Pavlov's Icon

New blog post via Content Insight!
http://www.content-insight.com/blog/2013/09/05/49-pavlovs-icon.html

My first professional blog post!

Look at the beginning of my post grad career - with all new infographics created by me!
http://www.content-insight.com/blog.html

Personification of Robots - Rosie, Bender, and the Terminator

Implications of the Personification of Robots

Whether through anthropomorphization, programming, or self-learning – the personification of robots will lead to legal issues of robot liability. This liability will be studied through popular fictional robotic characters.

 [1]

Description - Rosie from the Jetson’s is one of the most people friendly and caring visions of robots in the future. Her appearance is as a maid and somewhat matronly and she wears a version of a uniform to cover most of her metal exterior. Her role in the family is much like that of a nanny to both children and adult. Her sometimes role as medication dispenser implies a similar characteristic to medi-doctors or robo-dieticians.

Implications – Legally, using an outdated model robot may void all warranties, and release the production companies from liability, especially if this includes negecting vital software updates. The utilization of a robot in childcare could hold the parents at risk for negligence or neglect charges if the children do not receive adequate care. Additionally, dispensing of medication to family members with short or no proper diagnostic times creates a myriad of legal and ethical issues about medical malpractice. Pharmecuetical companies may buy in with certain kinds of robots and not others. Risk of bodily harm through overdose or prescription interaction may occur. Robots of this nature may need to obtain licenses for both childcare and medical practice. An out of date robot may not be able to obtain an up date license. Software companies would need more than usual levels of user testing and error checks before their product could be safely licensed for home use.

 [2]

Description – Bender is the “up to no good” cook at Planet Express on Futurama. Bender’s appearance is all metal, but with human proportionate arms, legs, torso, etc. He is a heavy drinker, yet that is actually the fuel that he runs on, and can therefore be somewhat mitigated. His love of stealing and desire to “kill all humans” imply the ability to have empathy through his likes and dislikes, but simply choice not to feel bad for others.

Implications – While Bender is obviously up to no good, is it truly his fault? As brought up in one TV episode, he lacks the free will to change due to his programming – so therefore he should lack the full responsibility for his actions. Would the manufacturer or software developer then be liable for all stealing and mayhem performed by this robot? Perhaps his human characteristics to like and dislike would be considered free will to supersede his initial programming, and hold him liable for criminal charges for his actions. Due to a weakness to magnets, Bender’s inhibitions and judgment are destroyed. If he committed a crime while in the presence of magnets, would this cancel his culpability for the unlawful act – much in the way a human can be found “Not guilty by reason of insanity.”

 [3]

Description – Perhaps the ultimate in human imitation, Terminators are fully autonomous human killing machines. Able to mimic human abilities including voices and actions, they are the extreme copycat. Flesh and human fluids prevent easy detection by appearance, therefore stealth by mimicry is also a key component of these robots. Later models possess shape changing abilities in addition to the human appearance, and all models are programmed by the self aware artificial intelligence Skynet.

Implications – Assuming the prohibitive costs of associated technology, it is not likely Terminator robots would be mass produced to wipeout humanity in the beginning. Most likely Terminators would have key targets to start with; strategic assasinations. If lucky enough to avoid one of these assasination attempts, what would the target’s liability be? Would people be able to prove identity theft by Terminator and avoid consequences for all crimes and mayhem committed? Questions arise as to what could be blamed on robot mimicry and what would be the responsibility of the impersonated parties to prove. DNA testing may be requireed to stay out of jail in even the most minor circumstances. And what about the creation of Terminators? There are many reasons to promote the regulation of self aware technologies to prevent such a disaster. Failsafe regulations may be required to limit the harm of all robots, much like in the laws proposed by Asimov.

Conclusion – Ultimately, for all the shortcuts that we dream robots can create for us, neew issues in liability and responsibility are also created. Laws may be the most prudent regulator to inhibit the deployment of this technology by designating consequences for errant actions.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jetsons#Characters

[2] http://gregorious.hubpages.com/hub/Bender-Futurama

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_(character_concept)

The Evolution of Robots

The eventual result of constantly emerging robot technologies will be self-evolving robots.

        Emerging technologies show the current evolution of robots in many different areas inspired by multiple different designs. Recent headlines have described robot limbs[1] which can move on their own and robotic bees[2] which may be capable of pollinating live flowers. Current practices in 3-D printing have shown that the new ‘printer robots’ capable of creating myriad of items, including organic items such as human body parts and even food.

