are connected via technology at all times, and yes, that makes for a more fast-paced lifestyle (I sent you an e-mail two minutes ago, why haven’t you responded from your Blackberry yet?). But it also means we possess the opportunity to be more efficient and can pursue entertainment and social activities as we see fit. Who can blame a young adult for obsessively checking his or her cell phone when his or her boss could send an important e-mail at any time? When there is so much nonsense (I mean, highly important information) being spewed out by Twitter every minute? It would be a travesty to miss out on the shenanigans of your friends if you stepped away from the computer. Er, iPad. Cell phone. Whatever.

Technology always impacts the way we make social connections. And young people are often the ones who adopt new technologies first. It just so happens that for young adults today, making those social connections is more intertwined with technology than we’ve experienced in past generations. This is not inherently a bad thing. In fact, one could argue that a young adult who is in tune to his or her technology is probably much more connected to his or her friends, family, and workplace than those who shun technological gadgets. At least, to a certain extent.

The expansion of cyber networks calls into question how we interact in the real world. Are we happier, more social beings due to technology?  While the internet makes it possible to contact virtually anyone in any part of the globe, is there potential for negative consequences if our cyber lives start to replace our, well, “real” lives? Think about how much time during the day you spend staring at a screen: when you’re on the C1, in class, on the treadmill, or even when you’re walking to the Loop with a friend. It seems like you’re missing a part of that real, human connection as you tap out a text or check your e-mail instead of really devoting your attention to what’s going on all around you. Check out this classic example of when using technology can turn events sour:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BujoOxjB3b4&feature=related]

Even something like music, one of the most profound ways humans connect with one another, can be belittled by your technological addiction. You miss out on the little things – wow, that’s a really cool looking cloud – and also the bigger things, like the way a friend’s face lights up over good news that no Tweet, status update, or text can capture. Today, it can be really hard to tune out to technology, even for a moment. After all, you rely on it to get a lot of pretty important information (and some pretty not-important information). But try to unplug for an afternoon, or even an hour. You might finally notice what you’ve been missing.

Watson, IBM’s Jeopardy! computer, doesn’t even look like a computer. Watson has a “face,” consisting of a screen that displays a constantly changing pattern based on Watson’s confidence when answering questions. Watson doesn’t require a human to run–the computer reads the same questions that are provided to the human players, and responds using a text-to-speech system. Watson is arguably more humanlike than any other computer ever created.

Photo Credit: Vaxomatic via Flickr

In 1950, Alan Turing created a system to determine whether or not a computer demonstrated artificial intelligence. Essentially, it revolved around having a computer and a human participate in a conversation. When the human could not distinguish the computer from a person, the computer was considered artificially intelligent.

Watson is by no means a human, nor does it demonstrate true artificial intelligence. Some of Watson’s answers during the Jeopardy! tournament showed that it wasn’t a human. For example, in response to the question “Gambler Charles Wells is believed to have inspired the song “The Man Who” did this “at Monte Carlo.” to which Watson responded “Song?” (Correct answer: Broke the Bank). Another time, Watson stated that Toronto was in the United States (it’s not–it’s in Canada).

So Watson isn’t human–but he’s in a place that definitely blurs the lines between humans and computers. Which, naturally, raises many questions about how we view and treat Watson (and perhaps computers in the future). Can we simply “unplug” Watson? We wouldn’t “unplug” a human, so can we kill a computer that has humanistic traits? Can we make decisions for Watson? If true artificial intelligence ever emerges, how do our responses to these questions change?

Watson can’t make decisions on its own, and thus really doesn’t have true “intelligence”–or does it? It could be argued that a young child can’t make decisions on its own, but we still treat children as fully fledged humans. What about Watson? Is it a fully fledged enough human?

One of the points which has been raised by critics is that Watson will only show its true abilities when it is able to accomplish a task that is beneficial to society-perhaps in a field such as healthcare or education, as opposed to merely a Jeopardy! game. But this brings up a dilemma-do we judge artificial intelligence based on its utility for humans, or do we judge the intelligence aspect of the machine itself, regardless of the function it performs? And how should this question be treated when we look at other people and animals?

The answers to many of these questions will never be 100% certain, but as we move into an age where the possibility of artificial intelligence is seemingly very real, these are questions that our generation and those who follow will have to acknowledge. And with these questions, we will once again have to reevaluate our view of the world and how we treat other people and especially animals. Watson’s television entertainment days are probably gone, but its impact on artificial intelligence will continue to mold society, and with that, the way we evaluate the ethics of our actions.

“Happy 1 year! I love you baby!”

“You’re so sexy!”

“I can’t wait to see my hubby tonight!”

(Courtesy of Lamebook.com)

And many, many more. I’ll let your imagination fill in the rest.

The acronym “PDA” has gotten quite a bit of mileage out of it-from the Personal Digital Assistant to the Photo Diode Array to the Posterior Descending Artery to the Progressive Democrats of America. But now, PDA has settled into a newer and (for the time being) more permanent home: Public Displays of Affection. In fact, there is even a new term for a particular niche of PDA: the Facebook PDA, or PDA that is public (on the internet, at least) on Facebook.

Come next Monday, the internet will be filled with phrases like this. Should messages that most people would consider to be private really be shared in a public online space? Of course, it is up to the individuals committing the act (assuming the actions are legal) whether that should be allowed. But the real question is far reaching: is it alright for something to then leave the “private” realm of Facebook to be placed on sites such as Lamebook?

Naturally, there are two common responses to this question. One could take the more conservative route, claiming that a statement of this nature shared on a private website, such as Facebook, should be visible to those with whom it is shared. One could alternatively take a more liberal route, saying that anything that is placed onto the internet in an accessible manner is part of a public online realm, and thus can be shared with other people. In some ways, either of these approaches are acceptable-but the fundamental ethical question still remains: should people be allowed to repost and comment objects that they find on the internet onto other sites?

After considering how intricately social networking sites intertwine with our personal lives, it can be assumed that people are often putting their thoughts, feelings, and inner beliefs on their Facebook pages. Perhaps we feel that because we would not want all of our own personal information available on the web to be shared, we should likewise not share that of others. Nobody, whether in person or on a semi-private online realm, wants the details of their personal lives shared, and thus, you really should not do that to others. But if we take a different perspective, one where doing the right thing is simply doing the thing that makes the most people happy, maybe it is all right to post Facebook comments on a blog. A post online can make many people very happy, but it certainly can’t make a single person terrible unhappy. Without context, what does “You’re so sexy!” mean anyways?

In any case, as your Facebook feed this Valentine’s Day is filled with millions of random Facebook PDA posts from so called “friends,” consider your actions as you either laugh inside at your desk or laugh with millions of others on a blog.

There is the longstanding stigma that videogames are, at best, an escape from reality. Painted in less favorable light, the games are regarded as corruptive and dangerous. However, a recent Wall Street Journal article claims that they are fulfilling and beneficial to users. Videogames bleed more and more into our daily lives.  They come with us everywhere now, hanging out in phones, not just in people’s dorm rooms.  Their ubiquity hasn’t convinced everyone of their good, though.

There is evidence for each side to cite: kids who play video games are better able to reason spatially; or a murderer who attributed his facileness with the crime to his videogame usage. While I think a lot of myths propel both sides, for the sake of this post, I think we should take basic point the WSJ article is making: “games consistently provide us with the four ingredients that make for a happy and meaningful life: satisfying work, real hope for success, strong social connections and the chance to become a part of something bigger than ourselves.” So, people desperately seek social connection and a meaningful life; what are the implications of allowing people to satisfy these needs in a virtual setting?

To answer that question, let’s keep several things in mind. First, videogames take place in virtual reality. Even with computer graphics nearly mirroring real life, games have a restart option, a degree of anonymity, and the ultimate escape, turning the game off. Moreover, some of the messages or themes of games can be rather absurd (Angry Birds, anyone?). On balance, none of these things seems terribly good for people.

Yet, as a society, shouldn’t we be thrilled that massive numbers of people are participating in a collective effort? Could banding together in a Halo community be to our generation what WWII was to our grandparents’ generation? However, what real world experiences and achievements do these individuals forgo? It’s important to acknowledge the potential benefits of videogames. However, are we in position to accept them as an unobjectionable good yet? Reading these two articles, one from the WSJ and the other from Slate.com, might help one come to their own conclusion.

As for me, while I’m not on the PTA mom videogames-are-the-root-of-all-evil kick, I find the thought of quenching my desires for “satisfying work” and “being a part of something bigger than [myself]” through a videogame slightly pathetic. Playing Brickbreaker on the bus to West is acceptable; citing your videogame success as your social and career accomplishments, is not.