Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Tag: law

  • King Canute and Google: When the algorithm is wrong

    King Canute and Google: When the algorithm is wrong

    As society and business drown in big data we’re relying on algorithms and computer programs to helps us wade through a flood of information, could that reliance be a weakness?

    British Archeology site Digital Digging discusses how Google displays Manchester United winger Ryan Giggs in the results search for Cnut, the ancient king of Denmark better known in the English speaking world as King Canute.

    Apparently Giggs appears in the search results for Canute because of the footballer’s futile attempt to hold back a tide of information about his love life.

    While Google’s algorithm seems to have made a mistake, it’s only doing what it’s been programmed to do. A lot of trusted websites have used the term ‘Canute’ or ‘Cnut’ in relation to Giggs so the machine presents his picture as being relevant to the search.

    Confusing Ryan Giggs and King Canute is mildly amusing until we consider how critical algorithms like Google Search have become to decision making, there are no shortage of stories about people being wrongly billed, detained or even gaoled on the basis of bad information from computers.

    The stakes in making mistakes based on bad information are being raised all the time as processes become more automated, a chilling technology roadmap for the US military in Vice Magazine describes the future of ‘autonomous warfare’.

    By the end 2021, just eight years away, the Pentagon sees “autonomous missions worldwide” as being one of their objectives.

    Autonomous missions means local commanders and drones being able to make decisions to kill people or attack communities based on the what their computers tell them. The consequences of a bad result from a computer algorithm suddenly become very stark indeed.

    While most decisions based on algorithms may not have the life or death consequences that a computer ordered drone strike on a family picnic might have, mistakes could cost businesses money and individuals much inconvenience.

    So it’s worthwhile considering how we build the cultural and technological checks and balances into how we use big data and the algorithms necessary to analyze it so that we minimise mistakes.

    Contrary to legend, King Canute didn’t try to order the tide not to come in. He was trying to demonstrate to obsequious court that he was fallible and a subject to the laws of nature and god as any other man.

    Like the court of King Canute, we should be aware of the foibles and weaknesses of the technologies that increasingly guides us. The computer isn’t always right.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Are bloggers immune from the law?

    Are bloggers immune from the law?

    Last week Lord Justice Leveson of the British inquiry into the culture, practice and ethics of the press gave his first public speech since handing down his report to the UK Parliament.

    In this speech, Lord Leveson claimed that bloggers and social media users have an advantage over traditional media channels because they don’t respect the law. This is nonsense and detracts from the importance of the UK inquiry.

    Speaking to the Communications Law Centre in Sydney last Friday, Lord Leveson gave his perspectives on how privacy is evolving as the media struggles with a 24 hour news cycle and the rise of the Internet.

    One particular point he made was how the differing economics of traditional media and internet channels affected moral judgements.

    “online bloggers or tweeters are not subject to the financial incentives which affect the print media, and which would persuade the press not to overstep society’s values and ethical standards.”

    This view seems flawed – the reason for the UK inquiry into the ethics of the press was because the reporters at some of the nation’s top selling newspapers were overstepping society’s standards. They were doing this in the pursuit of profit.

    At the other end of the scale, Leveson’s implication is that because most bloggers and social media users aren’t making money from their operations this makes them more prone to flaunting the community’s laws and morals.

    What that view overlooks is that those bloggers, Facebook posters and Twitterers don’t live in magical castles sipping the fragrant, rainbow coloured milk of bejewelled unicorns – they have day jobs that pay for their online activities which often makes them far more aware of societal norms than those locked in the hyper-competitive and insular world of professional journalism.

    Later in his speech Leveson expanded on this theme with a comment about the jurisdiction of bloggers and their servers.

    The established media broadly conforms to the law and when they do not they are potentially liable under the law. In so  far as the internet is concerned there has been and, for many, there remains a perception that actions do not have legal consequences. Bloggers rejoice in placing their servers outside the jurisdiction where different laws apply. the writ of the law is said not to run. It is believed therefore that the shadow of the law is unable to play the same role it has played with the established media.

    This view is clearly at odds with reality as again it was the widespread failure of the ‘established media’ in conforming to UK law made Leveson’s inquiry necessary.

    Bloggers and other internet users being somehow immune to legal consequences is a clearly not the case.

    A good example of this are the various British computer hackers and webmasters who’ve found themselves facing extradition to the US for actions which are either not illegal in the UK or would face minor penalties.

    Probably the best example of Internet users facing the full force of the law is the persecution of Paul Chambers who was prosecuted and convicted for making threats against an airport in an innocuous tweet that the local police and airport management thought was irrelevant.

    The force of the law that was thrown against Mr Chambers was impressive compared to the somewhat reluctant efforts of bringing charges against the dozens of journalists, editors and crooked policemen exposed by the Leveson inquiry.

    At the heart of the difference between the traditional media and the online communities is a power and economic imbalance. Despite the declining fortunes of newspapers, they are still politically powerful, influential and well resourced. Which is a good reason why prosecutors, police and politicians are reluctant to hold them account for their excesses.

    On the other hand the vast bulk of bloggers are not; they don’t have a masthead to hide behind or a large, well funded legal team to defend them which actually makes them an easier target for litigation and criminal charges.

    Some bloggers may believe they are immune from the law, but the reason for that is because they are ignorant of the legal system’s reach. Some of them will pay for that ignorance.

    The idea though that bloggers and social media users have some legal advantage over traditional media outlets because of their comparative poverty and location of their servers is simply wrong.

    If anything the advantage is firmly in favour of those working for big business. This is the real lesson of the UK media scandals of the past two years.

    Similar posts:

  • Risk free fallacies

    Risk free fallacies

    One of the conceits of the late Twentieth Century was that we can engineer risk out of our lives.