        A bionic ear has been successfully constructed using a 3D printer, allowing for the integration of biological cells to be layered upon electronic counterparts and create a working implant similar to that of a high tech cochlear implant[3]. While still in the development stage, this integration of man and machine has allowed creators to sidestep of many ethical and legal hurdles in the medical field, by not requiring any major sacrifice from other human patients. The seamless integration of machine parts and human tissue promotes the further evolution of man and machine as a single entity.

        Additionally in the world of 3D printers, robots are even being used to create food. Through funding from NASA, research is currently being used to create food. The food in question is the concept of a 3D printer being filled with base organic matter derived from otherwise inedible (or at least unpalatable) products such as bugs and processed proteins[4]. The printer ‘cartridges’ would be shelf stable and take up far less space than traditional foods, all the while fulfilling the nutritional requirements of the customers.

        It seems that robotics is able to perform so many functions that would normally be considered functions of nature, including creating flesh, food, and pollinating plants. The next step would be to have robots create robots, which is exactly what Nick Cheney at Cornell University has hypothesized[5]. Cheney created computer demonstrations showing the capability of robots to respond to stressors and environmental pressure, and using the same basic algorithms described in natural selection, these robots evolved to create those best suited. While the final products did not necessarily resemble the typical human concept for many of the stages of advancement, the advancement went on at a rate as efficient as or faster than biological evolution.

        The logical conclusion of creating machines to act as biological agents such as bees, limbs, ears, and food is that machines themselves will begin to mimic biological traits. The most efficient creators of technology have been proven to be other technology such as 3D printers, thereby indicating the next level of efficiency will be in and of itself machine led innovation, such as robot evolution.

---

[1][1] Robotic Limbs: Moved by the Mind, 60 Minutes, Correspondent Scott Pelley, Originally aired Dec 13^th 2012.

[2] “RoboBees” take first flight, CBS News, Shoshana Davis, May 2^nd 2013.

[3] 3D Printer Churns out Bionic Ear, Chemistry World, John Cartwright, May 13, 2013.

[4] How 3D Printers could Reinvent NASA Space Food, Space.com, Megan Gannon, May 28, 2013.

[5] 3D Printers Demonstrate Rapid robot Evolution, Live Science, Marshall Honorof, May 23, 2013.

Robots as Remote Semi-autonomous Doctors

Robotic doctors are the future means to serve remote medical needs.

Many areas are underserved by medical care and facilities. Robotic doctors are widely considered an inferior option and not a true replacement for human physicians, yet can these robotic options be used when there aren’t any humans available? Ethical and legal implications are discussed.

        Current medical robots are not yet on the level of self-operating artificial intelligence that may be seen in science fiction, but medical robots are becoming increasingly used in the medical theatres of today. The da Vinci robot is commonly being used in surgery. Most recently the FDA has approved a self-navigating robot that allows for remote doctors to have a simple interface with patients. Named the “Remote Presence Virtual + Independent Telemedicine” or RP+VITA, is considered the first autonomous navigation remote presence robot to obtain the FDA go ahead.[1] With remote doctoring approval, new uses may arise for these medical robots that have not been encountered before.

Doctors without Borders

        Doctors without borders are internationally known for:

provides independent, impartial assistance in more than 60 countries to people whose survival is threatened by violence, neglect, or catastrophe, primarily due to armed conflict, epidemics, malnutrition, exclusion from health care, or natural disasters[2].

        The assistance provided by this organization is frequently hindered by the danger of the situation being served, whether through armed conflict or catastrophe. Allowing a remote doctor within even primitive clinics would mitigate the legal and ethical risk of allowing humans into such dangerous situations. While not able to provide immediate first aid, a remote diagnostician could still provide input on medication and questions on symptoms and treatment. Additionally, instead of putting the burden of this work on one doctor, the burden could be shared among many, taking turns and allowing 24 hour staffing of the doctor position.

Mars and Colonization

        While years away, thousands of people have already signed up to be among the first to colonize Mars[3]. Logically, any expedition would begin with medical staff among the crew, but what if something happened to these people. How would people seek treatment? A favorite science fiction author of mine, H.M. Hoover envisioned remote doctors for every planetary expedition. Even on remote planets with larger populations, people often branched out into lesser inhabited areas for exploration, and often equipped remote doctors in their air cars. Robot doctors would encourage the exploration of Mars. Additionally, the fact of switching between doctors on the machines would allow for multiple specialties to be represented in one machine, such as an orthopedist, psychologist, and pediatrician at one time.

