My Inconsequential Take on WikiLeaks

A disclaimer: All that follows is my own useless and unresearched thoughts on WikiLeaks.

Let us first set aside the ethics debate about WikiLeaks, for it will mire us. Instead, I ask the question, if I am an entity interested in my own gain, how is it possible to utilize the current state of affairs to my own advantage?

The current state of affairs is, of course, the great attention paid by the media on the interesting revelations provided by WikiLeaks. A number of them are shocking, even. The nature of such news provokes a limited response from the agencies exposed in such disclosures; limited denials, claims that such information is confidential and obtained illegally, or weak distractions pointing to the potential dangers caused by the disclosure. Sometimes there is no official comment, an attempt to bury the issue.

Such official responses do not help to clarify the exposed information. Understandable, considering that it is a PR disaster and the best response is often to distance oneself from it and hope that it is forgotten. Unfortunately, this very response may be exploited for the propagation of false, and possibly malicious, information.

I believe it is possible to create some fake "revelation" and "disclose" it online, possibly spread by social media. Not difficult, just a tweet or a Facebook post linking to a page discussing the newest "leak", supported by perhaps one or two links to similarly crafted pages of equal veracity. I doubt that anyone performs any serious fact checking, since the confidential nature of the disclosures prevents verification. After a few rounds of amplification on the nets, more analysis and posts discussing the leak will appear, eventually forming a self-perpetuating network of "facts" surrounding the leak. It is even possible to pull the original sources offline after a while, claiming that they were removed due to "intervention", which would further add an aura of authenticity to the whole charade.

I'm not claiming that doing this is good, of course. I'm just saying it could be done. Perhaps it has already.

Google OS ?

Google is developing a new OS for netbooks. The OS seems to be an extension of Google's Chrome browser. Being an owner of a netbook myself, I think that this idea is pretty great.

When I use my netbook, the primary function is to surf the net. Now, nothing major is lost if the core functionality of the OS is centered mainly on the browser. On the contrary, if one trims the superfluous elements of an OS , one might be better off; faster boot times (an instant-on, if possible), better battery life, a more net-centric user experience. It's a great idea.

Truth to be told, the browser, coupled with the power of the internet, can be said to duplicate many of the most-used functions of a netbook. Music? Just upload your entire song library online and stream. Games? Flash-based games come to mind. Internet messenging? Web-based interfaces exist; it is not difficult to integrate this function into the browser too.

One major omission is noted; that of productivity software, though it may turn out to be a moot point. Word processing is a function that is most essential, but it also the easiest to duplicate on a browser; even as I type this post on Blogger, I can't help but note that the Blogger interface allows for a good number of features found on word processors. Presentation software may be a bigger hurdle to overcome.

Of course, one can't realistically imagine the new Google OS to be entirely internet based. However, I can imagine various add-ons, downloadable from the internet, to fill in the gap. One of the greatest boons of Firefox is the ability to add almost any functionality via add-ons; we can only imagine the same with any future Google OS.

Pornographic Classifier

According to a BBC article, China's new "Green Dam Youth Escort" software, intended to serve as a filter for offensive material (such as pornography), has some classification errors. In particular, it was reported that

I went on the internet to check out some animal photos. A lovely little naked pig was sent onto the black list. Pitiful little pig!," read one comment.

"I was curious, so I looked up some photos of naked African women. Oh, they were not censored!

which is amusing to say the least.

The comments do suggest that a key component of their pornographic classifier involves color, specifically the proportion of skin-colored pixels, though this approach apparently has its weaknesses.

Having some experience with image processing as well as classification, there are a few other possible approaches to constructing a pornographic classifier. Rather than using only color information, it might be advisable to perform object recognition to search for a few key areas of interest, i.e. exposed private parts. A combination of shape (since the outlines of some private parts are considerably unique) and color information should be able to identify these body areas with some effectiveness; alternatively, standard object recognition techniques can be used, though these may be more suitable for the specific rather than the general.

Another approach (which is simpler and less accurate) may be to use the color information to generate an outline of the human frame (by segmentation), and to then see how many colors are contained in the frame. The theory is that many colors indicates the presence of clothes; the advantage is that one is unconcerned with the actual skin color itself. Of course, the issue is that whether the segmented region is human- this in itself is a worthy sub-problem, though one workaround is to identify a head region, and if there is none it is not a human.

