The Curmudgeon Speaks

During today’s appearance before the House Judiciary Committee Representative King (IA republican) asked CEO Sundar Pichai for the names of Google employees who worked on search algorithms. King suggested that the employees’ social media could be searched to see if they were liberals. Mr. Pichai explained that Google did not make an attempt to determine the political affiliation of their employees.

This request reminds me of the concern expressed by political figures that college profs are liberal. I worked in higher education and spent quite a bit of this time as an administrator and as such responsible for many hiring processes. I have tried to imagine where the claim that we have too many of this or that “orientation” of any type would be heading. I know for certain that I was told that it was my responsibility to avoid asking for several types of information that could be interpreted as irrelevant to the job. For example, you don’t ask if a candidate has children. Why? Some might assume you are concerned that the candidate would not have total commitment to the job. I cannot recall if political affiliation was on the list of no-nos. As interested as I am in some political issues, I can’t imagine ever asking someone interviewing for a job about how they vote.

This type of position by politicians seems completely out of touch with reality. It is such an obvious breach of privacy that to have individuals so clueless as to the appropriateness of such behavior serving in any official capacity should be an embarrassment to those who sent this individual to Washington.

Mr. King – tech companies and institutions of higher education are searching for talent relevant to their job requirements. We are even expected adhere to ethical hiring practices that are not biased by gender, race, religious affiliation and even political leaning. I think these guidelines apply in Iowa as well.

BTW – your question of Sundar Pichai regarding your daughter’s iPhone was also clueless. Pichai is with Google. Tim Cook is the Apple guy.

We are in the midst of the “hour of code” week. I am a bit unclear on the intended purpose of this focus. I have no quarrel with the vocational opportunities in knowing how to code as I have benefited greatly from developing this proficiency. I did it later in my life and it certainly required that I spend hundreds of hours in acquiring the basic skills I needed. A more formal educational approach probably would have been helpful.

I am less of a fan of efforts to promote “coding for all’ and the benefits of computational thinking. I tend to view coding for all as not accomplishing much and in the big scheme of things I think brief exposure to other skills and knowledge bases could be more beneficial. I admit that coding for all offers an exposure to what coding is and this exposure may encourage the later commitment that is required to develop skills that are useful. Computational thinking is kind of a mystery to me. One reaction is that it is an alternate way of describing problem solving skills which I know can be developed in a variety of ways and some experts argue are domain specific and thus of limited transfer value. Note at one time educators believed learning Latin would have transfer value and some still make similar arguments for activities such as chess.

Another argument is that some exposure to coding takes the mystery out of experiences that influence our daily lives and few truly understand. This used to be called computer literacy which fell from favor as teaching things that were transitory skills and knowledge and could best be acquired in the context of actual application rather than as a stand alone experience.

It is certainly the case that Google’s algorithms and AI are opaque and not available for examination anyway. Consider that to understand issues such as the commitment of so many to Facebook and the types of information that get shared, the basics of how we engage in online behavior are not best understood by learning to code but by understanding the findings of Pavlov and Skinner. Perhaps we should invest in a few hours of basic psychology for all.

We are spending a few days in Chicago and I am puzzled by this sign which is stationed just outside the front door of our downtown hotel.

I do understand the warning. We are staying on the 24th floor of this very tall hotel. Evidently, ice can form on this fall building and fall onto the sidewalk below. Of course, falling ice could be a serious danger. So now that I have been warned just what am I expected to do. What purpose is this warning expected to serve. Should I retreat back into the hotel? I have been here for several days, but eventually I will have to leave. I am betting that sign will still be there. Should I move more quickly to reduce my exposure? Should I look up to see if a dangerous icicle is about to do damage to my head? I doubt I would be agile enough to dodge. Is this one of those warnings that serves little value to possible victims, but does serve some legal function?  So, if this ends up to be my last post, I leave it to you to address the absurdity of my situation.

I have probably been overly optimistic regarding the benefits of an open Internet and continually try to determine for myself if there is a way to salvage what I saw as the potential. I read a lot about the vulnerabilities of the online behavior mostly focused on personal privacy and manipulation. Less of my time has been focused on the efforts of nation states to direct attacks of different types. Both issues are easy enough for most to avoid, but these are not issues without conseqiuences for all.