Rural America

        Much of the rural United States lacks immediate medical facilities. Growing up in South Dakota it becomes very apparent that the middle of the state has a few people, but mostly a lot of soybeans and cattle. Additionally, this farmland of America experiences harsh weather during much of the year. Traveling for simple cold or non-emergent medical needs could be more dangerous than leaving the symptoms untreated. A remote physician would allow the diagnosis of conditions without travelling up to 100 miles for the nearest doctor, by allowing remote triage and a prioritization of risk.

        In conclusion, semi-autonomous robot doctors can be used as an asset, not as a replacement for physicians. The future will demonstrate the utility of remote diagnosis for otherwise inaccessible patients. Expanding technology will help to mitigate risks to both doctors and patients, and provide more timely care.

       

---

[1] “The Robot Doctor will See You Now,” Discovery News, by Nic Halverson, January 25^th 2013.

[2] Doctors Without Borders, Medicines Sans Frontieres, www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus

[3] “Want to Live on Mars? Private Martian Colony Project Seeks Astronauts” Space.com, by Clara Moskowitz, April 22, 2013

Da Vinci robots and liability

Robotics and Liability

Thesis – The Da Vinci surgical robot manufacturer is allegedly responsible for the harm caused to a patient by a doctor’s lack of training. By finding against Da Vinci we create a misplaced level of liability and unattainable responsibility by product manufacturers.

            Current robots are mostly of a variety that is directly controlled by a human, as opposed to the more futuristic versions of artificial intelligence shown in science fiction. This direction by humans implies a level of responsibility for the controller, not just the manufacturer. The manufacturer therefore would be responsible for the robot’s operations as if it were a tool in these circumstances.

            An example of this responsibility can be demonstrated by thinking of an automobile. The automobile is not driving itself [yet]; therefore the automobile manufacturer is not responsible for decisions made by the driver. The manufacturer is responsible for the operation of the vehicle and construction of its parts. Brakes are expected to stop a car with regular maintenance. Steering wheels are expected to turn the vehicle. If these items are in working order, and a car turns suddenly into opposing traffic, the fault of the accident would normally be found with the driver.

            This is the argument being made in Kitsap County by the makers of the Da Vinci surgical robot, “The defendant in the suit, da Vinci manufacturer Intuitive Surgical, says the robot worked as designed and the company isn’t responsible for surgical mistakes.”[1] The case before the courts is not one of debate about the damage done to the patient. It seems very clear that the injuries of Fred Taylor were clearer not normal complications of a prostate surgery, causing undue harm and ultimately speeding his death due to complications. Da Vinci is arguing that they are not liable for the misuse of their tool, the surgical robot, and that sole liability should be at the hands of the inexperienced doctor who used it.

            Complications in this case come with the assertions of the patients that Da Vinci is responsible for proper training and enforcement of a certain skill level with their robotics, which the expectation of the manufacturer extends to training and practices of the doctors using these machines. While raising certain questions, my belief is that this liability is not yet on Da Vinci. Due to the fact that the product is under direct operation of a human, the choices in the actions of the machine are at the fault of the human. This belief is based on the fact that an auto manufacturer is not liable for the actions of an unlicensed driver; a gun manufacturer is not responsible for a home shooting. There are additional agencies in place to enforce the licensing and use of these machines, and the use of a surgical robot would come under the same liability as that of other medical tools, not the manufacturer.

            In support of this argument also, Da Vinci has given guidelines for suggested processes to learn and best use their equipment; which in this case were not followed, violating the intended use of the machine. As a third supporting fact for the defense of Da Vinci, it does not seem that their instrument directly malfunctioned, which would be their responsibility. The arms, joints, and cameras all worked.

The lawsuit alleges that Da Vinci dumbed down training in order to sell more machines. I believe this does not imply negligence on the part of Da Vinci, although it may point to highly questionable morals and business practices. This is not to say there is not negligence in the lack of training on these robotic machines. Much as the responsibility for a driver’s license falls on the department of motor vehicles, the responsibility for training lies with medical authorities. By holding Da Vinci liable for the doctor’s damage in this case, an unobtainable precedent would be set requiring companies to create a self-regulatory division in charge of enforcement of skills in addition to manufacturing products.

---

[1] “Failed robotic surgery focus of Kitsap Trial”, The Seattle Times, Carol M Ostrom, May 3^rd, 2013.

Household Robots Data Retention and Privacy Risks

Robots create all new methods of direct surveillance. When thinking of direct surveillance the common thoughts are of James Bond style spy devices. Hi-tech spy equipment designed to infiltrate and transmit would fit the idea of a surveillance robot, but in reality our privacy is likely to be invaded in much more mundane ways. Regular household items such as toys and household helper robots are constantly learning data about our daily lives. The level of retention and distribution of this data may constitute a threat to our personal privacy, and possibly unlawful search and seizure.

Issues surrounding robots and privacy are similar to the issues surrounding the internet. When browsing the internet we transmit data. Our IP address is sent to users we don’t know. Our browsing history is recorded. Retailers such as Amazon and EBay record our purchasing history. Direct conversations are recorded by email and instant message. Social media shares items from political opinions to photos and even our location in real time. The legal questions arise when addressing how this data is used, whether it is an item freely shared, or whether this data should be considered private.

An example of how seemingly innocuous data can be revealing can be illustrated by looking at Facebook. While it is commonly realized that liking certain pages can affect the ads seen on your personal Facebook page, a recent study has shown that this data can be used to create an entire personality profiles[1]. This data is voluntarily shared, and would not constitute an illegal search or invasion of privacy, but it is illustrative to show how seemingly little data can show a lot of information.

An example of a seemingly innocuous robot in the home can be found by looking at chore robots such as the Neato XV-11, a new generation of floor cleaning robots. The Neato is highly reviewed for its ability to scan the entire room before cleaning, which prevents it from bumping into walls and scratching furniture.[2] The question becomes what happens to this data after scanning. What could a thief do with the exact layout of every room in your home? Where is the data stored and does it transmit? Household robots record your daily habits, which can easily reveal more than you may intend. If these robots are willingly discarded by the owner, is it legal for another party to obtain this information? What about manufacturers or repairmen? Where is the line to the right to privacy drawn?

Finally there are robots that act like our stereotypical idea of robots. Household robots that have the ability to interact with us have become popularized in fiction such as Rosie on the Jetsons. Built for both children and adults, robots such as the Rovio have high data collection capabilities[3]. Data is recorded in audio and video, and the robot wirelessly communicates. These robots have the ability to provide direct surveillance about our daily lives and conversations. Will search warrants in the future have the right to search household robots? The increased use of robotics in the home will lead to increased issues concerning privacy and the law. As with the internet it may take time to establish a precedent for this data use, as situations will be constantly evolving.

---

[1] What do your Facebook likes say about you? John Skorick, My AKA March 20, 2013 http://myaka.com/news/privacy-news/what-do-your-facebook-likes-say-about-you-407357

[2] 5 Household Robots for Easier Living http://mashable.com/2012/09/27/household-robots/

[3] A Spotlight on Security and Privacy Risks with Future Household Robots: Attacks and Lessons

Tamara Denning, Cynthia Matuszek, Karl Koscher, Joshua R. Smith, and Tadayoshi Kohno

Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington

Legal Ramifications of Drone Prevention

“Upcoming legal issues in privacy protection as applied to drones and other robotic surveillance.”

            Changing laws and technology have joined together to make the proliferation of commercial and legal drones likely to increase in the near future. This increase draws new issues regarding privacy, trespass, and property boundaries. While legal issues of drones and property rights are debated in courts, many people will be likely to find DIY methods to preserve privacy from surveillance. Different methods of protection may raise new legal issues. Multiple anti-drone methods are discussed.

Simple Canopies and Awnings

Description

The most simple and efficient method to prevent a drone from seeing into personal property would be to erect some form of cover. Items such as canopies and awnings would prevent simple video surveillance. Evening curtains and blinds in house windows would act as the most efficient barrier to unwanted viewers. This method is unlikely to prevent infrared or heat seeking technology, but still allows a strong measure of privacy.

Legal Issues

There would seem to be very few issues on erecting a shelter on private property, especially as these shelters would likely be seen as temporary structures or simple decoration. Issues could arise if a structure is found to be obtrusive or invasive to a neighbor. Additional safety issues may be found when determining structure type. Lesser issues such as homeowners association and neighborhood guidelines may also come into play.

Jamming or signal interference

Description

A method of jamming signals either to or from a drone may be accomplished using many different forms of technology, including computers and simple apps in some cases. The point of a jamming signal is to disrupt the operation of the drone. Simple jamming may block the ability to take pictures or record sound. More advanced jamming could disable device operations such as navigation, and possibly lead to the device crashing.

Legal Issues

The blocking of a visual or sound signal to a private sector drone operator is the issue least likely to cause legal ramifications. Consequences would more likely be from neighbors who get signal overflow disrupting their devices or law enforcement officials seeking to monitor someone. Disruption of devices and navigation may have many more legal consequences. The destruction of a drone may be considered the destruction of property. Additionally, if a drone was taken down from the air, what might it hit? Is there a possibility of personal or property injury? Additional damages may incur additional legal penalties. The range of these jamming devices may also create consequences, such as how far the signal is allowed to project in a three dimensional space. Vertical projection of a signal may have an effect on FAA regulations. Wildlife may be affected by disruptive signals, such as birds migrating and navigation patterns.

