[Corpora-List] Call for Papers: Mining User-GeneratedContent for Security - MINUCS 2009

[Jordi Carrera]

Dear fellows,

I agree with those who question that there is any strong basis for concern
here. There are at least seven compelling arguments against the End of the
World hypothesis as postulated in this thread:

1) Linas argues: "In case you haven't been reading the newspapers, there
was a recent election in Iran, wherein an earlier version of this
kind of technology was used to suppress news and to find and
jail dissidents, some of whom were apparently beaten to death."

Using Adam's irony to respond, if I may: <irony> I wish to say that I have
been reading the newspapers, but that I also took some time to read the
MINUCS call for papers, and that I was unable to find the name of Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad among the members of the organizing committee. I admit, though,
that I did find the names of some other very very evil and equally
suspicious people, including researchers from the European Comission
(organization known for its worldwide conspiracies) and the scary Aalborg
University. Having seen these names, I do understand Linas' and Adam's
concerns.</irony>

2) I think not enough emphasis has been placed on the entirety of the
original text, which calls for "information from openly accessible sources
only". Under such a premise, legal questions are not even an issue. No
wonder there is no place for them in the conference program. Also, this
realization would normally settle the issue.

3) Linas further argues: "It is a matter of fact that the technologies being
reviewed here are being used for "snooping, spying, privacy infringement or
violation, etc."

Given this reasoning, and since anyone can use Google Translate to "spy" on
evil non-English speakers, Google will have to include from now on a "Google
Translate Legal Issues" track in all its conferences about MT, together with
a couple of paragraphs and disclaimers along the very same lines in all its
related publications, translations and services.

4) The case of Google is all the more interesting, because some people in
the Linguistics community have benefited directly (e.g. scholarships,
funding) or indirectly (data, publications, use of Google apps) from Google
itself, an organization that has not what one would call an exemplary track
of ethical discussion on privacy issues (even according to USA Homeland
Security standards).

5) "These technologies can be, and are being used in anti-democratic,
anti-persona-freedom kinds of ways. Researchers such as you, who seem to be
unaware of this, should become aware."

I wonder whether Linas is truly advocating for having e.g. physicists
discuss the legal implications of their findings and having an "ethics
track" in all nuclear physics conferences because, you know, some people use
nuclear physics to build bombs. If researchers are not the ones building the
bombs, should researchers talk about the problems of building the bombs?

6) It is usually the case for those who are about to get involved in
"snooping, spying, privacy infringement or violation, etc." practices, not
to post their intentions to CorporaList.

7) Linas says: "there is a small but growing group of people who believe
 that this kind of technology could lead to an explosively dangerous
situation which would threaten the survival of humankind."

In my opinion, these are all very (very) strong claims. Linas, if you have
any substantial evidence of any of this, you should not be merely posting
vague accusations to CorporaList, but rather getting involved with your
government. On the other hand, if you are not doing so, then I assume you
lack the relevant evidence, which then makes me wonder why, if you lack the
extraordinary evidence that such extraordinary claims would require, you
make those claims in the first place.



J C




2009/8/14 Linas Vepstas <linasvepstas at gmail.com>

> 2009/8/13 Bryar Family <bryar at vermontel.net>:
> >
> > I’m all for being outraged by outrages but I’m having some difficulty
> seeing
> > a basis for anyone’s distress here.
>
> I think you missed the point. To quote:
>
> " Submissions that focus on legal questions stemming from
> snooping, spying, privacy infringement or violation, etc., will not
> be considered relevant to the Theme of the Workshop, and the
> Committee will not be able to review them."
>
> That is the outrageous statement that lead to the distress.  It is
> a matter of fact that the technologies being reviewed here are
> being used for "snooping, spying, privacy infringement or violation,
> etc." In case you haven't been reading the newspapers, there
> was a recent election in Iran, wherein an earlier version of this
> kind of technology was used to suppress news and to find and
> jail dissidents, some of whom were apparently beaten to death.
>
> These technologies can be, and are being used in anti-democratic,
> anti-persona-freedom kinds of ways. Researchers such as you,
> who seem to be unaware of this, should become aware.
>
> There's more: there is a small but growing group of people who
> believe  that this kind of technology could lead to an explosively
> dangerous situation which would threaten the survival of
> humankind.  The  fact that you personally seem to be unaware of
> all of this just tells me that, perhaps conferences like this have
> been suppressing papers on ethics for far too long -- they
> should be promoting awareness on the part of the researchers
> in the field so that they at least know what the fruits of their
> labor are used for.
>
> -- Linas Vepstas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corpora mailing list
> Corpora at uib.no
> http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20090814/958ee94b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora