|
TWikiGuestSecondEssay 8 - 09 Jan 2025 - Main.AnthonyFikry
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Surveillance v. Surveillance: Civilians' Tit-for-Tat and Its Problems | >
> | Surveillance Capitalism and the Erosion of Personal Autonomy | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | Police brutality has historically been a social issue for the United States and is one of the most controversial, polarizing, and contentious American issues. This is largely due to the widespread emergence of news and media footage that depicts police officers shooting and killing unarmed people of color. Civilians increasingly use their smartphones to record interactions with law enforcement to surveil officers and combat police misconduct against the most vulnerable. Contrarily, the government is often criticized for overexercising its ability to surveil citizens, which has raised concerns about privacy and misuse of power. Therefore, the practice of civilians surveilling law enforcement is perceived as both a safety measure and a check on government overreach and power. | >
> | Personal autonomy—the ability to make decisions independently and govern one’s own life—is a cornerstone of democratic society. The advent of surveillance capitalism, however, poses an increasing threat to this basic right. Surveillance capitalism, a term coined by Shoshana Zuboff, refers to an economic system predicated upon the collection and commodification of personal data for profit (Zuboff, 8). Tech giants like Google, Facebook (Meta), and Amazon track users' digital behaviors, analyze them, and monetize this data not only by predicting future behavior, but also by influencing it. While this business model has proved enormously lucrative, it continues to compromise our autonomy. The present paper examines how surveillance capitalism undermines autonomy by manipulating behavior and eroding privacy, and briefly suggests potential solutions. | | | | |
<
< | Surveillance itself, however, has several unintended consequences and threatens privacy. While retaliatory civilian surveillance is meant to enhance safety, it only contributes to a broader culture of mistrust and overuse of surveillance. The best solution to address this challenge is to limit both excessive police and retaliatory civilian surveillance. Proper boundaries must be set where surveillance is not seen as the solution, because without boundaries, these practices risk perpetuating a vicious cycle of invasive oversight that compromises privacy and the very safety that they intend to promote. | >
> | Data Harvesting and Consent | | | | |
<
< | The Rise of Civilian Surveillance | >
> | Surveillance capitalism thrives on the constant harvesting of personal data, often with users only vaguely aware at best of the extent to which their actions–search queries, location data, device usage—are tracked and monetized. This constant surveillance undermines autonomy by depriving people of control over their own data and digital life. While theoretically users may agree to such surveillance by accepting terms of service, such consent is illusory. Privacy policies are typically dense, legalistic documents that the average user lacks time or expertise to fully understand. This information asymmetry precludes the average user from making informed choices, thereby eroding their autonomy. | | | | |
<
< | Smartphones provide ordinary citizens with the power to be vigilantes who are capable of documenting instances of police brutality and misconduct in real time. In the last decade, this has becoming increasingly popular with viral videos, such as the killings of Eric Garner in 2014 and George Floyd in 2020, which led to public outrage and demands for accountability by law enforcement. For example, a New York Times article entitled “Black Lives Upended by Policing: The Raw Videos Sparking Outrage” provides readers with 34 cellphone and dashboard camera videos that display police brutality. One of the videos features cellphone footage of yet another unarmed black man, Alton Sterling, being tackled, held to the ground, and eventually shot by two white officers. Excessive force is a growing problem as police in the United States are said to use force against 300,000 people each year, according to a report by The Guardian. Ultimately, as more and more individuals feel defenseless in their encounters with police, civilian surveillance provides folks with a sense of empowerment. With retaliative surveillance and the ability to capture and share evidence of brutality, individuals can challenge official narratives, garner public support, and fight for justice. | >
> | Behavioral Prediction and Manipulation | | | | |
<
< | Social media platforms, such as Instagram and X, add to the impact of these videos as isolated incidents can transform into broader conversations and national controversies. For example, on X, hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter and #NoJusticeNoPeace have become a battle cry for movements seeking systemic change. According to a PBS NewsHour? Report, the instancy and convenience of social media allows users to share raw, emotionally charged content, which helps to foster solidarity and drive action amongst its viewers. | >
> | Surveillance capitalists not only collect data but also use it to predict and influence behavior. By collecting vast amounts of personal data, companies build detailed behavior profiles to predict future actions and preferences. Predictive algorithms are designed to anticipate what a user might search for or buy and they push certain actions such as clicking on advertisements, purchasing products, or engaging with content, often without our awareness. Such predictions are then traded among companies and advertising agencies in the behavioral futures market (Zuboff, 2). This limits autonomy by steering individuals toward decisions they might not otherwise make. | | | | |
<
< | The Comfort and Consequences of Surveillance | >
> | The mobile augmented-reality game Pokémon Go, developed by Google subsidiary Niantic Labs, aptly exemplifies commercial behavioral modification. The game covertly employs location tracking to drive foot traffic to specific real-world businesses, with sponsors paying to have their locations featured. John Hanke, the game’s creator, revealed that sponsored locations were always part of the plan (Zuboff, 295). Companies pay to have Pokémons appear at their locations, thereby attracting players. These sponsors are charged on a “cost-per-visit” basis, akin to Google Ads’ “cost-per-click” bidding model (Zuboff, 298). This highlights how surveillance capitalism can turn seemingly innocuous activities into revenue streams, further eroding user autonomy by shaping behavior in the service of commercial interests. | | | | |
<
< | Civilian and government surveillance can enhance safety and offer accountability, but it also poses risks of overreach and can lead to unintended consequences. Surveillance’s primary intent, to deter misconduct and offer safety, backfires when it is perceived as an intrusive weapon that threatens privacy rather than offers accountability. Filming police interactions provides folks with a sense of security and empowerment. Many believe that dashcam/bodycam footage is often manipulated and altered to produce a particular narrative that aligns with law enforcement. Therefore, civilian documentation or recording potential misconduct can deter officers from brutalizing others. This visibility forms somewhat of a protective shield and civilian surveillance can be seen as a form of resistance and retaliation. Government surveillance, however, is often motivated by national security concerns, crime prevention, and an effort to maintain “law and order.” | >
> | Addiction by Design | | | | |
<
< | Surveillance comes at a cost though as it contributes to a culture of invasive monitoring that infringes individual rights, affects decision-making, and threatens privacy. (Tonghan Zhang et al., A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks, arXiv:2212.) For civilians, overuse of surveillance causes individuals to censor their speech and lose autonomy, principles that are foundational to the United States’ “democracy.” (Christopher Slobogin & Sarah Brayne, Surveillance Technologies and Constitutional Law, 6 Ann. Rev. Criminol. 219 (2023)) Rather than provide civilians with a sense of security, the increased surveillance fuels folks’ mistrust of law enforcement, Alternatively, for law enforcement, constant surveillance can make officers hesitant to act during critical moments, which compromises their ability to make proper judgment calls and perform their duties (Randy K. Lippert & Bryce Clayton Newell, Debate Introduction: The Privacy and Surveillance Implications of Police Body Cameras, Vol.14 No.1 (2016)). Retaliative surveillance makes officers fearful of public backlash for any action they take, even those made in good faith. Therefore, it risks exacerbating police inaction, since some officers may prioritize themselves and their well-being over community engagement and public safety. These dynamics have bred a very tense relationship between officers and the civilians they’re expected to “protect.” As a result, community trust has been lost and the potential for a collaborative relationship has nearly diminished. | >
> | Many tech platforms are designed to be addictive, using features like endless scrolling, personalized recommendations, and constant notifications to maximize engagement. Such strategies lead individuals to engage more reactively and less consciously in response to behavioral nudges aimed at profit maximization rather than users’ well-being. Algorithms take advantage of psychologically exploitative tactics such as instant gratification and social validation. The addictive nature of these platforms limits users’ capacity for independent decision-making, further undermining personal autonomy. | | | | |
<
< | Solutions & Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | There needs to be a balance between accountability and privacy. While excessive surveillance may be some form of deterrence, its misuse feeds the public’s mistrust of law enforcement. To address retaliatory surveillance, policies should govern police officers’ use of body cameras so that it is transparent, respects the privacy rights of officers, and prevents manipulation or alteration when wrongdoing arises. For civilians, governments should explore alternative ways to maintain national security and prevent crime without infringing on citizens’ inherent rights. To improve the relationship between law enforcement and civilians, states should explore community outreach programs and opportunities that aid an understanding between law enforcement and the public with a shared goal of safety. Ultimately, surveillance is a powerful tool that often contributes to an invasion of privacy and manipulation, so it’s paramount that we seek out balanced solutions that limit it and protect privacy and prioritize trust. | >
> | Surveillance Capitalism and Privacy
Privacy forms an integral part of personal autonomy, allowing individuals to develop their identity and make decisions free from external pressure. Surveillance capitalism, however, systematically invades this private space, turning personal information into a commodity. Behaviors, preferences, and even facial expressions are harvested for profit, leaving individuals less control over their private lives. The resulting power asymmetry grants corporations disproportionate influence over how personal data is monitored and profited from. The knowledge that one's actions are being constantly monitored can lead to self-censorship and restricted freedom. Individuals may modify their behavior out of fear of judgment, scrutiny, or repercussions, even when their actions are legal or benign. By blurring the distinction between public and private life, surveillance capitalism limits the range of choices individuals feel free to make, thereby constraining thought and expression.
A Way Forward
Addressing the harms of surveillance capitalism requires stronger data protection laws. Existing regulations, such as the GDPR in the European Union, provide a framework for protecting individual data rights, but more needs to be done globally. Companies must provide clear, concise, and accessible explanations of data collection practices. Users should have the right to data privacy without losing access to essential digital services; they should also have greater ownership over their data, including the right to access, edit, delete, and transfer it. Affording users greater control over their data is a critical step in restoring digital autonomy.
Access to social, professional, and even governmental services frequently requires engagement with technologies that collect and monetize personal data. Although it may seem that access to digital life must come at the expense of personal freedom and that opting out of social media and similar platforms increasingly means social exclusion—as modern life and work are entwined with these technologies—this need not be the case. In many ways, these platforms harm our well-being by creating addiction and overwhelming us with trivial and often manipulative information.
Moreover, not all technology is designed to erode privacy and autonomy. Free and open-source software, for instance, provides transparency by allowing users and developers to examine their underlying code, thereby ensuring data privacy. Encrypted messaging platforms, such as Signal, secure users' private communications from third parties, including the platforms themselves. By prioritizing user control and privacy over corporate interests, these technologies offer society a pathway to resist the encroachments of surveillance capitalism.
The algorithms used by tech companies to predict and influence behavior are often black boxes—opaque and unaccountable systems that shape our choices with limited transparency. Greater transparency and accountability are needed to protect autonomy. Algorithms should be redesigned to minimize their impact on users' autonomy, even if this reduces engagement.
Conclusion
Surveillance capitalism poses a profound threat to personal autonomy by commodifying everyday actions, manipulating behavior, and eroding privacy. While stronger regulations are necessary, they will be insufficient without collective political and social will. A grassroots, bottom-up movement—demanding respect for personal autonomy from corporations and policymakers alike—is necessary to effectively combat surveillance capitalism. | | | Sources: | |
<
< | Christopher Slobogin & Sarah Brayne, Surveillance Technologies and Constitutional Law, 6 Ann. Rev. Criminol. 219 (2023)
Dan Barry, Video Evidence, and a Question of Race, The New York Times (Aug. 19, 2017)
Randy K. Lippert & Bryce Clayton Newell, Debate Introduction: The Privacy and Surveillance Implications of Police Body Cameras, Vol.14 No.1 (2016)
Sam Levins, Police Use of Force Data Reveals Violent Trends, Analysis Finds, The Guardian (Aug. 28, 2024)
Tonghan Zhang et al., A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks, arXiv:2212. | >
> | Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs? (2020) |
|
|
TWikiGuestSecondEssay 7 - 01 Jan 2025 - Main.CliftonMartin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Equality in the Algorithmic Age: Adapting Anti-Discrimination Law to Machine Learning Systems | >
> |
Surveillance v. Surveillance: Civilians' Tit-for-Tat and Its Problems
| | | | |
<
< | As machine learning models quietly arbitrate who receives a job offer, qualifies for a mortgage, or is targeted by certain educational interventions, the tools that shape social opportunity now rest less in human hands and more in the subtle calculus of predictive analytics. Whereas discriminatory intent once stood at the heart of legal inquiries, the gravest threats to equality today may arise without any deliberate animus at all. Instead, systemic biases embedded in historical data and opaque design choices can yield outcomes that disproportionately harm protected groups. This phenomenon of algorithmic discrimination demands a reckoning with current legal frameworks. While commentators often lament the law’s apparent lag behind technology, an underutilized doctrinal approach—disparate impact liability—offers a promising and, perhaps surprisingly, well-aligned conceptual resource. To address algorithmic discrimination fully, we must move beyond viewing disparate impact as a static mechanism transplanted wholesale from mid-twentieth-century contexts. Instead, we should reconceptualize it as a flexible doctrinal tool capable of engaging complex evidentiary challenges, shifting evidentiary burdens, and rewarding innovative compliance strategies. | >
> | Introduction | | | | |
<
< | Re-Theorizing Disparate Impact in the Algorithmic Context | >
> | Police brutality has historically been a social issue for the United States and is one of the most controversial, polarizing, and contentious American issues. This is largely due to the widespread emergence of news and media footage that depicts police officers shooting and killing unarmed people of color. Civilians increasingly use their smartphones to record interactions with law enforcement to surveil officers and combat police misconduct against the most vulnerable. Contrarily, the government is often criticized for overexercising its ability to surveil citizens, which has raised concerns about privacy and misuse of power. Therefore, the practice of civilians surveilling law enforcement is perceived as both a safety measure and a check on government overreach and power. | | | | |
<
< | Rooted in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and extended by cases like Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., the disparate impact doctrine reframes discrimination as a structural phenomenon rather than a product of individual ill will. This shift is crucial in the algorithmic setting, where machine learning models may incorporate statistical patterns that correlate protected traits with adverse outcomes. Although these patterns may have no intentional origin, their persistence can be as pernicious as traditional prejudice. By looking directly at outcomes—and placing the burden on deployers of algorithms to justify results that fall disproportionately on certain groups—disparate impact doctrine resonates naturally with the complexity of digital decision-making. | >
> | Surveillance itself, however, has several unintended consequences and threatens privacy. While retaliatory civilian surveillance is meant to enhance safety, it only contributes to a broader culture of mistrust and overuse of surveillance. The best solution to address this challenge is to limit both excessive police and retaliatory civilian surveillance. Proper boundaries must be set where surveillance is not seen as the solution, because without boundaries, these practices risk perpetuating a vicious cycle of invasive oversight that compromises privacy and the very safety that they intend to promote. | | | | |
<
< | Yet simply importing older frameworks into the digital arena is insufficient. Courts and regulators should embrace the doctrine’s latent adaptability. Traditionally, disparate impact claims involve policies—tests, criteria, or eligibility thresholds—that are identifiable and discrete. Algorithms, by contrast, operate as dynamic, evolving systems, updating themselves through iterative learning processes. This volatility challenges traditional legal conceptions of a stable “practice” subject to scrutiny. A more innovative approach to disparate impact can treat algorithmic models as ongoing decision-regimes, requiring regulated entities to periodically audit their models, examine changes in their predictions, and demonstrate ongoing compliance. Rather than a one-time challenge to a static policy, algorithmic disparate impact enforcement should be envisioned as a continuing obligation to monitor and adjust. | >
> | The Rise of Civilian Surveillance | | | | |
<
< | Overcoming Data Complexity and Transparency Challenges
One might argue that machine learning models, with their opaque architectures and proprietary features, present insurmountable evidentiary barriers. Yet courts have long managed complexity and confidentiality through carefully calibrated procedural devices. In credit scoring and standardized testing litigation, for instance, courts have subjected intricate predictive tools to scrutiny under protective orders and through neutral experts. The lessons learned there apply here. Rather than seeing these novel systems as black boxes permanently sealed against judicial inquiry, courts can require algorithmic transparency compatible with trade secret protection, using in camera reviews, differential disclosure regimes, or the appointment of court-supervised data scientists. | >
> | Smartphones provide ordinary citizens with the power to be vigilantes who are capable of documenting instances of police brutality and misconduct in real time. In the last decade, this has becoming increasingly popular with viral videos, such as the killings of Eric Garner in 2014 and George Floyd in 2020, which led to public outrage and demands for accountability by law enforcement. For example, a New York Times article entitled “Black Lives Upended by Policing: The Raw Videos Sparking Outrage” provides readers with 34 cellphone and dashboard camera videos that display police brutality. One of the videos features cellphone footage of yet another unarmed black man, Alton Sterling, being tackled, held to the ground, and eventually shot by two white officers. Excessive force is a growing problem as police in the United States are said to use force against 300,000 people each year, according to a report by The Guardian. Ultimately, as more and more individuals feel defenseless in their encounters with police, civilian surveillance provides folks with a sense of empowerment. With retaliative surveillance and the ability to capture and share evidence of brutality, individuals can challenge official narratives, garner public support, and fight for justice. | | | | |
<
< | Critically, these procedural innovations can leverage the “business necessity” or “legitimate justification” prong of disparate impact analysis to incentivize greater algorithmic explainability and debiasing efforts. For example, if a company cannot articulate how its algorithm’s predictive features relate to job performance or creditworthiness—and fails to propose effective debiasing strategies—courts could treat that opacity as evidence that the practice is not justified. Over time, the specter of liability would encourage developers to adopt recognized fairness metrics, perform pre-deployment bias testing, and invest in “explainable AI” techniques. In short, the legal system need not passively accept black-box complexity; it can harness liability rules to foster more interpretable and equitable forms of algorithmic design. | >
> | Social media platforms, such as Instagram and X, add to the impact of these videos as isolated incidents can transform into broader conversations and national controversies. For example, on X, hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter and #NoJusticeNoPeace have become a battle cry for movements seeking systemic change. According to a PBS NewsHour? Report, the instancy and convenience of social media allows users to share raw, emotionally charged content, which helps to foster solidarity and drive action amongst its viewers. | | | | |
<
< | Regulatory Innovation and Cross-Border Models
While courts can adapt disparate impact doctrine to algorithmic contexts, legislative and regulatory guidance is equally important. Precisely because machine learning systems may change continuously and operate across multiple jurisdictions, a static, litigation-driven approach alone might prove insufficient. Regulatory agencies—such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—could issue guidelines defining acceptable levels of predictive disparity, provide safe harbors for companies that adopt best-in-class debiasing techniques, and facilitate periodic third-party audits. These administrative interventions can shift the focus from post-hoc liability to proactive compliance, encouraging companies to identify and mitigate risk ex ante. | >
> | The Comfort and Consequences of Surveillance | | | | |
<
< | International comparisons enrich this vision. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and related proposals on artificial intelligence underscore the importance of transparency, algorithmic accountability, and enforceable rights to explanation. While U.S. law has not historically mandated a “right to explanation,” disparate impact litigation—backed by tailored regulations—could de facto produce a similar effect, compelling defendants to justify and, if needed, revise their models. This approach aligns equality law with a broader transnational conversation on algorithmic governance, turning what might seem like insular domestic litigation into part of a global effort to ensure that emerging technologies do not eclipse longstanding commitments to human dignity and equal opportunity. | >
> | Civilian and government surveillance can enhance safety and offer accountability, but it also poses risks of overreach and can lead to unintended consequences. Surveillance’s primary intent, to deter misconduct and offer safety, backfires when it is perceived as an intrusive weapon that threatens privacy rather than offers accountability. Filming police interactions provides folks with a sense of security and empowerment. Many believe that dashcam/bodycam footage is often manipulated and altered to produce a particular narrative that aligns with law enforcement. Therefore, civilian documentation or recording potential misconduct can deter officers from brutalizing others. This visibility forms somewhat of a protective shield and civilian surveillance can be seen as a form of resistance and retaliation. Government surveillance, however, is often motivated by national security concerns, crime prevention, and an effort to maintain “law and order.” | | | | |
<
< | Conclusion | >
> | Surveillance comes at a cost though as it contributes to a culture of invasive monitoring that infringes individual rights, affects decision-making, and threatens privacy. (Tonghan Zhang et al., A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks, arXiv:2212.) For civilians, overuse of surveillance causes individuals to censor their speech and lose autonomy, principles that are foundational to the United States’ “democracy.” (Christopher Slobogin & Sarah Brayne, Surveillance Technologies and Constitutional Law, 6 Ann. Rev. Criminol. 219 (2023)) Rather than provide civilians with a sense of security, the increased surveillance fuels folks’ mistrust of law enforcement, Alternatively, for law enforcement, constant surveillance can make officers hesitant to act during critical moments, which compromises their ability to make proper judgment calls and perform their duties (Randy K. Lippert & Bryce Clayton Newell, Debate Introduction: The Privacy and Surveillance Implications of Police Body Cameras, Vol.14 No.1 (2016)). Retaliative surveillance makes officers fearful of public backlash for any action they take, even those made in good faith. Therefore, it risks exacerbating police inaction, since some officers may prioritize themselves and their well-being over community engagement and public safety. These dynamics have bred a very tense relationship between officers and the civilians they’re expected to “protect.” As a result, community trust has been lost and the potential for a collaborative relationship has nearly diminished. | | | | |
<
< | Disparate impact was never just about intentional bias; it recognizes that structural inequalities persist even when overt prejudice fades. This is newly urgent in an era of algorithmic decision-making, where discrimination emerges not from open hostility but from subtle data patterns and opaque modeling choices. We should reconceptualize disparate impact doctrine for the digital age, using it to spur technical innovation, procedural creativity, and sustained accountability. By insisting on substantive justifications and encouraging equitable design, this updated approach ensures algorithms remain aligned with core fairness principles. Thus, it reaffirms the promise of American anti-discrimination law: that equality cannot be sacrificed for convenience or buried under complexity. In a world increasingly guided by machine learning, a reimagined disparate impact doctrine can safeguard the quest for a more just and inclusive society. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Solutions & Conclusion
There needs to be a balance between accountability and privacy. While excessive surveillance may be some form of deterrence, its misuse feeds the public’s mistrust of law enforcement. To address retaliatory surveillance, policies should govern police officers’ use of body cameras so that it is transparent, respects the privacy rights of officers, and prevents manipulation or alteration when wrongdoing arises. For civilians, governments should explore alternative ways to maintain national security and prevent crime without infringing on citizens’ inherent rights. To improve the relationship between law enforcement and civilians, states should explore community outreach programs and opportunities that aid an understanding between law enforcement and the public with a shared goal of safety. Ultimately, surveillance is a powerful tool that often contributes to an invasion of privacy and manipulation, so it’s paramount that we seek out balanced solutions that limit it and protect privacy and prioritize trust.
Sources:
Christopher Slobogin & Sarah Brayne, Surveillance Technologies and Constitutional Law, 6 Ann. Rev. Criminol. 219 (2023)
Dan Barry, Video Evidence, and a Question of Race, The New York Times (Aug. 19, 2017)
Randy K. Lippert & Bryce Clayton Newell, Debate Introduction: The Privacy and Surveillance Implications of Police Body Cameras, Vol.14 No.1 (2016)
Sam Levins, Police Use of Force Data Reveals Violent Trends, Analysis Finds, The Guardian (Aug. 28, 2024)
Tonghan Zhang et al., A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks, arXiv:2212. |
|
|
TWikiGuestSecondEssay 6 - 15 Dec 2024 - Main.AnthonyBui
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Copyright Protection but Without Punishing the Poor | >
> | Equality in the Algorithmic Age: Adapting Anti-Discrimination Law to Machine Learning Systems | | | | |
<
< | The Current Copyright System | >
> | As machine learning models quietly arbitrate who receives a job offer, qualifies for a mortgage, or is targeted by certain educational interventions, the tools that shape social opportunity now rest less in human hands and more in the subtle calculus of predictive analytics. Whereas discriminatory intent once stood at the heart of legal inquiries, the gravest threats to equality today may arise without any deliberate animus at all. Instead, systemic biases embedded in historical data and opaque design choices can yield outcomes that disproportionately harm protected groups. This phenomenon of algorithmic discrimination demands a reckoning with current legal frameworks. While commentators often lament the law’s apparent lag behind technology, an underutilized doctrinal approach—disparate impact liability—offers a promising and, perhaps surprisingly, well-aligned conceptual resource. To address algorithmic discrimination fully, we must move beyond viewing disparate impact as a static mechanism transplanted wholesale from mid-twentieth-century contexts. Instead, we should reconceptualize it as a flexible doctrinal tool capable of engaging complex evidentiary challenges, shifting evidentiary burdens, and rewarding innovative compliance strategies. | | | | |
<
< | "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." [1] This is the purpose of the United States copyright system. Spanning for life plus 70 years after, creators are granted an exclusive monopoly to their works to further this purpose. Through a monopoly grant, the copyright system essentially makes a bargain; legally enforceable exclusion in exchange for allowing the public to consume one's creative work. This idea may seem counterintuitive, as discretionary exclusion is seemingly at odds with public access. To truly understand how this bargain works, we need to parse out what exactly is being excluded. | >
> | Re-Theorizing Disparate Impact in the Algorithmic Context | | | | |
<
< | 17 U.S. Code § 106 states that the owner of a copyright has the exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare derivates, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display their work. [2] Understood broadly, these rights amount to the exclusivity of certain kinds of uses, and these uses were likely targeted because of their monetary potential. Reproduction and distribution are fundamental to commerce. By being able to reproduce a work and then distribute it to others, a person can participate in the marketplace, selling the work many times over. Derivatives, although not quite the same as the original, use just enough of the original's likeness and character to profit from the original's profitability. The statute's inclusion of the word "publicly" in relation to performance and display could be attributed to Congress' understanding that publicly displaying or performing, a musical score for example, could reasonably lead to, if not already predicated on the condition of, the performers being paid. | >
> | Rooted in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and extended by cases like Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., the disparate impact doctrine reframes discrimination as a structural phenomenon rather than a product of individual ill will. This shift is crucial in the algorithmic setting, where machine learning models may incorporate statistical patterns that correlate protected traits with adverse outcomes. Although these patterns may have no intentional origin, their persistence can be as pernicious as traditional prejudice. By looking directly at outcomes—and placing the burden on deployers of algorithms to justify results that fall disproportionately on certain groups—disparate impact doctrine resonates naturally with the complexity of digital decision-making. | | | | |
<
< | Although financial control is an important part of copyright exclusion, attribution is another key element. Creators may understandably feel entitled to having their name associated with their work. After all, creators dedicate time and energy into producing their creative works. The exclusive rights of § 106 are meant to safeguard this association between creators and their works by baring others from uses that are specially reserved for the owner of the copyright. Conversely, creators may not want their work to be associated with certain ideas or concepts. Thus, § 106 forces a person to get a license or the owner's permission, if they want to engage in these kinds of uses. | >
> | Yet simply importing older frameworks into the digital arena is insufficient. Courts and regulators should embrace the doctrine’s latent adaptability. Traditionally, disparate impact claims involve policies—tests, criteria, or eligibility thresholds—that are identifiable and discrete. Algorithms, by contrast, operate as dynamic, evolving systems, updating themselves through iterative learning processes. This volatility challenges traditional legal conceptions of a stable “practice” subject to scrutiny. A more innovative approach to disparate impact can treat algorithmic models as ongoing decision-regimes, requiring regulated entities to periodically audit their models, examine changes in their predictions, and demonstrate ongoing compliance. Rather than a one-time challenge to a static policy, algorithmic disparate impact enforcement should be envisioned as a continuing obligation to monitor and adjust. | | | | |
<
< | Problems in the Current Copyright System | >
> | Overcoming Data Complexity and Transparency Challenges
One might argue that machine learning models, with their opaque architectures and proprietary features, present insurmountable evidentiary barriers. Yet courts have long managed complexity and confidentiality through carefully calibrated procedural devices. In credit scoring and standardized testing litigation, for instance, courts have subjected intricate predictive tools to scrutiny under protective orders and through neutral experts. The lessons learned there apply here. Rather than seeing these novel systems as black boxes permanently sealed against judicial inquiry, courts can require algorithmic transparency compatible with trade secret protection, using in camera reviews, differential disclosure regimes, or the appointment of court-supervised data scientists. | | | | |
<
< | The current system is off balance, with the bargain between exclusion and public access disproportionately favoring those who benefit from the former. If we accept that the exclusion rights of § 106 are meant to reserve a creative work's financial profitability for the copyright owner, then we must acknowledge that it achieves this goal by putting a paywall behind any meaningful use. Low budget creators who find inspiration in the creative works of others and low-income individuals who just want to indulge in the beauty of another person's creative genius are hurt by this paywall. By tightly gatekeeping a work's profitability, the current system punishes those who do not have enough money to enjoy what is at the heart of a creative work's creativity. | >
> | Critically, these procedural innovations can leverage the “business necessity” or “legitimate justification” prong of disparate impact analysis to incentivize greater algorithmic explainability and debiasing efforts. For example, if a company cannot articulate how its algorithm’s predictive features relate to job performance or creditworthiness—and fails to propose effective debiasing strategies—courts could treat that opacity as evidence that the practice is not justified. Over time, the specter of liability would encourage developers to adopt recognized fairness metrics, perform pre-deployment bias testing, and invest in “explainable AI” techniques. In short, the legal system need not passively accept black-box complexity; it can harness liability rules to foster more interpretable and equitable forms of algorithmic design. | | | | |
<
< | Reimagining 17 U.S. Code § 106 | >
> | Regulatory Innovation and Cross-Border Models
While courts can adapt disparate impact doctrine to algorithmic contexts, legislative and regulatory guidance is equally important. Precisely because machine learning systems may change continuously and operate across multiple jurisdictions, a static, litigation-driven approach alone might prove insufficient. Regulatory agencies—such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—could issue guidelines defining acceptable levels of predictive disparity, provide safe harbors for companies that adopt best-in-class debiasing techniques, and facilitate periodic third-party audits. These administrative interventions can shift the focus from post-hoc liability to proactive compliance, encouraging companies to identify and mitigate risk ex ante. | | | | |
<
< | We need a new system that can protect the rights of creators without coming at the expense of people who cannot afford to spend money on a license for meaningful access to their creative works. A more equitable and balanced version of the copyright system would do away with § 106, and in its place provide that owners of a copyright have receive the following: (1) Right to Attribution, (2) Right to Integrity, and (3) Right to Commercial Compensation. | >
> | International comparisons enrich this vision. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and related proposals on artificial intelligence underscore the importance of transparency, algorithmic accountability, and enforceable rights to explanation. While U.S. law has not historically mandated a “right to explanation,” disparate impact litigation—backed by tailored regulations—could de facto produce a similar effect, compelling defendants to justify and, if needed, revise their models. This approach aligns equality law with a broader transnational conversation on algorithmic governance, turning what might seem like insular domestic litigation into part of a global effort to ensure that emerging technologies do not eclipse longstanding commitments to human dignity and equal opportunity. | | | | |
<
< | The Right to Attribution and the Right to Integrity | >
> | Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | In the current system, attribution rights are one category of rights within the broader set of Moral Rights. Attribution rights secure a creator's right to be identified as the author of the work. It also protects against misattribution. The Right of Integrity, the other category, provides a creator with the right to protect their reputation or protect against any mutilation of their work. These two categories of Moral Rights match up perfectly with what I envision for The Right to Attribution and the Right to Integrity, respectfully. However, Moral Rights apply exclusively to works of visual arts. [3] All other forms of creative works must fabricate the right to attribution and the right to integrity through the exclusion rights of § 106. These creators are left to hope that others will recognize that they are the rightful author of a work given that they have § 106 rights. By gutting the current provisions of this section and expanding Moral Rights to include all types of copyrightable subject matter, we can properly account for the attribution and integrity rights. [4]
Right to Commercial Compensation
As I stated before, financial control is an important part of copyright exclusions, as all the § 106 uses have great potential for profitability. Gutting these rights would allow people to profit from another person's creative efforts. Attribution is simply not enough to incentivize creators to share their works with the public. Many want to protect their financial compensation as well.
Unlike the Right to Attribution and the Right to Integrity, we can find little inspiration from the United States' copyright statute to help us define the Right to Commercial Compensation. Instead, we can look to Creative Commons, which offer a range of free licenses that grant the public permission to use a person's creative work. [5] Creative Commons offers a path for the low budget creator and down-on-his-luck Dan to access creative content for free. A revised § 106 would include these licenses as default options for creators to pick from, but still allowing parties to create their own licenses. My proposed Right to Commercial Compensation would act as a silent provision and entail the following: When at any point commercial use of a copyrighted work leads to great or moderate profitability, the creator receives at least 1% of the profits from that year forward and every year thereafter or until the use stops generating great or moderate profits. Great or moderate profitability will vary based on copyrights subject matter and with economic variances across regions and time. Only commercial entities that have not already worked out a properly compensating license deal with creators will be subject to the Right to Commercial Compensation. This new provision should ensure that creators are fairly compensated for their works by large commercial entities that the original § 106 should have focused on targeting, while the default licenses protect the creative interests of those with little money to spare.
Footnotes
[1] U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, C8.
[2] 17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
[3] 17 U.S.C. Section 106(a)
[4] Per 17 U.S. Code § 102, the types of works that can receive copyright protection include the following categories: literary works; musical works; dramatic works; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphics, and sculptural works (PGS); motion pictures and other audiovisual works, sound recordings; and architectural works.
[5] Creative Commons is an international nonprofit organization that empowers people to grow and sustain the thriving commons of shared knowledge and culture we need to address the world's most pressing challenges and create a brighter future for all. https://creativecommons.org/ | >
> | Disparate impact was never just about intentional bias; it recognizes that structural inequalities persist even when overt prejudice fades. This is newly urgent in an era of algorithmic decision-making, where discrimination emerges not from open hostility but from subtle data patterns and opaque modeling choices. We should reconceptualize disparate impact doctrine for the digital age, using it to spur technical innovation, procedural creativity, and sustained accountability. By insisting on substantive justifications and encouraging equitable design, this updated approach ensures algorithms remain aligned with core fairness principles. Thus, it reaffirms the promise of American anti-discrimination law: that equality cannot be sacrificed for convenience or buried under complexity. In a world increasingly guided by machine learning, a reimagined disparate impact doctrine can safeguard the quest for a more just and inclusive society. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
TWikiGuestSecondEssay 5 - 15 Dec 2024 - Main.EzinneIwuanyanwu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
>
> | Copyright Protection but Without Punishing the Poor | | | | |
<
< | Chess as Esport: An Inevitable Decline | >
> | The Current Copyright System | | | | |
<
< | Chess has long been described as a marriage between art and science – a pursuit that rewards calculation and logic, but one that also expresses the personalities of its practitioners. For centuries, chess has remained largely unchanged and its appeal has endured. Chess greatness, throughout cultures and eras, has almost invariably been connected with the idea of genius. More than this, the game has occupied a prominent place in shaping culture around the world, arguably reaching its pinnacle in 1972 when Bobby Fisher and Boris Spassky represented the USA and the Soviet Union, respectively, in the World Chess Championship. The champion would earn their respective superpower the reputation as the other’s intellectual superior. | >
> | "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." [1] This is the purpose of the United States copyright system. Spanning for life plus 70 years after, creators are granted an exclusive monopoly to their works to further this purpose. Through a monopoly grant, the copyright system essentially makes a bargain; legally enforceable exclusion in exchange for allowing the public to consume one's creative work. This idea may seem counterintuitive, as discretionary exclusion is seemingly at odds with public access. To truly understand how this bargain works, we need to parse out what exactly is being excluded. | | | | |
<
< | In recent years, however, the marketing of chess to the world has undergone a dramatic transformation – from being presented as a timeless game associated with classicality and intellect into a modern esport. While this modernization has brought new energy and enthusiasm to the game and has expanded its player pool and audience, I argue that this sudden and fundamental change in the way chess is communicated and shared will have negative effects on its long-term survival in the mainstream, if it is not tempered at least in part. | >
> | 17 U.S. Code § 106 states that the owner of a copyright has the exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare derivates, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display their work. [2] Understood broadly, these rights amount to the exclusivity of certain kinds of uses, and these uses were likely targeted because of their monetary potential. Reproduction and distribution are fundamental to commerce. By being able to reproduce a work and then distribute it to others, a person can participate in the marketplace, selling the work many times over. Derivatives, although not quite the same as the original, use just enough of the original's likeness and character to profit from the original's profitability. The statute's inclusion of the word "publicly" in relation to performance and display could be attributed to Congress' understanding that publicly displaying or performing, a musical score for example, could reasonably lead to, if not already predicated on the condition of, the performers being paid. | | | | |
<
< | Chess’s transformation to esport has three main features that I think will be most negative for its longevity. These are faster time controls, instant analysis provided by chess engines, and the trend toward both professional and casual chess being played on monitors rather than across the board from an opponent. | >
> | Although financial control is an important part of copyright exclusion, attribution is another key element. Creators may understandably feel entitled to having their name associated with their work. After all, creators dedicate time and energy into producing their creative works. The exclusive rights of § 106 are meant to safeguard this association between creators and their works by baring others from uses that are specially reserved for the owner of the copyright. Conversely, creators may not want their work to be associated with certain ideas or concepts. Thus, § 106 forces a person to get a license or the owner's permission, if they want to engage in these kinds of uses. | | | | |
<
< | Faster Time Controls | >
> | Problems in the Current Copyright System | | | | |
<
< | For most of chess’s history, master-level games have been played at very slow time controls. There is also a rich history of recording chess games using chess notation. It is because of this combination of both deep thought and meticulous recording that each successive generation of chess players and fans have been able to stand on the shoulders of their predecessors. | >
> | The current system is off balance, with the bargain between exclusion and public access disproportionately favoring those who benefit from the former. If we accept that the exclusion rights of § 106 are meant to reserve a creative work's financial profitability for the copyright owner, then we must acknowledge that it achieves this goal by putting a paywall behind any meaningful use. Low budget creators who find inspiration in the creative works of others and low-income individuals who just want to indulge in the beauty of another person's creative genius are hurt by this paywall. By tightly gatekeeping a work's profitability, the current system punishes those who do not have enough money to enjoy what is at the heart of a creative work's creativity. | | | | |
<
< | Fast forwarding to today, games are still recorded, but faster time controls have become the norm, on both the professional circuit and in casual chess. I believe the reason for this is the shorter attention span of audiences that have so much more competition for their attention than did generations past. But causation aside, chess will suffer both in substance and in its appreciation by fans in the long-term if this is not addressed. Shorter games produce fewer creative or novel ideas. All chess fans know the creative genius that is Mikhail Tal, the dynamic aggression that is Garry Kasparov, and the boa constrictor that is Anatoly Karpov, but far fewer fans now can associate even the most well-known players of today with any particular style. Could this be because the modern game has favored a more universal approach? It is possible, but I find it unlikely to be the main reason for this. | >
> | Reimagining 17 U.S. Code § 106 | | | | |
<
< | Instant Analysis | >
> | We need a new system that can protect the rights of creators without coming at the expense of people who cannot afford to spend money on a license for meaningful access to their creative works. A more equitable and balanced version of the copyright system would do away with § 106, and in its place provide that owners of a copyright have receive the following: (1) Right to Attribution, (2) Right to Integrity, and (3) Right to Commercial Compensation. | | | | |
<
< | One of the most profound changes in the chess world has been the rise of powerful chess engines. While undeniably useful for training and analysis, they have fundamentally altered how players and fans interact with the game. | >
> | The Right to Attribution and the Right to Integrity | | | | |
<
< | In the pre-engine era, analyzing a game was often a multi-person and thought-intensive exercise. Friends or club members would gather to dissect a master game, discussing possible alternatives and variations. This process deepened people’s understanding and appreciation for the game’s intricacies. Today, engines instantly deliver the “best move,” bypassing the need for critical thinking or debate. This shift risks turning chess into an exercise of passive consumption rather than an active exploration of human ingenuity. | >
> | In the current system, attribution rights are one category of rights within the broader set of Moral Rights. Attribution rights secure a creator's right to be identified as the author of the work. It also protects against misattribution. The Right of Integrity, the other category, provides a creator with the right to protect their reputation or protect against any mutilation of their work. These two categories of Moral Rights match up perfectly with what I envision for The Right to Attribution and the Right to Integrity, respectfully. However, Moral Rights apply exclusively to works of visual arts. [3] All other forms of creative works must fabricate the right to attribution and the right to integrity through the exclusion rights of § 106. These creators are left to hope that others will recognize that they are the rightful author of a work given that they have § 106 rights. By gutting the current provisions of this section and expanding Moral Rights to include all types of copyrightable subject matter, we can properly account for the attribution and integrity rights. [4] | | | | |
<
< | Less IRL Competition | >
> | Right to Commercial Compensation | | | | |
<
< | The last major problem with the new approach to modern chess is that most games are played online rather than over-the-board. There are even many professional tournaments conducted with players competing in the same room, but each in front of their monitor. I believe this removes the essential element of human interaction from the game. | >
> | As I stated before, financial control is an important part of copyright exclusions, as all the § 106 uses have great potential for profitability. Gutting these rights would allow people to profit from another person's creative efforts. Attribution is simply not enough to incentivize creators to share their works with the public. Many want to protect their financial compensation as well. | | | | |
<
< | This type of interaction with the game renders your opponents faceless and nameless, and takes away the feeling of sharing the game with your adversary. It also obviates the need for players to conduct a post-game analysis together, which has long been a great tradition of the game. While, of course, it wouldn’t make sense to recede from the era of online chess, which has provided people with the ability to play many more games than ever before. But at the very least, tournaments of any significance should be held in person and over-the-board. | >
> | Unlike the Right to Attribution and the Right to Integrity, we can find little inspiration from the United States' copyright statute to help us define the Right to Commercial Compensation. Instead, we can look to Creative Commons, which offer a range of free licenses that grant the public permission to use a person's creative work. [5] Creative Commons offers a path for the low budget creator and down-on-his-luck Dan to access creative content for free. A revised § 106 would include these licenses as default options for creators to pick from, but still allowing parties to create their own licenses. My proposed Right to Commercial Compensation would act as a silent provision and entail the following: When at any point commercial use of a copyrighted work leads to great or moderate profitability, the creator receives at least 1% of the profits from that year forward and every year thereafter or until the use stops generating great or moderate profits. Great or moderate profitability will vary based on copyrights subject matter and with economic variances across regions and time. Only commercial entities that have not already worked out a properly compensating license deal with creators will be subject to the Right to Commercial Compensation. This new provision should ensure that creators are fairly compensated for their works by large commercial entities that the original § 106 should have focused on targeting, while the default licenses protect the creative interests of those with little money to spare. | | | | |
<
< | But There Are Benefits . . . | | | | |
<
< | The transformation of chess into an esport is not inherently negative. In fact, it has revitalized the game, introducing it to new audiences and ensuring its relevance in a fast-changing world. However, it is crucial to strike a balance between embracing modernity and preserving the essence of what makes chess special. | >
> | Footnotes
[1] U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, C8. | | | | |
<
< | The modernization of chess has undeniably broadened its appeal. Platforms like Twitch and YouTube? have turned chess into a spectator sport, attracting audiences who might never have otherwise engaged with the game. Moreover, this new approach aligns with modern consumption habits. Traditional chess broadcasting – long games with minimal commentary – would struggle to captivate a modern audience, whereas chess streams are lively, interactive, and often feature shorter, fast-paced formats like blitz and bullet chess. | >
> | [2] 17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works | | | | |
<
< | Lastly, this shift has shattered traditional barriers. Today, fans can watch Carlsen or Nakamura play live, listen to their thought processes, and even interact with them in chat or through play. This unprecedented access has fostered a sense of community and connection that was unimaginable in previous eras. | >
> | [3] 17 U.S.C. Section 106(a) | | | | |
<
< | Final Thoughts | >
> | [4] Per 17 U.S. Code § 102, the types of works that can receive copyright protection include the following categories: literary works; musical works; dramatic works; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphics, and sculptural works (PGS); motion pictures and other audiovisual works, sound recordings; and architectural works. | | | | |
<
< | The appreciation of deep, complex positions with enough time to examine them, less computer-led analysis, and more in-person competition must remain central to the chess experience. This can be achieved by favoring slower time controls for tournaments with prizes and rating points, turning off the engine during commentary and training, and mandating over-the-board chess in tournaments. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | [5] Creative Commons is an international nonprofit organization that empowers people to grow and sustain the thriving commons of shared knowledge and culture we need to address the world's most pressing challenges and create a brighter future for all. https://creativecommons.org/ |
|
|
TWikiGuestSecondEssay 4 - 04 Dec 2024 - Main.BenMingov
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | *The Evolution of Surveillance in Travel: From Paper Trails to Digital Footprints
*
Several years ago, during a family trip to Asia, I encountered an unfamiliar technological advancement at the airport: facial recognition machines. At the time, this innovation was largely absent in Europe. As a teenager, I instinctively resisted such an act of submission which I thought of at the time as a violation of my privacy. My initial reaction was ultimately trumped by the impatience of my parents and the intimidating authority that the board control officer exerted on me. Reflecting on this experience today, what once seemed unsettling and intrusive, has since become a standard feature of international travel and a norm that travellers have accepted at face value raising important questions about privacy considerations. This paper seeks to examine the role of surveillance in travel with a particular focus on the legal and ethical dimensions of privacy as well as a possible solution to address surveillance concerns. | | | | |
<
< | The History of Travel Surveillance | >
> | Chess as Esport: An Inevitable Decline | | | | |
<
< | The inception of the passport dates back to the 15th century under the reign of King Henry V of England which was designed to grant his subjects passage in and out of foreign land for the purpose of their negotiations, with the concept of a standardized global passport system emerging centuries later in the aftermath of World War I to facilitate controlled international travel. Over the years, new security measures have been introduced including but not limited to border control customs via physical checkpoints, passenger name record systems (with onward sharing with government authorities) and more thorough passenger background checks (via Advanced Passenger Information System). During the Cold War, political tensions resulted in heightened monitoring with the use of visas and stamps as tools of tracking movement. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks there was a security paradigm shift which resulted in the development of databases used by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and biometrics in airports. Transitioning to the 21st century, the world saw the introduction of e-passports, facial recognition and AI driven border checks. Strict surveillance measures were also introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic which included health declarations, contact tracing systems, thermal scanning and monitoring systems to identify symptomatic travellers and excessive data sharing facilitated by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). China introduced a QR-based health code system for domestic travel assigning colour codes to its citizens based on each individual citizen’s health risk. The COVID-19 pandemic culminated in a dystopian reality whereby most governments time and time again proved that they had no regard for their people’s fundamental right to privacy, freedom of choice and freedom of movement. This has led to a society where surveillance has become omnipresent and individual autonomy is systematically diminished shifting the balance of power irrevocably toward the authorities. | >
