Harvard’s Program on Science, Technology and Society recently held a conference titled Science and Technology Studies: The Next Twenty. It was a look back on the first twenty years of STS, as well as an opportunity to look forward and try to understand where the field is heading.
I was unable to make the conference but the organizers have made six of the presentations available on YouTube. It’s a fascinating field of study. I’ve also added some new STS links in the Blogroll. Enjoy:
I heard an interesting report today on the CBC describing a study that found when gas pumps go out of calibration they tend to benefit the retailer. According to the report, every year Canadians pay twenty million dollars for gas that they do not receive because of small pump discrepancies.
This is a great example of how values are (inadvertantly) designed into our machines and devices. Gas pumps, we can say, are biased to favour retailers when they make mistakes. The corollary is that gas pumps tend to discriminate against consumers.
I suspect that engineers who designed the pumps would not describe the bias as problematic, and would not even talk in terms of values to begin with. They would likely say something like “The pump isn’t biased, it’s just out of calibration. Retailers need to calibrate their pumps more often.”
Well, that’s one way of assessing the situation. But it ignores the social context in which the pumps are situated, and the social effects that the pumps engender in virtue of their tendency to go out of calibration in such a way that favours the retailers to the tune of twenty million dollars a year.
This could be otherwise. By adopting a values based design approach (one I am in favour of) the design of the pumps could be approached in such a way that explicitly evaluates the social effects that an uncalibrated pump will have, and allows design decisions to be made that are explicitly based, in part, on the values that we want to have designed into the pumps.
For example, the current state of affairs is such that the pumps go out of calibration in such a way that tends to favour the retailers. Customers think they have purchased a litre of gasoline, when in fact they have received slightly less. This means that the consumer is left carrying the cost of uncalibrated pumps rather than the retailer.
However, it is the retailer who is responsible for regular calibrations and who is offering the gas at the particular price per litre. The fact that uncalibrated pumps favour the retailer creates a disincentive on the part of retailers: why worry too much about calibration if it isn’t costing them anything? Retailers will likely not adopt a process that increases the reliability of the pumps because they have little at stake, and the cost of calibration is not worth it. Consumers are left having to lobby (or sue) the retailers for changes to the way pumps are calibrated, a long and costly process borne asymmetrically by the consumer.
There is another way of preempting the problem, which involves making a slightly different design decision with regard to gas pumps. If pumps were designed in such a way that an uncalibrated pump tended to favour the consumer, that is in such a way that consumers filling up at an uncalibrated pump got slightly more gas than they paid for, most of the problems would be solved. The retailers would have an added incentive to calibrate pumps regularly, or face losing money. Consumers would also have reason to trust the retailers, knowing that there is less of a chance that they will be ripped off even if pumps go uncalibrated. Most importantly, the costs of uncalibrated pumps would land were they ought to land, in the laps of retailers.
Values based design offers a way to evaluate design decisions in a way that matches our social expectations. In this case a values based design approach could result in a better gas pump.
I recently wrote about an experiment a blogger documented, in which he tried to “quit” Google. His aim was to move all of his services to non-Google equivalents, a task that Google claims to support through its Data Liberation Front.
In an update to that story, this week Google announced Google Takeout, a service designed to support their Data Liberation Front’s goal of making it easy for Google users to port all of their data to competing services, if the users wish to leave Google.
This open data concept is a good one, especially as more and more online services move to cloud-based models of delivery. By allowing users to liberate their data, cloud services will avoid one of the greatest criticisms they face today, digital lock-in. Most cloud services, you see, don’t allow users to liberate their data, nor do they want to, making Google somewhat unique in this respect.
What is most interesting about Google’s announcement is that they are also claiming that Takeout will work with their “super secret” social networking site, still in development, called “Plus”.
If that’s true, users will have good reason to consider switching from Facebook to Plus. Facebook currently has no plans to allow users to port their data to another service.
Facebook might want to read the writing on the wall and move towards an open data model. Forced confinement has a funny way of making people crave freedom.
I recently came across this tweet:
[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/#!/BoingBoing/status/85792449758380034"]
It points to an ethics controversy swirling over New York Times tech columnist David Pogue. It seems Mr. Pogue, when he’s not writing for the Times, likes to give $159 seminars to publicists on How to Pitch to the Media.
