15
   

We're from the government and we're here to help....

 
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 01:30 pm
Hawkeye -- you'll like this editorial: http://gawker.com/now-we-decide-if-privacy-will-continue-to-exist-511864050
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 01:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
The point is, information from that teen's cell phone, that he likely thought would always remain private, is now all over the internet--and it wasn't the state that put it out there.

We, including children, are complicit in destroying our own privacy by what we say and transmit about ourselves, and others close to us, on our computers and cell phones, and what remains on those devices, beside all the information that young people willingly reveal and post on Facebook and Twitter.

boomer is right to be cautioning Mo.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 01:42 pm
@boomerang,
not really....any discussion on this subject needs to have a whole paragraph on how the secret courts are just the latest of the abuses of the "justice" system which barely even pretends any more to try to protect our rights, and would bring out more of the laundry list of recent evidence that neither of the other two branches of government has any interest in doing so either.

a nice addition would be some talk about how the capalists work to attack our basic rights for profit.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 01:44 pm
@firefly,
Thanks. I intend to stay the course. I'm lucky that he's still young enough to not think I'm full of **** and he still listens to what I have to say even though he REALLY wants a Facebook account.

He's also seen firsthand that kids can get in trouble for what they put on their phones when a kid at school got caught sending him some particularly vicious text messages. He's very careful now.

I haven't been following the Zimmerman trial but I'm not surprised to hear that the defense is using Martin's social media against him. It happens ALL the time.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 02:14 pm
@firefly,
Good grief. You're really desperate to show me up about something, eh?

In the scenario you describe:

1) the subjects would have to have been informed about each separate data collection.
2) the data collected in both cases would have to include identification information, in order to match the data sets

That's not the scenario that has Boomerang worried.


As I said before, I'm not guaranteeing that the data can not or will not be misused. I'm saying it's extremely unlikely that a reputable researcher will tie together the data from school questionnaires and the data from the XBox cameras.

The XBox data is much more likely to be used to design exciting/addicting games, and I can see game designers trying to use illicitly-collected data for that purpose.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 02:29 pm
@DrewDad,
Who said boomer was worried about reputable academic/university researchers and the studies they might do?

She's worried about schools being able to use surveillance technology of the X-Box sort, for any research reason they might have, to collect additional data and connect that to other data.
boomer said...
Quote:
So I'm playing "let's pretend" with myself and I don't have a hard time seeing this type of technology in school computers.

Then what if it were tied to some kind of social/emotional survey?

Then what if researchers decided it would be interesting to tie this social/emotional survey with what kind of games/movies/documents someone might be using?


And, while I'm not particularly worried about what appears to be an open and above board SEL school survey in Batavia, administered for legitimate reasons of student benefit, and that only asked for voluntary responses, I'm quite concerned about surveillance and spying, particularly of the covert type, when it's done by corporations or the government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/us/national-security-agency-surveillance.html?hp

DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 02:59 pm
@firefly,
IMO, the key word is "researchers."

Reputable researchers wouldn't perform the study, or only after going through their institutional review board.

Disreputable researchers are unlike to produce reliable results (IMO).
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:04 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
Academic researchers have a very high bar when it comes to performing research on human subjects. Not just anyone has the training to be able to design and execute a study that will produce valid results. Once the study is designed, it has to pass a board review.


LOL try telling that to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study group or victims and that is not the only such nightmares that had bubble up from time to time relating to research on human subjects in the US.

Such as..............

Quote:

http://listverse.com/2008/09/07/top-10-unethical-psychological-experiments/

The Monster Study was a stuttering experiment on 22 orphan children in Davenport, Iowa, in 1939 conducted by Wendell Johnson at the University of Iowa. Johnson chose one of his graduate students, Mary Tudor, to conduct the experiment and he supervised her research. After placing the children in control and experimental groups, Tudor gave positive speech therapy to half of the children, praising the fluency of their speech, and negative speech therapy to the other half, belittling the children for every speech imperfection and telling them they were stutterers. Many of the normal speaking orphan children who received negative therapy in the experiment suffered negative psychological effects and some retained speech problems during the course of their life. Dubbed “The Monster Study” by some of Johnson’s peers who were horrified that he would experiment on orphan children to prove a theory, the experiment was kept hidden for fear Johnson’s reputation would be tarnished in the wake of human experiments conducted by the Nazis during World War II. The University of Iowa publicly apologized for the Monster Study in 2001.

