Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by Grizzly » Wed Jul 05, 2023 5:09 am
Listen--about car privacy:
"...vehicles are an underappreciated trusted third party."
Gabriel Custodiet speaks with Andrea Amico, creator of Privacy4Cars.com. They discuss the data that is transmitted from phone to car when you establish this connection via Bluetooth or USB. Andrea offers some horror stories as he unpacks how...
Episode 78 – “AN UNENCRYPTED HARD DRIVE ON WHEELS:” CAR PRIVACY WITH ANDREA AMICO
by Grizzly » Fri Jul 07, 2023 1:59 am
by Belligerent Savant » Fri Jul 07, 2023 2:07 pm
Belligerent Savant » Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:37 pm wrote:
https://www.coronababble.com/post/the-e ... society-ii
The ethics of using covert strategies - a letter to the British Psychological Society (II)
In an earlier blogpost, I described how psychologists working in the Government's 'Behavioural Insight Team' had recommended the use of covert psychological strategies - or 'nudges' - to promote people's compliance with the draconian coronavirus restrictions. In particular, I proposed that the deliberate use of fear inflation, peer pressure, and feelings of self-virtue as ways of ensuring the general public's acquiescence with lockdowns and mask mandates was ethically dubious.
As previously stated, it was decided to write to the British Psychological Society (the lead organisation for practising psychologists in the UK) to raise our ethical concerns. I am now pleased to report that the letter – supported by 47 co-signatories – was forwarded to the British Psychological Society on the 6th January 2021.
The letter is copied below.
When I receive a response from the British Psychological Society I will share it here - so watch this space!
LETTER TO BPS
Re: Ethical issues arising from the role of psychologists in the development of the Government’s communication campaign in regards to coronavirus
We are writing to you as a group of psychological specialists to raise ethical concerns about the activities of the government-employed psychologists working in the ‘Behavioural Insights Team’ (BIT) (1) in their mission to gain the public’s mass compliance with the ongoing coronavirus restrictions. Our view is that the use of covert psychological strategies - that operate below the level of people’s awareness – to ‘nudge’ citizens to conform to a contentious and unprecedented public health policy raises profound ethical questions. As the professional body overseeing the work of psychologists in the UK, we would welcome your perspective on this important issue.
Background
The British public’s widespread compliance with the Government’s restrictions has arguably been the most remarkable aspect of the coronavirus crisis. The unprecedented limits imposed on our basic freedoms – in the form of lockdowns, travel bans and mandatory mask wearing – have been passively accepted by the large majority of people, despite the lack of evidence for the efficacy of these measures. A major contributor to the mass obedience of British citizens is likely to have been the activities of government-employed psychologists working as part of the BIT.
The BIT was conceived in the Prime Minister’s office in 2010 as ‘the world’s first government institution dedicated to the application of behavioural science to policy’ (2). According to the BIT website (3), their team has rapidly expanded from a seven person unit working with the UK government to a ‘social purpose company’ operating in many countries around the world. It may seem beneficial to use any method, even techniques impacting subconsciously on behaviour, to attempt to preserve life and the publicised aims of the BIT are clearly altruistic; for example, ‘to improve people’s lives and communities’. However, the use of these techniques during the coronavirus crisis raises key ethical concerns. Arguably, health decisions should take place consciously, based on transparent information, including fully informed consent. Additionally, the moral integrity of the use of these techniques within current contexts is even more questionable given the major disagreement amongst specialists about whether the measures are, overall, helpful or harmful.
The strategies used by BIT psychologists
A comprehensive account of the psychological approaches deployed by the BIT is provided in the document, MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy (Dolan et al., 2010) (4). The authors of MINDSPACE describe how their behavioural strategies provide ‘low cost, low pain ways of “nudging” citizens … … into new ways of acting by going with the grain of how we think and act’ (p7) (Our emphasis). By expressing the process of change in this way, this statement reveals a key difference between the BIT interventions and traditional government efforts to shape our behaviour: their reliance on tools that often impact on us subconsciously, below our awareness.
Historically, Governments have used information provision and rational argument in their efforts to alter the behaviour of their citizens, thereby encouraging people to logically (and consciously) weigh up the pros and cons of each of their options and consider changing their behaviour accordingly. By contrast, many of the nudges developed and put forward by the BIT psychologists are, to various degrees, acting upon us automatically, below the level of conscious thought and reason. Although we accept there may be legitimate ways of utilising covert psychological strategies within our communities – perhaps as a marketing tool to shape opinion about a consumer product or as part of, for example, Government campaigns to discourage vandalism or to prevent young men stabbing each other – in the sphere of individual health decisions we believe transparency is required.