> | Chess has long been described as a marriage between art and science – a pursuit that rewards calculation and logic, but one that also expresses the personalities of its practitioners. For centuries, chess has remained largely unchanged and its appeal has endured. Chess greatness, throughout cultures and eras, has almost invariably been connected with the idea of genius. More than this, the game has occupied a prominent place in shaping culture around the world, arguably reaching its pinnacle in 1972 when Bobby Fisher and Boris Spassky represented the USA and the Soviet Union, respectively, in the World Chess Championship. The champion would earn their respective superpower the reputation as the other’s intellectual superior. | | | | |
<
< | Brief Overview of Legal Framework | >
> | In recent years, however, the marketing of chess to the world has undergone a dramatic transformation – from being presented as a timeless game associated with classicality and intellect into a modern esport. While this modernization has brought new energy and enthusiasm to the game and has expanded its player pool and audience, I argue that this sudden and fundamental change in the way chess is communicated and shared will have negative effects on its long-term survival in the mainstream, if it is not tempered at least in part. | | | | |
<
< | The US legal framework leans towards robust data collection for security purposes. More specifically, the Privacy Act of 1974 controls the collection, use and disclosure of personal data by federal agencies and the REAL ID Act 2005 outlines the security standards to be met to board a commercial flight in the United States. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which has also been enacted by other US states governs data protection in the travel industry. Agencies and airline carriers are obligated to disclose the categories of personal data they collect, the purpose of collection and whether such data is disseminated to third parties. Notwithstanding the disclosure and transparency requirements under the CCPA, there are exceptions to those legal obligations, including when the airlines are not obligated to seek express consent from the passengers to provide information to the government for security, customs or immigration purposes. In a similar manner, the EU has implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016 which sets out the legal landscape of data privacy in relation to the processing of any personal data of EU residents. While the GDPR imposes stricter rules on how traveller data is used through data minimisation processes, adequate safeguards in relation to sharing personal data with non-EU countries, who must offer at least the same or equivalent privacy protections, and a traveller’s right to delete the data or object to certain uses of such data. Nevertheless, air carriers and travel agents may still be required to share such personal information with governments for security or immigration purposes. | >
> | Chess’s transformation to esport has three main features that I think will be most negative for its longevity. These are faster time controls, instant analysis provided by chess engines, and the trend toward both professional and casual chess being played on monitors rather than across the board from an opponent. | | | | |
>
> | Faster Time Controls | | | | |
<
< | *New World
*
This discussion prompts the question as to whether the legal framework is adequate and my conclusion is in the negativity. While this paper does not purport to explore the significance of security and counterterrorism measures, which is indisputable, what it does propose is adopting a new lens through which the surveillance of travelling can be reduced rather than incrementally intensified in the years to come. While an outright relaxation of the privacy regulations and laws seems unachievable, this paper proposes to shift the attention to the airline carriers. The establishment of minimal surveillance air carriers which would only request the legally required minimum of personal information for passengers might seek to address this problem. Such airlines would opt out of TSA prechecks, would refrain from data sharing with third parties, facial recognition and would offer anonymous payment options and no WIFI monitoring during flights. Such privacy-friendly travel systems would at first glance seem costly, providing no incentive for any airline to adopt such measures but ultimately if enough people recognised the value of their freedom of choice, they could drive up demand for low-surveillance systems and that demand can in turn pressure the system to reform its regulatory framework to balance security with privacy. By adopting essential security measures while minimizing privacy intrusions we can metamorphose the system into a world where freedom of movement is a given and not a self-earned right that travellers must justify or defend at every ‘checkpoint’ of their life. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | For most of chess’s history, master-level games have been played at very slow time controls. There is also a rich history of recording chess games using chess notation. It is because of this combination of both deep thought and meticulous recording that each successive generation of chess players and fans have been able to stand on the shoulders of their predecessors.
Fast forwarding to today, games are still recorded, but faster time controls have become the norm, on both the professional circuit and in casual chess. I believe the reason for this is the shorter attention span of audiences that have so much more competition for their attention than did generations past. But causation aside, chess will suffer both in substance and in its appreciation by fans in the long-term if this is not addressed. Shorter games produce fewer creative or novel ideas. All chess fans know the creative genius that is Mikhail Tal, the dynamic aggression that is Garry Kasparov, and the boa constrictor that is Anatoly Karpov, but far fewer fans now can associate even the most well-known players of today with any particular style. Could this be because the modern game has favored a more universal approach? It is possible, but I find it unlikely to be the main reason for this.
Instant Analysis
One of the most profound changes in the chess world has been the rise of powerful chess engines. While undeniably useful for training and analysis, they have fundamentally altered how players and fans interact with the game.
In the pre-engine era, analyzing a game was often a multi-person and thought-intensive exercise. Friends or club members would gather to dissect a master game, discussing possible alternatives and variations. This process deepened people’s understanding and appreciation for the game’s intricacies. Today, engines instantly deliver the “best move,” bypassing the need for critical thinking or debate. This shift risks turning chess into an exercise of passive consumption rather than an active exploration of human ingenuity.
Less IRL Competition
The last major problem with the new approach to modern chess is that most games are played online rather than over-the-board. There are even many professional tournaments conducted with players competing in the same room, but each in front of their monitor. I believe this removes the essential element of human interaction from the game.
This type of interaction with the game renders your opponents faceless and nameless, and takes away the feeling of sharing the game with your adversary. It also obviates the need for players to conduct a post-game analysis together, which has long been a great tradition of the game. While, of course, it wouldn’t make sense to recede from the era of online chess, which has provided people with the ability to play many more games than ever before. But at the very least, tournaments of any significance should be held in person and over-the-board.
But There Are Benefits . . .
The transformation of chess into an esport is not inherently negative. In fact, it has revitalized the game, introducing it to new audiences and ensuring its relevance in a fast-changing world. However, it is crucial to strike a balance between embracing modernity and preserving the essence of what makes chess special.
The modernization of chess has undeniably broadened its appeal. Platforms like Twitch and YouTube? have turned chess into a spectator sport, attracting audiences who might never have otherwise engaged with the game. Moreover, this new approach aligns with modern consumption habits. Traditional chess broadcasting – long games with minimal commentary – would struggle to captivate a modern audience, whereas chess streams are lively, interactive, and often feature shorter, fast-paced formats like blitz and bullet chess.
Lastly, this shift has shattered traditional barriers. Today, fans can watch Carlsen or Nakamura play live, listen to their thought processes, and even interact with them in chat or through play. This unprecedented access has fostered a sense of community and connection that was unimaginable in previous eras.
Final Thoughts
The appreciation of deep, complex positions with enough time to examine them, less computer-led analysis, and more in-person competition must remain central to the chess experience. This can be achieved by favoring slower time controls for tournaments with prizes and rating points, turning off the engine during commentary and training, and mandating over-the-board chess in tournaments. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
TWikiGuestSecondEssay 3 - 02 Dec 2024 - Main.ValeriaVouterakou
|
|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Chess as Esport: An Inevitable Decline | >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
*The Evolution of Surveillance in Travel: From Paper Trails to Digital Footprints
*
Several years ago, during a family trip to Asia, I encountered an unfamiliar technological advancement at the airport: facial recognition machines. At the time, this innovation was largely absent in Europe. As a teenager, I instinctively resisted such an act of submission which I thought of at the time as a violation of my privacy. My initial reaction was ultimately trumped by the impatience of my parents and the intimidating authority that the board control officer exerted on me. Reflecting on this experience today, what once seemed unsettling and intrusive, has since become a standard feature of international travel and a norm that travellers have accepted at face value raising important questions about privacy considerations. This paper seeks to examine the role of surveillance in travel with a particular focus on the legal and ethical dimensions of privacy as well as a possible solution to address surveillance concerns. | | | | |
<
< | Chess has long been described as a marriage between art and science – a pursuit that rewards calculation and logic, but one that also expresses the personalities of its practitioners. For centuries, chess has remained largely unchanged and its appeal has endured. Chess greatness, throughout cultures and eras, has almost invariably been connected with the idea of genius. More than this, the game has occupied a prominent place in shaping culture around the world, arguably reaching its pinnacle in 1972 when Bobby Fisher and Boris Spassky represented the USA and the Soviet Union, respectively, in the World Chess Championship. The champion would earn their respective superpower the reputation as the other’s intellectual superior. | >
> | The History of Travel Surveillance | | | | |
<
< | In recent years, however, the marketing of chess to the world has undergone a dramatic transformation – from being presented as a timeless game associated with classicality and intellect into a modern esport. While this modernization has brought new energy and enthusiasm to the game and has expanded its player pool and audience, I argue that this sudden and fundamental change in the way chess is communicated and shared will have negative effects on its long-term survival in the mainstream, if it is not tempered at least in part.