------------------------------------------------------

This study was not necessarily unethical, but the results were disastrous, and its sheer infamy puts it on this list. Famed psychologist Philip Zimbardo led this experiment to examine that behavior of individuals when placed into roles of either prisoner or guard and the norms these individuals were expected to display.Prisoners were put into a situation purposely meant to cause disorientation, degradation, and depersonalization. Guards were not given any specific directions or training on how to carry out their roles. Though at first, the students were unsure of how to carry out their roles, eventually they had no problem. The second day of the experiment invited a rebellion by the prisoners, which brought a severe response from the guards. Things only went downhill from there.Guards implemented a privilege system meant to break solidarity between prisoners and create distrust between them. The guards became paranoid about the prisoners, believing they were out to get them. This caused the privilege system to be controlled in every aspect, even in the prisoners’ bodily functions. Prisoners began to experience emotional disturbances, depression, and learned helplessness. During this time, prisoners were visited by a prison chaplain. They identified themselves as numbers rather than their names, and when asked how they planned to leave the prison, prisoners were confused. They had completely assimilated into their roles.Dr. Zimbardo ended the experiment after five days, when he realized just how real the prison had become to the subjects. Though the experiment lasted only a short time, the results are very telling. How quickly someone can abuse their control when put into the right circumstances. The scandal at Abu Ghraib that shocked the U.S. in 2004 is prime example of Zimbardo’s experiment findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The notorious Milgrim Study is one of the most well known of psychology experiments. Stanley Milgram, a social psychologist at Yale University, wanted to test obedience to authority. He set up an experiment with “teachers” who were the actual participants, and a “learner,” who was an actor. Both the teacher and the learner were told that the study was about memory and learning.Both the learner and the teacher received slips that they were told were given to them randomly, when in fact, both had been given slips that read “teacher.” The actor claimed to receive a “learner” slip, so the teacher was deceived. Both were separated into separate rooms and could only hear each other. The teacher read a pair of words, following by four possible answers to the question. If the learner was incorrect with his answer, the teacher was to administer a shock with voltage that increased with every wrong answer. If correct, there would be no shock, and the teacher would advance to the next question.In reality, no one was being shocked. A tape recorder with pre-recorded screams was hooked up to play each time the teacher administered a shock. When the shocks got to a higher voltage, the actor/learner would bang on the wall and ask the teacher to stop. Eventually all screams and banging would stop and silence would ensue. This was the point when many of the teachers exhibited extreme distress and would ask to stop the experiment. Some questioned the experiment, but many were encouraged to go on and told they would not be responsible for any results.If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was told by the experimenter, Please continue. The experiment requires that you continue. It is absolutely essential that you continue. You have no other choice, you must go on. If after all four orders the teacher still wished to stop the experiment, it was ended. Only 14 out of 40 teachers halted the experiment before administering a 450 volt shock, though every participant questioned the experiment, and no teacher firmly refused to stop the shocks before 300 volts.In 1981, Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr. wrote that the Milgram Experiment and the later Stanford prison experiment were frightening in their implications about the danger lurking in human nature’s dark side.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n 1965, a baby boy was born in Canada named David Reimer. At eight months old, he was brought in for a standard procedure: circumcision. Unfortunately, during the process his penis was burned off. This was due to the physicians using an electrocautery needle instead of a standard scalpel. When the parents visited psychologist John Money, he suggested a simple solution to a very complicated problem: a sex change. His parents were distraught about the situation, but they eventually agreed to the procedure. They didn’t know that the doctor’s true intentions were to prove that nurture, not nature, determined gender identity. For his own selfish gain, he decided to use David as his own private case study.David, now Brenda, had a constructed vagina and was given hormonal supplements. Dr. Money called the experiment a success, neglecting to report the negative effects of Brenda’s surgery. She acted very much like a stereotypical boy and had conflicting and confusing feelings about an array of topics. Worst of all, her parents did not inform her of the horrific accident as an infant. This caused a devastating tremor through the family. Brenda’s mother was suicidal, her father was alcoholic, and her brother was severely depressed.Finally, Brenda’s parents gave her the news of her true gender when she was fourteen years old. Brenda decided to become David again, stopped taking estrogen, and had a penis reconstructed. Dr. Money reported no further results beyond insisting that the experiment had been a success, leaving out many details of David’s obvious struggle with gender identity. At the age of 38, David committed suicide.



DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:09 pm
@BillRM,
Abuses like those are why they now have institutional review boards.

Quote:
John Money

This would be an example of a disreputable researcher. Granted that the outcome was horrific, in addition it produced no usable data.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:16 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:


http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/article/unethical-medical-experiments-still-a-possibility,-experts-say-22042


Obama charged his Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to investigate whether such a study could ever happen again, with assurances that today’s rules for research participants protect people from harm or unethical treatment, domestically as well as internationally.

That’s not what the Commission found.

The 14-member international panel of experts convened in Washington Feb. 28-March 1 to study the question. In the final round table Commission chair Dr. Amy Gutmann probed her panel as to what steps had been taken to prevent that kind of experimentation from happening again.

Despite the more than 1,000 rules and regulations enacted over the last several decades to protect Americans, they are not consistent among federal agencies, the bioethicists and researchers said. And the rules only apply to studies done by federal scientists, funded by federal agencies or testing substances that require federal approval.

If no federal funding or review is involved, unethical, immoral and even cruel experiments can still be done on humans and hid behind a veil of secrecy.

Dr. Susan Lederer, Professor of History of Medicine and Bioethics at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health testified to the unethical, immoral, unjust medical practices and research of the past, and said there are more atrocities not yet discovered. Even more alarming, ethicist Eric Meslin, director of the Indiana University Center for Bioethics said it could happen in the United States today. “We have a leaky system,” he said.

Dr. Robert Califf, Duke University’s vice chancellor for clinical research, agreed there’s no 100 percent guarantee. “There still will be bad things that will happen,” he said.

The public testimony included stunning assertions that non-consensual, unethical medical and brain experimentation is happening today. “All of the horrific experiments [the Commission] mentioned; Willowbrook, MKULTRA, radiation experiments mostly were done without informed consent,” testified Dr. John R. Hall, a medical doctor from Texas. “They were funded by the Department of Defense, and intelligence agencies where I’m not so sure you would know if there is an Institutional Review Board much less if IRB is looking at informed consent.”

Hall said the Common Rule, legislation meant to protect human subjects would better protect treating someone with frostbite by burning it then it would from unethical experimentation. “As far as ongoing experimentation, we in the medical community are seeing alarming increases in patients claiming to be experimented on with electromagnetic technologies,” he said.

Native American scholar Dr. Andrea Smith, in her analysis ‘Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide’ describes pharmaceutical companies using Native Americans as guinea pigs to test new drugs and nuclear tests on or near Indian reservations as proof that American Indians are still considered expendable by government policies.

In the 1990s, Smith said, “Researchers reported that Alaska Native populations were ideal laboratories because they were geographically isolated, and no scandals would come out because no one knew what was going on there.” Native children elsewhere were used in medical experiments and various vaccine programs in the 1970s, “because the BIA asserted they were their parents,” she said.

The hormonal contraceptive Depo Prevara was also tested on Native Americans, Smith said. A researcher from the National Cancer Institute told Smith she supported drug experiments on Native children as being their only access to some of those drugs not available through the Indian Health Service.

“While we have heard about alleged concerns from the past, we currently have policies and procedures in place now that would prevent these types of activities from occurring,” said Dr. Yvette Roubideaux, director of the IHS. “Any proposed research involving IHS-operated facilities now must undergo intensive Institutional Review Board and tribal reviews and must involve patient consent.”

