Yesterday a new search engine, Cuil.com, was unveiled, billing itself as an alternative to Google. Cuil (pronounced "cool") claims to have a database three times larger than Google's, to give results in an easier to use format, and to respect users' privacy more than other search engines. I haven't decided yet if Cuil gives more results or is easier to navigate, but its privacy policy is way better than Google's.
The best thing about Cuil is that it does not keep logs of user activities. It does not track people's IP addresses or use cookies to keep track of what we search for. The only thing Cuil uses cookies for is to remember settings that users have chosen. Even then, Cuil's servers don't record the information contained in the cookies.
I think all search engines should have similar privacy policies to Cuil's. Google, for instance, creates logs of each user's entire search history, identifiable by their IP address, and waits longer than a year to delete this data. Ask.com and Ixquick.com, on the other hand, are pretty good about privacy. Ixquick deletes IP addresses from their logs within 48 hours so that the data is completely anonymous. Ask has created a tool called the Ask Eraser which, when enabled, ensures that your IP address, cookie data, and search terms will be deleted from their logs within hours.
Will Google ever follow suit in respecting users' privacy rights? I hope they do, but right now they have such a large share of the market that they might not have much of an incentive. So many people use Google as the default tool for everything, from searching to medical records to email, and don't seem to care how much data Google knows about them. I, for one, just might start using Cuil sometimes instead of Google.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Gardasil kills people
The FDA and CDC have announced that they still believe the HPV vaccine Gardasil is safe, despite the fact that they have received over 7000 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccine, including 15 deaths.
Since Gardasil hit the market in 2006, I have thought it is a bad idea. You can only get HPV through sexual contact, so the disease is easily avoidable, unlike most diseases for which vaccines exist. HPV vaccination is not mandatory (thank goodness), but the FDA and CDC recommend that Gardasil be given to females from 9 to 27. I think this goes too far. Yes, the majority of people will have sex at some point in their lives, but what about the minority? Not every single person has sex. There are young women in the world who are celibate and intend to stay that way. Don't these people matter too? By giving a general recommendation for HPV vaccination, the government is telling celibate and asexual people that we do not exist. Plus, there are so many terrible, as of now incurable diseases that affect innocent people through no fault of their own. It seems like a waste of time and resources to develop a vaccine for such a preventable disease as HPV.
Now, in addition to my moral objections to Gardasil, there seem to be safety concerns as well. Although the CDC says 10 of the reported deaths had no connection to Gardasil, what about the other 5? 7% of the adverse reaction reports involve serious reactions such as paralysis, heart failure, seizures, and anaphylactic shock. Families of two teenage girls who became paralyzed after getting the vaccine recently filed lawsuits against Merck, the maker of the vaccine.
The moral of the story is, make your own medical decisions, don't just go along with what the government and the drug companies say you should do. Gardasil is not for everyone!
Thanks to Gardasil-Talk.com for these facts.
Since Gardasil hit the market in 2006, I have thought it is a bad idea. You can only get HPV through sexual contact, so the disease is easily avoidable, unlike most diseases for which vaccines exist. HPV vaccination is not mandatory (thank goodness), but the FDA and CDC recommend that Gardasil be given to females from 9 to 27. I think this goes too far. Yes, the majority of people will have sex at some point in their lives, but what about the minority? Not every single person has sex. There are young women in the world who are celibate and intend to stay that way. Don't these people matter too? By giving a general recommendation for HPV vaccination, the government is telling celibate and asexual people that we do not exist. Plus, there are so many terrible, as of now incurable diseases that affect innocent people through no fault of their own. It seems like a waste of time and resources to develop a vaccine for such a preventable disease as HPV.
Now, in addition to my moral objections to Gardasil, there seem to be safety concerns as well. Although the CDC says 10 of the reported deaths had no connection to Gardasil, what about the other 5? 7% of the adverse reaction reports involve serious reactions such as paralysis, heart failure, seizures, and anaphylactic shock. Families of two teenage girls who became paralyzed after getting the vaccine recently filed lawsuits against Merck, the maker of the vaccine.
