MIT and Ethics for the 21st Century: A New Spin on Academia, Ethics, and Technology
January 13, 2020
Yes, a new spin. There is nothing like spin, particularly when an august institution has accepted money from an interesting person. Who is this fascinating individual?
Jeffrey Epstein, alleged procurer, human trafficker, and hobnobber with really great and wonderful people.
I read, with some disgust, “Eight Revelations from MIT’s Jeffrey Epstein Report,” which was conveniently published in Technology Review, an organ of truth and insight affiliated with MIT. For context, I had just completed “Alphabet’s Top Lawyer to Retire after Google Founders Leave,” which appeared in the Bloomberg news-iverse. You remember Bloomberg, the outfit which reported with some nifty assertions that motherboard spying was afoot.
But to MIT and Epstein, then a comment about the sterling outfit Google.
MIT’s write up explained that MIT was prudent. Instead of accepting $10 million from the interesting and now allegedly deceased Mr. Epstein, the university accepted a mere $800,000. Such restraint. And that’s the subtitle for the write up!
What are the eight teachings derived from the fraternization, support, and joy of accepting the interesting Mr. Epstein? Here you go, gentle reader:
- The relationship for money extended over 15 years. Such tenacity.
- The hook up with Mr. Epstein were happenstance. Maybe MIT was seduced?
- The $10 million didn’t happen, but the donations had to be anonymous. Such judgment.
- It was the MIT Corporation, not the real school.
- Mr. Epstein prevaricated about his donations. Quite a surprise, of course. Lies, deception, manipulation, etc. etc.
- Mr. Epstein attended real MIT events, like the funeral for “AI pioneer Marvin Minsky.” An icon, of course.
- No big wheels like Bill Gates were involved in directing Mr. Epstein’s money. Perhaps a bit of color on this point would be helpful.
- A real MIT professional asserted that Mr. Epstein was a person whom MIT “should treat with respect.”
And the write up concludes, “The Media Lab [a unit of MIT] rejected $25,000, Mr. Epstein tried to donate in 2019. Another example of judgment.
To sum up, quite a write up about an institution which I assume offers a course in ethics. Well, maybe not. Full disclosure: I was quote in the MIT Technology Review late in 2019. I was not thrilled with that association with an outfit will to treat Mr. Epstein with respect.
Now to the Google. The world’s largest online advertising agency seems to be channeling the antics of Madison Avenue in the 1950s. In this episode of the Science Club Explores Biological Impulses”, I learned:
David Drummond, the legal chief of Google parent Alphabet Inc. and a company veteran, stepped down following questions about his conduct at the technology giant.
The conduct may have involved another Googler. What do two Googlers create? Why another Googler it seems. Who knew that Madison Avenue extended from New York City to Mountain View, California.
Net net: Two outfits with people who should have known about propriety demonstrated poor judgment. Look for slightly used ethical compasses on eBay. Lightly used but likely to manifest flawed outputs.
I would suggest that certain non technical behaviors qualify as grounds for viewing MIT and Google as very poorly managed institutions staffed by individuals who operate from a position above the “madding crowd.”
Stephen E Arnold, January 13, 2020
Looking at Some Research Made Public by Google
January 10, 2020
The today Google is different from the yesterday Google. When I began work on the Google Legacy in 2002, I was able to locate Google presentations in PowerPoint form, Google papers posted on Google sub sites, and from Googlers who staffed booths at trade shows. Often these individuals would email me links to public information stored on obscure online urls.
Today figuring out where often obscure Google information is located is very difficult. Google is not so much secretive and really disorganized. Now that’s saying something because the early days of Google were comparable to predicting which way a squirrel would jump when a driver honked at a critter sitting in the road.
You can access some Google documents, often for a limited period of time, in the Google Research publication database. Today version of the service looks like this:
The service has about 6,000 papers posted. Some of these are full text; others are bibliographic citations. Some papers disappear.
In its present form, one can get some insight into what Google wants to expose to the public. Thus, the listing has a bit of marketing and PR spin to it. If you want to know about Alon Halevy’s Transformics technology, this collection is not for you. Ramanathan Guha has a single citation.
The good news is that the service is online. As you use the resource as a complement to other research, the limitations of the service become visible.
What’s Google philosophy of research? The Web site contains a link to the Google research philosophy. There you go. And I did not spot any advertising on the pages I examined…yet.
Stephen E Arnold, January 10, 2020
YouTube: Adulting Continues
January 9, 2020
YouTube is taking a step designed to protect children on its platform, despite concerns that the move may decrease revenue for the creators of children’s content. CBS News shares their six minute Privacy Watch segment, “YouTube to Limit Kids Video Data Collection.” Specifically, the platform will no longer attach personalized advertising to children’s content. The video description states:
“YouTube will be limiting the amount of data it collects on children. Going forward, videos made for children won’t have personalized ads. Creators are concerned this could result in less revenue, and ultimately less content for children. CNET senior producer Dan Patterson joins CBSN to discuss the development.”