Smith said some other countries hold the same view of indigenous peoples as expendable, and who have been subjects in medical experiments and new drug testing without informed consent.

Commission members referred to foreign studies as “offshoring.” The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported in 2008 that 40 percent to 65 percent of federally regulated clinical trials were done in other countries, and that U.S. regulators inspected fewer than one percent of foreign clinical trial sites.

Two modern foreign studies caused public outrage. In Uganda, U.S.-funded doctors withheld the AIDS drug AZT to all of that country’s HIV-infected women, leaving their newborns unprotected. Health officials in the U.S. said they sought to answer questions about AZT’s use in developing countries.

In the other case, Pfizer representatives traveled to Nigeria to test drugs on 200 children during a 1996 meningitis epidemic without their parents consent; 11 died while others suffered mental retardation. When Nigeria’s attorney general pressed charges, Pfizer hired investigators to dig up any evidence of corruption against him to pressure him to drop the case, according to U.S. cables leaked in 2010.


Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/article/unethical-medical-experiments-still-a-possibility,-experts-say-2204
2
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:16 pm
@DrewDad,
Not to mention that what BillRM is talking about has nothing to do with public schools, or the topic we are discussing.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:17 pm
@firefly,
Well, why don't you go tattle on him to Robert?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:18 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
Abuses like those are why they now have institutional review boards


See my follow-up post about how good those safe guard happen to be.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:19 pm
I've posted another topic thread on the issue of privacy and privacy concerns.

http://able2know.org/topic/215843-1
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:21 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Not to mention that what BillRM is talking about has nothing to do with public schools, or the topic we are discussing.


I did not bring up the subject of so call human scientific testings and how safe they are my good thread topic police officer.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:23 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
Well, why don't you go tattle on him to Robert?

It's easier to ignore BillRM when he goes off on his own irrelevant tangents, which is what I intend to do.
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:32 pm
@firefly,
I
Quote:
t's easier to ignore BillRM when he goes off on his own irrelevant tangents, which is what I intend to do.


Strange is it not that you are complaining about my posting on a subject that you yourself had posted on a full page before my first posting on the matter!!!!!!!!

Firefly equal a hypocrite

Quote:
@DrewDad,
Quote:
Quote:
Academic researchers have a very high bar when it comes to performing research on human subjects. Not just anyone has the training to be able to design and execute a study that will produce valid results. Once the study is designed, it has to pass a board review.


Quote:


Firefly

And, such a study, connecting SEL issues to the type of video games played by the child, could certainly be designed, and if it didn't violate any ethical guidelines for research in the department, it would be approved.
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:42 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Firefly equal a hypocrite...

It seems to me that my comments were connected to SEL issues and school children---and both are quite relevant to this topic thread.

I wasn't being hypocritical in mentioning that you go off on your own irrelevant tangents, I was being accurate--you do that frequently.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:50 pm
@firefly,
Sorry the government allowing testings/studies that had or may be found to be harmful on those who have little or no protections such as blacks in the 1930s , native Americans and prisons or now on children in the our school systems is the point.

That so call drug use study could result in great harm to individual children futures who was given little choice about taking part in such a study and when an adult teacher try to informed them of the danger and that they did not need to take part he was punish for doing so.

This program fit in very nicely to other studies done in the past on a number of grounds.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 04:17 pm
I just heard Obama say that the people cannot have both perfect privacy and perfect security. I think he is right.

A good example of the tradeoff is going through airport security. I think the public should be cheerful and cooperative about taking off shoes, getting scanned, etc. Absent this, we can expect a lot of attacks on airliners.
 

Related Topics

Kid wouldn't fight, died of injuries - Discussion by gungasnake
Public school zero tolerance policies. - Question by boomerang
Dismantling the DC voucher program - Discussion by gungasnake
Adventures in Special Education - Discussion by littlek
home schooling - Discussion by dancerdoll
Can I get into an Ivy League? - Question by the-lazy-snail
Let's start an education forum - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Educational resources on the cheap - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 12:19:49