I just finished Dawn of the Code War: America’s battle against Russia, China, and the rising global cyber threat coauthured by John Carlin and Garrett Gaff. John Carlin was the assistant attorney general for national security during the Obama administration. The book covers the online damage caused by North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia. Russia, Iran, and North Korea to weaken the United States and China to steal military and corporate secrets.

The Russian meddling in the presidential election of 2016 was covered in the final chapter. There was a few things in the account of this event. The specific insight I gained from this chapter was that national security experts were aware of and tracking Russian meddling. President Obama was conflicted about making a strong public statement on Russian efforts for fear of being accused of attempting to use his office to influence the election. In September an effort was made to take a bipartism statement on Russian meddling by involving Mitch McConell and Paul Ryan, but the Republican leaders refused to publicly acknowledge Russian activity in this collaborative way. What was not said, but I assume, was that Democratic leaders made the decision not to push that matter until after the election because it was thought Hillary would win.

There are those who believe those of us who teach in higher education are too liberal. While I would accept that college profs are more likely liberal than conservative, I have always attributed this “lean” to the topics covered and the personal motives for pursuing these careers. As a psychologist, I did not deviate from the topics I would normally cover to offer political observations, but if a topic, say digital equity, had a political aspect I also did not shy away from making what I felt were accurate observations.

K-12 educators work in a different world. I would assume that as educators they have similar values to college educators, but I know they feel greater pressure not to offer personal opinions even when such comments would be relevant to the topics being considered. This is not a topic I understand as an area of expertise, but I am curious. So, I found this post from the Fordham Institute of some interest. I have no information on the political leanings of the Fordham Institute, but I place some value in the designation of specific legal cases.

I have not encountered the expression “hired speech” before, but this is a phrase used to describe the interaction of teachers and their students. As I understand the phrase it implies that K12 educators are expected to stick to the designated curriculum while in their classrooms. The example in the article describes the political activism of a math teacher online and I got the feeling in his classroom. Despite the strong feelings of the instructor, the article argues his online behavior was appropriate, but any similar classroom behavior was not.

I encourage your reading of the content I link. I have been trying to decide when comments some might regard as political would be defensible. For example, what about climate change? This topic would certainly be consistent with topics taught in several high school classes. I cannot imagine a class in which the resistance of some politicians to the findings of the great majority of scientists would not come up. How about topics related to the meaning of the Constitution of Bill of Rights? How about some of the literature selected for English classes?

I encourage educators to participate in public online discussions. This communication is not directed specifically at their students and there are topics that educators view from a different perspective not necessarily appreciated by citizens with other backgrounds.

Google+ has been sunsetted and will be shut down in about 9 months. The idea of sunsetting is to allow users to abandon a service so they can’t complain about not being told the end is near. Most users abandon immediately leaving a few die hards to soldier on. Continue reading →

If you watch 60 Minutes, you likely saw the segment this past weekend dealing with data privacy. The piece described what is likely to be political pressure for Google, Facebook and other online services to change behavior that collects personal information. The link I provide references the first segments of this program and the first portion of this segment is the piece about online tech and privacy. The segment includes the pro-Privacy statement from Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, and a description of the GDPR privacy policy now enforced in Europe.

I have mixed reasons related to this pressure. I doubt anyone would be in favor of the misuse of their personal data and it seems clear that personal data played a role in manipulating personal opinions during the 2016 Presidential campaign. To react negatively to this situation, it is important to understand that your beliefs were “understood” based on your online behavior and you received experiences designed to influence your behavior while you were assuming you were receiving information that was unbiased. This political approach was based on the same approach taken to provide you ads related to your interests. I assume most would perceive the political manipulation as a bad thing and the targeted ads as a benefit. One point that concerns policy people is that in both cases you might not be aware of how things work.

What I found lacking in the interviews conducted by the 60-Minute staff, e.g., the interview with Tim Cook, was the failure to address the business model supporting these online services. Apple makes its money by selling computers, phones, and selling apps and content for these devices. Apple does not provide free services. Google, Facebook and other social media and online service providers offer free access which requires considerable infrastructure and expensive personnel. These services make their money on ads. To compete in providing ads that are more desirable, they collect personal information to provide “useful” ads. In addition, they may sell the information used to provide targeted ads to other parties. I am guessing most would conclude that it is this selling of information that is most troubling.

