Germany made a mistake when it used the excuse of copyright to bar the publication of excerpts by a British publisher of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

The state of Bavaria holds the book’s copyright until 2015.  If this doesn’t sound like something authoritarian–prohibiting a British publisher (Peter McGee) who wants to use excerpts as part of a broader project releasing historical documents from the Nazi era to the German public–by using copyright as a grounds for censorship by believing that people can’t be trusted with the book’s materials, I don’t know what is.

Let’s not forget that Hitler got his start in Munich.

Let’s also not forget that, very recently, as of today, microblogging site Twitter is using the fact that countries like Germany and France restrict Nazi-era materials as part of its justification for censoring posts in certain countries.

More: Court Keeps Hitler’s Work From German Newsstands by Melissa Eddy of The New York Times.

Twitter, a San Francisco based microblogging company founded in 2006, recently announced that it would follow the laws in countries where it operates, meaning, it would respond to government requests to censor certain messages, according to a WSJ article today by AMIR EFRATI.

This is complicated, pointing to the problem of the Internet as a domain, on the one hand, that should ideally champion free speech, versus, the need to comply with local laws, on the other hand.

The question: are companies providing services on the Internet (Twitter, Google, Facebook) any different than any other company that is required to obey local laws, simply because they often have the intent of providing information, access, and free speech?  This question cuts to the core of the belief in universal rights (free speech) versus the importance abiding by local cultures, governments, and laws (cultural relativism).

According to Efrati’s article, “Twitter has more than 100 million active accounts, 70% of them located outside the U.S.”

The article also points out similarities between Twitter’s new policy and Google’s policy on censorship, particularly in China.  Here’s Google’s policy, according to Erfati’s article:

“Google developed a policy of complying with local laws and informing its website visitors that content has been removed because of official take-down requests, and it publishes a report on the number of requests it faces in specific countries. Even with such a policy, from time to time the company has been accused of violating local laws by officials in Italy, Brazil and elsewhere.

Google had operated in China for four years while cooperating with censorship requirements before making the controversial decision two years ago to cease censorship in the country and move its Chinese-language Web search service to Hong Kong.”

The similarities in policy between Twitter and Google are no coincidence, as, according to Efrati, “Twitter’s general counsel, Alex Macgillivray, is a former Google lawyer who helped craft some censorship-related policies there.”  This suggests that Google is not just a leader in the extent of its technologies, but also its policies.

The final caveat?  The move is claimed to help protect Twitter employees.

Here are the fourdoves we like to be a little inquisitive about how the information we receive via our media outlets is structured, so let’s take a pause to puzzle over the fact that when I googled “barack obama state of the union” just now (1:24 pm, Wednesday, January 25), the first thing that came up was an Obama-Biden ad (“Are You In?”), presumably with my click contributing to Google’s ad revenues, followed by the first hit, which was MTV.com‘s coverage (about how young voters are inspired by Obama’s “spark”), under which followed links to coverage by the Associated Press (video:  “State of the Union is Getting Stronger”), Bloomberg, (headline: “Romney Calls SOTU ‘Detached From Reality’”) and 9754 related articles.

The second hit, from NBC Politics, addresses the rhetoric of the speech, and, yes, we could tell from the opening that it was more chock full of prepared remarks than Chock full o’Nuts is of tiny instant coffee granules.

The third hit, which is what I was actually looking for, is a transcript posted by CNN.

The trajectory of Obama’s State of the Union address might go something like this:  foreign affairs, economy, education, finances, tax reform, with the importance of innovation, hard work, and jobs centered in America, fostered through education, in reviving a long-term economy at its core.

The foreign affairs narrative detailing military success swiftly transitioned into how America’s armed forces should serve as an example for those back home striving to build the economy.  Says Obama:  “For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.  For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country.”   The parallel rhetoric of these two sentences was separated only by applause, followed by a swift transition into how the “courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s armed forces” should serve as an example for those back home for the “the America within our reach” will occur through creating the much-cited “economy built to last.”

