Slashdot Mirror
Corporate Fallout Detector
BandwidthHog writes "MIT student shows off Corporate Fallout Detector. Acts and looks kinda like a Geiger counter, but it's a UPC scanner with an internal, updateable database of corporate misdeeds, with both Pollution and Corporate Ethics modes. I want one."
While this kid makes a funny point, one thing that's missing is the fact that a UPC barcode only links to the manufacturer or wholesale distributor of the finished good. Taking the trail back into the supply chain to contract manufacturers and raw materials suppliers would probably yield more enviro-nastiness than you'd find in consumer-oriented companies.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I bet it would beep and buzz at nearly every single product out there. Someone, somewhere, considers just about any product you can name un-ethical, and they are PISSED about it.
Any company that uses meat of any kind would be on PETAs list, all energy companies would be on the list, any company that uses plastics would be on the list (evil petroleum used to make plastics, you know), and the lists go on and on.
The data is "somewhat inaccurate" *BUT* you want people to use it as the do-all end-all of consumer evaluation? Heh. Fat chance. Who guarantees the database is not full of this guy's issues with the companies that set the sensor off? (New coke was a *good* idea... how could you drop it? Let's see how you like being corporate depleted uranium!). I really dislike this "dumbing down" of the consumer... people trusting the device could be tricked into believing bad things of good companies and vice-versa.
Some product of the wrong company will give a high reading, and then this guy will be in a lot of trouble. He's going to get sued so hard his ancestors will be liable for damages!
Which countries have been forced to switch to ipv6? and by whom? Not to mention are those countries doling out their IP numbers any better than the guys that gave MIT a class A
If scientists did science for social progress, they'd give up in frustration after a week. They do it for the joy of problem solving, glory, the distant hope of riches, etc.
This need to be designed using stealth technology. Stores can and do restrict behavior on their premises (it's private property). They won't allow behavior that they believe is not in their best interests. So if you are going to design products for today's brave new world, you are going to have to avoid unwarranted assumptions like free speech, individual rights, etc...
How will I know which lies to believe?
--- Ban humanity.
A coworker and I were just talking about this sort of concept not a few days ago. I brought up the fact that the founder of Domino's Pizza (as opposed to the Domino's corporation itself, which is not true), has made significant contributions to Operation Rescue, which is pretty hard-line against reproductive and gay rights.
He mentioned "what if there was a tool..." basically exactly like this -- scan a barcode, and find out if purchasing that item could potentially result in money moving to organizations that you don't support.
Even if it's a small concept, I honestly wish such a device went further, even if only as a demonstration piece -- take it into someone's kitchen and see what social issues are represented by the food in their pantry.
Sorry bud, but there ARE good companies, and there ARE bad ones.
And there are a bunch in the middle.
There IS some black-and-white in this world. Not everything is as gray as you'd like to believe.
The gave it up while I was there because "it was the right thing to do." Seriously, a university doesn't really need that right now. IBM on the other hand...
Lasers Controlled Games!
In addition to the summary score, the device should display the top 10 or so issues contributing to the summary score.
Some issue sources would be meta-issue sources combining multiple issues into a pre-weighted ethical ranking, e.g. 'Vatican' or 'Steinem'.
BTW, how does one go about testing the rightness of an ethical standard? Or is it an arbitrary individual choice? If the latter, is there any good reason why anyone should regard Saddam or Bush or Clinton as 'immoral'?
You get your money from a machine. Machines dispense your cola. Machines count your money, pay your bills, and gently remind you that your ass is due in a meeting 15 minutes from now.
In the Tao Te Ching, Loa Tzu refers to the idea ruler as follows:
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
BTW, how does one go about testing the rightness of an ethical standard? Or is it an arbitrary individual choice? If the latter, is there any good reason why anyone should regard Saddam or Bush or Clinton as 'immoral'?
/.) thoughts on it..
Depends on your own personal philosophy. If you're religious, then it's easy, you've probably got some standard set for you based on your religions teachings. If you're not religious you still have options. Some people are Ethical Relativist which means that they believe ethics are not absolute, but are determined by your societies standards. Of course this gives you many different ethical standards ranging from those of the Amish to those of the Nazis. I personally prefer the standard that Buddhists use (yes, I realize I was talking about non-religious views) which bases wrongness of an action on whether or not it harms any life (Saddam, Bush and Clinton would all be guilty). There are plenty of books on ethics out there if you're really interested in some good (i.e. not from
BTW, adding the multiple databases would be a very important update. Also, though the geiger counter design makes it a great prop for détournement, if it was all put into a nice little PDA case it would make a great product.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I've been following adbusters for a number of years... I browse the magazines at borders, etc., but I agree that they go about things the wrong way.
.. it's an interesting statistic, but it so oversimplifies things that it's useless trolling... if you follow their argument, then you'll probably find that americans consume more because they produce more (i have to buy a computer, but I can do a lot more with it than I could a pencil and paper), and (I'm guessing) we're more efficient (my laptop can run a bank, replacing a number of accountants, and the logical conclusion of their statistic is that we should kill everyone in 3rd world countries because we can do things more efficiently!
One of their adverts describes how much an average american consumes versus the consumption rates of 3rd world nations
But, hopefully, people are able to look at things beyond a single measure (consumption per capita) and judge situations for themselves. I think some adbusters ads do a great disservice.
I do like their buy-nothing day and tv-turn-off week, but I don't like their holier-than-thou attitude that "the masses" would find these deplorable.
Summary: worth reading every once in a while, worth supporting, not worth modeling my life after their goals. But that's just me.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Where does one find a corporate ethics database?
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Do some homework. The P.T. Nikomas Gemilang factory in Indonesia, which makes a large portion of Nike's shoes, pays its workers well below the poverty line for that country. Workers at that factory have to leave their homes and live alone in low-rent housing because they can hardly afford to feed themselves, let alone take care of a family. In this case Nike's practices are despicable in the context of the local economy.
The first response I hear to a statement like this is: "Should Nike just pull out then, and leave all those people unemployed and starving?" No, of course not. But that doesn't mean i like to see a wealthy american corporation exploiting the poorest of the poor. I will vote with my dollars by not buying their shoes, spread the word, and hope that other moral people can overcome the ocean of advertising in front of them and do the same.
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
I find that extreme behavior or unpopular behavior hurts causes. Instead of boycotting, protesting, and destroying - why not work to solve the problem
Boston Tea Party? American Revolution? Extreme examples I guess...
Instead of boycotting, protesting, and destroying - why not work to solve the problem. Opposed to sweat shops making shoes? Start a shoe shop and make better shoes. Tired of companies that pollute? Start a "clean" business, or a business helping them *not* pollute.
Unfortunately, the reason these companies engage in bad behavior is because it gives them economic advantage. How would you compete against that economic advantage? By exposing their behavior to a consumer group that hopefully cares somewhere deep down -- and how do you do that? It ain't press releases... it's ground-level marketing tactics, including "subvertising" which is what I think you mean by "grafitti".
The problem is that products are not competing on merit, they are competing on marketing. And the unscrupulous producers of thse products use deceptive marketing (advertising). How do you expose this without visible activism?
sker
nonsig. unsig. desig.
Much as I agree with the sentiment of "start an ethical business" -- because it CAN be done, I think starting a shoe company (or any garment manufacturing company) is a dead wrong example. While you can technically create an ethical garment manufacturing company, the economy of scale will kill you. Meaning--you may be able to squeak out a living in a local or niche market, but you simply cannot produce on the scale of the existing companies or you will go out of business.
Show me any proof that Nike is charging less for their shoes since they save so much on labor - and that argument holds water. But the sad reality is that they don't. Even counting all costs it doesn't cost Nike $100 to manufacture/market sneakers. How is Payless still in business then?
I think, and I may be wrong, that the *only* reason Nike is so big is that they got popular during the 80's. In a decade where the *brand* of the item was infinitely more important than the *item*. Every kid had to have an "Air Jordan" and the Nike swoosh meant you had cool shoes. Wear a generic or off brand? No Way!
I think times are somewhat different now, more people seem to prefer rebellious (enter Dr. Martin) items, and now you can be just as cool with the Reebok (Kobe?) or other brand shoes...
But if I am so smart, I should be in marketing, eh? I think that Nike makes fine shoes, but their dominance isn't because their shoes are better and cheaper... It's because they were Nike... swoosh!