The segment begins by explains what personalized ads are, then covers who pushed for this change: privacy and security experts, regulators, and even YouTube’s parent company. As we are reminded, Google was sued last year over the issue of children’s privacy on that platform. Now, in fact, the company is trying to assert the platform is not for children under age 13 at all. That declaration rings hollow, though. As the Privacy Watch host notes, kids “live on YouTube, they consume videos for hours at a time. It’s basically their Netflix.” Just try to rebottle that genie.
The interview also discusses the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, the speed at which laws get outdated, and the sophistication of today’s ad technology. We also learn that generalized ads will still be included in children’s content, but those creating that content worry that will not be enough to maintain their revenue streams. Perhaps, but let us ask this—if the platform is no longer intended for those under 13, shouldn’t many of those operations be shuttering or shifting to another platform, anyway?
Cynthia Murrell, January 9, 2020
Google Wants to Help. Really Help
January 8, 2020
We noted “Google Assistant Now Lets You Torment Roommates with Household Notes.” The evil thing and all the world’s information are long gone. But the write up reminded the DarkCyber team of what Google is now embracing digital notes. These are reminders or what some Okay, boomers call nags. The write up states in prose which we have edited to make semi tasteful:
You’ll feel a little prouder when you pretentiously remind your roommate they [failed at a task] because you no longer have to waste paper on post-it notes to teach your fellow basement dwellers proper manners.
Which is more impressive? Google Assistant with a notes (nag) function or the write up by an aspiring Hemingway type?
Stephen E Arnold, January 8, 2020
Google and Open Innovation: A Tiny Ripple, the Flap of a Butterfly Wing?
January 7, 2020
The US government is rethinking its approach to commercial artificial intelligence or to application programming interfaces nature. “The Case for Open Innovation” is interesting.
The write up, allegedly written by a senior vice president and legal eagle at Google, states:
Software programs work better when they work together. Open software interfaces let smartphone apps and other services connect across devices and operating systems. And interoperability—the ability of different software systems to exchange information—lets people mix and match great features, and helps developers create new products that work across platforms. The result? Consumers get more choices for how they use software tools; developers and startups can challenge bigger incumbents; and businesses can move data from one platform to another without missing a beat. This kind of open and collaborative innovation, from scientific peer-reviewed papers to open-source software, has been key to America’s achievements in science and technology.
The Googler emphasizes that Google is fighting Oracle’s claim that the online ad company improperly used Oracle’s intellectual property.
The write up claims:
That’s why today we filed our opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle’s lawsuit against us. We’re asking the Court to reaffirm the importance of the software interoperability that has allowed millions of developers to write millions of applications that work on billions of devices.
After reading this, I jotted down factors which have facilitated information exchange:
- Technical experts from other countries working for US companies in the US
- Desire to reduce costs
- Need to piggyback to avoid reinventing the wheel
- Presence of staff who worked on a technology when it was developed at a different company
- Importance of an acquiring firm to maximize the financial return of its purchase of a company and technology; for example, Sun Microsystems and Java.
Also, the ideas of openness and interoperability are interesting, particularly when articulated by commercial firms eager to establish revenue, user, and customer locks. The context of the actions taken by the US government to address export of smart software may be sucked into this particular legal dispute. Export controls seem to be different from the intent of open innovation.
The timing is important. In this particular case of Google versus Oracle, timing play a significant role. The court’s decision or non decision might unsettle today’s context of commerce and politics.
Stephen E Arnold, January 7, 2020
Googler Does What Google Does Not Like: Talk about the Google
January 3, 2020
I am not sure how this will play out. Google likes employees to do their jobs in between Foosball, riding bikes, and roller blading. Even part timers have to keep quiet.
Medium’s “I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left” is likely to be the subject of some discussion after a tough game of volleyball. The story has legs because the Washington Post has jumped in what is a public relations tsunami. (Note: Paywalled story)
A Xoogler (that’s a former Googler) has talked about the “new” Google. You love, as many do, the GOOG. Apparently there are some flaws. Plus it seems to have taken 11 years to build up sufficient steam to power the Google style brain to write words for public consumption.
And what a write up.
The write up reveals that Google wants Chinese eyeballs:
I then realized that the company had never intended to incorporate human rights principles into its business and product decisions. Just when Google needed to double down on a commitment to human rights, it decided to instead chase bigger profits and an even higher stock price.
The write up states:
Senior colleagues bullied and screamed at young women, causing them to cry at their desks.
The reason for the Googley actions: People and money.
When did these changes take place? The date in the write up is 2008. Sorry. I don’t agree. Google shifted in first when it paid Yahoo to wiggle out of a legal jam about Overture.com ad technology in 2004. Then by 2006, the new and improved Google was ready for the big show. $100 billion in revenue. Stakeholders were really happy campers. A few overnighters sleeping the a Google parking lot may have had visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads too.