Generally, though, the problem of creating a classifier to identify pornographic images is considerably difficult. The above ideas may be suitable for images with only one human subject, but the classification task can be made much more difficult by other complications. Such complications include multiple subjects and non-realistic images (i.e. computer generated images or drawings). In fact, circumventing such pornographic classifiers may be extremely simple indeed.

What's In a Name ?

Recently, some bloggers put up simple "Free Burma !" posts on their blogs. Then, yesterday, I saw someone on MSN with the nick, "Free Myanmar !".

Two words, refering ostensibly to the same object, and yet having absolutely different connotations.

Not too long ago, I was puzzled by the absolute refusal of certain global entities in using the name "Myanmar". After all, what's in a name, or so I thought. Then came the recent crisis in Myanmar/Burma, which highlighted the otherwise subtle differences in the words.

The fact that the choice of a noun actually indicates the person's political position is extremely interesting. However, in retrospect, this is not new - "Pro-choice", "Pro-life", are both terms which refer to the same thing, but signify different stances towards abortion. Many other examples exist.

Thus, I wonder - Is there a neutral word which can be used to refer to Myanmar/Burma ? With only two words to chose from and with each word implying the supporting of a particular faction, in naming that country, one would forcibly dragged into taking a side. Interesting, and troublesome, for any self-purported neutral observer.

Free Temasek, anyone ? Or, perhaps, free Malaya.

Quran Oath Controversy

I was alerted to the Quran Oath Controversy after tuning in to the BBC. For those without the time or the patience to read through wikipedia article, allow me to give a short summary. A muslim, Keith Ellison, was recently elected to the US Congress. However, he decided to take his oath of office upon the Quran rather than the Holy Bible. This act drew criticism from certain personalities, first Dennis Prager, and more recently Representative Virgil Goode. Both believe that the Holy Bible should be used for all swearing in ceremonies.

Speaking as an outsider to American society, I find this act of criticism somewhat xenophobic and irrational. In particular, I would seriously question swearing all officeholders, regardless of religion, on the Holy Bible.

Consider this. The oath of office acts as a pledge of loyality to the nation. Now, what is the role of the holy book (any holy book) in this act? Quite simply, the book acts as a symbol, and as a guarantee, of the stregth of the pledge. When people swear upon their holy book, they are also making a vow upon their particular religion.

Now, ask yourself this. What would you make of a pledge made upon a telephone book? Or one made upon a roll of toilet paper? One would be quick to dismiss such pledges, because (barring exceptional circumstances) neither a telephone book nor a roll of toilet paper would hold much significance to the pledger. Similarly, a pledge made upon a holy book which you do not suscribe to bears little weight. Considering this, I find it absurd that some americans would want the Holy Bible to be made as the only item to be used during swearing in ceremonies. It is as if they desire for empty pledges to be made. I would much rather prefer for my representative (if I could elect one, but that is besides the point) to make a truthful pldege which would neither against his beliefs nor be vacuously empty.

For more information on this controversy, you might want to visit the wikipedia entry or this article, which discusses the latest turn in events.

Compulsory HIV tests for couples

Recently, I've been listening to World, Have Your Say on the BBC World Service. The programme can best be described as a global discussion forum for news. I was particularly interested in what was discussed on Wednesday's programme, which was the plan by an Indian state for compulsory HIV tests before marriage. This plan intends to make it compulsory for couples to undergo HIV tests before any marriage can be registered. This, along with other measures, is intended to reduce HIV rates in the state. More details about this news can be found on BBC's website here.

Listening in to the programme, I found that there were two general views on this plan. The first view expressed support for the plan, citing the benefit towards combating the spread of HIV. The second view, which appeared to be more biased towards Western thinking, criticized the plan on issues such as invasion of privacy and loss of freedom. The comments can be accessed here.

While I describe myself as a (classical) liberal thinker, I find myself unable to accept most of the objections raised against the plan. First, consider the objection of privacy invasion. Admittedly, we would not like for our entire health history to be made available to the general public. However, this ignores two considerations which are vital to the issue. The first consideration is that of communicable and highly infectious diseases. If someone were to carry a highly dangerous and infectious disease, such as Ebola or SARS, and chooses to hide the knowledge of his disease, citing privacy as a reason, the outcomes are clearly disasterous. It is sometimes neccessary for everyone to lose a little privacy for everyone's best interests. This consideration is highly relevant to the issue of compulsory HIV testing, because HIV is a pandemic.

