Tag Archives: ethics

“Support the Troops”

Posted on by
Reply

Maj ML Cavanaugh, Nonresident Fellow at West Point’s Modern War Institute, had an op-ed in Monday’s Wall Street Journal demurring from Alphabet’s Google’s (a wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet) employee’s objection to Alphabet’s working with DoD on a major artificial intelligence project: such work would “irreparably damage Google’s brand” they argue because military.  Cavanaugh suggested that, on the contrary, such mutual work was to the net good, falling behind our enemies on AI could well be fatal to us, DoD should work to expand Defense/tech company interaction, and so on.

Then he closed his piece with this hopeful claim.

Silicon Valley and the US military share compelling interests, and in the end they’re on the same side.

Are they on the same side? With Alphabet’s and Facebook’s repeated anti-democratic copying of personal information, coupled with their deliberately convoluted and incomplete instructions on how individuals can manage parts of their personal information, and now Alphabet’s apparent disdain for the US being able to defend itself, I’m not at all sure that’s accurate.  Especially with Alphabet having already signed a contract with the People’s Republic of China to work on…artificial intelligence.

A Judicial Miss

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the Marquette University case wherein a graduate-student instructor, Cheryl Abbate, shut down debate on the subject of gay marriage, arguing that views that didn’t accept such things were “homophobic and unwelcome in her classroom.”  Tenured Political Science Professor John McAdams objected, in blunt terms, to the evident bigotry demonstrated by Abbate in a personal post on his personal blog.  Marquette disciplined him for disagreeing—that’s a violation of Marquette “speech” policy.  McAdams demurred and took Marquette to court.

Milwaukee County Circuit judge sided with the university. The judge, David Hansher, wrote that academic freedom “does not mean that a faculty member can harass, threaten, intimidate, ridicule, or impose his or her views on students.”

And yet, that’s exactly what the graduate-student instructor was doing. Hansher needed to pay actual attention to the facts of the matter.

Independent Monitor

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Special Counselor Robert Mueller’s raid on President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen’s offices and seizure of Cohen’s records, especially targeting communications between Cohen, the lawyer, and Trump, the client.

Cohen went in to Federal court Friday to try to get the subpoena under which the raid was conducted revoked and the confiscated materials returned.  Some discussion surrounding the events centers on the alleged ability of special monitors—a “taint team”—doing the sorting so as to isolate the privileged communications from the rest of the material sought under the warrant.  Furthermore, this team would, supposedly, conduct its sort before Mueller’s team has gone into the material they seized.

I’ll elide the blatant conflict of interest here centered on the taint team’s members being, at bottom, colleagues of the those who ran the raid and of Mueller: they’re FBI agents and DoJ lawyers.

I’m interested in a larger question that’s not being addressed.  Say Cohen wins his case and the subpoena is quashed and the seized materials returned to him in toto.  On what basis do we conclude that Mueller’s team hasn’t already copied all of those seized materials and separated the copies from the originals?  That by itself, incidentally, would be a good practice with legitimately confiscated materials; reviewing the copies would ensure against accidentally damaging the originals and thereby destroying their legal provenance (as well as their utility for their rightful owners).  On what basis do we conclude that, on Cohen’s victory, those copies would be returned, also?  On what basis do we conclude that Mueller’s team isn’t already reading and evaluating those copies of the seized materials?

Leaks

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Special Counselor Robert Mueller’s unconscionable raid on the offices of President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, a raid that confiscated, among other things, communications between Trump and his lawyer that, heretofore, were privileged communications that no prosecutor or court could access.

The press is reporting that Mr Cohen is being investigated for possible bank fraud and campaign-finance violations in connection to his $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels (née Stephanie Clifford)….

To the extent the press is reporting accurately, the leaked purpose of this investigation can only have come from Mueller’s “investigation” (Cohen himself has said only that the raid was done with courtesy and professionalism by the FBI soldiers on the ground), and these reports are just further examples of Mueller’s careful leaks of the most salacious details of his claimed investigation.

The leaks also are a further illustration of the dishonesty of Mueller’s doings.  These leaks demonstrate how far Mueller has strayed from—if, indeed, he’s even still pursuing—Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s claimed purpose for his special counsel, which was to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interests. At this point, too, Mueller’s only purpose in leaking things about an alleged relationship with an aging pornographic movie starlet can only be to keep the smear alive in the NLMSM during the midterm election campaign season.

It’s not politically useful for Trump to fire or to cause the firing of Mueller, but he does need to push the pace of Mueller’s “investigation,” and so do honest Republicans in Congress, in order to bring this sorry charade to a close.  Mueller has indicated he wants to write a report.  Let him, push him to do so, and let a candid American citizenry see what an empty puddle of nothing on which he’s wasted so much of their tax money.

We Don’t Get Silicon Valley

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Facebook MFWCI Mark Zuckerberg said in Tuesday’s hearing in front of the Senate.  On the other hand,

Senator Gary Peters (D, MI) asked whether Facebook is using the microphones of users’ phones to listen in to what they are doing and saying—a charge the company has denied repeatedly in recent months.

And given the level of integrity Facebook managers have shown over the years, of course we should believe their denials. Right.  Never mind that that’s an easily done exploit that hackers have done on and off (pardon the pun) for years.  Right along with playing untoward games with the video cameras on our laptops.

Here’s the kicker, though, from that Senate hearing:

Mark Zuckerberg, Silicon Valley had one for Congress: Why don’t you get us?

The Senators’ questions often were ignorant, but that’s all they were: borne of an ignorance that’s easily corrected. Zuckerberg’s question, to the extent it’s accurately paraphrased and attributed, is a deeply cynical one that carefully misdirects the emphasis, borne as the question is from Silicon Valley’s deeply Leftist ideology—a slant Zuckerberg freely acknowledged a couple of times.

The more accurate question, the more serious question, is why doesn’t Silicon Valley get Americans?