Now at least one person seems to care. Why speak out? Generate some political clicks maybe? Tarnish Google?
Stephen E Arnold, January 3, 2020
Another Google Gaffe?
December 30, 2019
Censorship is an intriguing job. A human — chock full of failings — has to figure out if an object is offensive, defensive, or maybe-sive.
If true, the BBC story “YouTube Admits Error over Bitcoin Video Purge” documents a misstep. DarkCyber loves the GOOG, and the research team doubts any anecdote suggesting a Google gaffe took place. For example:
Many video-makers have complained that YouTube’s current systems let so-called “copyright trolls” make false claims on their videos, while its automated detection tools often fail to understand when material has been legally used.
The BBC reports:
YouTube said in a statement that it had “made the wrong call” and confirmed that any content mistakenly removed would be restored. “With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call,” it said.”When it’s brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it.” It said there had been no changes to its polices, and insisted there would be “no penalty” to any channels that were affected by the incident.
I liked the idea that Googzilla is an it, very 2020. And the individuals who depend on YouTube for some money.
Yeah, well, you know, err.
Stephen E Arnold, December 30, 2019
Google Scores Big in a Decade of Failures
December 23, 2019
The trendy Verge identified “The 84 Biggest Flops, Fails, and Dead Dreams of the Decade in Tech.” The importance of the story warranted capital letters. Shouting “Failure” is cool, is it not?
I scanned the list and noted these entries for Google.
- Google Nexus Q—A media streamer from the online ad outfit
- Google Reader—An RSS reader that worked
- Google Fiber—Yeah, but I got a T shirt for the defunct Louisville service
- Google Barge—Data centers outside of country’s legal limits
- Google+—The future of Google that wasn’t. Orkut is missed among some interesting supporters in Brazil even now
- Google Tango—A virtual reality middle school science club project
- Google Daydream—A virtual reality high school science club project
- Android tablets—Sluggish? For sure
- Essential phone—Not really Google, but the Xoogler behind it and the Google exit? Priceless
- Google Project Ara—A grade school science club project
- Google smart watch—Yeah, super
- Google messaging strategy—Pre-school science club projects
- Google Glass—One Googler Glass professional needed therapy after using the device
This means that one company appears to contribute more failures, flops, and foolhardy actions than any other firm in the ken of the Verge’s failure team.
Good work, Verge failure team. Great work, Google. The next decade will be even better and more relevant than the last 10 years we assume.
Stephen E Arnold, December 23, 2019
Backkrubs: Not Always Comfortable
December 23, 2019
I spotted Scott Hassan’s name in “Google Co-Founder Faces Lawsuit from Wife Amid Divorce Call.” The write up digs into some business dealings of one of the people who worked on the search engine code for what is now known as the great and wonderful Google. Mr. Hassan is not mentioned in the “Larry Page and Sergey Brin” explanation of how the world’s greatest online ad agency began. There was another person involved in the wild and thrilling adventure — Alan Steremberg. Depending on the source, these Backrubbers were either cranking out code or contributing to the recycled methods that became the world’s largest online advertising agency. Does this matter? No, because no one cares. With inputs from different people and inspirations from AltaVista and models like CLEVER, the myth of individuals laboring in a garage is what seems to be true. Before Google, there was nothing. Time for Foosball and then a scooter ride in the hall of Building 43 to Abidijan. Innovative.
Stephen E Arnold, December 23, 2019
Google May Lose the Gaming Wars
December 20, 2019
Gaming used to be a cottage industry, but things have changed to the tune of billions of dollars and the existence of professional gamer as an occupation. Gamers have evolved into sophisticated consumers (arguably) and they are particular about what they play. The industry is dominated by Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and Google wants a piece of the action. Slash Gear shares that, “Google Stadia’s Rocky Roll-Out Continues With Free Fame Refunds.”
Gamers are not embracing Google Stadia and reports are streaming in about negative experiences. Two of the Stadia’s first releases was Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition and Farming Simulator 19 for purchase, but then they were released for free with the Stadia Pro membership. Gamers were unhappy with that development and Stadia has offered refunds. New developments in gaming are always rocky:
“Teething problems for any new service, never mind one as ambitious as Stadia, are to be expected. Still, Google’s track record with its cloud gaming platform doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. The company’s inability to keep its earliest-adopters happy is a testament to how not to successfully launch, and its handling of things like Stadia Pro titles also leaves much to be desired.”
Stadia is a great idea in theory, but execution is more complicated. Low latency gaming with HD graphics is not plausible with current technology, but as technology continues to improve it will be.
Reality and real people are different from demonstrations under controlled conditions. The real world includes humans, Microsoft Mixer, Amazon Twitch, and other non lab things.
Whitney Grace, December 20, 2019
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