The second consideration takes marriage into context. I would seriously question the character of a person who hides a disease as grave as HIV from his or her spouse. Such malice goes against the conception of marriage itself, which should be that one not harm one's spouse. Furthermore, another belief regarding marriage is that couples should be able to share much between themselves.

By similar arguments, we can dismiss the objection that these measures are too draconian. While I admit that forcing people to undergo medical tests seems unreasonable, we must remember that this plan does not does not really curtail a servere reduction in personal rights and freedom. Firstly, this compulsory testing is not frequent, and most people would only be required to undergo one test. Furthermore, the test itself is not for trivial or meaningless reasons. Hence, while the idea of compulsory tests seems unpalatable, it is actually quite reasonable. Still, I would agree that this opens some ground for a slippery slope, but with care, this should be avoidable.

In short, I believe that the plan is sound, at least on moral grounds. However, this judgement is only applicable to this particular social context. I have serious doubts whether this plan can be applied to other nations, especiallly Western states. The benefit in reducing HIV rates hardly seems worth the loss in social liberties in those states, considering the lower rates of HIV there. Furthermore, the relative wealth of the West allows for other methods to be used. In other words, the medicine must match the patient.

Lack of Basic Maths Literacy

Apparently, some people can't grasp the difference between 0.002 dollars and 0.002 cents. More interestingly, these people seem to congregate together inside the same company.

The story arose when a George Vaccaro, on discovering a phone bill which was 100 times larger times than it should have been, made a call to Customer Service. Unfortunately he ran into a bunch of innumerates.

The recording of the phone call can be found here. Alternatively, the full transcript can be found here.

After you listen to the recording or finish reading the transcript, I think you will feel some sense of utter frustration at the innumerates. It makes me feel like there should some sort of crusade against the dumb.

---

Technorati Tags : Verizon Math , Innumeracy

Malaysia's Indecency Law

It is not uncommon knowledge that in some states of Malaysia, there are indecency laws criminalising public displays of affection. There are two main lines of thought regarding the issue.

The first line found the law unacceptable, for not everyone follows the same beliefs. The indecency law essentially forces the morals of one religion upon the populace. Hence, it it unfair.

The second line of thought, as elucidated by Malaysia's Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim, is that 'public displays of affection "go against the fabric and morality of the Asian people"'. Public displays of affection are acceptable only by Western standards of morality. Hence, by our own system of moral values, the law is acceptable.

Both lines of thought have some basis to their arguments, but both have some flaws. The first, while recognising that everyone may have different beliefs and values, and that imposing foreign values on another is unfair, fails to realise that basically there exists no system which is absolutely fair. All systems of law draw from some conception of morality, and it is inevitable that some will not agree with the law. If a law is to be abolished because it is unfair or unacceptable to some party, then there will be no laws. To live in a society, one has to abide by its laws, however unacceptable. Socrates chose to drink the hemlock because he had willingly agreed to abide by the laws of Athens.

However, this is precisely the error of the second line of thought. While ideally we should obey the laws of the society, it must be understood that these laws did not appear arbitrarily from nothingness. A key is consensus, of at least the majority. It does not matter if the law is ordained by the traditional "morality of the asian people", or by some stone tablet. The law must be passed through the people.

Hence, the question is how many support and how many oppose the law. My opinion is that since a law must impose on people, there must be a large majority of supporters before it can be accepted. A simple majority cannot suffice.

Analysing the case of the Afgan convert

I've just learnt about the Afgan case regarding the Christian convert (from Islam) . Its quite an apalling case of religious intolerance, no doubt. However, I wish to raise an interesting point of view, using ideas based on Pascal's wager.

Let us assume that the afgans are correct, that their God is true. Hence, the convert will go to hell and recieve infinite punishment. Since the punishment is exacted over an infinite period of time, it does not matter if he dies now or later. Hence they should not need to execute him.

If we assume that the afgans are wrong, that their God is false, then they have no justification to execute the convert.

Based on this analysis, they should not execute the convert ! How interesting !

** Disclaimer : This analysis ignores many other considerations. You should not use this post as a basis to smite me. Or lynch me. You get the drift ?