Weapons

Description

A simple and efficient way to remove drones from an unwanted area would be to physically shoot them down from the sky. Methods of shooting may differ including shotguns, rifles, lasers, or even advanced security systems. The direct result of combatting drones with weapons would be the destruction of the drone.

Legal Issues

The legal issues are myriad when combatting drones with weapons. States differ on the right to defend one’s property from threats. Guns laws are well established according to people, but what about machines? As with jamming, issues of damage to people and property would be paramount. Public opinion would likely help to shape and form laws involving the discharge of private weapons in residential and commercial districts.

Building Codes and Architecture

Description

Houses and buildings are often built to very recognizable guidelines. City office buildings are commonly made with large portions of glass, believing that few can look in these windows from higher up and allowing employees to enjoy the views. Houses are often one story or two, frequently lacking a basement. Approved codes for building and construction are recognized by most county officials, while new plans often come under scrutiny.

Legal Issues

With the proliferation of drones, building codes may need to change. Open air fire escapes may be replaced by enclosed stairwells. Windows and ventilation may be replaced with closed air systems, cutting off access from outside. Would this change in ventilation spur changes in air circulating standards for building safety? Homes may also choose to create bigger and larger basements. Digging further into the ground can cause issues with stability, sinkholes, and the water table. Environmental issues such as these may have legal ramifications with the EPA and county officials involving public safety.

What is a robot? Discussion of legality, technology, and cultural superiority

Thesis

           What is exactly is a robot? Robots have been defined by the law, language, and popular culture. As we continue to evolve through technology and society, so does our definition of a robot. Many characteristics we acknowledge are based on our conceptions of humanity and servitude demonstrating thoughts both to the future and the past.

               

Evaluation

“A robot is a reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools or specialized devices through variable programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks.”

--The Robotic Industries Association (RIA) (RIA 2013)

                Legally a robot is defined as a reprogrammable manipulator of physical material. This definition would essentially include and machine that has the option to be programmed. Could a very fancy screwdriver be a robot? Or is this only applicable to a sophisticated lathe? This definition seems broader than the common visual of a robot as a metallic man. Perhaps this definition is non-inclusive and should be evaluated further.

“ a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized”

--Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Anonymous 2013)

                Robot defined by the language experts refers and compares to humans to complete this definition. The primary definition defines that a robot, “look like a human,” yet be devoid of emotion. This definition implies that to be a robot, a machine must possess human characteristics, but not all human characteristics. In this definition, neither the programmable lathe nor the screwdriver would be accepted as a robot. Perhaps this makes other machines a different class of machine. Would the specification of human features and lack of emotions create subclasses of machine-kind? Would robots then discriminate against other robots based on Android, Industrial, or Artificial Intelligence base programming?

                Human kind has long pondered the case of the robot. It may seem that we are caught between a legal definition such as the one by RIA, and a cultural definition as defined by Merriam Webster. Legal definitions seem to be defined by technical capabilities and current technology. Cultural definitions seem to be ever evolving however. The term ‘robot’ first came about in 1920 from a Czech playwright and is derived from terms referring to servitude and slavery (Intagliata 2011). The term has been captured by pop culture and evolved in many ways, while still referring back to the origins of performing tasks for humans.

“Let us remember that the automatic machine is the precise economic equivalent of slave labor. Any labor which competes with slave labor must accept the economic consequences of slave labor.” 
― Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics (Chandler 2013)

                Are robots a fancy term for slave labor? Our working definitions so far include a programmable machine that does not feel emotion, yet resembles a human. When did this demand for lack of emotion get added to the definition of robot? Emotions are not specified in the original definition in 1920. As part of the human condition, have we tried to justify the invention of a slave race devoid of emotion to alleviate our guilt at the servitude of another? How much have we defined our understanding of robots based on the ability of robots to do jobs for us without feeling?

“Robots do not celebrate anything. Celebration is an expression of joy, which cannot be mechanized.” 
― Ravindra Shukla, A Maverick Heart Between Love and Life (Chandler 2013)

                By emphasizing an inability to feel joy, are we emphasizing the ability of a robot to feel pain? It is a common human temptation to anthropomorphize the objects around us. I doubt I am alone in believing my car has been throwing a temper tantrum. I feel very convinced my phone as it refuses to swear and regularly suggests the word ‘sinner’ as a noun replacement. We often create personalities for machines, yet are quick to note the distinctions between us and anything artificial. Is this distinction based upon fact or our desire to justify our feelings?