    Derivatives like Collateral Debt Obligations were thought to overcome financial risks, think contracts would eliminate business risks and wise central banks would massage the economic cycle to banish the risks of economic crises.

    In schoolyards, the kids are banned from doing cartwheels and playing ball games – in response to a recent edict prohibiting physical activity at a local school an education department spokesman said the ban was to prevent, and not in response to, playground injuries.

    So nothing’s happened to provoke a ban, just someone decided there was risk and the first reaction is to eliminate it rather than manage it.

    In a litigious society where a culture of blame has developed this reaction is understandable. If a kid gets hurt in the playground then the parents might blame the teacher and one should be under no illusion that in the NSW state education system, the industrial concerns of teachers will always trump the welfare of students.

    So the cartwheels must stop.

    The strange thing with our culture of blame is that when something goes seriously wrong, such as the implosion of the banking system due to greed and misunderstanding of risk, no-one is held responsible.

    For lawyers, this culture is understandable. After all, their job is to warn clients of legal risks and it’s true that every time we walk down the street or jump in our car we might make a mistake that could see us in court.

    But we learn to manage that risk and we accept the odds every time we choose to drive down to the supermarket.

    The danger in believing we can eliminate risk is that removing one element of risk often results in unexpected consequences – they are even more unexpected when you don’t understand the risks in the first place. CDOs and the shadow banking system are a good example of this.

    Government seek to pass laws eliminating risks and in doing so create new risks, particularly when the Acts they pass are poorly written and badly thought out.

    There is always the question of what risk we are addressing – in the modern corporatist political system, the PR risk to a government always takes priority over a real risk to citizens. Passing a law to protect the minister’s backside might make life more risky for others.

    As helicopter parents, always hovering over our children and blaming teachers, schools, neighbours and other parents when something goes wrong, we’re creating a whole set of risks we don’t understand.

    For politicians, managers and leaders their main responsibility is to manage risk, not pretend it’s been eliminated by the latest memo, law or silly schoolyard ban.

    Similar posts:

  • When tails wag dogs

    When tails wag dogs

    A recent Business Insider examination of how patent “aggregator” Intellectual Ventures works is a good example of one of the problems in modern business – essential ancillary processes have overtaken doing business itself.

    Intellectual property rights are an important part of doing business, however what should be an adjunct to doing business has consumed many enterprises.

    As the Business Insider article point out, Intellectual Ventures has become some sort of modern day privateer, extracting loot from hapless companies that cross its path.

    This problem with intellectual property is part of a larger problem with lawyers, where they have been given too important a role in business.

    In any civilised society lawyers are essential and carry out an important role but in western society over the last fifty the scope of the legal system has expanded so dramatically that now the legal tail wags the business dog.

    Today company directors, business owners and entrepreneurs live under the shadow of breaching some obscure law that they had no inkling existed. Of course, the lawyers can help with this.

    A similar thing has happened in the financial world, accountants have also moved from being an essential adjunct of business into being at the centre of most enterprises.

    Much of this explosion in lawyering and accounting has been due to the increased role of government in our lives; each time a new law or regulation is enacted it makes it harder for the average person, or business owner,  to understand the system.

    A cynic can argue this is by design but most government actions are intended to address some injustice or flaw in society. The problem is there are always unintended consequences.

    One can also argue that the increased growth in business overheads like lawyers, accountants and patent attorneys is because of fat, prosperous business conditions.

    So maybe what western business has seen in the last fifty years has been because of a favorable market place; politicians have introduced a morass of often contradictory financial and legal rules because they know business, and society, can afford it.

    Now times have changed and both business and society can’t afford unnecessary overheads it will be interesting to see exactly how our laws and regulations evolve to respond.

    Maybe they won’t and we’ll see a black economy develop where whole groups of society ignore the rules, dispense with lawyers and accountants and hope for the best. This would not be good.

    Possibly we’ll see legislatures and courts winding back and reigning in some of the more silly and egregious excesses as they recognise society can’t carry the burden and remain productive.

    Whatever happens we can be sure the lawyers, accountants and people like Intellectual Ventures will fight hard against any change that reduces their status and income.

    Similar posts:

  • What’s a Twitterer worth?

    What’s a Twitterer worth?

    $2.50 per month is what Phone Dog think a Twitter follower is worth in their lawsuit against a former employee.

    As nebulous and ambiguous as Phone Dog’s claim seems to be it appears some price is being created on the business value of social media users.

    To date we’ve seen services like Empire Avenue, Klout and Kred try to measure social media users’ real influence on the different web platforms which in turn allows businesses to allocate some sort of value.

    As social media and the web mature, we’ll see businesses spend more time understand where the value lies online.

    Each platform is going to have a different value to a business. Depending on the market, one person may be worth more on Twitter than on Facebook and similarly a business may put more value on members of a specific LinkedIn group or industry forum.

    What we shouldn’t confuse “value” with is how the services themselves make money. For Facebook, the value comes from the marketing opportunities presented by people sharing their lives while for LinkedIn it’s largely coming from employment related advertising and search.

    Other social media platforms are finding other ways to make money and each will have a different attraction to users, businesses and advertisers. All of which will affect their perceived value.

    That perceived value is the most important part of social media. If users don’t think a site adds something to their lives, then that service has no value to anyone.

    It’s tempting to think that people will object to having a “value” placed on their heads as users, but most folk understand the commercial TV and radio that does pretty much the same thing.

    The real question of how much people are prepared to share online will come when they understand the value of the data they are giving the social media platforms. When users start to understand this, they may ask for more service from these companies.

    What a Twitter user is worth right now is probably different to what they will be worth this time next year, but there’s no doubt we’ll all have a better idea.

    Similar posts: