Hopefully if (when) Disney (and other major corporations) attempts to do this, the affected employees make a ton of noise about it and the news outlets still pick it up. It'll take "canaries" inside of the system though to draw attention to it.
Agreed. Or at the very least, make statement/advisory now that the paper has been published and supposedly the software exploit is alive and well in the App store(s).
Perhaps it's a non-trivial flaw in how they've implemented things and it's going to require nothing short of an overhaul. Six months is nothing to fully implement, test and roll out a fix. I write a software package used in house at a company I work for and it can take weeks to find, fix and test even minor bugs. Just sayin'. You also want to be sure to not introduce new bullshit in your fix. Rush it and you're much more likely to do so and that'll look even worse on such a critical system like this one.
Granted, asking a researcher to not publish results is pretty lame. People have a right to know if they're vulnerable or not.
This is one of my big fears (kinda feared, not terribly though...) with everything moving to cloud computing. I've definitely considered a future where the ability to store data becomes completely underground and anarchistic... more from a dystopian future POV and one that users let happen more than is forced on us.
I don't really think they could do this, but wouldn't it be terrifying if they could? It'd be like disallowing sales of reams of paper greater than fifty sheets at a time or something.
I think you have a really good point: they were fairly lighthearted remarks and his apology sounds pretty genuine; without more details I don't think it's remotely acceptable to judge him as a person. We also do live in a culture of outrage currently and all social media makes it so much easier for folks to hop on the outrage bandwagon... which annoys the hell out of me.
That being said, while one instance is not proof of a widespread issue, the many many instances we hear reported on nearly a daily basis (or Fri-daily basis since this is Dice) should collectively lead us to recognize that there is definitely still work to be done. I'm a grad student and I share an office with a 27 year old guy, so someone at least fairly aware of things, who has made some terribly offensive, borderline hateful, comments about women in science. He's kind of a dick all around, so maybe it's a different issue.
I definitely support at least showing people like this Nobel-winning scientist that comments like that, while light-hearted to some, erode the foundations of support that should exist for everyone in every field, at least insofar as race, ethnicity, gender, etc. are concerned.
This is really excellent. I think you've pretty much summarized this dreadful feedback loop in which we're finding ourselves. It's happening to state schools, and private alike (you may have mentioned that somewhere in there). I was so frustrated that Virginia Tech, a technical, public institution, kept investing so much money in fancy new "dorms" (or condos, like you said) and gyms and dining halls and then raising tuition and cutting scholarship financial aid, but not loans.
I'm guessing that it's just another bubble, and there are two ways it could go:
(1) it's going to burst at some point when high schoolers and parents start looking at price tags of college educations and say "nope, there's gotta be a better way." Whether there is or isn't a better way, eventually all but the rich will start getting priced out, as they are already from elite universities whether they realize it or not. If this happens and starts picking up steam as more and more kids stop going to college, I foresee some sort of collapse shown primarily through unemployment, corporations complaining about a "lack of skilled workers," etc. but really they've helped to create this by demanding that everyone have a college degree regardless of the position. This bubble bursting will almost certainly help make the wealthy/poor divide and social mobility much worse than it already is. I hate to imagine that, but it's gotta happen, right?
Or, more ideally:
(2) high schoolers get better advice and counseling on the reality of career options out there and the growth on the part of colleges slows (which I know they're all terrified of, but fuck them). In this case, the results are ultimately the same, just more gradual and giving everyone more of a chance to adapt. Problem is, economically we mandate that we always show growth (just like cancer...) and colleges are no different with their trustees and regents. Public schools are some of the worst. Until we can get over that idea, we're just gonna have to sit back, wait and get ready for the uncertain future of higher education which will undoubtedly affect the entire economy.
Thanks for your post! Find someone to publish it for you!
Yup. I agree 100%. Maybe they've had issues with this guy prior to now, or something. I'm trying to make sense of this somehow. The principle calling it in as a person with a gun is really the most insane part of this all, no getting away from that. If he was afraid of getting shot, just yell at the guy through a window... Sheesh.
The six sentence "article" may leave out a few details about how long this guy was really hanging out near the school. I think the gun angle might be a little intentionally inflammatory considering the source (fox news).
I think it's reasonable to call the cops to come by and check it out considering that the guy "walking through the neighborhood" was in one spot long enough for not only the principle to notice him, but for the cops to get the call, dispatch someone, and then have that cop arrive on scene. It also kinda looks like he posed for a picture outside of the school too... sounds like he might've been hanging out for a little while.
Still though, didn't the school have an SRO (or employee for that matter) who could have stepped outside and asked the guy to move along?
Although, I see now that the original TITLE of the summary has been significantly change by "timothy" the editor to be a bullshitty clickbaity title that doesn't accurately represent the stories linked to. The summary is ok though, but still a little unclear. So it's easy to see where the confusion arises...
I'm just going to start reading everything in the firehouse before timothy gets his sticky little fingers on it.
I think you misread the post (and/or the article).
Yes, the author of the story is a science journalist. The "study" was intentionally bad to demonstrate the current sad state of "science journalism" (with an easy target like nutrition) where few of these journalists actually take the time to actually read the article, much less actually fact check on a critical, challenging or even marginally scientific level.
So your final conclusion is exactly what he wanted to show: you can't blindly trust popsci journalism... but your methods for arriving there are a little roundabout.
It is no surprise that academia has serious problems with the integrity of it's publications (which is the root of the actual problem pointed out here) because they have created an environment where it is profitable or expedient to be less than honest, at least in the short term, if there is one constant in life, it is that nothing remains a secret forever. Academia would do well to reward the actual merits of research that does not pan out into something groundbreaking, because like Edison, it adds to the body of research that can hep to define later research that does pan out into something novel.
This times a hundred. A negative result is still a result, but that's not how most politicians and taxpayers see it. Deans and University administration is about the same as a politician these days.
Rubber was definitely not a great movie, but I think I can safely say that I've seen worse. It had just enough weirdness to it to keep it on the edge of tolerable.
I just watched "They" (also on Netflix) the other night and hated it waaay more than Rubber.
I love this answer... but sadly people aren't willing to learn things like latex. Even in academia (medical physics) many smart people refuse to learn technologies like latex.
And, despite my agreement (I was actually going to post a similar answer if someone hadn't), there are times when I don't want to bother with the latex overhead for quick documents. Am I doing it wrong?;-)
Which is precisely my fear of people saying stuff like that. And would be a play to hinder development of free software (e.g. some "security" company decides to use an open source project, finds a bug, claims it ruins their business, and then sues the developers into the ground only to then offer their product to everyone who previously was using the open source tool).
At least for right now, the GPL holds up and I think if they tried to invalidate that claim, it would come to a free speech issue. "You're telling me I can't post my code? That's just how I talk and I'm expressing my opinions on an efficient means of running md5 hashes!";-)
I guess my point is, yes, we should consider his points comprising how folks look at data to make decisions. These are things that any good app developer knows (at least insofar as user interfaces are concerned) and anyone dabbling in the world of enterprise data analytics should ABSOLUTELY be familiar with.
My point was that it sounds like may talk a lot about app development without ever building anything himself. It seems off-base to then turn around and say that app developers should be held responsible for what their customers are doing with their apps. It feels like a play to absolve the users of software from bad decisions or not understanding the product they purchased and/or are using.
I've said it maybe three other times in these comments, so long as the app developer did not intentionally mislead or misrepresent their product (through misadvertising or withholding information), the responsibility lies with the user, not the developer.
Then wouldn't that make the person to whom you delegated the task responsible for understanding the extent and limitations of the software? So long as the developer did not intentionally misrepresent or withhold information about what their software could and could not do, why should they be the ones held responsible?
You're right: we are too quick to call moron on Slashdot. If you can believe it I was even more fired up prior to reading the actual article!
I get frustrated when people try to impose more restrictions and laws on folks and to me, this seems like one of those situations. The author also seems like someone who knows a lot of buzz words about the development field, but has done little to no development himself (see http://www.informationbuilders...), and it drives me INSANE when people like that want to start coming after my field. He's probably not a moron, but I did find his article moronic.
I completely agree with everything that you wrote. Full stop.
To clarify my point a bit, I'm a strong believer that the user/purchaser needs to fully understand the limitations of the product they purchase. In your second example, the app developer misrepresented the accuracy of their predictions: I 100% agree that in this situation, they are the responsible party. This is not something that we need "app" or "data" specific laws for. I'm pretty sure they offered a product and lied about what it could do.
To put new laws on the books that app developers are somehow responsible for what people choose to do with their apps (as the summary indicates and to a lesser extent, the article) is pushing into a weird and I feel dangerous place legally for developers.
If I order an uber using the uber app and get that uber to take me to a bank and tell them to wait outside, and then I go in a rob the bank and come back out without the uber ever knowing what happened, does that make him my getaway driver and uber an accomplice to my robbery because I used an app? No! That's absurd! I don't have enough faith that they can craft a law expressing developer accountability over their apps that we wouldn't run into some absurd situations like this and make the environment a little riskier for developers.
Should we hold Blizzard responsible for lost wages, poor health, etc. that develop as a result of overindulging in WoW? Why would we let cigarette, fast food, soda, alcohol, guns, etc. all get away with the "caveat emptor" argument and not apps?
"Dr. Rado Kotorov is vice president of Product Marketing for Information Builders and works both with the Business Intelligence and the iWay product divisions to provide thought leadership, analyze market and technology trends, aid in the development of innovative product roadmaps, and create rich programs to drive adoption of BI, analytics, data integrity, and integration technologies. He strives to make BI and business analytics more accessible, intuitive, and collaborative through the adoption of innovative Web 2.0, advanced visualization, predictive modeling, search, and mobile technologies. Prior to his current role, Dr. Kotorov, was executive director of Strategic Product Management and Competitive Strategy. Active Technologies, InfoAssist, Magnify, RStat, Enable, Mobile Favorites, and the BI Portal are just a few of the products that have been developed and launched by his team."
"Dr. Rado Kotorov has a Ph.D. in Decision and Game Theory, and institutional economics from Bowling Green State University. He has also published various papers and articles on business processes, emerging technologies, intellectual property rights, CRM, KM, innovation, and entrepreneurship."
First off, I think what the author is claiming is bullshit. He's just reiterating stuff that we already have laws and protections for. We don't need a new bank of BS intellectual property laws, or CEO protection laws to throw at developers when the first thing doesn't go correctly.
Now on to my main point:
The summary makes it sound like the author was talking about ALL apps and app developers, however after reading the article, it's clear that he's referring to business analytics and applications that people would use to gather data and make business decisions. There is a little bit of language that makes it sound like he might secretly wish that it applied to all app developers, but that's not really the takeaway from the article.
His claims are still completely moronic: if an app pretends to offer a service and then can't deliver, or provides data that leads to bad decisions, then (1) people will stop using it once this is discovered and (2) we have consumer protection laws if it is found that the developers did this intentionally and then deliberately misrepresented what they had to offer, would protect the people they screwed.
This isn't a question of "apps" or "applications" or "data," this is an old idea that has been around for literally ages and someone wrote an article while masturbating to the words "big data," "analytics," and "apps."
What scares me is that idiot politicians and business majors will see this and think "hey, yeah! I don't have to be responsible for bad business decisions in a new way!" Fucking idiots. How much lower can we go on the idiot totem pole?
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully if (when) Disney (and other major corporations) attempts to do this, the affected employees make a ton of noise about it and the news outlets still pick it up. It'll take "canaries" inside of the system though to draw attention to it.
"The secret token of Evernote" would be a great RPG title.
... or a porn about a character named Evernote. (sorry about the repost, forgot to quote the parent in the original.)
... Or a porn about a character named Evernote.
Agreed. Or at the very least, make statement/advisory now that the paper has been published and supposedly the software exploit is alive and well in the App store(s).
Perhaps it's a non-trivial flaw in how they've implemented things and it's going to require nothing short of an overhaul. Six months is nothing to fully implement, test and roll out a fix. I write a software package used in house at a company I work for and it can take weeks to find, fix and test even minor bugs. Just sayin'. You also want to be sure to not introduce new bullshit in your fix. Rush it and you're much more likely to do so and that'll look even worse on such a critical system like this one.
Granted, asking a researcher to not publish results is pretty lame. People have a right to know if they're vulnerable or not.
This is one of my big fears (kinda feared, not terribly though...) with everything moving to cloud computing. I've definitely considered a future where the ability to store data becomes completely underground and anarchistic... more from a dystopian future POV and one that users let happen more than is forced on us.
I don't really think they could do this, but wouldn't it be terrifying if they could? It'd be like disallowing sales of reams of paper greater than fifty sheets at a time or something.
I think you have a really good point: they were fairly lighthearted remarks and his apology sounds pretty genuine; without more details I don't think it's remotely acceptable to judge him as a person. We also do live in a culture of outrage currently and all social media makes it so much easier for folks to hop on the outrage bandwagon... which annoys the hell out of me.
That being said, while one instance is not proof of a widespread issue, the many many instances we hear reported on nearly a daily basis (or Fri-daily basis since this is Dice) should collectively lead us to recognize that there is definitely still work to be done. I'm a grad student and I share an office with a 27 year old guy, so someone at least fairly aware of things, who has made some terribly offensive, borderline hateful, comments about women in science. He's kind of a dick all around, so maybe it's a different issue.
I definitely support at least showing people like this Nobel-winning scientist that comments like that, while light-hearted to some, erode the foundations of support that should exist for everyone in every field, at least insofar as race, ethnicity, gender, etc. are concerned.
Didn't see this in my quick scan of the comments here:
Boooooooorrrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnngggggg
AND I used to pretty much exclusively use Apple products...
This is really excellent. I think you've pretty much summarized this dreadful feedback loop in which we're finding ourselves. It's happening to state schools, and private alike (you may have mentioned that somewhere in there). I was so frustrated that Virginia Tech, a technical, public institution, kept investing so much money in fancy new "dorms" (or condos, like you said) and gyms and dining halls and then raising tuition and cutting scholarship financial aid, but not loans.
I'm guessing that it's just another bubble, and there are two ways it could go:
(1) it's going to burst at some point when high schoolers and parents start looking at price tags of college educations and say "nope, there's gotta be a better way." Whether there is or isn't a better way, eventually all but the rich will start getting priced out, as they are already from elite universities whether they realize it or not. If this happens and starts picking up steam as more and more kids stop going to college, I foresee some sort of collapse shown primarily through unemployment, corporations complaining about a "lack of skilled workers," etc. but really they've helped to create this by demanding that everyone have a college degree regardless of the position. This bubble bursting will almost certainly help make the wealthy/poor divide and social mobility much worse than it already is. I hate to imagine that, but it's gotta happen, right?
Or, more ideally:
(2) high schoolers get better advice and counseling on the reality of career options out there and the growth on the part of colleges slows (which I know they're all terrified of, but fuck them). In this case, the results are ultimately the same, just more gradual and giving everyone more of a chance to adapt. Problem is, economically we mandate that we always show growth (just like cancer...) and colleges are no different with their trustees and regents. Public schools are some of the worst. Until we can get over that idea, we're just gonna have to sit back, wait and get ready for the uncertain future of higher education which will undoubtedly affect the entire economy.
Thanks for your post! Find someone to publish it for you!
Yup. I agree 100%. Maybe they've had issues with this guy prior to now, or something. I'm trying to make sense of this somehow. The principle calling it in as a person with a gun is really the most insane part of this all, no getting away from that. If he was afraid of getting shot, just yell at the guy through a window... Sheesh.
The six sentence "article" may leave out a few details about how long this guy was really hanging out near the school. I think the gun angle might be a little intentionally inflammatory considering the source (fox news).
I think it's reasonable to call the cops to come by and check it out considering that the guy "walking through the neighborhood" was in one spot long enough for not only the principle to notice him, but for the cops to get the call, dispatch someone, and then have that cop arrive on scene. It also kinda looks like he posed for a picture outside of the school too... sounds like he might've been hanging out for a little while.
Still though, didn't the school have an SRO (or employee for that matter) who could have stepped outside and asked the guy to move along?
Although, I see now that the original TITLE of the summary has been significantly change by "timothy" the editor to be a bullshitty clickbaity title that doesn't accurately represent the stories linked to. The summary is ok though, but still a little unclear. So it's easy to see where the confusion arises...
I'm just going to start reading everything in the firehouse before timothy gets his sticky little fingers on it.
I think you misread the post (and/or the article).
Yes, the author of the story is a science journalist. The "study" was intentionally bad to demonstrate the current sad state of "science journalism" (with an easy target like nutrition) where few of these journalists actually take the time to actually read the article, much less actually fact check on a critical, challenging or even marginally scientific level.
So your final conclusion is exactly what he wanted to show: you can't blindly trust popsci journalism... but your methods for arriving there are a little roundabout.
Corruption?! In Russia?! Unthinkable... I won't believe it.
* so much sarcasm*
It is no surprise that academia has serious problems with the integrity of it's publications (which is the root of the actual problem pointed out here) because they have created an environment where it is profitable or expedient to be less than honest, at least in the short term, if there is one constant in life, it is that nothing remains a secret forever. Academia would do well to reward the actual merits of research that does not pan out into something groundbreaking, because like Edison, it adds to the body of research that can hep to define later research that does pan out into something novel.
This times a hundred. A negative result is still a result, but that's not how most politicians and taxpayers see it. Deans and University administration is about the same as a politician these days.
It is whether the science is politically useful for them or not.
Politically, or FINANCIALLY, useful for them.
Privatize the gains, socialize the losses, be they monetary or environmental. It's the way of many of the current American politicians.
Rubber was definitely not a great movie, but I think I can safely say that I've seen worse. It had just enough weirdness to it to keep it on the edge of tolerable.
I just watched "They" (also on Netflix) the other night and hated it waaay more than Rubber.
I love this answer... but sadly people aren't willing to learn things like latex. Even in academia (medical physics) many smart people refuse to learn technologies like latex.
;-)
And, despite my agreement (I was actually going to post a similar answer if someone hadn't), there are times when I don't want to bother with the latex overhead for quick documents. Am I doing it wrong?
Which is precisely my fear of people saying stuff like that. And would be a play to hinder development of free software (e.g. some "security" company decides to use an open source project, finds a bug, claims it ruins their business, and then sues the developers into the ground only to then offer their product to everyone who previously was using the open source tool).
;-)
At least for right now, the GPL holds up and I think if they tried to invalidate that claim, it would come to a free speech issue. "You're telling me I can't post my code? That's just how I talk and I'm expressing my opinions on an efficient means of running md5 hashes!"
Ok. That's on me. Haha.
I guess my point is, yes, we should consider his points comprising how folks look at data to make decisions. These are things that any good app developer knows (at least insofar as user interfaces are concerned) and anyone dabbling in the world of enterprise data analytics should ABSOLUTELY be familiar with.
My point was that it sounds like may talk a lot about app development without ever building anything himself. It seems off-base to then turn around and say that app developers should be held responsible for what their customers are doing with their apps. It feels like a play to absolve the users of software from bad decisions or not understanding the product they purchased and/or are using.
I've said it maybe three other times in these comments, so long as the app developer did not intentionally mislead or misrepresent their product (through misadvertising or withholding information), the responsibility lies with the user, not the developer.
Then wouldn't that make the person to whom you delegated the task responsible for understanding the extent and limitations of the software? So long as the developer did not intentionally misrepresent or withhold information about what their software could and could not do, why should they be the ones held responsible?
Just another reason to GPL everything you create.
You're right: we are too quick to call moron on Slashdot. If you can believe it I was even more fired up prior to reading the actual article!
I get frustrated when people try to impose more restrictions and laws on folks and to me, this seems like one of those situations. The author also seems like someone who knows a lot of buzz words about the development field, but has done little to no development himself (see http://www.informationbuilders...), and it drives me INSANE when people like that want to start coming after my field. He's probably not a moron, but I did find his article moronic.
I completely agree with everything that you wrote. Full stop.
To clarify my point a bit, I'm a strong believer that the user/purchaser needs to fully understand the limitations of the product they purchase. In your second example, the app developer misrepresented the accuracy of their predictions: I 100% agree that in this situation, they are the responsible party. This is not something that we need "app" or "data" specific laws for. I'm pretty sure they offered a product and lied about what it could do.
To put new laws on the books that app developers are somehow responsible for what people choose to do with their apps (as the summary indicates and to a lesser extent, the article) is pushing into a weird and I feel dangerous place legally for developers.
If I order an uber using the uber app and get that uber to take me to a bank and tell them to wait outside, and then I go in a rob the bank and come back out without the uber ever knowing what happened, does that make him my getaway driver and uber an accomplice to my robbery because I used an app? No! That's absurd! I don't have enough faith that they can craft a law expressing developer accountability over their apps that we wouldn't run into some absurd situations like this and make the environment a little riskier for developers.
Should we hold Blizzard responsible for lost wages, poor health, etc. that develop as a result of overindulging in WoW? Why would we let cigarette, fast food, soda, alcohol, guns, etc. all get away with the "caveat emptor" argument and not apps?
THAT is why I think this point is moronic.
... opinion.
Just walk away everyone. Nothing to see here. (Taken from: http://www.informationbuilders...)
"Dr. Rado Kotorov is vice president of Product Marketing for Information Builders and works both with the Business Intelligence and the iWay product divisions to provide thought leadership, analyze market and technology trends, aid in the development of innovative product roadmaps, and create rich programs to drive adoption of BI, analytics, data integrity, and integration technologies. He strives to make BI and business analytics more accessible, intuitive, and collaborative through the adoption of innovative Web 2.0, advanced visualization, predictive modeling, search, and mobile technologies. Prior to his current role, Dr. Kotorov, was executive director of Strategic Product Management and Competitive Strategy. Active Technologies, InfoAssist, Magnify, RStat, Enable, Mobile Favorites, and the BI Portal are just a few of the products that have been developed and launched by his team."
"Dr. Rado Kotorov has a Ph.D. in Decision and Game Theory, and institutional economics from Bowling Green State University. He has also published various papers and articles on business processes, emerging technologies, intellectual property rights, CRM, KM, innovation, and entrepreneurship."
First off, I think what the author is claiming is bullshit. He's just reiterating stuff that we already have laws and protections for. We don't need a new bank of BS intellectual property laws, or CEO protection laws to throw at developers when the first thing doesn't go correctly.
Now on to my main point:
The summary makes it sound like the author was talking about ALL apps and app developers, however after reading the article, it's clear that he's referring to business analytics and applications that people would use to gather data and make business decisions. There is a little bit of language that makes it sound like he might secretly wish that it applied to all app developers, but that's not really the takeaway from the article.
His claims are still completely moronic: if an app pretends to offer a service and then can't deliver, or provides data that leads to bad decisions, then (1) people will stop using it once this is discovered and (2) we have consumer protection laws if it is found that the developers did this intentionally and then deliberately misrepresented what they had to offer, would protect the people they screwed.
This isn't a question of "apps" or "applications" or "data," this is an old idea that has been around for literally ages and someone wrote an article while masturbating to the words "big data," "analytics," and "apps."
What scares me is that idiot politicians and business majors will see this and think "hey, yeah! I don't have to be responsible for bad business decisions in a new way!" Fucking idiots. How much lower can we go on the idiot totem pole?