Info Age Fail 7: Accountability

(This is part 7, read part 1 here).

This issue has it's roots in the excessive level of anonymity. I gave several links on that subject in the post on anonymity, but here's one more, on a study of the behavior of masked trick-o-treaters, and the increase in bad behavior associated with anonymity. People say all kinds of awful things online, under the cloak of anonymity, with virtually no fear of consequences.

But the accountability issue goes far beyond that. Watch the news coverage of any major story. The "Facts" are all over the place. Here are a few links regarding a couple of recent events...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/17/fbi-media-exercise-caution-bombings

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/04/19/has-media-coverage-of-boston-marathon-bombings-been-responsible

http://www.businessinsider.com/sandy-hook-shooting-media-inaccuracies-2012-12

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/opinion/02pubed.html?_r=0


Many of these fallacies did not come from random bloggers or anonymous attention seekers. These came from the "Hallowed halls of Journalism". The people we are supposed to be able to trust to get the story correct.

There is a certain irony in that last link. Walter Cronkite was considered the most trusted man in America at one point. He was thorough, meticulous, fair, impartial, and accurate in his reporting. It is said he personally required three solid sources to verify a fact.

No longer is this the case. And why would it be? There is really no consequence for getting it wrong. It is more important to get it first, than to get it right. In a few months, these crimes of inaccuracy will be forgotten. And those who perpetrated them will have moved on to the next great misadventure.


And thus we, the citizens of 21st century earth find ourselves swimming in a morass of misinformation, disinformation. and non-information.

Is it fixable? Yes, I believe it is. Not easily though.  I suspect it will take something rather drastic, something approaching a "new world order".

<< To Part 8>>

Info Age Fail 6: Transparency

(This is part 6. See Part 1 here.)

In 1975, the last US troops in Vietnam withdrew, more or less signifying the end of the Vietnam war for the United States. For the Vietnamese, the war continued until 1975.

But what we didn't know until quite recently is that the war should have ended in 1968. It seems the the North and South were very close to a peace deal at that point, until Richard Nixon leveraged his contacts to get South Vietnam to pull out of the talks. He convinced them that they would get a 'better deal' when he was president. Nixon then used President Lyndon Johnson's "Failure to end the war" as one of his key talking points.

We know this now, because President Lyndon Johnson had tapes of bugged telephone conversations. Johnson didn't bring this information to light of course, because doing so would mean admitting that he was illegally wiretapping foreign dignitaries.

How many lives were lost because of this game of political subterfuge?

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668)



In 2009, a hacker released a series of emails showing that climate scientist had intentionally omitted some data related to global warming. Specifically data from tree-ring analysis was omitted. The data was a problem for the global warming argument, because it indicated that since roughly the year 2000, the warming trend was slowing.

Now of course there are plenty of rebuttals for this "climategate" scandal, explaining why the tree-ring data is no longer trustworthy and so forth. Well and good. The problem is so called scientists made a decision to hide this information from the general public, based on the premise the the general population wouldn't understand (i.e. the general population is too stupid).

(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204452104577059830626002226.html)

In both of these cases, the problem is a lack of transparency. Science should be 100% transparent. The scientific method demands that an experiment be repeatable. Not just by your cohorts, but also by your skeptics.

And the United States Government, a government of, by and for the people, how is it the the people didn't know about this until decades after the fact?

Of course many will argue that the government has to have secrets. Most everyone loves a good spy flick. Loves the idea of a super-secret, super-stealthy black-ops group sneaking around the globe identifying and neutralizing threats in the shadows. Doing dark deeds "for the greater good".

There are a few serious problems with this. First of all, let me refer you to "The Case for a King". Once you have set up a powerful, secret organization, that operates outside the law, how do you ensure that they remain "champions of good"? (hint: you can't).


The next issue is that whole "greater good" thing. Osama Bin Laden operated under that motto too. Most terrorists do. Quite often, the factor that distinguishes a hero from a villain, is the author that wrote the story.

If you want to be the "Good guy" you need to act the part. Every time. All the time. Don't buy into the myth that you have to cheat to beat a cheater, that "To catch a fox you have to think like a fox.". If you are at the table with a cheater, leave the table, or make the cheater leave, if he remains disagreeable, punch his lights out. As for the fox, send out the hounds, grab your thermal goggles, track him, corner him, and shoot him.

You don't need to be sneaky, you need to be committed. You don't need stealth, you need conviction. You don't need shadows, you need all the cards on the table.


<<Part 7>>

Info Age Fail 5: Privacy

This is Part Five: See Part One here


The main problem with privacy is the misuse of the word. It frequently gets tangled up with anonymity (doing something in public without anyone knowing it is you. I talked about this on in the previous post), and secrecy(retaining information within a subset of the public, this subset can be as small as one: yourself. The smaller the group, the more likely the secret is to remain secret. There is very little legal protection for secrecy, apart from what you may have established via contractual obligation with the secret keepers).

Privacy is neither of those. Privacy is freedom from intrusion. For the most part, privacy is an illusion. The constitution provides some protections. The Third amendment says Soldiers can't be placed in your home during peacetime (wartime can be allowed in circumstances "prescribed by law"). The Fourth amendments protects your person, house, papers and personal effects from unlawful search and/or seizure without specific court approval via a lawfully obtained warrant (probable cause). That is the extent of it. The confines of your home and your person are the extent of your privacy (This does bring in to question the legality of airport searches though, that is pretty personal, and without a warrant...). Nowhere else can you expect any. As a society, we generally recognize and choose to honor privacy in a few additional places. Bathrooms typically afford some privacy. Public phones often have a booth that provides a degree of privacy.

If you are on the street, in a store, at a restaurant, or public sporting event and pick your nose, be prepared for it to end up on YouTube. If you post it on your facebook wall, or tweet it or blog it, don't be shocked when your employer, family, significant other, etc... finds out about it (think of the internet as the worlds largest street corner, there are Billions of people standing there at any one time).

 
<< Part 6>>

Info age fail 4: Anonymous overdose

<This is part 4 in a series. Part 1 is here>

Let's start with anonymity. We are obsessed with it. discussion boards abound with posts under the name of anonymous, or strange pseudonyms which are nearly as anonymous. Look in the comments of virtually any YouTube video. You'll see what I mean.

The primary arguments in favor of anonymity are protection for 'whistleblowers', and protection from retribution, and these are both sensible arguments. It makes sense that how you voted be anonymous, to prevent people from the other side of the vote doing something stupid. It makes sense that there be ways for those who notice criminal or harmful behavior to have a safe way to 'blow the whistle'.

But neither of those things happen on you Tube, or really any other internet forum, or in most other places that we go on about needing anonymity

There have also been quite a few studies on the negative effects that anonymity has on our behavior. The results are not good, from increased levels of violence, to increased likelihood of theft.

http://www.lucifereffect.com/about_content_anon.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12934837

http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/powerevil.pdf  (starting on page 6)


So a first good step to improving information quality if to stop the abuse of anonymity. This inherently increases accountability (more on that later). What about the retribution concern? This can be mainly resolved by fixing privacy (coming up next).


<to Part 5>

Info Age Fail 3: Gutenburg, Roberts, and one seriously stoned toddler

(This is part three. See part one here )

In 1440, Johannes Gutenburg developed his moveable printing press, initiating the first great change to the information landscape.  For the first time mass distribution of information was possible. Knowledge was no longer the purview of the few wealthy enough to support their own scribes (namely a few royals, and the church).

Fast forward to the 1950’s, and the personal computer was born. By the 1970’s the PC was being mass produced. Then over the next few decades PC’s became more powerful, more prolific, and less costly. Disk storage grew from Megabytes to Gigabytes to Terabytes. Costs went from thousands to hundreds of dollars.

