Slashdot Mirror
Stanford Promises Not To Use Google Money For Privacy Research
An anonymous reader writes Stanford University has pledged not to use money from Google to fund privacy research at its Center for Internet and Society — a move that critics claim poses a threat to academic freedom. The center has long been generously funded by Google but its privacy research has proved damaging to the search giant as of late. Just two years ago, a researcher at the center helped uncover Google privacy violations that led to the company paying a record $22.5 million fine. In 2011-2012, the center's privacy director helped lead a project to create a "Do Not Track" standard. The effort, not supported by Google, would have made it harder for advertisers to track what people do online, and likely would have cut into Google's ad revenue. Both Stanford and Google say the change in funding was unrelated to the previous research.
If you want us to believe that you take our privacy seriously, you would do the opposite and create an endowment exclusively for privacy research.
An external audit is much more credible than the internal one.
Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
One of the neat things about money is it's all the same. Money from the pile labeled 'Google' is the same as the money from the pile labeled 'Not Google'. If they carefully mark off the money for 'privacy research' as only coming from the pile labeled 'Not Google', even if the amount going to 'privacy research' is higher as a result of having the pile of money labeled 'Google' it really makes no difference in how money for 'privacy research' is spent, and fills the terms of the agreement.
Both Stanford and Google say the change in funding was unrelated to the previous research.
Well that certainly puts the issue to bed.
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/09/stanford-research-independent
Money quotes, emphasis mine:
"Julia Angwin's blog post today is incorrect. Stanford never promised not to use Google money for privacy research. "
"Julia asked me how we would deal with a situation where someoneÃ(TM)s "work on net neutrality or copyright, for instance, could wind up in the field of privacy." I told Julia: "No area of CIS research is 'barred'. We are free to work on whatever we like, including privacy. That makes things easy." Unfortunately, Julia did not include my statement in the piece."
It's fungible.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Both Stanford and Google say the change in funding was unrelated to the previous research.
They can say that as much as they like, but it just is not credible. More evidence that Google has not only gone away from trying to not be evil, but is actually taking steps to become actively evil.
Like funding research and claiming it is for the benefit of society, but only if the research suits Google ---- therefore, the funding from Google helps reduce funding others might otherwise provide towards research that doesn't suit Google.
Standford should use Google money to fund its normal operational stuff, then use the money it normally uses for operations to do privacy research.
Lol I was just thinking earlier today how google hacked my browser to install unwanted files (ad cookies) on my computer. I'm pretty sure this is the textbook definition of malware. This is the $22m fine referred to in the summary
I'm probably to simple minded but this looks like a gold opportunity for Apple to exclusively fund the "Privacy Research" and specifically note that there are no strings attached other than research on "privacy".
It all starts at 0
Stanford says it's an "internal policy": https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/...
But this makes absolutely no sense. If all money goes into a general fund, there's no distinguishing "whose" money it is, it's Stanford's money.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
The summary has an interesting slant that being Google's restriction on the use of their contributions limits academic freedom. The legal filing puts it in a different light as the restriction on the use of funding eliminates any possible conflict of interest in the privacy research as the funding can not come from Google who could be hurt by the research. (Look near the bottom of the document)
Wtf Google?
use Google's $ to fund football/use football funds for (secret).
Hell, and pay others to be more than evil too.
See Grimmelmann's post about the real situation at his blog, The Laboratorium.
For all google's sins, wouldn't the federal government be a bigger offender on this issue? And since stanford is obviously going to still cash those checks what exactly is the point of not taking google's money? I mean... that's like saying "I won't take money from this street thug but I'll take money from the kingpin."... it is absurd. I mean... snowden was not whistle blowing on google.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
This is the exact reason why public funding needs to be primary source of funding for research organisations. Otherwise, certain "inconvenient" types of research (for donors) gets terminated like this.
Stanford should still do the research.
But they should do it
(takes off sunglasses)
in private.
YEAAAAAAH!
Disregard any claims that there's no conflict of interest here; "He who pays the piper calls the tune." There's no need for Google to explicitly state what they want in return. Stanford's bean counters understand that Google are a publicly traded corporation, not philanthropists. Just as the Koch Industries (fossil fuels and hard-line neo-liberal capitalism) partly fund Florida State University and dozens of other colleges on the understanding that all economics teaching staff and syllabi must adhere strictly to neo-liberal capitalist principles. They also get to veto any potential new faculty hires. This is pretty much what has already happened to the US political, regulatory, and governance systems and it was only a matter of time before it hit academia. The most shameful thing is how little money politicians and academics sell themselves out for. Google et al make massive returns on their investments.
Imagine if Stanford published some privacy-related research, and there was a note at the bottom "This Paper was Partially Funded by a Grant From The Google Foundation", or whatever... there'd be a huge outcry of how tilted and biased the results must be because Google was paying for some or all of it.
lies in exchange for money
They always seem to want to place profit above anything else. This doesn't sit well with me. At all. In the last few years, I have begun really understanding that I severely dislike the libertarian-capitalist tech utopia these Silicon Valley echo chamber people purvey and represent.
Interesting, so many supporters. Looks like Google learns from Russia and Israel how to manipulate public opinion. What you are saying Stanford came to this idea by itself, cot Google by surprise?
This the legal filing is requesting grant money specifically earmarked for Cy Pres funding of privacy research, as part of the settlement. Academic freedom may be an important consideration, but it's equally important to consider the rights of those harmed by Google to not have money earmarked for them dictated or otherwise influenced by the firm that harmed them. Maybe in the pretend world of ivory towers money doesn't corrupt, but I expect the courts to uphold a higher standard for conflicts of interest.
Would you trust cancer research funded by tobacco companies, environmental research financed by oil/coal companies, etc? In the same way, privacy research sponsored by Google automatically falls under a cloud of suspicion, along with the researchers doing so and Google for sponsoring it, should it find that there is no need for privacy intervention. On the other hand, if it finds the opposite, you get "even research funded by Google says people's privacy is being abused". This makes it a lose/lose for both Google and the researchers. This is somewhat, but not entirely, mitigated if the funds are for any research.
In short, it is not evil for a donor to say funds can't be used for a study where there doing so would produce a conflict of interest.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
The emergence and growth of blogs in the late 1990s coincided with the advent of web publishing tools that facilitated the posting of content by non-technical users. (Previously, a knowledge of such technologies as HTML and FTP had been required to publish content on the Web.)
owietlenie biurowe
Monitoring floty
Navision - BLOG
Navision
rachunek zysków i strat
NAVISION financial
Many researchers will now pretend they'd never agree to such conditions etc, but the reality is that:
1. Targeted grants ("we give you $X to work on Y") are common
2. Many scientists are not particularly concerned with ethics outside the narrow area of not being a fraudster. As history shows (e.g. Nazi weapons research) scientists will take money from anyone as long as it allows them to research their pet subject, paying little thought to how their discoveries will be used. That's why anyone treating scientists as some role model in ethical behaviour is seriously deluding themselves.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
" If all money goes into a general fund, there's no distinguishing "whose" money it is..."
Sounds to me like an easy accounting exercise.
So don't put it in a general fund. Make a Restricted Account for privacy research. Then when you do privacy research, just make sure it comes from there and only there. Also make sure none of Google's money gets in there. Standard GAAP should handle that like a snap.
"Money" sounds "fungible", but it's not. In many ways, "money" = "$ combined with the source and destination". Or you can do it in reverse, and make Google's money a Restricted Account, and run it backwards in that general fund money can fund anything, but pulling Google's money needs a senior management review that it is "not reasonably construed" as privacy research.
And yes, get Legal on this. Because for example you can tweak a footnote of almost anything to "improve privacy" even if the original research was "Study of Seattle's laws penalizing food wastes in trash."
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
The world is just becoming messy because those old fluid "neutral zones" are closing up and Flannery O'Connor was right, "everything that rises must converge".
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine