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."
They can. But they can also try to make it better. I, for one, think it's good to see students thinking of social instead of financial progress. As far as I know, that' the whole point of science.
It tells you what product you have in your hands. All you have to do is the requisit research into the product. So if I scan an XBox the thing could figure the fallout from Microsoft and flextronics and any other companies who's products are inside. If I scan a copy of Windows XP, it would give me just the fallout from MS.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
This is an excellent question. But it's not an impossible problem. The question of who to trust when there is no central authority is pervasive and addressed in any number of interesting ways. A few:
The /. moderation system.
Various "seals of approval" from organizations (For example, kosher food is certified by a wide range of organizations. Not all organizations are accepted by all consumers of kosher food.) Another example would be AAA ratings, travel guides, etc.
his sounds like typical "if I don't like it, it must be immoral and capitalistic" leftwing grad school nonsense.
Are you saying that there's no such thing as morality, or that corporations never do anything immoral? Labeling something and arguing for or against it are different things.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
The article is /.ed but a google search implies that the ethics component is just simple number scale. So what if my ethics are different than the guy coming up with the scale?
For example I like companies that make health care products, like new drugs. They generally help us live longer for less money than surgery or other proceedures. But Christian Scientists have a different view. And people who think we should test products on humans instead of animals might also object some but not all of those products.
What if an entertainment company owns a casino? What if that casino is only 5% of revenues, is that enough to make them "bad"? What if they also make r-rated movies?
Muslims wouldn't consider a company ethical if it had outstanding bonds. But I think issuing debt is often good fiscal management.
And paying foriegn workers seems to be an issue that divides a lot of people ethically.
I guess my point is that abstracting to a simple number yields no useful information. This just sounds like a term engineering project that got too much hype.
Ths is a STUPID idea as far as summarizing the result as a single-magnitude noise from a "geiger counter." Companies are large and complex--there aren't just "bad ones" and "good ones." there are interrelationships, hidden subsidiaries, and every manner of nonsense. put another way--remember that stuff about the brent spar oil platform that was sunk? it turns out that royal dutch shell was actually right and the (largely german) "environmentalists" didn't understand the science or engineering.
the point is that under the current 'geiger counter', you'd get, say, one loud crack for royal dutch shell. under a more nuanced system, which is what is required, you'd have some way of making your own judgement based on your own values and understandings rather than somebody elses. no, it wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a hell of a lot better than the current cartoon idea.
(incidentally, would nike get a big "crack?" as well? because nike's labor practices are seen as either laudable or despicable, depending on who you talk to).
Maybe I can make one just like this with all my cue cat scanners
As long as the code is open, one could set his or her own parameters (In this case, reals from 0 to 1).
.05. .85 .4.
* Don't care much about animal cruelty: set the parameter to
* Concerned about consumption of foreign oil: set the parameter to
* Somewhat worried about obnoxiously high (CEO salary)/(average employee salary): set the parameter to
Bring in the databases that you trust, and weigh them accordingly. Exclude information provided by folks you don't believe. Whatever. Each person could configure his or her own rating system, in an attempt to model his or her own levels of "anti-goodness".
Don't poo-poo the idea. Embrace it, and it's configurability.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Which, interpreted, means: "I want someone else to tell me who to like/dislike."
Q: Why does the web-phone NOT tell you the nearest restraunt to your current location?
A: Because only certain restraunts have PAID the phone company to be available that way.
In other words, if you let someone else compile a database and then use it to make decisions, you give them the power to adjust that database in accordance with THEIR AGENDA. If you know and support the specific group and their ideals, that can be a good thing. But if you don't know how many groups are involved? How did they make their decisions? How was it keyed in? What are all their agendas?
This kind of thing comes under the heading of believing everything you hear/read/download...
It was a typically British birth... I was three at the time... They had a strike in the maternity ward... I came out in sympathy.
I was destined to be an actor. The day I was born I stood up and took a bow. Really. When the doctor slapped me, I thought it was applause!
Bobe Hope - 1903-2003
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
> How about Universal Political Codes for politians?
Quick way to get the product criminalized.
Reference the micro-subplot in Sagan's "Contact" about Ad-nix, Preach-nix and Jive-nix. (That was my favorite part of the whole book.)
But... This is America. There are no corporate misdeeds here. It's a way of life.
While I personally agree with many of Adbusters arguments and such - I think that often times they, and most activists, go about things the wrong way. For instance, how does graffiti help anything? It only makes people and property owners mad, and most people don't even pay attention or understand. At most it is a rallying call for people who already know and agree - but does little to help the cause.
I find that extreme behavior or unpopular behavior hurts causes. 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.
There are so many ways Liberal ideaology could be put to good use - instead of blocking freeways and hanging banners. Look at Ben & Jerrys. Start a socially, economically, and environmentally responsible company. Most companies want to do good - find a way to help them. If you can make any of it profitable, all of them will join in. Protesting and vandalizing just makes us look bad.
A system like this which helps you identify good/bad traits is always a good thing, no matter how implemented (print, web, word of mouth) - but it needs to allow for two things (which some people have mentioned as well):
1. Customizability. my.values() != your.values()
2. Verifyability. Good intentions are not always trustworthy.
Better yet, why not just have the scanner report all the potential troubling ethical data known, and let the user decide based on that? Let's say Bob doesn't give a flying handshake about animal rights, but corporate accounting scandals and the like concern him deeply; if he goes and scans the products he considers buying, and the scanner provides him with info about companies' animal rights records and financial doings, he can choose to just ignore the animal stuff entirely and concentrate on what he wants. That way there's little/no risk of having an inadequate filter setting inadvertently withholding data Bob would like to have.
A list where you tick off your preferred political and social leanings (or even a questionaire to help you determine them.)
That way I wouldn't be tempted to buy an Interstate Battery for my vehicle because it was made by religious zealots, or drink Snapple because they donate to pro-life causes; but I would be OK buying the package of napkins because the company that produces them makes official targets for the NRA.
And the PETA folks could choose not to buy Nike shoes because of the leather, the green folks would be sh!t out of luck trying to buy anything because the plastic packaging came from Amoco, etc, etc, etc.
Of course, widespread use of this would lead to widespread fraud, where corporate hackers start attacking the watchdog databases trying to convince users that their brand was made from organic soy but the other guy's brand was made from ground-up third-world children.
John
Of course, I will be modded down as flamebait, but it bears noting that not everyone around here is on the Liberal side of the aisle. Some of us who care about Corporate responsibility want to see these concerns addressed across the board, not just in support of liberal causes.
Or a database of music reviews for when shopping for CDs. Or movie reviews for DVDs. Or recipes for grocery shopping ("what the heck can I do with tamarinds?")
my best friend's a catholic and being an atheist, I don't have a lot of respect for her religion, but if someone were to mess with her about it, I'd be right there to back her up. I have no respect the actual content of what she believes in, but I whole-heartedly respect her beliefs, simply because they are hers.
The World's Worst Webcomic!