From this Ford Tough “economy built to last,” Obama transitions into the next section of his speech: how the high-tech and manufacturing industries should bring their business back home to the US from overseas, and it is here that Obama sounds dated, if not misguided.

In fact, it sounds like one of his speechwriters must have read the recent New York Times article, How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work, and thought that Obama could not afford to ignore its main issues–that 90% of Apple’s parts are manufactured overseas, for example– only Obama neglected to reprimand his speechwriter for overlooking the nuances, such as the fact that American factories are not fast and flexible enough to accommodate the rapidly changing demands of a high-tech company like Apple.

Instead of finding a high-tech company for his shining exemplar of an industry who is bringing manufacturing back home, Obama used MasterLock as his example of a shining star (“for the first time in 15 years, Master Lock’s unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity”), only to later hail Steve Jobs as a master innovator.

While I applaud MasterLock for bringing jobs back to the US, let’s be clear about one thing: a MasterLock is not an iPhone in its complexity or function, nor is it a computer, nor is it even a radio.  (I love radios).   I don’t mean to be difficult here or to disparage MasterLock, but the point of the Times article is that the US is losing to China not only because production costs are less expensive, but especially because they are simply more flexible than their American counterparts, and part of this flexibility is having all of the necessary parts either manufactured nearby, or having the ability to manufacture parts nearby.  The more complex the product, the greater the need for smaller, more intricate parts assembled more quickly.

This is common sense.

thefourdoves has already been on the record, we hope, for our stance on Apple’s record on human rights, so we will not rehash that here, only to say that it seems a great stroke of naivete for the President to both compare high-tech manufacturing to something like MasterLock (the analogy, like the parts needed for these machines, simply, does not compare), and, like so many before him recently, an even greater stoke of naivete to refer to Steve Jobs as the be-all and end-all of innovation at the expense of his human rights record.  Says Obama:  “It means we should support everyone who’s willing to work and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.”

Aspires to become the next Steve Jobs?  What does that mean?  Mr. President, you are mixing your messages.  Didn’t you just tell us in the first part of your speech that it was important for manufacturing companies (like those until recently run by Steve Jobs) to bring their business back the US?  So wouldn’t he, in theory, have been the target of your attack?

Unless there is a way for the US economy to find the flexibility of manufacturing accomplished in Chinese factories that Apple needs while still recognizing the importance of human rights, and further still recognizing that this is a global economy, meaning that straightforward protectionism (bringing jobs home to unionized plants in Milwaukee) is one solution, but not necessarily the only solution, while nevertheless recognizing the importance of creating jobs for Americans, I’m afraid we have a while to go yet before true innovation can be achieved.

That is, there are other types of innovation, other ways to think about creating jobs, other ways to think about innovation and job creation together.  As the President correctly recognized, “After all, innovation is what America has always been about.”

As the President correctly pointed out, America is losing many of its top engineers and scientists because they cannot get the necessary paperwork to stay here.  There may not yet be an app for that, but there should be.

Tipping that hat, with hopes for immigration reform, and signing off.

Lest we were all so naive to think Facebook is merely a platform for sharing pictures and connecting with friends, a recent interview with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg documents just how blatant the links among user activity (“sharing”), advertising, and revenue are.

Facebook is preparing to go public.  While Mark Zuckerberg has been trying to find ways to make us all “share” better, Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg (formerly of Google) has been working on the marketing and branding side of things.

Here’s what SHAYNDI RAICE recently wrote as part of an interview with Zuckerberg and Sandberg:

“Ms. Sandberg: Sharing activity drives advertising revenue for us. It’s important for big businesses and brands, but also really important for small businesses. A lot of them do advertise and if they continue to grow, they will [advertise]. Even if they’re not advertising, [they're] driving users and driving engagement.”

via Is Facebook Ready for the Big Time? – WSJ.com.

Despite concerns over censorship (that was so two years ago!), and despite Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s comments that China’s censorship policies reminded him of the “totalitarianism” of the Soviet Union, where he was born, Google just can’t miss out on the world’s biggest Internet market.  Do no evil, friends!

Some highlights yesterday’s article (Google Renews Push in China – WSJ.com 1.12.12, by AMIR EFRATI And LORETTA CHAO ):

“Google Inc., which pulled its Web-search engine out of mainland China two years ago after a confrontation with Chinese authorities over censorship, has renewed its push to expand there, in an acknowledgment that it can’t afford to miss out on the world’s biggest Internet market.”

“Overall, China had more than 500 million Internet users as of September, up from 485 million three months earlier, according to government statistics. By contrast, the U.S. had 220 million Internet users in November, up from 212 million a year earlier, according to research firm comScore Inc.

“China currently accounts for no more than 2% of Google’s total revenue, which is expected to reach more than $40 billion for 2011, according to a Citigroup Inc. analysis.”

via Google Renews Push in China – WSJ.com.

Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory | This American Life.

Transcribed selections below from Mike Daisey’s program which aired 01.06.12 on This American Life  (adapted for radio from his one-man show The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs):

“I thought they [Apple products] were made by robots.”

“I met workers who were 14 years old, 13 years old, 12.  Do you really think Apple doesn’t know in a company obsessed with the details?”

“What’s our hour now?  46 minutes?  You have an bathroom break, you have a smoke break, and if you don’t smoke, there’s a yoga break.  It doesn’t looks anything  like that. This looks like nothing we’ve seen in a century.”

“The official work day in China is 8 hours long.  That’s a joke. I never met anyone who even heard of an 8-hour shift.  Everyone I talked to worked 12-hour shifts, standard, and often much longer than that, 14 hours a day, 15 hours a day, sometimes there’s a hot new gadget coming out, you know what the — I’m talking about, and sometimes it pegs up to 16 hours a day, and it just sits there for weeks and months at a time, month, after month, after month, of straight 16′s, sometimes longer than that.

While I’m in country a worker at FoxConn dies after working a 34-hour shift. I wish I could say that’s exceptional, but it’s happened before. I only mention it because it actually  happened while I was there.“

“The dormitories are cement cubes:  12 foot by 12 foot.  In that space there are 13 beds, 14 beds, I count, 15 beds, they’re stacked up like Jenga puzzle pieces, all the way up to the ceiling, the space between them is so narrow.  None of us would actually fit into them.  they have to slide into them like coffins.

There are cameras in the rooms, there are cameras in the hallways, there are cameras everywhere.  And why wouldn’t there be? “

“You know, when we dream of a future where the regulations are washed away and the corporations are finally free to sail above us, you don’t have to dream about some Scifi dystopia 1984 bull–,  You can go to Shenzhen tomorrow.  They’re making your crap that way today.”

Note:

*hasty transcriptions courtesy of thefourdoves and not affiliated with the quality production of This American Life; apologies for errors!

As I mentioned in my last post, I would love to buy an iphone, ipad, iwhatever, but Apple’s human rights record in China is making it difficult.

Now it seems that Apple’s record on women is adding to the complications.  Megan Carpentier reported a gender-biased, political bent in Siri’s artificial intelligence software, designed to serve as a personal assistant.  When asked for places to find an abortion, Carpentier notes, Siri gives answers not to Planned Parenthood, but to anti-abortion centers, and, most surprisingly, in New York, Siri was able to come up with no help:

“Ask in New York City, and Siri will tell you “I didn’t find any abortion clinics.”

It’s an experience that’s being replicated by women around the country: despite plentiful online information about actual places to get an abortion, Siri doesn’t seem to provide it. It’s a similar experience for women seeking emergency contraception: in New York City, Siri doesn’t know what Plan B is and, asked for emergency contraception, offers up a Google results page of definitions.”(Megan Carpentier, 10 things the iPhone Siri will help you get instead of an abortion | The Raw Story, November 29, 2011).

As Carpentier points out, Siri is full of knowledge about strip clubs and Viagra, which led me to wonder about the male-bias in Siri’s programming.