The moral of the story is, make your own medical decisions, don't just go along with what the government and the drug companies say you should do. Gardasil is not for everyone!
Thanks to Gardasil-Talk.com for these facts.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Copyright craziness
In case you haven't heard, Viacom is suing YouTube for allowing users to upload copyrighted video clips of TV shows and movies. Recently, Viacom requested that Google (the owner of YouTube) turn over logs showing which video clips users view.
Privacy advocates are understandably concerned about this. Viacom claims they are not requesting any personally identifiable information, but they're asking for records that show people's usernames and IP addresses, and which videos each person has viewed. With most Internet service providers, each computer has a unique IP address. Plus, many people are bound to have told friends and acquaintances what their YouTube usernames are. Even though it would probably be only Viacom, not the general public, who sees the records, it still sounds awfully personally identifiable to me.
In addition to the privacy issues, this case really demonstrates, at least to me, that copyright laws need to change. According to U.S. copyright law, it is virtually forbidden to use pictures of celebrities, clips from movies, or audio files of songs on a website unless you took the pictures, made the movie, or wrote the song yourself. This means that if you have a site dedicated to your favorite celebrity, you probably won't be able to have any pictures of that celebrity on your site! Home videos cannot even use a popular song as background music. Making music videos by blending clips of a favorite actor or movie with a song, as many people do on YouTube, is legally out of the question.
The Internet would truly be a worse place if these laws were consistently enforced. For many people, copyrighted clips are by far the most useful content on YouTube. I don't enjoy watching other people's home movies, so there are only about 2 or 3 videos I enjoy on YouTube that don't violate copyright law. An exception to this is the growing number of news outlets and musical artists creating their own YouTube accounts, where they display news clips and music videos perfectly legally because they own the content. This is a great trend that has resulted in lots of legal and valuable videos being uploaded to YouTube. However, not all copyright holders have YouTube accounts. People have a right to access news and informational videos, and regular people should be allowed to upload these videos if TV stations fail to. Similarly, people who make fan sites dedicated to a particular actor, actress, or singer should be legally able to display image galleries and movie clips related to their favorite celebrity. Fan sites are a great source of information, and people should not have to rely on a celebrity's official site, if one even exists, as their sole source.
The purpose of copyright law when it was written into the Constitution in 1776 was to encourage progress in science and art by ensuring that creators would be able to profit from their works. Today, however, copyright law bans many activities that do not affect anyone's profits. Yes, uploading a whole movie to YouTube might diminish the movie studio's profits, but displaying a few short clips is likely to make more people go see the movie, if anything. Additionally, a YouTube user was recently banned for uploading clips of the Neil Entwistle trial, which aired on TruTV. But when I go to TruTV's website, I don't see any way to purchase DVDs or tapes of the trial footage. If they were selling such a thing, I would probably be interested in buying it, but because they're not, the YouTube user isn't depriving them of any revenue by making it available for free.
Copyright law should achieve its purpose of encouraging artistic and scientific achievement. Right now, however, it is depriving the public of valuable pictures, videos, and information, as well as stifling creativity by restricting people from building on others' works. Copyright law needs to be fair to regular people instead of giving large companies all the power as it does now.
On an unrelated note, check out this great editorial published in the Herald by Randy S. Chapman, president of the Mass. Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys: "To demonize a defense attorney is unjust."
Privacy advocates are understandably concerned about this. Viacom claims they are not requesting any personally identifiable information, but they're asking for records that show people's usernames and IP addresses, and which videos each person has viewed. With most Internet service providers, each computer has a unique IP address. Plus, many people are bound to have told friends and acquaintances what their YouTube usernames are. Even though it would probably be only Viacom, not the general public, who sees the records, it still sounds awfully personally identifiable to me.