Chess’s transformation to esport has three main features that I think will be most negative for its longevity. These are faster time controls, instant analysis provided by chess engines, and the trend toward both professional and casual chess being played on monitors rather than across the board from an opponent. | >
> | The inception of the passport dates back to the 15th century under the reign of King Henry V of England which was designed to grant his subjects passage in and out of foreign land for the purpose of their negotiations, with the concept of a standardized global passport system emerging centuries later in the aftermath of World War I to facilitate controlled international travel. Over the years, new security measures have been introduced including but not limited to border control customs via physical checkpoints, passenger name record systems (with onward sharing with government authorities) and more thorough passenger background checks (via Advanced Passenger Information System). During the Cold War, political tensions resulted in heightened monitoring with the use of visas and stamps as tools of tracking movement. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks there was a security paradigm shift which resulted in the development of databases used by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and biometrics in airports. Transitioning to the 21st century, the world saw the introduction of e-passports, facial recognition and AI driven border checks. Strict surveillance measures were also introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic which included health declarations, contact tracing systems, thermal scanning and monitoring systems to identify symptomatic travellers and excessive data sharing facilitated by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). China introduced a QR-based health code system for domestic travel assigning colour codes to its citizens based on each individual citizen’s health risk. The COVID-19 pandemic culminated in a dystopian reality whereby most governments time and time again proved that they had no regard for their people’s fundamental right to privacy, freedom of choice and freedom of movement. This has led to a society where surveillance has become omnipresent and individual autonomy is systematically diminished shifting the balance of power irrevocably toward the authorities. | | | | |
>
> | Brief Overview of Legal Framework | | | | |
<
< | Faster Time Controls | >
> | The US legal framework leans towards robust data collection for security purposes. More specifically, the Privacy Act of 1974 controls the collection, use and disclosure of personal data by federal agencies and the REAL ID Act 2005 outlines the security standards to be met to board a commercial flight in the United States. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which has also been enacted by other US states governs data protection in the travel industry. Agencies and airline carriers are obligated to disclose the categories of personal data they collect, the purpose of collection and whether such data is disseminated to third parties. Notwithstanding the disclosure and transparency requirements under the CCPA, there are exceptions to those legal obligations, including when the airlines are not obligated to seek express consent from the passengers to provide information to the government for security, customs or immigration purposes. In a similar manner, the EU has implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016 which sets out the legal landscape of data privacy in relation to the processing of any personal data of EU residents. While the GDPR imposes stricter rules on how traveller data is used through data minimisation processes, adequate safeguards in relation to sharing personal data with non-EU countries, who must offer at least the same or equivalent privacy protections, and a traveller’s right to delete the data or object to certain uses of such data. Nevertheless, air carriers and travel agents may still be required to share such personal information with governments for security or immigration purposes. | | | | |
<
< | For most of chess’s history, master-level games have been played at very slow time controls. There is also a rich history of recording chess games using chess notation. It is because of this combination of both deep thought and meticulous recording that each successive generation of chess players and fans have been able to stand on the shoulders of their predecessors. | | | | |
<
< | Fast forwarding to today, games are still recorded, but faster time controls have become the norm, on both the professional circuit and in casual chess. I believe the reason for this is the shorter attention span of audiences that have so much more competition for their attention than did generations past. But causation aside, chess will suffer both in substance and in its appreciation by fans in the long-term if this is not addressed. Shorter games produce fewer creative or novel ideas. All chess fans know the creative genius that is Mikhail Tal, the dynamic aggression that is Garry Kasparov, and the boa constrictor that is Anatoly Karpov, but far fewer fans now can associate even the most well-known players of today with any particular style. Could this be because the modern game has favored a more universal approach? It is possible, but I find it unlikely to be the main reason for this.
Instant Analysis
One of the most profound changes in the chess world has been the rise of powerful chess engines. While undeniably useful for training and analysis, they have fundamentally altered how players and fans interact with the game.
In the pre-engine era, analyzing a game was often a multi-person and thought-intensive exercise. Friends or club members would gather to dissect a master game, discussing possible alternatives and variations. This process deepened people’s understanding and appreciation for the game’s intricacies. Today, engines instantly deliver the “best move,” bypassing the need for critical thinking or debate. This shift risks turning chess into an exercise of passive consumption rather than an active exploration of human ingenuity.
Less IRL Competition
The last major problem with the new approach to modern chess is that most games are played online rather than over-the-board. There are even many professional tournaments conducted with players competing in the same room, but each in front of their monitor. I believe this removes the essential element of human interaction from the game.
This type of interaction with the game renders your opponents faceless and nameless, and takes away the feeling of sharing the game with your adversary. It also obviates the need for players to conduct a post-game analysis together, which has long been a great tradition of the game. While, of course, it wouldn’t make sense to recede from the era of online chess, which has provided people with the ability to play many more games than ever before. But at the very least, tournaments of any significance should be held in person and over-the-board.
But There Are Benefits . . .
The transformation of chess into an esport is not inherently negative. In fact, it has revitalized the game, introducing it to new audiences and ensuring its relevance in a fast-changing world. However, it is crucial to strike a balance between embracing modernity and preserving the essence of what makes chess special.
The modernization of chess has undeniably broadened its appeal. Platforms like Twitch and YouTube? have turned chess into a spectator sport, attracting audiences who might never have otherwise engaged with the game. Moreover, this new approach aligns with modern consumption habits. Traditional chess broadcasting – long games with minimal commentary – would struggle to captivate a modern audience, whereas chess streams are lively, interactive, and often feature shorter, fast-paced formats like blitz and bullet chess.
Lastly, this shift has shattered traditional barriers. Today, fans can watch Carlsen or Nakamura play live, listen to their thought processes, and even interact with them in chat or through play. This unprecedented access has fostered a sense of community and connection that was unimaginable in previous eras.
Final Thoughts
The appreciation of deep, complex positions with enough time to examine them, less computer-led analysis, and more in-person competition must remain central to the chess experience. This can be achieved by favoring slower time controls for tournaments with prizes and rating points, turning off the engine during commentary and training, and mandating over-the-board chess in tournaments. | >
> | *New World
*
This discussion prompts the question as to whether the legal framework is adequate and my conclusion is in the negativity. While this paper does not purport to explore the significance of security and counterterrorism measures, which is indisputable, what it does propose is adopting a new lens through which the surveillance of travelling can be reduced rather than incrementally intensified in the years to come. While an outright relaxation of the privacy regulations and laws seems unachievable, this paper proposes to shift the attention to the airline carriers. The establishment of minimal surveillance air carriers which would only request the legally required minimum of personal information for passengers might seek to address this problem. Such airlines would opt out of TSA prechecks, would refrain from data sharing with third parties, facial recognition and would offer anonymous payment options and no WIFI monitoring during flights. Such privacy-friendly travel systems would at first glance seem costly, providing no incentive for any airline to adopt such measures but ultimately if enough people recognised the value of their freedom of choice, they could drive up demand for low-surveillance systems and that demand can in turn pressure the system to reform its regulatory framework to balance security with privacy. By adopting essential security measures while minimizing privacy intrusions we can metamorphose the system into a world where freedom of movement is a given and not a self-earned right that travellers must justify or defend at every ‘checkpoint’ of their life. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
TWikiGuestSecondEssay 2 - 30 Nov 2024 - Main.BenMingov
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | -- JiHyunPark - 29 Nov 2024 | >
> | Chess as Esport: An Inevitable Decline | | | | |
>
> | Chess has long been described as a marriage between art and science – a pursuit that rewards calculation and logic, but one that also expresses the personalities of its practitioners. For centuries, chess has remained largely unchanged and its appeal has endured. Chess greatness, throughout cultures and eras, has almost invariably been connected with the idea of genius. More than this, the game has occupied a prominent place in shaping culture around the world, arguably reaching its pinnacle in 1972 when Bobby Fisher and Boris Spassky represented the USA and the Soviet Union, respectively, in the World Chess Championship. The champion would earn their respective superpower the reputation as the other’s intellectual superior. | | | | |
>
> | In recent years, however, the marketing of chess to the world has undergone a dramatic transformation – from being presented as a timeless game associated with classicality and intellect into a modern esport. While this modernization has brought new energy and enthusiasm to the game and has expanded its player pool and audience, I argue that this sudden and fundamental change in the way chess is communicated and shared will have negative effects on its long-term survival in the mainstream, if it is not tempered at least in part.