“Unfortunately robots capable of manufacturing robots do not exist. That would be the philosopher's stone, the squaring of the circle.” 

― Ernst Jünger, The Glass Bees (Chandler 2013)

                While initially true, the belief that robots cannot manufacture other robots may be a concept that will fade with time. The ever popular movies based on the Terminator series pose a world where machines can reproduce and become self-aware. If we define our definitions of robots based on their similarities and differences from ourselves, from the services these robots provide – then what happens when these robots evolve?

                While movies and science fiction may take examples to extremes, it seems that robots have already evolved from the dreams of a 1920’s playwright to working machines with both standard and legal definitions. Our definitions must keep evolving as does our technology. Our society too, must acknowledge the needs and fears behind this technological evolution. As robot becomes reality, so must we too look to the future and our lives as they evolve alongside machines?

         

References

Anonymous. (2013). “Robot,” Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Retrieved April 9, 2013

Chandler, O. (2013). “Quotes About Robots,” Good Reads, Inc. Retrieved April 9, 2013 from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/robots

Intagliata, C. (April 2011). “Science Diction: The Origin of the Word ‘Robot’”, Science Friday. Retrieved April 9, 2013 from http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/04/22/2011/science-diction-the-origin-of-the-word-robot.html

Robotics Industries Association. (2013). “Robotics Law and Legal Definition,” US Legal, Inc. Retrieved April, 9 2013 from http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/robotics/

My Infographic Resume - Info Geeks Gotta Try This

My Infographic Resume This is just SO cool. A visual display of my online resume and experience. It's also a little humbling. I didn't take 6 years to finish a Bachelors. I took classes in high school and took half a year off with mono. I wasn't a full time student for 6 years. I have a lot of experience in restaurants and minimal experience in academics - well that's gonna change. I may have to redo my whole Linked In profile after this, but think this is just too cool not to try for fellow students and job hunters. Thanks to Susan Oldham (@soldham) and INFX 598 G for showing me.

May I have your Facebook password?

During the search for internships I have recently become more and more aware of my online media presence, and whether or not it could effect my ability to obtain an internship or meaningful employment. Prior to my current relationship I had done some online dating - it's hard to meet people in a new town, and Seattle is known to have one of the best online dating scenes in the US. Profile - deleted.

In my early twenties I had a Myspace page. I only ever kept it alive for a few photos I had been too lazy to take down - oh, horrors! There was nothing incriminating, but definitely some rather awkward photos. More troubling was that some of my friends have rather poor taste in what they feel the need to post on my profile. All this still would have been no problem if the site hadn't magically disabled my privacy settings without my knowledge. Once again - deleted.

I have an active blog (obviously), a Twitter - although I am currently using the AIMS Twitter more often now as the Publicity officer, and of course I have a Facebook. My Twitter and blogs are open to the public. My Facebook is not. I have previously worked for government contractors and learned early on to never state negative remarks against an employer or share proprietary information online. I simply feel that allowing my Facebook page to become public would be like sharing my family photo album with my boss. Yes, it's cute to sometimes show you pictures of my puppy or a nice family reunion. Sometimes however, I don't feel the need to show the world the bruise on my knee or the mud fight I jokingly got into with friends. It's also about security. If I don't know who you aren't, I can't speak for your intentions. I don't strangers or possible predators to know my whereabouts.

I believe most people are like me, and have nothing to hide, just a sense of privacy to preserve, so why are employers trying to invade this space? In my previous blog post I added a section detailing what to do if an employer asks you for your password. In a Huffington post article it states that 37% of employers now check Facebook. Bozeman, MT made headlines by requesting passwords for bus drivers, but eventually caved under pressure. More details of the article can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/employers-use-facebook-to-pre-screen-applicants_n_1441289.html I like how this article mentions the Facebook privacy officer being opposed to this practice. But with our modern methods of vetting employees, where do we draw the line?

Here are my thoughts:

Any level of security clearance will require passwords to be relinquished. This is national security, so remember that government related businesses also may talk to friends, family, etc. It is unlikely to change.

Regular companies often ask to "friend" you on Facebook. This is a practice I am much more supportive of, as I can monitor who is viewing my profile. I still retain the rights to hide information I view as private, but the employer is able to get good feel for the potential employee.

Have public profiles. The whole point of employers asking for online profiles is to get to know the candidate. Let them know you. Not allowing any public online presence can easily seem like you are hiding something. Don't look guilty when there is no need. Create a Twitter, or an alternate Facebook or some form of media that you can add to your LinkedIn profiles.

If you want it kept private - don't access it at work. Don't use work computers or cell phones for private business. If it is employer provided, they generally have a right to know what you are using their technology for, and to monitor it is some manner to make sure this use is appropriate with both the law and company policies.

LinkedIn is a different story, which I will elaborate on soon.

Privacy and Security in Social Media

What are the privacy and security repercussions of social media? Are we sharing too much information? Is what we share on social media whether knowingly or inadvertently and what we click, putting our security and privacy at risk?

Social media is now considered a commonplace form of communication. Almost everyone has a Facebook page, and at the very least many people use email. Some jobs actually expect users to have social media profiles, and require them before hiring. All of this open information has led to multiple issues regarding privacy and security that are still being explored. In this post we will examine the issues involved in online privacy when sharing information through the electronic world.

EMAIL

Email in the workplace has not been considered private for a long time. Some workplaces increase security through the use of encryption software and other security measures to secure proprietary company data, but personal information is most often considered property of the company, “Even if there is no signed agreement or written policy, an employer can still peek into email (or your desk for that matter) -- assuming, as is usually the case, that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy as to the contents,” (NOLO 2012).

What about personal email from home however? Obviously, personal information should be sent from a personal location. The catch is that you no longer have control of information once it is sent out over the web. This will be a common theme when discussing any social media issue as this blog continues. NOLO, an online law advice website explains the situation better, “After your email leaves your home it travels over multiple online services and open networks to reach its destination. Although interception of email transmission -- that is, snooping while an email is in "real-time" transmission between sender and receiver -- is a federal crime under the Electronic Communications Protection Act (ECPA) (18 U.S.C.A 2517(4)), it has been accomplished by hackers.” (NOLO 2012). This real time transmission is only a partial issue, as data once sent is then stored on hard drives, ISP’s, public and private network, or even sampled for other use. Once it is sent, your email is out of your control, so the best practice is not to send something you don’t want to acknowledge later.

For online resources looking further into email privacy, please see:

“Email Privacy: If you want privacy, don't count on email. Here's why.”NOLO 2012.              

Retrieved online from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/email-privacy-29610.html on May 7th, 2012.

PHOTOS

            Online photo sharing can be achieved through many different venues, such as Flickr, Facebook, and Picasa. While the process differs for each area, the basics are the same. Users upload photos to an online storage site with varying levels of privacy.

Retrieved online from http://www.flickr.com/, May 7^th, 2012.

Retrieved online from http://picasa.google.com/ on May 7^th, 2012.

I remember the first time my phone automatically uploaded its photos to my Google+ account. I was aghast with horror. Sure, my privacy setting was on private, but my phone didn’t check with me before each picture. In truth, the most that was likely to happen was that I uploaded those ugly photos of myself that I had meant to delete – the picture with the eyes closed the one that makes me look fat, etc. To Google’s credit, I did not see these pictures on any public display either. The fear is that I had no control. What if I had been drinking on a day I called in sick? What if I was kissing some guy who wasn’t my boyfriend? What if my boyfriend had a picture that wasn’t all that publicly appropriate of me?

           

Concerns over these questions keep people up at night. No one wants employers to see pictures like this in the morning.

Kelly O. (December 2009). Drunk of the Year. the Stranger. Retrieved online http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/drunk-of-the-year/Content?oid=3096053 May 7^th, 2012.

                The first way to alleviate concerns of this nature is to use simple common sense. In the example above I would recommend a) not getting crazy drunk via beer pitcher, and b) not getting your picture taken if you DO get crazy drunk via beer pitcher. Secondly, check your privacy settings. In online sharing, your privacy settings can’t work if you don’t activate them. Basics.

            My next section of advice is based from the New York Times. Companies, data miners, and simple interested individuals have more ways than one to analyze online users. The one hardest to control is your “social signature.” In summation, your social signature is your online personality based upon multiple choices and interactions. In Netflix this helps to develop your preference list, in Facebook it targets your advertisements. With photos, it usually targets your friends. “You may not disclose personal information, but your online friends and colleagues may do it for you, referring to your school or employer, gender, location and interests. Patterns of social communication, researchers say, are revealing.” (Lohr 2010). In addition to limiting the exposure you put out there personally, pay attention to the exposure of yourself put out there by friends and acquaintances. I’ll detail this more in my discussion of social media networking sites. Lohr, S. (March 16, 2010). How Privacy Vanishes Online. The New York Times. Retrieved online from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/technology/17privacy.html on May 7^th, 2012.

SOCIAL NETWORKS

            So what is the real danger of social networks? Embarrassment? Job security? Crime? Bullying? It seems that each of these topics deserves addressing.