In addition to the privacy issues, this case really demonstrates, at least to me, that copyright laws need to change. According to U.S. copyright law, it is virtually forbidden to use pictures of celebrities, clips from movies, or audio files of songs on a website unless you took the pictures, made the movie, or wrote the song yourself. This means that if you have a site dedicated to your favorite celebrity, you probably won't be able to have any pictures of that celebrity on your site! Home videos cannot even use a popular song as background music. Making music videos by blending clips of a favorite actor or movie with a song, as many people do on YouTube, is legally out of the question.
The Internet would truly be a worse place if these laws were consistently enforced. For many people, copyrighted clips are by far the most useful content on YouTube. I don't enjoy watching other people's home movies, so there are only about 2 or 3 videos I enjoy on YouTube that don't violate copyright law. An exception to this is the growing number of news outlets and musical artists creating their own YouTube accounts, where they display news clips and music videos perfectly legally because they own the content. This is a great trend that has resulted in lots of legal and valuable videos being uploaded to YouTube. However, not all copyright holders have YouTube accounts. People have a right to access news and informational videos, and regular people should be allowed to upload these videos if TV stations fail to. Similarly, people who make fan sites dedicated to a particular actor, actress, or singer should be legally able to display image galleries and movie clips related to their favorite celebrity. Fan sites are a great source of information, and people should not have to rely on a celebrity's official site, if one even exists, as their sole source.
The purpose of copyright law when it was written into the Constitution in 1776 was to encourage progress in science and art by ensuring that creators would be able to profit from their works. Today, however, copyright law bans many activities that do not affect anyone's profits. Yes, uploading a whole movie to YouTube might diminish the movie studio's profits, but displaying a few short clips is likely to make more people go see the movie, if anything. Additionally, a YouTube user was recently banned for uploading clips of the Neil Entwistle trial, which aired on TruTV. But when I go to TruTV's website, I don't see any way to purchase DVDs or tapes of the trial footage. If they were selling such a thing, I would probably be interested in buying it, but because they're not, the YouTube user isn't depriving them of any revenue by making it available for free.
Copyright law should achieve its purpose of encouraging artistic and scientific achievement. Right now, however, it is depriving the public of valuable pictures, videos, and information, as well as stifling creativity by restricting people from building on others' works. Copyright law needs to be fair to regular people instead of giving large companies all the power as it does now.
On an unrelated note, check out this great editorial published in the Herald by Randy S. Chapman, president of the Mass. Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys: "To demonize a defense attorney is unjust."
Monday, July 07, 2008
The right to bear arms
I completely agree with the Supreme Court's decision that the Second Amendment protects individuals' rights to bear arms. In the weeks after the decision, I have read some pretty stupid arguments against the ruling. Some people seem to assume that the right to own a gun is the same as the right to shoot whoever you want with that gun. In an editorial for the Boston Herald, author Mitch Albom writes:
"It means people shooting first and asking questions later. It means domestic arguments now resolved with pistols. It means thousands more guns out there, which means thousands more guns stolen and used for the wrong reasons. It means 4-year-olds finding Daddy’s gun. It means teenagers, angry and misguided, grabbing guns from their parents’ closets. It means workplace violence. It means suicides."
No, it doesn't. The Supreme Court's decision simply means that (basically) anyone who wants can own a gun. It does not mean that people can shoot others without asking questions or commit violence at work or at home. It does not mean (necessarily) that more guns will be stolen, or that kids will misuse guns. Teaching children how guns work and why they are dangerous is a much better way to keep safe than banning guns. Plus, isn't it a little ageist to call teenagers "angry and misguided"? I'm sure some adults are "angry and misguided" and that some teens are calm and have good judgement.
In a Boston Globe article, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago was quoted as saying,
"If they think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken... Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle in the streets."
Again, the Court's ruling gives people the right to own guns. It doesn't give people the right to settle their disputes with violence. It doesn't give people the right to shoot anyone! Why would you want to do away with the court system just because people can own guns?
Additionally, the ruling is not supposed to be an "answer" to anything. I consider myself a deontologist, which means that I judge what is right and wrong based on people's duties and rights, not on the consequences of actions. It seems like the Supreme Court justices (at least the 5 in the majority) were also being deontologists when they made this ruling.
Here is how my logic goes: Owning a gun is not immoral, and it does not violate anyone else's rights. Therefore, individuals have a right to own guns, and the government has a corresponding duty to respect that right. Shooting an innocent person, on the other hand, does violate that person's rights, and that is why that, not owning a gun, is illegal. Laws should be made to protect people's rights, not to get good consequences. Banning the ownership of handguns would be wrong no matter how many good consequences it had, because it would be violating people's rights.
I have never fired a gun in my life. Yet because I am a deontologist, I wholeheartedly support the Second Amendment.
"It means people shooting first and asking questions later. It means domestic arguments now resolved with pistols. It means thousands more guns out there, which means thousands more guns stolen and used for the wrong reasons. It means 4-year-olds finding Daddy’s gun. It means teenagers, angry and misguided, grabbing guns from their parents’ closets. It means workplace violence. It means suicides."
No, it doesn't. The Supreme Court's decision simply means that (basically) anyone who wants can own a gun. It does not mean that people can shoot others without asking questions or commit violence at work or at home. It does not mean (necessarily) that more guns will be stolen, or that kids will misuse guns. Teaching children how guns work and why they are dangerous is a much better way to keep safe than banning guns. Plus, isn't it a little ageist to call teenagers "angry and misguided"? I'm sure some adults are "angry and misguided" and that some teens are calm and have good judgement.
In a Boston Globe article, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago was quoted as saying,
"If they think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken... Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle in the streets."
Again, the Court's ruling gives people the right to own guns. It doesn't give people the right to settle their disputes with violence. It doesn't give people the right to shoot anyone! Why would you want to do away with the court system just because people can own guns?
Additionally, the ruling is not supposed to be an "answer" to anything. I consider myself a deontologist, which means that I judge what is right and wrong based on people's duties and rights, not on the consequences of actions. It seems like the Supreme Court justices (at least the 5 in the majority) were also being deontologists when they made this ruling.
Here is how my logic goes: Owning a gun is not immoral, and it does not violate anyone else's rights. Therefore, individuals have a right to own guns, and the government has a corresponding duty to respect that right. Shooting an innocent person, on the other hand, does violate that person's rights, and that is why that, not owning a gun, is illegal. Laws should be made to protect people's rights, not to get good consequences. Banning the ownership of handguns would be wrong no matter how many good consequences it had, because it would be violating people's rights.
I have never fired a gun in my life. Yet because I am a deontologist, I wholeheartedly support the Second Amendment.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Big Brother comes to Logan
Remember when the Phoenix airport installed those scanners that show passengers' naked bodies as they pass through security? Logan Airport, in my hometown of Boston, is following suit. Starting in October or November, the TSA will install the invasive full-body scanners at Logan. Luckily, they are not going to be used on everyone, but only on people who set off the metal detector or who are marked as "persons of interest." Additionally, people can refuse and instead be patted down or scanned with a handheld metal detector. Still, this is a violation of people's privacy rights.
Right now, it seems as though no one is forced to be exposed by the scanners, which is a good thing. However, it gives me the creeps that technology like this even exists. What if the TSA someday decides to use the scanners on all passengers? What if they eliminate the option of being scanned (less intrusively) by hand?
Airport security is invasive enough as it is. There is no good reason why anyone needs a technology that enables them to see other people's naked bodies through their clothes. Security is important, but privacy rights are even more important. The government has already drastically increased national security since 9/11, and full-body scanners are taking it too far.
Source: Boston Globe
Right now, it seems as though no one is forced to be exposed by the scanners, which is a good thing. However, it gives me the creeps that technology like this even exists. What if the TSA someday decides to use the scanners on all passengers? What if they eliminate the option of being scanned (less intrusively) by hand?
Airport security is invasive enough as it is. There is no good reason why anyone needs a technology that enables them to see other people's naked bodies through their clothes. Security is important, but privacy rights are even more important. The government has already drastically increased national security since 9/11, and full-body scanners are taking it too far.
Source: Boston Globe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)