I commented (briefly) on the New York Observer piece:
I study bias (mainly in science), and it’s a sneaky thing. Bias can creep into one’s decisions even when one discloses a conflict of interest. In fact, studies show that bias is amplified when one discloses a conflict of interest, mainly because it seems to “cancel” out the fear of seeming biased in the individual’s mind: “I’ve disclosed the COI, so I am free to be a bit biased.”
In this case the Times can fully expect that publicists pitching to Pogue who had taken his seminar, would have an advantage over those who hadn’t. Not necessarily because they would be using the very techniques Pogue espouses (although that would certailny be useful), but also because Pogue would be hard(er) pressed to turn down a pitch from a publicist who had taken his seminar. Unsuccessful publicists’ pitches would be an unfortunate fact for Pogue’s future seminar prospects. Pogue would have a direct interest in having those publicists who took his seminar be more successful than others.
This is a classic case of power vs. principle. The New York Times is hesitant to discipline Pogue because he has so many Twitter followers (I’ll leave aside my commentary on Twitter), which makes him appear very influential (which he undoubtedly is). The question is whether or not the Times will stand on principle, or will compromise it’s standards for the sake of a bunch of Tweeps?
Here’s a great blog post about a Japanese pop band, AKB 48, that just added a new member to it’s lineup. The only difference between she and the other 61 members: she’s a robot.
Apparently the fans love her, and why not? She appears to sing, she’s attractive, and she seems to avoid the uncanny valley–all good star qualities.
In an age where pop bands are the product of a swarm of individuals (not unlike like bee colonies), each focused on making his or her little contribution to the grander whole, why not enlist a robot as their public front? Milli Vanilli, the twin sensation that eventually fell from grace due to the revelation that they were lip syncing, might someday be seen as visionaries in a world of robot pop stars. Their only problem might turn out to have been that fans’ expectations were too conservative–why demand that the singers on stage actually be the same as the singers on the recording? Milli Vanilli, rather than being frauds, might merely have been ahead of their time. After all, we’ve recently abandoned the expectation that singers feature their own voices on recordings, it’s called autotune.
I suspect that in the future we’ll see more of this, especially as programmers get better at enabling their creations to elicit emotional responses from the fans. If a robotic singer can make ‘em swoon, who needs the drama of a human to muddle up a perfect marketing opportunity?
Identity theft is a major problem. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, identity theft cost americans $17.3 Billion over a two year period, with an average out of pocket expense of $1,870. In the past few months we’ve heard several stories of major security breaches resulting in the exposure of personal data. Examples? Here are just three in a much longer list. Sony’s online gaming system was breached earlier this year, and up to 10 million users’ credit card information was compromised. Last week Sega announced that 1.29 million users’ personal data had been lost. Finally, Citigroup recently announced that 360,000 of its customers’ credit cards had been compromised.
How do the criminals get access to large amounts of “secure” data? They ask you for it, and you give it to them. Why do you give it to them? Because the very companies that are being robbed of billions of dollars are contributing to the social conditions that make the theft of personal information so simple. The culprit? Telemarketing.
I’ll get to the link with telemarketing in a moment, but first we need to understand how it is that you come to give your personal information to crooks in the first place.
Of course, you don’t know you’re giving it to criminals. Rather, you think you’re giving your personal information–credit card numbers with security codes, date of birth, account numbers, driver’s license, passport number, address, and so on–to a representative of a company with which you do business, or some other trusted person.
The techniques like these have various names: phishing, vishing, or spear phishing (explained in this fact sheet I helped to prepare while working at the Privacy Commissioner of Canada), and all of them are very problematic.
Here’s an example of the general method that is used to get your personal information in all of them:
Your phone rings. You pick it up and the person on the other line tells you they are calling on behalf of company X, a company you have a credit card with. They tell you that they want to discuss new features on your card and need to confirm that you are in fact their customer. You say something like, “OK.” The person then asks you for your credit card number, the expiry date, and just to be sure the security code. You say something like, “Let me get my card.” And after giving them the information, they launch into a detailed explanation of the new features that have been added to your account, and how the features will be to your benefit. You hang up, not suspecting a thing, they go buy a Playstation 3 at Wal-Mart.
This general method, sometimes called social engineering (a horrible term), was recently used successfully to breach the Canadian government. Emails were sent to government officials that looked like legitimate requests from senior staff. The requests were for information that allowed hackers to break into the government’s network and steal Canadians’ personal data.
But let’s get back to the imaginary case I just outlined. A few days after getting the call from your “credit card company” (who in this instance were criminals) you get another call from a person claiming to be from the same company. That person tells you that your credit card has experienced unusual activity, and that they need to confirm the problem. You say something like, “OK,” they ask you for your name, date of birth, address, and possibly the security code on the back of the card. You give it to them. They explain that someone in Texas (you live in Ottawa) has made a $400 purchase on your card. You explain that you have not recently been to Texas, and they tell you they need to cancel your card.
Later that day, you get another call from someone claiming to be from the cable company, and they want to talk to you about new features that are available on your account…
Notice how little difference there is between the criminal activity and the legitimate activity? You should. And so should the companies engaging in telemarketing.
Privacy experts will tell you that the best way to avoid having your identity stolen is to never give information out to people who contact you. They say you should call them back at a number you get from the back of your card or from your bill (Never use a number they give you). And they’re right.
The problem is that credit card companies, banks, cable companies, and all the other companies with which you do business also know this. They know that you should never give your information up to someone who contacts you on the phone or by email.
Yet the very companies who are being robbed (along with their customers) are contributing to the problem by engaging in the kind of activity that leads to so many of the problems in the first place. They are essentially asking their customers to act irresponsibly. And that is a huge part of the problem.
If companies stopped telemarketing then we would never think to give up information over the phone to a person claiming to be from a legitimate company–we would know that there are no legitimate representatives asking for personal information over the phone.
At the very least, if a company engages in telemarketing, it seems they should be forced to bear the bulk of the cost of identity theft–not the customer. It’s disingenuous to claim that a customer should know better than to give up information, say over the phone, if the very company making that claim is engaged in asking customers to give up information over the phone.
Identity theft is becoming enough of a problem that it should spell the end of telemarketing–a practise that poses a direct threat to privacy by engendering trust in bad business practises.
(Postscript: If you feel like making an economic argument something along the lines that there is a market for telemarketing, or that it is essential to doing business, see my recent post On Exporting Asbestos and Land Mines)
Today the CBC is running a story that claims a lack of physical activity is the leading cause of obesity in Canada. Sometimes I read a story and have a gut reaction so blunt that I take pause, rethink the angle of the story, and make sure I haven’t missed anything obvious before offering up a comment. This was one of those articles. I’ve thought a LOT about it since reading it. And I’m confident I haven’t missed anything (please inform me if you disagree).
So here’s my measured response…
Really, scientists!!?? We needed a study to tell us that?
I’ll go one further. I suspect that future studies will find that lack of physical activity is the leading cause of obesity everywhere, and that that finding will turn out to be species-independent. I’m not trying to be glib, but it’s hard to respond seriously to an article that seems to state the painfully obvious.
On a related note, I was recently in Hong Kong. While I was there I took some pictures of public health posters that I saw posted around the city. Apparently the good people of Hong Kong don’t require scientists to tell them why their population is suffering obesity.
Perhaps we could use a few more of these kinds of programs in countries where we need scientific studies to convince us (as if it were an open question) that a lack of physical activity is a leading contributor to obesity. The programs might turn out to be cheaper than the studies.
I recall doing chin-ups, push-ups, sit-ups, running, jumping, and other such activities in school, as part of a mandatory program called Canada Fitness.* It took for granted that physical activity was good for people’s health and forced children to get active. Maybe it strayed from the current trend in “evidence-based” practise, by proposing an unproven solution to a problem that had also not yet been scientifically proven. But, seriously. Have we really lost sight of the obvious?
(*To my surprise there is no Wikipedia page dedicated to the old Canada Fitness program.)
This week Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper (an economist by training) defended his government’s position that it is okay to export asbestos to developing nations. In doing so he echoed the justification he offered during the recent election campaign, when he stated that in the case of exporting asbestos he would “not put Canadian industry in a position where it is discriminated against in a market where sale is permitted.” At its core, this justification rests on the assertion that if there is a (legal) market for a product in some corner of the world, then Canadian manufacturers and exporters ought to supply it.
There are obvious political motivations behind Mr. Harper’s decision–he wants support in the province of Quebec where the asbestos is mined–but this kind of justification is more common than it should be. For example, in an opinion piece on the European Union’s decision to ban the import of seal products from Canada, the CBC’s Michael Hlinka (also an economist by training) argued that the ban was “outrageous” in part because there was an obvious market for seal products within the EU.
If anything about these two cases is outrageous, it’s the use of an argument that considers the existence of a market for a particular product as sufficient justification for supplying that market. If you scour the earth you’re likely to find markets, both government sanctioned and otherwise, for almost anything: human slaves, cocaine, asbestos, nuclear weapons, bad mortgage debt, and land mines. The fact that we choose to not supply those markets is an indication that the mere existence of a market is insufficient justification.
In fact, the mere existence of a market, government sanctioned or otherwise, is never sufficient justification for supplying that market. This is because there is an additional consideration that must always accompany the decision whether or not to supply a market, and that is the question of whether or not the market ought to be supplied. In many cases answering that question will shine light on the question whether or not the market ought to exist in the first place.
Take the asbestos case as an example of the kinds of further considerations that must be raised in order to determine if a market ought to be supplied. We know that there is a market for asbestos. We know also that that market exists in parts of the world (India and China) where workers do NOT have the kinds of workplace safety standards enjoyed here in Canada or the US. We know that asbestos, when handled improperly poses serious long-term health risks. Based on these facts alone, we can (very) safely assume that our exported asbestos will cause many people serious health problems into the future.
The same kinds of considerations went into our (and 156 other countries’) choice to ban the production, use, and export of land mines, as expressed in the Ottawa Treaty. There is a market for land mines. Land mines are not handled properly in those markets, i.e they are not removed after use. We know that many people suffer as a result of the use of land mines in those markets.
In the case of land mines, we chose to ban the production and export of related products, despite there being several government sanctioned markets for them.
The Canadian government’s response is that asbestos is safe if handled correctly. Of course, that’s as true for asbestos as it is for land mines.
Knowing that asbestos and land mines currently cause harms to people in the primary markets where they are used isn’t just a problem for the governments responsible for regulating those markets. It is also a problem for governments that choose to export asbestos and land mines to those markets. That’s the funny thing about knowledge–once you’re exposed to it, you’re on the hook for whatever moral dilemmas it poses.
Pretending that “market talk” and “ethics talk” can be compartmentalized didn’t work with the environment, or land mines, and it doesn’t work with asbestos. Market talk might distract some people from their obligations for a time, but it can never eliminate those obligations, or the knowledge that ignoring obligations can sometimes cost lives.
I’ll be blogging and tweeting about issues in healthcare and healthcare ethics (a.k.a. bioethics, clinical ethics), so I thought I’d share some Twitter hashtags that are of particular relevance in those areas. Although the topics will be Canadian focused, they should also hold a general appeal to anyone interested in the topics generally.
For those of you new to twitter, you don’t need an account to follow the tweets. You can go to Twitter’s Search engine and search the hashtags to see how the conversations are going. Here’s an example.
Here’s a link to a great list of Canadian Twitter hashtags related to healthcare, compiled by Laura O’Grady.
I’m duplicating her list here (Blogs have a strange way of disappearing):
Canadian healthcare technology hashtags
Canadian health-relevant hashtags
General healthcare technology hashtags
General health-relevant hashtags
Health professionals hashtags
Hashtags for health-related conferences
I’ll be updating this list as I come across other interesting hashtags.
(update: Monday June 13, added link to Laura O’Grady’s hashtag list)
I recently wrote about Apple’s iCloud service, and warned that Apple’s plan to obscure file management in future versions of its operating systems (OS X, iOS5) would make it more difficult for people to “switch” from Apple’s cloud computing services to those of their competitors. By obscuring file management from the user, Apple is further contributing to a kind of “digital lock-in” that is fast becoming a problem with cloud-based computing services.
Well, Joshua Romero, an IEEE contributor recently wrote about his experience with digital lock-in, during his attempt to “quit Google” by dismantling his Google account, Gmail account, Docs account, Calendar, and other services. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
I decided to put my own dependence on Google to the test. The plan was simple—to the best of my ability, I would sever my relationship with Google. I vowed to stop doing business with Google by no longer providing it information. Could I go Google-free without losing my digital quality of life?
My plan was to cut off my data stream to Google from three primary sources: my Google account, my search history, and my trail of browsing across the Web…[read more...]