There is more to the business model sustaining the present environment than the service providers. Some of the money from the ads goes to content developers. The online companies pay content developers to include ads and businesses (and politicians in some cases) pay the online providers to use ads for their causes. The content creators are the often unrecognized parties in these disputes. You may assume Google and Facebook make too much money – too much instead of a reasonable return. This assumption ignores the work of the content producers and how they are compensated

This is certainly a complex situation and I wonder how carefully citizens and politicians have made the effort to understand. Legislation is probably warranted, but must be sophisticated enough to recognize the situation of all parties involved. The wrong message – you have been wronged and have the right to block ads – will eliminate compensation to professional content creators. We may be left with pictures of dogs, cats, babies and with content not paid for by consumers. Content paid for by others will likely be heavily dominated by those with an agenda. The agenda will often be to influence consumers in one way or another.

 

 

 

The Minneapolis has a high-end coffee culture with numerous specialty shops and roasters. Cindy and I enjoy exploring these locations as a way to find something to do when we get tired of watching MSNBC. We should start keeping a “life list” like the birders do. I discovered the “flat white” in Australia and the Turkish method in Russia. I now have a fancy maker that automatically produces flat whites and a not fancy “pot” for preparing Turkish coffee given to me by our Russian friends. In both cases, the original experiences were superior to what I can do myself.

We take one of the lists that are available and find a location we have not tried. So, there is the best in Minneapolis type list, but others as well. For example, there is a best coffee shop for studying list and a best coffee shop with free wifi list. I have not tried to find a coffee shop without wifi, but I am guessing they are very rare. Perhaps not having wifi has become a feature.

Spyhouse coffee appears on most of the lists. There are actually a number of Spyhouses, but all seem to be positively rated. I can’t remember is it coffee or wine that you look for “legs”. Wouldn’t you need a clear cup/glass?

No idea why Cindy looks so solemn here. She seems to be waiting patiently for something. We don’t perform any tasting rituals before we try the coffee. Maybe it is the delay while I get the picture I want.

I thought I should try to write one more post before the election of 2018. I understand that my efforts to explain likely reach very few that disagree with me, but this is the reality of social media. We tend to focus on those who think as we think.

My take on the political scene since 2016 is that the country elected a leader that appealed to individuals fears and self-centeredness. Trump was able to free feelings of resentment and mistreatment and to blame the “elites”, other countries, our country, and “others different from us” We have been cheated even though we are of great intelligence no matter the education we have or effort we have invested in learning. We have been cheated by other countries that have taken advantage of the softness of the United States. We have been cheated by others just assuming they can become citizens like us. We have been cheated by folks who just sponge off the government rather than work for what they need. We are more intelligent, more hard-working, more Christian, more honest, and as a consequence simply deserve more.

All of this is a convenient, but inaccurate reality justified by occasional anecdotal examples, self-serving bias, and ignorance. The truth is government oversight is necessary to deal with universal needs. Unbridled capitalism leads to tremendous advantages to those who already have and supports the development of the magnifier of stable families, inherited money, and a history of quality education and connections. Those without these advantages seldom overcome. They must rely on support so their children can be cared for when they work or attempt to go to school. The are unlikely to be able to afford the type of education necessary for most to escape low income careers. They find themselves in more difficult and unstable situations making a stable family situation, healthier life circumstances, and the learning opportunities in school and out that allow the children they have to not face the same predictors of lower opportunities.

This cycle is just the reality for those in this country. The potential immigrants that seem to raise such great fear face not only these circumstances but also violence beyond the comprehension of those who see them as an invading horde.

Most politicians likely have these advantages. Trump makes a great example of someone who denies and ignores so much. Much of his wealth and education can be attributed to what he inherited. He promotes fear of the other while marrying several immigrants from other countries and ignoring the chain migration that allowed the family members of these individuals to become citizens. He has declared bankruptcy multiple times taking advantage of government protections for those with failed businesses. He relies heavily on investments from other countries to fund his businesses. I have no idea what to make of these facts or the reality that the money he can access make legal challenges to his practices difficult for those who received no payment for their work or investment. My point is that there is a lack of sensitivity in his behavior that should have been created by his own experiences is a major character flaw among many character flaws.

When you vote, be thoughtful regarding your own life situation and the situations of others. If you don’t have a pre-existing condition, you are lucky. If you can send your kids to college, you are lucky. If you have a good job allowing you a reasonable income and a feeling of being meaningful, you are lucky. If you are a citizen of the United States, you are lucky.