To inform and direct the Government’s communication strategy aimed at achieving the public’s compliance with coronavirus restrictions, it is apparent that the BIT psychologists have promoted a range of covert psychological interventions (see blogpost (5) by Dr Sidley for further details). For example, our inherent need to preserve a positive self-image has been exploited as revealed by the incessant slogans and mantras insisting that compliance with the Government’s coronavirus diktats is akin to the altruism of helping others – a focus on ‘ego’, to use the MINDSPACE terminology. Another example has been the use of peer pressure (‘norms’) on the non-compliers by casting these supposed miscreants in the uncomfortable bracket of a deviant minority. But the most potent, and most ethically dubious, strategy has been the inflation of fear (‘affect’) as a means of coercing people into obedience.
Fear elevation
The decision to inflate the fear levels of the British public was a strategic one, as indicated by the minutes of the meeting of the Government’s expert advisors (SAGE) on the 22nd March 2020 (6). Clearly, the BIT psychologists recommended scaring people as an effective way of maximising compliance with the coronavirus restrictions, as indicated by the following statements in the minutes:
‘A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened’.
‘The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent using hard-hitting emotional messaging’.
‘Use media to increase sense of personal threat’.
Consequently, the general population has had to endure a media onslaught primarily aimed at inflating perceived threat levels that has included: the daily announcement of coronavirus-death statistics, displayed without context (such as the fact that 1600 people die in the UK each day under ordinary circumstances); repeated footage of people dying in Intensive Care Units; scary slogans, such as ‘IF YOU GO OUT, YOU CAN SPREAD IT. PEOPLE WILL DIE’; and the promotion of face coverings – a potent symbol of danger – despite there being little evidence for their effectiveness in reducing viral spread.
The strategic decision to inflate fear levels has had unintended consequences, resulting in many people being too scared to leave their houses or to let anybody in, thereby exacerbating loneliness and isolation which – in turn – have detrimental impacts on physical and mental health. Persistent fear compromises the immune system and works against the objective of keeping us safe and healthy. Eight months on, the population remain in a state of heightened anxiety; surveys show (7) that, by July, UK citizens believed that coronavirus had killed 7% of the population, a total – if true – of 4,500,000 people (the official figure at the time was around 45,000). Tragically, there is accumulating evidence that inflated fear levels will be responsible for the ‘collateral’ deaths of many thousands of people with non-COVID illnesses who, too frightened to attend hospital, are dying in their own homes (8) at a rate of around 100 each day (9). There is also evidence that parents have been too scared to take their ill children to Accident & Emergency departments (10). Furthermore, the damage inflicted on the mental health of the nation, particularly on our young people (11) is as yet difficult to quantify but is likely to be substantial.
Ethical questions
Back in 2010, the authors of the MINDSPACE document recognised the significant ethical dilemmas arising from the use of influencing strategies that impact subconsciously on the country’s citizens. They acknowledged that the deployment of covert methods to change behaviour ‘has implications for consent and freedom of choice’ and offers people ‘little opportunity to opt out’ (p66 – 67). Furthermore, it is conceded that ‘policymakers wishing to use these tools … … need the approval of the public to do so’ (p74). So have the British people been consulted about whether they agree to Government using covert psychological techniques to promote compliance with contentious public health policies? We suspect not. It seems the BIT psychologists are operating in ethically-murky waters in implementing their nudges, without our consent, to promote mass acceptance of infringements on basic human freedoms.
In the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics & Conduct (2018) (12), one of the ‘Statement of Values’ is:
3.1 ‘Psychologists value the dignity and worth of all persons, with sensitivity to the dynamics of perceived authority or influence over persons and peoples and with particular regard to people’s rights.
In applying these values, Psychologists should consider: … consent … self-determination.
3.3 ‘Psychologists value their responsibilities … to the general public … including the avoidance of harm and the prevention of misuse or abuse of their contribution to society.’ [Our emphasis].
We believe that the BIT psychologists - in their deployment of covert strategies to achieve compliance with unprecedented lockdowns, travel restrictions and mask mandates – have blatantly failed to practice in a way that is consistent with your stated ethical values.
Based on the above concerns, we respectfully request that the British Psychological Society (BPS) respond to the following questions:
1. Does the BPS believe that the use of covert behavioural strategies, without explicit public consent, to ‘nudge’ people to comply with Government policies is a legitimate use of psychological skills and knowledge?
2. Is it ethically acceptable to use covert psychological strategies to increase compliance with contentious public health policies, such as the Government’s coronavirus responses?
3. Does the BPS agree that BIT psychologists who recommended that the Government’s coronavirus campaign use covert strategies, that purposefully increase fear and encourage the scapegoating of the non-compliant minority, are practising in a way that infringes the BPS Code of Ethics?
4. Assuming that the BPS recognises that there are some ethical issues arising from the use of covert psychological techniques in the ways described, what does the BPS propose to do to address these issues?
5. To minimise the likelihood of psychologists acting in an unethical way in the future, and to thereby prevent a repeat of the widespread ‘collateral damage’ associated with applying covert psychological strategies to win compliance with contentious public health policies, would the BPS publicly condemn the use of psychological skills and knowledge for this purpose?
...
by Belligerent Savant » Fri Jul 07, 2023 5:29 pm
@JeninYounesEsq
In a historic ruling [Missouri v Biden], Judge Doughty held that Plaintiffs-- @DrJBhattacharya, @MartinKulldorff, @akheriaty, @HealthFreedomLA -- are likely to succeed with their claim that the federal Government's involvement in social media censorship violated their First Amendment rights
2:25 PM · Jul 4, 2023
Michael P Senger
@michaelpsenger
Unbelievably, it’s 2023 and NYT is still pretending COVID vaccines “prevent transmission.” Worse yet, they’re citing a judge’s correct statement that the vaccines don’t prevent transmission as an example of “misinformation” to try to discredit him—inadvertently proving his point.David Zweig
@davidzweig
This is an absolutely extraordinary passage in a NYT article from yesterday about the court ruling against the govt's right to suppress speech on social media
It cites a correct statement as evidence of a judge referring to a "debunked claim"
https://nytimes.com/2023/07/05/us/polit ... nment.html
Jennifer Sey
@JenniferSey
What upside down dystopian Newspeak world are we living in??
This whole @nytimes piece is mind boggling.
There was a “conspiracy” (aka secret agreement to commit an unlawful or harmful act) to silence their views. They were literally censored.
Judge Doughty was correct to accept as fact that the vaccines do not prevent transmission. They don’t. Is anyone actually arguing they do at this point??
Isinglass
@lezleecog
The colluding MSM refuses to question, much less condemn, Biden admin’s censorship b/c both like the power of their illegality. To wit: admin’s immediately request a stay & file notice of appeal. But only conservatives care — & that reality merits its own outrage.
https://www.axios.com/2023/07/06/biden- ... um=twitterThe Biden administration is appealing a court ruling that would limit government officials and agencies from communicating with social media companies on content moderation, according to court filings Wednesday.
by Belligerent Savant » Sat Jul 08, 2023 8:16 am
by stickdog99 » Sat Jul 08, 2023 9:48 am
by Belligerent Savant » Mon Jul 10, 2023 3:09 pm
@JeninYounesEsq
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 01.0_1.pdf
Judge Doughty DENIED gov’t stay application in Mo v. Biden: “although this preliminary injunction involves numerous agencies, it is not as broad as it appears. It only prohibits something Defendants have no legal right to do: contacting social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner, the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech”
@DrJBhattacharya
·
Judge Doughty has denied the Biden Administration's request for permission to keep blocking the 1st Amendment rights of Americans.
From the ruling: "Violation of a First Amendment Constitutional right, even for a short period of time, is always irreparable injury."@BexStreams
BREAKING:
In re Missouri v Biden, regarding gov't request for stay.
Denied.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
by Grizzly » Mon Jul 10, 2023 4:26 pm
by Belligerent Savant » Mon Jul 10, 2023 5:19 pm
Aaron Siri
@AaronSiriSG
Federal Judge just denied the Biden administration’s motion for a stay of the court's order prohibiting it from censoring information on social media.
As explained by the court, "Defendants argue that the injunction may be read to prevent the Defendants from engaging in a vast range of lawful conduct... However, the Preliminary Injunction only prohibits what the Defendants have no right to do—urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech on social-media platforms. The Defendants provide no argument that they are legally allowed to take such action. The Defendants are asking the Court to grant them relief to a Preliminary Injunction that only bars illegal conduct. In other words, the only effect of staying the Preliminary Injunction would be to free Defendants to urge, encourage, pressure, or induce the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech on social-media platforms.”
https://sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... 601a9f.pdf
by Grizzly » Mon Jul 10, 2023 9:27 pm
by Grizzly » Wed Jul 12, 2023 12:15 pm
by Grizzly » Fri Jul 21, 2023 12:12 am
by Belligerent Savant » Fri Jul 21, 2023 12:53 pm
@MarkChangizi
·
The Left has lost the plot.
Censorship is free speech.
Fascism is freedom.
Totems are health.@JeninYounesEsq
How quickly we've gone from, "government isn't censoring speech" to "the government can censor speech." No, it can't. The First Amendment "presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through...authoritative selection...
US v. Ass. Press, SDNY 1943. And "If there is any fixed star in our const'l constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." W. Va. Bd of Ed v Barnette, 319 US 642 (1943)
by Harvey » Mon Jul 24, 2023 3:38 pm
by Grizzly » Sat Jul 29, 2023 4:20 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Site design by Likely Arts based on "Deluxe" by Artodia.