How many women are there at the top of Apple?  And what percentage of engineers are female?  Relative to the country as a whole?

No women are at the top at Apple.  None.  Zip, zero, zilch.  Now, granted, the competition is not doing much better.

David Zielenziger of the International Business Times reports that numbers for senior management at IBM are 10:12 and 3:12 at Texas Instruments (David Zielenziger September 2, 2011, Tech CEOs in 2011: Where Are the Women?, International Business Times).

But, nevertheless, that is some female representation–at least a few voices who are not in isolation who might have the ability to speak up about why software designed to serve as a personal assistant might need to give as neutral answer as possible regarding abortion information, or why the same software should not be overly-programmed to give information about strip clubs and escort services.

I have been unable to find the percentage of Apple engineers who are women, but I am mighty curious.

Christopher Drew reported that only 17-18% of women earn bachelor’s degrees in engineering and computer science, with 40% in math, whereas “about 58 percent of all bachelor’s, master’s and doctorates in biology are awarded to women ( Christopher Drew, Where the Women Are – Biology – NYTimes.com, November 4, 2011).

I could go on about a lot of topics here (how Apple is dominated by male engineers, how there aren’t enough women coming through the educational pipeline, how gender bias is still reflected in the “hard” sciences and what this means for the study of “empirical” knowledge and orientations to fact, and knowing across the board not only in science but in other humanities disciplines all the way to preschool and educational pedagogy).

But I’ll just quickly conclude by drawing on my friend Lyotard.  Lyotard addresses the question of institutions in relation to language games and technology.  [Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Transl. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis:  University of Minnesota Press, 1984).  Originally published in French as  La Conditione postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir (1979)].

Lyotard against the idea of legitimation by consensus through dialogue (discourse) put forward by Habermas because this concept of dialogue presumes a universal subject that desires the same thing and speaks in a universal language.

Instead, Lyotard argues that language games (here he draws on the work of the philosopher Wittgenstein) are the key to social legitimation.  Wittgenstein argues that the rules of language games are always changing.  From here, Lyotard argues that access to data and information storage is a particularly postmodern problem.

He argues that master narratives where life, knowledge, and truth are united (such as Hegel’s “Life of Spirit”) have been declining since World War II as a result of technology, and in their place are smaller narratives, particularly in the sciences, where the university produces new skills and knowledge for consumption in the market.

For Lyotard, writing, storage (in libraries, museums, and universities), and microstorage (in today’s terms, say, on a personal computer, in the cloud, or on a USB stick, or on an iphone, or, micro-micro storage, what information Siri gives you at what point in time) are all questions of proportion (xii).  Similarly, issues of ownership and control over data and storage are political issues.

As Lyotard points out, I think correctly,  technology instead of industry will provide the leading questions of access, data, politics, and class.  (Just look at the News of the World scandal over hacking or how information stemming from WikiLeaks resulted in the Arab Spring or who owns your data on Facebook or who tracks your movements based on cell phone usage and who owns this technology or how politicians, too, are also using data for campaigns…or…or…or…).

Who has the rights to this information?  Who is legitimizing its use?  Who has the technical know-how to distribute the information?

As Lyotard wrote decades ago, the questions that technology addresses are question of users, control, and access:  “Who will have access to them?  Who will determine which channels or data are forbidden?  The State?  Or will the State simply be one user among others?”” (6) and what Lyotard refers to as a “transformation in the nature of knowledge””  changes relationships among public power, civil society, world markets and, economic competition (6).

These changed relationships among power and technology are ultimately problems of legitimation (or, what society will accept as a norm) regarding the status of knowledge.

And this is precisely why I am worried over Siri’s clearly biased answers.  Are we going to accept this as a norm?

What worries me about Apple’s dominance, and yes, monopolization of the market, is that technology is becoming a norm, but the modes of access and definitions of those norms are increasingly being defined by a small few, and as Siri’s Badness points out, these norms are interested and biased.

Tim Cook!  You, again!  I’m talking to you!