Facebook Emotional Manipulation Experiment: A Collection of Readings

I will not make a real post of my own re the already infamous experiments (initially claimed to be military funded, but that, it seems, was a hoax), where Facebook allowed behavioural researchers to manipulate the allocation of status updates in personal feeds, to study the resulting emotional communicative behaviour of users. My own brief take is that, whatever else may be said on the matter, this is definitely not covered by the user agreement I've signed when joining Facebook. For while I did agree to Facebook testing out all sort of things to improve their service, I did certainly not agree to be a subject in a scientific research experiment, the result of which is published in a scientific journal. I also think that the study may harbour some substantive both methodological and research ethical difficulties, spilling over to not only Facebook, but also the prestigeous PNAS journal's editors, who seem to have taken proof of research ethical review rather lightly... But don't take my word for it, here are four selected sources, not all echoing my views exactly, which may help you make up your mind.

The first one simply set up what the whole thing is about in broad terms, providing a few useful links. The second discusses the scientific quality of the study, which is also important from a research ethics standpoint. The third is an account by a usually brilliant bioethics and research ethics law scholar, discussing the legal ramifications of the study, as well as details regarding what has and should have happened in procedural terms. The fourth is a purely research ethical account by a trusted bioethics colleague of mine. Enjoy!

1. Meyer, R: Everything We Know About Facebook's Secret Mood Manipulation Experiment, from The Atlantic.

2. Grohol, JM: Emotional Contagion on Facebook? More Like Bad Research Methods, from PsychCentral.

3. Meyer, MN: Everything You Need to Know About Facebook’s Controversial Emotion Experiment, from Wired.

4. Hunter, D: Consent and Ethics in Facebook’s Emotional Manipulation Study, from The Conversation.

More on the UK Sellout of NHS Medical Data and Records: How to Opt Out and How It's Being Hidden

Just a few days ago I once again pointed to the relentless determination of the UK government to set up a sellout of individual medical data and information, collected in the medical records of the ordinary patients of the National Health Service who have never signed up as research subjects , to private interests, such as the pharmacological industry and health insurance companies. This apparently without any type of safeguard for the many misuses easily imagined as an effect of such official recklessness.

Now it turns out I was wrong. There is one safeguard, namely that you as an individual UK citizen may actively opt out of the scheme while still using the benefits of the NHS. This possibility is, one guesses, mandated by basic legal consideration and presumably by EU constitutional and human rights law as well. However, the UK authorities seem to be doing their very best to hide this option from the public, possibly realizing that the free access to private heath data of private business interests making rather easy identification of individual identities quite likely will scare the living daylights out of a lot of people. Of course, thereby making the whole design stink even more in the process.

In any case, luckily, there are vigilant bloggers around, who sniff out scams like this and provide the service to citizens that public authorities paid for the purpose fail to do. In this particular case, Med Confidential tells you more exactly how this way out for anyone who don't want to risk the substantial downsides of the "business friendly" attitude to privacy and confidentiality championed by Mr. Cameron's government has been actively obscured and how you may access and use it – providing easy to download links to the opting out form you need to fill out and submit for yopur right to take legal effect,

Read more here!

UK Set to Sell Out it's Population's Medical Data and Records to Private Industry and Health Insurers

I posted almost a year back about a then apparently more restrictive, but to my eyes still outrageous, move of the UK government to frivolously open up a genomic database created out of the medical records and samples collected within the NHS in the course of normal health care (for diagnostics, safety and quality assurance purposes) for research not only by public research institutions, but also private companies in the pharmacological and medical technological area. Now, if this lengthy account is to be belived, it transpires that, apparently, the data base, which is due to be launched later this year, is not only genomic, but simply a general health research database created out of the entire medical history of the entire NHS "cohort", complete with rather specific personal information. It will not contain straightforward identification of individuals, but even government spokespeople admit that the "pseudo-anonymization" planned to be applied allows any research institution with access to a lot of informationto re-identify individual people, not even mentioning at all the recent discovery that just a little bit of genetic information together with publicly available online information can be used to trace people who have anonymously donated tissue to research.