            Embarrassment is the least harmful, but most common consequence of social missteps. While the situation may not go viral, pictures and posts often take longer to delete than the average user would desire. For example:

 Retrieved online from http://www.holytaco.com/25-most-embarrassing-facebook-updates/  May 7^th, 2012.

“Embarrassing Photos You Don’t Want Tagged on Facebook: Part Deux” LA Weekly. Retrieved online from http://www.laweekly.com/slideshow/embarrassing-photos-you-dont-want-tagged-on-facebook-part-deux-31571668/ May 7^th, 2012.

More serious considerations include job security. Many people have been fired over Facebook posts, from various industries. Here are some examples from the Huffington Post.

 All pictures below from:  Kanalley, C. and Smith, C. (July 26, 2010). Fired Over Facebook: 13 Posts That Got People CANNED. Huffington Post. Retrieved online from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/fired-over-facebook-posts_n_659170.html#s114542&title=Waitress_Fired_For  May 7^th, 2012.

            But what about crime? Can posting something get you in serious trouble? In recent news that answer would be “yes.” The United States Marines recently discharged Sgt. Gary Stein for anti-Obama posts on his Facebook page. He will get an other-than-honorable discharge for violating his company policy, and when that company is the United States government those consequences can be serious (CBS 2012). AP. (April 25^th, 2012). Marines discharge sergeant for ant-Obama Facebook posts. CBS News. Retrieved online http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57421223/marines-discharge-sergeant-for-anti-obama-facebook-posts/ on May 9^th 2012.

                Divorce and custody battles are also at risk with social media. In most court battles, your words will be used against you. In a divorce, anything that looks like infidelity is easily applied against you. That means IM’s, Messages, etc. Also pictures can be terribly incriminating. Tags of you drinking on a school night don’t always paint a great picture as a responsible parent. If you are going through legal battles of this nature, Atkins Law Firm has assembled a number of helpful resources on social media practices.

Tripp. (March 23, 2010). Is Your Facebook Page Going to Be Used Against You in Your Divorce? Atkins Law Firm. Retrieved online from http://www.upstatefamilylawblog.com/is-your-facebook-page-going-to-be-used-against-you-in-your-divorce/ on May 9^th, 2012.

                In addition to crime, a new area of concern has arisen on cyber bullying. Cyber bullying should not be confused with the highly similar cyber stalking. Cyber bullying also differs from sexual exploitation by online predators. Online predators and identity thieves have become common knowledge over the internet, and most people understand the precautions needed to combat these. Cyber bullying is a newly defined category of crime, and www.stop.cyberbullying.org explains the distinctions very well.

"Cyberbullying" is when a child, preteen or teen is tormented, threatened, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted by another child, preteen or teen using the Internet, interactive and digital technologies or mobile phones. It has to have a minor on both sides, or at least have been instigated by a minor against another minor. Once adults become involved, it is plain and simple cyber-harassment or cyberstalking. Adult cyber-harassment or cyberstalking is NEVER called cyberbullying.

STOP Cyberbullying. Retrieved online from http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/what_is_cyberbullying_exactly.html on May 9th, 2012.

Cyber bullying is seen as a larger threat than schoolyard bullying because the bullies have 24 hour access to their victims. The harassment doesn’t simply end at the end of the school day. High profile cases such as Kylie Kennelly and the suicide of Ryan Halligan have called for reform in our current laws to help combat this threat. Struglinski, S. (Aug 18, 2006). Schoolyard Bullying has gone high-tech. Desert News. Retrieved online from http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/what_is_cyberbullying_exactly.html on May 9^th, 2012.

SUMMARY

            Online media is a presence here to stay. Our function now is to figure out how to deal with it in a manner that is both safe and secure. It seems by studying the multiple cases followed in this blog there are a few important guidelines.

1)    If you don’t want it out there don’t send it.

2)    If you don’t want it in a picture, don’t do it.

3)    Know your audience. Not everything should be public knowledge.

4)    Know your friends. Associations matter. Block people as needed.

5)    If your job has a media policy – follow it.

6)    Once something has been sent, it can’t be unsent.

FINAL NOTE

            While it is important to protect your own privacy and take responsibility for your online actions, most of us still have an expectation of personal privacy in the electronic world. A new trend has been started by employers requesting Facebook passwords. The debate is still ongoing about the ethics and legality of this practice, but some helpful practices have been passed on, such as those from Career Enlightenment. Waldman, J. (May 1, 2012). What to do if a company asks for your Facebook password in a job interview. Career Enlightenment. Retrieved online http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/what_is_cyberbullying_exactly.html on May 9^th, 2012.