The 1960’s saw another development – connecting PC’s together. By 1990’s these efforts culminated in the creation of the internet.

All of this computing power and connectivity had amazing implications on information. Data could be replicated instantly, nearly infinitely, for virtually no cost. It could travel the globe in mere seconds.

It certainly sounds like a mature information age. You can see how the experts would call it a sunset. Sadly, the experts misread the maturity level by several decades. The present state of the information age is closer to three. And heavily hopped up on meth, crack and hallucinogens.

There are a few things that work together to create this situation; privacy, anonymity, transparency, accountability. For some the problem is too much, for others, the problem is too little.

<To Part 4>

Second Civil War

I don't want my kids to grow up in a war zone.

I don't want them to deal with the fear, the poverty, the chaos that would bring.

In my ideal, my great grandchildren will literally touch the stars, moving out from this solar system to find new worlds, to expand the Human race, evolve beyond that which we presently are.

That is already lost, the world lacks the courage to conquer the void outside our atmosphere.

If not that, then perhaps they can at least live in relative peace, making some small advances in human quality of life.

Current events suggest otherwise.

The Liberals and Conservatives - Sunni and Shia of America are becoming increasingly divided. The leaders of these groups make no effort to find practical compromise, instead they play with the letter of the law, using subterfuge and propaganda to get their way.

No matter what.

"You go through the gate. If the gate's closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people."
        -Nancy Pelosi

I'm not especially opposed to socialized healthcare, I think we should have something in place that at the very least covers all children, regardless of their parents' economic standing, or lack of intelligence, or selfishness. I don't think anyone should have to worry about costs resulting from being injured by someone with no money or insurance. But the way this bill was done... the ego-lectual attitude is just... disturbing.

More frightening though are the recent headlines, the efforts to take down fundamental constitutional freedoms, and disarm the citizens of the united states.

The next logical step after "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines, will be handguns, rifles. Citizens will be left with the choice to revolt, or submit. But if they submit to disarmament, further tyranny is inevitable - there are always those who believe they are more righteous, more wise, more capable than all others, and that they are therefore destined to rule over those weaker, foolish masses, "for the greater good". Then the masses will face the prospect of further submission, or an unarmed revolt, against an entrenched dictator.

Don't think it will happen here? That our military would never turn against "we the people"?

Consider this story for a moment.

Or consider Colorado Bill SB13-013, which grants "Limited peace officer authority to the secret service" in Colorado (a way to 'deal with Sheriffs that refuse to uphold gun control measures. This is not so different from the rise to power of Hitler's SS)

Now consider the results of the Stanford Prisoner Experiment  (a good summary article here)


Remember in Rwanda  neighbors killed neighbors - friends, because an authoritative voice commanded it. Some of the worst atrocities were committed at the direction of a woman.

Also remember the perpetrators of horrors at Abu Ghraib were US soldiers. Good US soldiers with good records, "normal" psych evaluations.

So yes, I have real fears for the world my grandchildren will grow up in. I sure hope we can find our way back from the irrationality we seem to be resolutely marching toward in double-time.

Info age fail 2: more infovomit (vaccines-autism and paleo/SCD nonscience)

(This is part 2, Read Part 1 here)

• In 1998 Dr. Andrew Wakefield published a paper implicating vaccines as a cause for Autisim. 

The paper was partially retracted in 2004 after it was discovered that Dr. Andrew falsified information in the report, and received over a half-million dollars in bribes.  

 In 2008, incidents of Measles climbed above 1997 levels. In 2010 the paper was officially fully retracted. To date there are still large movements which continue to preach the evil of vaccines, religiously citing this retracted paper. 

• With my diagnosis of Crohn’s disease a few years back, I began looking into means of managing it, including Paleo and SCD diets. 

SCD (Specific Carbohydrate Diet) was specifically developed for Gut disorders by Dr. Sidney V. Haas, sometime around 1920.  It was based on the idea that complex carbohydrates and refined sugars were the source of inflammation in the gut.