Chess’s transformation to esport has three main features that I think will be most negative for its longevity. These are faster time controls, instant analysis provided by chess engines, and the trend toward both professional and casual chess being played on monitors rather than across the board from an opponent. | | | | |
>
> | Faster Time Controls | | | | |
<
< | The Digitalization of Print Sources and the Loss of Libraries | >
> | For most of chess’s history, master-level games have been played at very slow time controls. There is also a rich history of recording chess games using chess notation. It is because of this combination of both deep thought and meticulous recording that each successive generation of chess players and fans have been able to stand on the shoulders of their predecessors. | | | | |
>
> | Fast forwarding to today, games are still recorded, but faster time controls have become the norm, on both the professional circuit and in casual chess. I believe the reason for this is the shorter attention span of audiences that have so much more competition for their attention than did generations past. But causation aside, chess will suffer both in substance and in its appreciation by fans in the long-term if this is not addressed. Shorter games produce fewer creative or novel ideas. All chess fans know the creative genius that is Mikhail Tal, the dynamic aggression that is Garry Kasparov, and the boa constrictor that is Anatoly Karpov, but far fewer fans now can associate even the most well-known players of today with any particular style. Could this be because the modern game has favored a more universal approach? It is possible, but I find it unlikely to be the main reason for this. | | | | |
>
> | Instant Analysis | | | | |
>
> | One of the most profound changes in the chess world has been the rise of powerful chess engines. While undeniably useful for training and analysis, they have fundamentally altered how players and fans interact with the game. | | | | |
<
< | Ever since the widespread access to the digital electronic medium of words on screen, there has been a steady decline of a physical material medium to store, share, and enjoy words manifested from the minds of humans. Instead, from carving “words” into nature and the development of ink onto paper, the new medium for the human language has escaped the material physicality it has historically used in digital electronic format. The digitalization of books, words, of images, has been met with exciting fanfare where the world has moved from putting ink on paper to tapping keys on a keyboard to create and write (or now type) their thoughts. Increasingly, the physical medium of ink on paper has been replaced with electronic versions. Perhaps my generation will be one of the last few that experience the educational transition from a paper medium to an electronic one as I step through the American educational system. Personally, my elementary and middle school placed crucial importance on school libraries and offering a physical place to borrow and read books. However, at the tail end of my middle school years, all students were offered iPads and increasingly, the physicality of written materials declined into some form of electronic digital medium. I shifted from combing the modest collection of books offered by my school library to scrolling the enormous digital access granted to me by the internet. Before long, the lack of a library in my high school did not concern me nor did the 1000-page pdf of my Calculus textbook that I crtl-F through to reach the correct page. Before I knew it, the world beyond my classroom was also digitalized. The plastic-wrapped newspapers tossed in front of my home slowly disappeared, replaced with pre-formatted emails offering a subscription service to receive tailored news “right in my mailbox.” | >
> | In the pre-engine era, analyzing a game was often a multi-person and thought-intensive exercise. Friends or club members would gather to dissect a master game, discussing possible alternatives and variations. This process deepened people’s understanding and appreciation for the game’s intricacies. Today, engines instantly deliver the “best move,” bypassing the need for critical thinking or debate. This shift risks turning chess into an exercise of passive consumption rather than an active exploration of human ingenuity. | | | | |
<
< | The digitalization of books has many benefits that are enjoyed and celebrated today. However, the shift from physical paper books to e-books has resulted in the loss of not only the actual paper books but also the spaces that hold them. The greatest loss of the electronic reproduction of books is not the loss of the physical paper book but the loss of the spaces that hold them; the loss of libraries. | | | | |
>
> | Less IRL Competition | | | | |
>
> | The last major problem with the new approach to modern chess is that most games are played online rather than over-the-board. There are even many professional tournaments conducted with players competing in the same room, but each in front of their monitor. I believe this removes the essential element of human interaction from the game. | | | | |
<
< | The Role of Libraries | >
> | This type of interaction with the game renders your opponents faceless and nameless, and takes away the feeling of sharing the game with your adversary. It also obviates the need for players to conduct a post-game analysis together, which has long been a great tradition of the game. While, of course, it wouldn’t make sense to recede from the era of online chess, which has provided people with the ability to play many more games than ever before. But at the very least, tournaments of any significance should be held in person and over-the-board. | | | | |
<
< | Libraries are more than a storage unit that house physical volumes of books. Libraries are places that play a critical role in our communities. They manifestly represent places of opportunity, learning, and freedom for many people. Libraries are a public space for meeting both information and people [pg 101]. What’s crucial about libraries is the fact that they often offer free public space for people to meet and access a plethora of information. While information may become more accessible on the internet, physical spaces for nurturing creativity and concentrated reading away from the noise and short bursts of electronic media are critical in our current society. | | | | |
<
< | Beyond just communities, libraries are especially important for the academic ecosystem of college campuses. Libraries on college campuses are places that offer not only knowledge but a place to connect students as a community. They play a critical role in campus culture [1]. Looking closer to home, an article by Ben Ratcliff for the New York Times explores Columbia University’s historical Butler University and notes that the library is a haven for the body and the mind [2]. While Butler is accessible to us as Columbia law students, the loss of our law library indicates that our law school community may be critically altered. | >
> | But There Are Benefits . . . | | | | |
>
> | The transformation of chess into an esport is not inherently negative. In fact, it has revitalized the game, introducing it to new audiences and ensuring its relevance in a fast-changing world. However, it is crucial to strike a balance between embracing modernity and preserving the essence of what makes chess special. | | | | |
>
> | The modernization of chess has undeniably broadened its appeal. Platforms like Twitch and YouTube? have turned chess into a spectator sport, attracting audiences who might never have otherwise engaged with the game. Moreover, this new approach aligns with modern consumption habits. Traditional chess broadcasting – long games with minimal commentary – would struggle to captivate a modern audience, whereas chess streams are lively, interactive, and often feature shorter, fast-paced formats like blitz and bullet chess. | | | | |
<
< | Access to Information | >
> | Lastly, this shift has shattered traditional barriers. Today, fans can watch Carlsen or Nakamura play live, listen to their thought processes, and even interact with them in chat or through play. This unprecedented access has fostered a sense of community and connection that was unimaginable in previous eras. | | | | |
<
< | Contrary to the idea of improved access provided by technology, the digitalization of libraries also presents a critical issue to our freedom to access information. While we are now privy to more information due to having the internet at our fingerprints, the loss of physical libraries prevents access to information due to the commercialization of books. Legal methods of obtaining free books or information have become severely limited by commercial paywalls. Even reading the news has become difficult with multiple different news mediums preventing access to their information without paying. | >
> | Final Thoughts | | | | |
<
< | The ability and ease with which the internet can manipulate, and feed information is an enormous concern for our freedom of access to information [pg 103]. In the library’s physical space, while the contents of the library may have been curated by an individual librarian, there is true freedom to explore the knowledge of books without additional interference. A person can parse through the many volumes gathered in the bookshelves without the fear of a third-party search engine tracking and feeding specific types of information to them.
Additionally, national and historic libraries preserve and carefully collect cultural and historical heritage which provide a rich source of information from political, ideological to social and cultural worth. Libraries, through the preservation of books, newspapers, and other physical mediums present values of cultural diversity, freedom to think and inspire, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech [pg 104]. The importance of libraries to gather, preserve, and offer a space for people to reach and explore these cultural pieces is truly an opportunity to access information that facilitates the freedom to think. However, the digitalization of these paper mediums and the removal of physical access to libraries will not continue or increase access as initially considered. Instead of providing quality information, the internet offers too much information and disinformation that is controlled and monitored.
Conclusion
While the natural progression and shift from physical books to digitalizing the printed medium may promote access to these books, the loss of libraries indicates not only a physical place of respite but can affect critical access to information. This loss of cultural information may affect our freedom to think and learn in ways that could be detrimental to our society and culture. | >
> | The appreciation of deep, complex positions with enough time to examine them, less computer-led analysis, and more in-person competition must remain central to the chess experience. This can be achieved by favoring slower time controls for tournaments with prizes and rating points, turning off the engine during commentary and training, and mandating over-the-board chess in tournaments. |
|
|
TWikiGuestSecondEssay 1 - 29 Nov 2024 - Main.JiHyunPark
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- JiHyunPark - 29 Nov 2024
The Digitalization of Print Sources and the Loss of Libraries
Ever since the widespread access to the digital electronic medium of words on screen, there has been a steady decline of a physical material medium to store, share, and enjoy words manifested from the minds of humans. Instead, from carving “words” into nature and the development of ink onto paper, the new medium for the human language has escaped the material physicality it has historically used in digital electronic format. The digitalization of books, words, of images, has been met with exciting fanfare where the world has moved from putting ink on paper to tapping keys on a keyboard to create and write (or now type) their thoughts. Increasingly, the physical medium of ink on paper has been replaced with electronic versions. Perhaps my generation will be one of the last few that experience the educational transition from a paper medium to an electronic one as I step through the American educational system. Personally, my elementary and middle school placed crucial importance on school libraries and offering a physical place to borrow and read books. However, at the tail end of my middle school years, all students were offered iPads and increasingly, the physicality of written materials declined into some form of electronic digital medium. I shifted from combing the modest collection of books offered by my school library to scrolling the enormous digital access granted to me by the internet. Before long, the lack of a library in my high school did not concern me nor did the 1000-page pdf of my Calculus textbook that I crtl-F through to reach the correct page. Before I knew it, the world beyond my classroom was also digitalized. The plastic-wrapped newspapers tossed in front of my home slowly disappeared, replaced with pre-formatted emails offering a subscription service to receive tailored news “right in my mailbox.”
The digitalization of books has many benefits that are enjoyed and celebrated today. However, the shift from physical paper books to e-books has resulted in the loss of not only the actual paper books but also the spaces that hold them. The greatest loss of the electronic reproduction of books is not the loss of the physical paper book but the loss of the spaces that hold them; the loss of libraries.
The Role of Libraries
Libraries are more than a storage unit that house physical volumes of books. Libraries are places that play a critical role in our communities. They manifestly represent places of opportunity, learning, and freedom for many people. Libraries are a public space for meeting both information and people [pg 101]. What’s crucial about libraries is the fact that they often offer free public space for people to meet and access a plethora of information. While information may become more accessible on the internet, physical spaces for nurturing creativity and concentrated reading away from the noise and short bursts of electronic media are critical in our current society.
Beyond just communities, libraries are especially important for the academic ecosystem of college campuses. Libraries on college campuses are places that offer not only knowledge but a place to connect students as a community. They play a critical role in campus culture [1]. Looking closer to home, an article by Ben Ratcliff for the New York Times explores Columbia University’s historical Butler University and notes that the library is a haven for the body and the mind [2]. While Butler is accessible to us as Columbia law students, the loss of our law library indicates that our law school community may be critically altered.
Access to Information
Contrary to the idea of improved access provided by technology, the digitalization of libraries also presents a critical issue to our freedom to access information. While we are now privy to more information due to having the internet at our fingerprints, the loss of physical libraries prevents access to information due to the commercialization of books. Legal methods of obtaining free books or information have become severely limited by commercial paywalls. Even reading the news has become difficult with multiple different news mediums preventing access to their information without paying.
The ability and ease with which the internet can manipulate, and feed information is an enormous concern for our freedom of access to information [pg 103]. In the library’s physical space, while the contents of the library may have been curated by an individual librarian, there is true freedom to explore the knowledge of books without additional interference. A person can parse through the many volumes gathered in the bookshelves without the fear of a third-party search engine tracking and feeding specific types of information to them.
Additionally, national and historic libraries preserve and carefully collect cultural and historical heritage which provide a rich source of information from political, ideological to social and cultural worth. Libraries, through the preservation of books, newspapers, and other physical mediums present values of cultural diversity, freedom to think and inspire, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech [pg 104]. The importance of libraries to gather, preserve, and offer a space for people to reach and explore these cultural pieces is truly an opportunity to access information that facilitates the freedom to think. However, the digitalization of these paper mediums and the removal of physical access to libraries will not continue or increase access as initially considered. Instead of providing quality information, the internet offers too much information and disinformation that is controlled and monitored.
Conclusion
While the natural progression and shift from physical books to digitalizing the printed medium may promote access to these books, the loss of libraries indicates not only a physical place of respite but can affect critical access to information. This loss of cultural information may affect our freedom to think and learn in ways that could be detrimental to our society and culture. |
|
|