[472] in Privacy_Forum
[ PRIVACY Forum ] Google in the Middle as Japan and Prejudice Collide
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (privacy@vortex.com)
Tue May 5 22:03:13 2009
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 18:37:01 -0700
To: privacy-list@vortex.com
Message-ID: <20090506013701.GF14587@vortex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
From: privacy@vortex.com
Reply-To: PRIVACY Forum Digest mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: privacy-bounces+privacy-forum=mit.edu@vortex.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Google in the Middle as Japan and Prejudice Collide
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000557.html
Greetings. I continue to get queries about what I can only categorize
as a somewhat bizarre story, pitting the modern remnants of ancient
Japanese prejudices against the modern technology of Google Earth.
Google's got to feel that they can't win for trying on this one.
The backstory, in an AP item that seems to take a noticeable, somewhat
anti-Google stance overall, makes for interesting reading
( http://bit.ly/goog-e-japan ).
Essentially, the controversy revolves around the adding of ancient
Japanese maps as a new optional overlay layer on Google Earth's data
for Japan. These maps, as it turns out, are sourced from and
controlled via UC Berkeley, which has had them available on their own
Web site without generating complaints.
The maps in question detail the areas of Japan in feudal times where
the low caste populations resided. Ancient history, right? So what?
The problem, as it turns out, is in the psychology and sociology of
some Japanese, not a fault at Google.
Remarkably, the descendants of the ancient, lowest class "burakumin"
caste, who were despised solely for their occupations -- basically of
the sort now *celebrated* by Mike Rowe on Discovery Channel's "Dirty
Jobs" series -- are still subject to prejudices in modern Japan.
While the maps were already available on the Web, their appearance on
Google Earth have triggered significant protests in Japan. When the
Berkeley curator of the maps decided to remove the "offensive"
aspects, more protests appeared, this time accusing Google of a
"cover-up" when the associated data was removed.
This is the textbook definition of damned if you do and damned if you
don't, especially when you're fundamentally the communicator of data,
not the entity who actually controls which data will be included in
particular mapping data sets obtained from external sources.
My view in these sorts of situations is consistent, I hope. Trying to
prevent access to mapping data such as that in this case is hopeless
in the long run, particularly at this stage of the game -- but that
decision is apparently up to Berkeley and the maps' curator as far as
the "burakumin" case is concerned.
Still, there are proactive steps that Google could take, as the
facilitator that so many people use to access these mapping products,
to at least help avoid similar problems.
One issue (noted in the AP story) is lack of explicit context.
Particularly when dealing with data (whether external or not) that
carries a major risk of triggering highly emotional concerns such as
prejudices, some sort of fact-based explanatory link, pop-up,
roll-over, or whatever, could be displayed to help provide a basic
contextual underpinning to what viewers of that data will be seeing.
As I've noted in the past
( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000255.html ), Google already
associates such an explanation with the search term "jew" above
Google's displayed natural search results for that word
( http://www.google.com/explanation.html ).
Logically, a similar approach could have (and perhaps still could)
prove beneficial in the case of the Japanese maps controversy and in
other similar cases that might arise in the future.
Where does this leave us? First, I'd hope that those persons in Japan
who are maintaining "burakumin" prejudices will reevaluate their
positions -- since that's really at the heart of this entire problem.
And I don't believe it is reasonable to fault Google for their
handling of this situation, especially since the mapping data in
question is externally controlled by third parties.
What of Google's role? Google's corporate mission is admirably stated
as an endeavor to " ... organize the world's information and make it
universally accessible and useful."
It's certainly not for me to redefine Google's efforts in any way.
But perhaps the addition of the word "understandable" to that mission
statement would be beneficial, in the sense of helping people
understand what the meaning of displayed data means in context -- at
least in highly controversial situations such as those under
discussion above.
This wouldn't be easy, especially since in many cases providing such
context could be challenging on a purely algorithmic basis, without
some degree of human intervention in the process -- as was no doubt
involved in the "jew" search terms case.
But Google's brain trust is vast and Google's potential nearly
unlimited. Perhaps more importantly, I believe that Google's *people*
really want to do the right things in these situations -- however
difficult (but often fascinating) such efforts may be.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