The Paleo Diet was created in 1975 by Gastroenterologist Walter L. Voegtlin. It was presented as a diet for improved health. It was based on the idea that we would be healthier if we ate like our paleolithic ancestors. His argument was that humans are carnivores, and should be living primarily on fats and protein. 

Initially he created the Paleo diet for gut disorders. More recently it has gone mainstream as a general health, fitness and weight loss diet.

The diets, while difficult to follow precisely, are not bad diets. Processed sugars are out, as are grains, starches… pretty much all packaged foods… They both emphasize good protein, fruits and vegetables…

But the science is garbage.

For SCD you find little real science.  You find lots of people who will go on about how good it is for you. They will tell you about the thousands/millions of people who were cured of their gut disorder by following it. 

Generally anyone who suggests it didn’t work for them is quickly dismissed for having not followed the diet properly (which given the difficulty, and variances from one “expert” to the next, that is an easy claim to make and a difficult one to defend against).

The story is similar with Paleo. Worse, the Paleo peddlers (make no mistake, they profit from the book sales, video sales, product sales…), promote a supporting argument that is fairly convincing, but fundamentally flawed. The two most obvious issues come from the “paleo ancestors” argument. 

Fifty thousand years of evolution separate modern man and Paleo. Two thirds of the human population have evolved the ability to digest milk, as one example (increasing the variety in a species’ food supply is an evolutionary step forward. It improves the probability of survival for a species). 

Second, advancing science has called into question if paleolithic man is our ancestor (A similar thing happened to Neanderthal. He was considered our ancestor when I was in elementary school.  A few years and plenty of research later it was concluded the Neanderthal was a parallel evolutionary path. One that failed. After that, the new evolutionary model was that paleolithic man was the ancestor of us, and Neanderthal. Now that model is changing, and science is coming to the conclusion paleo is also a (failed) parallel evolution.

Additionally, the argument that gut disorders are a direct result of the agrarian diet (which both paleo and SCD claim) is flawed. Humans switched to an agrarian diet nearly 10,000 years ago. Gut disorders are much more recent. It has been in the past 50 years that they have really taken off.

The reason that this matters is that so much attention is being given to Paleo and SCD, resulting in tunnel vision setting in. Insufficient attention is thus being given to more likely factors, such as overuse of anti-biotics (which impacts the gut bacteria ecosystem), GMO’s (they are a little late to the party, having shown up only about 20 years ago, but still much closer to the target time frame than wheat), and other more recent environmental factors (herbicides, pesticides, food additives,…), which more precisely fit the time-frame and geographic patterns of gut disorders.

Oh, It would be unfair of me not to cite a recent study which both Paleo and SCD groups are touting, which demonstrated 100% success in treating a mix of Crohn’s and UC patients. There are several problems with this. First the study was of the IBD-AID diet which is based on SCD. It is neither Paleo nor SCD. Second, the study was of just over a dozen, hand-picked individuals, Finally, the 100% success rate is rather subjective. If you review the data given, there is an absence of any indication of a control for placebo effect (runs around 50% in most Crohn’s trials). Most of the individuals in question were on the same medications at the end of the trial, save for those which are normally short term (the steroids), or in some cases where multiple treatments were being used, the lesser (i.e. safer, but less effective) medications were discontinued. The study is dreadfully weak, yet is accepted as near gospel, used by groups who really have no claim to it, to promote their only barely related solution.

http://www.webmd.com/ibd-crohns-disease/crohns-disease/crohns-disease-treatment-common-medications-for-treating-crohns?page=2

http://foodrx.org/2012/01/big-news-out-of-umass-new-study-on-scd-like-diet-shows-huge-promise-for-treating-ibd/

http://escholarship.umassmed.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=cts_retreat

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21530745

I could go on for pages, volumes. New examples are a daily occurrence.   

An endless sea of evidence that the “Information age” was a bust.

We can’t reliably manage it, verify it, authenticate it, maintain it, or trace it.

<Part 3>