But that's not the end of it: among the players which will be eligible to apply for access to this goldmine for – true – advanced medical knowledge and – equally true – the health business opportunity of the century are – hold your breath – health insurance companies. Yes indeed, the very same one's who are widely known to do their very best to exclude those people who are in most need of their product from buying it and to refuse paying out compensation if they are ever accidentally let in. These are the ones who the UK government and the NHS experts behind the new Health and Social Care Information Centre (which will be responsible for handling the database and provide the access) think are suitable parties to be helped to identify the heath frailties of individual persons, their children, family and so on. Mark Davies, who is something as peculiar as the "public assurance director" (let that one roll around your palate for a second, doesn't it taste a bit like "top blinker"?) of the HSCIC, pressed by reporters, admits a "theoretical risk" – apparently having never entertained the obvious thought that for an insurance company, identifying people's health risks as part of the general process mentioned above is a rational business procedure. If it's possible (and it is - even more easy than admitted by Mr. Davies), it will be standard procedure for a number possible purposes – everything from even more effectively than now screening people in need out from health insurance or compensation payment, to restructuring existing insurance schemes to more effectively weed out the potentially unprofitable customers by having no product that suits them. The "assurances" about transparency ring hollower than ever before as Julia Hippisley-Cox speaks of the right of people to be able to know who sits on their data and a "clear audit trail". Won't matter much when coverage of your recent surgery bill is being refused, will it?

Not very surprisingly, there's been criticism and debate, but the UK government seems to entertain no plan of setting a few sensible safeguards for those ordinary people who are supposed to profit from the scheme in place. Such as forcing private industry to commission any research using the database from public research institutions – thereby making redundant the reckless move of transferring data into the commercial secrecy protected hands of these far from public interest oriented parties, where as critics point put, no one will know where they will then go or how they will be used.

Read more here.

South Sweden Police's Registry of Roma is Illegal on Multiple Counts – and More Criticism May Well Be Coming!

So a while back I posted an admittedly rather annoyed and highly sarcastic piece regarding the revelations of a registry of more than 4 500 people, mostly of roma origin or related to roma people, some of them since long dead and over 1 000 of them small children, and the feeble and completely confused attempts of responsible police officials to deny any wrongdoing, responsibility or simply sweep the whole thing under the carpet. After that it has been revealed that the registry has contained a large number of people with no suspiscion of or  connection whatsoever to criminal activities and completely respectable lives, jobs social situation etc. – they just "happen" to be roma or having roma relations.

 As I reported about then, a criminal investigation of possible illegal actions in the setup, management and use of the registry was immediately opened by a criminal prosecuter and two police officers have since then been notified of suspiscions of crimes in this respect so far. Parallel investigations were opened by the the Commission on Security and Integrity Protection (SIN) and the Swedish Discrimination Ombudsman (DO). The former authority "supervises the use by crime-fighting agencies of secret surveillance and qualified assumed identities and associated activities" and today delivered its report on what has become known as the "roma registry". Reports in the press can be found (1st one in English) here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

The verdict is that the registry is severly misconceived from the outset, handled sloppily and with lack of discipline and illegal on multiple counts. This, it should be noted, is an administrative legal verdict and does not – however severe its administrative legal implications – by itself imply criminal wrongdoing of any person, but it's hardly good news for the already notified officers mentioned or others formally responsible or users of the registry in South or other parts of Sweden that may be under the criminal prosecuter's scrutiny. What the outcome of this criminal legal process will be remains to be seen.

Likewise, the SIN verdict does not settle the issue of whether or not the setup and running and use of the "roma registry" amounts to illegal discrimination (on ethnic grounds). This is the topic of the DO investigation, which is still ongoing. SIN does note in its report that, apparently, ethnicity has not been the only ground of inclusion of people into the registry – however, this does not settle the illegal discrimination issue, since it seems that people have been included (almost) only if they have either roma origins or relations to people of such origins. That is, while more or less well-founded suspiscion of crime or feared future criminal activity has indeed been a reason for inclusion, a great many people falling into that category have not been included and, seemingly, this is due primarily to their lack of roma origins or connections. It remains to be seen how the DO will assess this delicate situation.
 

When is a Person's Religion A Personal Matter and When is it Not?

The following piece will not dig deep into the concept of religious belief and how it may or may not be different than other sorts of belief or committments. I have done that elsewhere.

I am happy to live in a country that is fairly secularised in the political sense. This secularisation is of the sensibly liberal and tolerant kind, where people of openly displayed, institutionalised religious affiliation are as welcome as anybody else to run for political office, and anyone that may feel like it has the right to make religiously grounded arguments to support or reject political suggestions. Of course, it is also free for all to publicly display whatever symbol of one's faith on one's body that one may please – just as free as it is for anybody to display any sort of symbol of any kind, as long as these are not of particular types of political meaning (due to hate speech considerations). At the same time, while there are quite a few people in Sweden that belong to or identify with institutionalised religious organisations, rather few take the specific content of their faith into the realm of politics or public debate, albeit this content may inspire their political opinions and influence, e.g., voting behavior. These people expect, quite reasonably so, to be left free by society and other people to practice their religion as they please within then the same legal framework that demarcates acceptable behavior for any sort of personal or life-style activity. True, other people may have opinions about this and are free to express those, just as they may have opinions on any sort of activity of other people, but that's nothing special for institutionalised religion. In cases like this, which are the most common in my own country, people's religion are undoubtedly a purely personal matter, just as one choice of favourite sports team is.

Fine. But what about when a person of such religious commitment takes it with him or her into a political career, in particular when such a person belongs to a religious institution that openly propagate particular and strong political views, say, with regard to the legislation around abortion or people of LGBTQ sexuality. This is a heated issue at the moment in my country, as our prime minister, who represents a party (Moderaterna) presenting itself mainly as a liberal or even (when it comes to taxes, public services and trade) libertarian political body – although in the now rather distant past, it used to stand for a more traditional value conservative stance (King and Country and Church and the glorious days of old and so on) – choose to include in his newly formed cabinet a minister of just this sort of religious affiliation, Elisabeth Svantesson. The choice sparked immediate controversy (here, here), as Svantesson used to belong to an extreme neo-calvinist, Christian right, militant pro-life church, called Livets Ord, has been markedly active in the organised movement against current Swedish abortion legislation,  and now belongs to a church called Kristet Centrum, that is not only openly oppose that legislation, but also openly stands for very negative views of LGBTQ people and seems to propagate a rather restrictive room for them to entertain the same rights in the area of family as others (Swedish links: here, here, here, here, here). A young, female representative of Moderaterna has publicly demanded that Svantesson officially distance herself from the political movements against legal abortion etc., or at least clarify where she stands. Svantesson herself has tried to rebut such requests as being about a "private matter", and she has been defended against the criticism by a number of debaters claiming that the critique is an example of persecution – the word "witch-hunt" has even been used – due to her religious faith, albeit one analyst has made the point that she is probably being let off the critical hook more easily than if she had been a muslim and had had a history of fundamentalist views coming from that particular camp.

My own view is the following. When a religious organisation propagates particular political views as part of its religious message, the question of whether or not a person of political office belongs to or sympathises with that institution or its message is certainly not a private or personal matter anymore. This is so, because such a religious institution is just as much a political organisation – the one does simply not exclude the other. The fact that such a political organisation also has a religious side to it cannot and should not immunise it against public critical scrutiny of the political views it represents, and the same goes for its political representatives. In this case, Elisabeth Svantesson.

The remaining issue is, of course, how sound the criticism is. With the extremely solid public support of the Swedish liberal abortion legislation (a pregnant woman a a positive right to have an abortion performed up to pregnancy week 18, after that it is very very difficult to have one and special permission is needed, but out of the question if the fetus is viable), the possible smuggling into the highest circles of political power a person committed to the opposite view would seem pretty relevant for voters. Similarly, a predominantly liberal/libertarian party lika Moderaterna, would seem to have a qualified identity problem if one of its highest political officers and most influential members represent ideas in the area of sexual orientation and identity related rights that sparks such a stark contrast to the party mainstream as reports suggest. True, with about a year to the next parliamentary elections, this is mostly a tactical problem for Moderaterna, but my point is simply that the fact that the problem has its roots in a minister's religious fundamentalist convictions does nothing to make it go away, in fact or even ideally. In conclusion, Svantesson needs to come clean and cannot hide behind a shield of alleged privacy or immunity against criticism for religion-based political ideas.