2-May-12 Morality for spies and undercover policemen. How far can they go?

This coming Wednesday,  we will be discussing the idea behind the use of spies and undercover policemen to protect our society.

The occupation of spies and undercover agents, by definition, is based on deception.  Their work requires them to lie about their true identity when interacting with others.

If we normally do not trust lairs in our daily lives, (are we to trust them when they said they lie to us before but they are now telling us the truth?) why should we trust spies to tell us what they have found out when they by definition, found that information by lying about their identity?

Worst still, how can anyone trust double agents?

Is it just our own vanity to think that spies will lie to others but not to us?

As a country, we punish our corporations for bribing officials in other countries in trying to get contracts there.  It is no defense to say that it is how business is done in those countries, we cannot let our corporations use local morals as an excuse.

So what is the justification for having spies and undercover agents?  Is it because that our enemies, (the bad guys), do not always play by the rules and that we are too naive to think that we should play nice while others don't obey the rules?

How is this different from corporations saying that companies from other countries do not play by our lily white rules either?  Why is there one rule for government and law enforcement but another rule for corporations?

Then there is the question of how far spies and undercover agents can go beyond the law in achieving their goals.  Can they murder someone like a Bin Laden who had declared war on the US?  What about someone like the previous Libyan leader who seemed like a tyrant but have not declared war and have not been tried?

Can utilitarian arguments of saving many lives by killing a certain person be used as a reason for spies to kill this person?

What about lessor transgressions like theft, kidnapping, wiretapping without a warrant?

Who is watching the spies and what code of ethics do they use to decide whether certain actions should be taken?  I don't ever remember seeing a code of ethics for spies.

We also hear about countries trading captured spies.  Does this not sounded like mafia and underworld dealings?  How can the rest of the law abiding society reconcile this while imposing jail terms for their citizens for doing some of these same acts?

Necessity seems like a weak argument as most convicted criminals can likely come up with their argument of why they have to commit the crime in order to support their family, to preserve their lives, etc.

In the end, we seem to reconcile quite well that spies and undercover agents are a necessary thing.  There is even a private investigation business supported by private citizens and corporations.

What limits should these private investigators go by?

Do the existence and acceptance of spies and undercover agents undermine trust in our society?

Who owns the information collected by these undercover agents?  the client paying for the agents services or the target that the agent was spying on?

Where does privacy come into this? 

Bring your ideas to the cafe on Wednesday and let's see if we can shine some light on this dark topic.

Meeting on privacy versus transparency

We just finished the discussion this evening about transparency in our government and businesses. 

While I started the discussion about the public's need for transparency in a democratic system versus the politician's right to privacy, we quickly got pass the often juicy sex scandals and moved to what the public is entitled to know about politicians' discussions with business and other interest groups.

Bob is leery of politicians playing golf with business people as he sees that is where back room deals are arranged with no public record.  He would not trust politicians that play golf with business and interest groups.

Dan thought that we cannot get into restricting the politicians from seeing, meeting, and discussing matters with people. We will shut down all other communications as well as the possible backroom deals.

Mano said that all discussions between politicians and interest groups needs to be recorded.  It need not be disclosed right away as there are all kinds of reasons for discussions to be confidential.  However, these records should be there to be available for disclosure later on either to restricted third parties such as commissions or to the general public.

Joseph is concerned that all these need for transparency is going to use up a lot of tax dollars and he can see tax dollars being better used elsewhere.

Shula did not like the "yellow press" churning out sex scandals and sleazy looking possible side interest of politicians.  These are just to sell papers and create sensationalism.

However, it is precisely because it is too costly to closely monitor all politician and public servants with tax dollars that the media becomes the guerrilla warfare approach to exposing scandals under the name of protecting the public's interest.

Rafi mentioned the example of a NASA scientist using Canadian science air craft to study snow.  When a reporter asked for information through the access of information act, it was found that a whole team of public servants had worked on it to make sure that proper information was disclosed without embarrassment to the government.  There was way more people working on the disclosure of the information than there is the one NASA person doing the science experiment.  A real example of how transparency is costing us real government money.

Bob said that the police is an example of lack of transparency in government. It is difficult to get information out of the police and he found that "complains" to the police are routinely discarded unless it is submitted as a "formal complaint" in which case they then have to handle it according to set rules.

This shows the discrepancy between what the public expect of the system and how the system can work around rules set for it.

The discussion then move to the ethics of Wiki Leaks claiming that government should have no secrets.  No one is ready for that extreme position of transparency and the discussion move to the conditions for whistle blowing.

Was it ethical to leak the Pentagon Papers showing the real state of the Vietnam War? Are people bound by confidentiality agreements guilty of breaking that agreement when they see harm being done by not disclosing the confidential information?

It is certainly right to disclose confidential information that include fraud. But what if the actions are legal but will harm others? How much harm does it take to whistle blow?

Being ethically right and legally right seems to be at odds here.

Shula sees the main difference between government and business in that we need transparency in government to judge politicians whereas most business leaders have the same interest as their shareholders, namely to increase the value of the company.

In any case, publicly traded companies have their rules of information disclosure to the general public.

I tend to agree with Mano that it is not necessary for politicians to disclose everything but their discussions all needed to be recorded for transparency sake. The fact that a record exists ensures that politicians are operating on the possibility of  a bright light being shone on what they have done.

The problem is that how would we know if everything is properly recorded? Politicians talk and meet people everywhere and all the time.  It is still up to them to not discuss things "off the record".

We have the theory, but the practice can be a chasm away.

25-Apr-12 Privacy vs. transparency

This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe,  we will be discussing the balancing act between respecting the privacy of individuals versus the other people's need to know in order to have transparency for the democratic process.

For public figures like politicians and celebrities, there seems to be great interest from the public to know how these public figures conduct their private lives. Whether it is sex scandals, divorces, or any other type of "juicy" gossip, becomes sensation news and profitable for the news business.

Some justify this curiosity (bordering on voyeurism) on the public's need to know in order to judge a politician's conduct.  After all, if they transgress in private life, they are likely to do the same in their politics.

Thus, President Kennedy's extra-marital affairs, while well protected by the media of the day, would have destroyed his reputation by today's media practices.

Were we well served by a media then that decided that the president's extra-marital affairs were off limits for media coverage or would we be better off with more transparency to know more about President Kennedy as a person?

Would the standoff against the Soviet Union in the Cuba missile crisis have been the same with a president that did not have as much respect from his people?

It is often justified by the media that lost of privacy is the price of being a celebrity, that people know that full well before entering the arena.

What makes this so? Is this just a way of justifying mass hysteria?  Does the fact that a lot of people want to know make it a legitimate reason to know?

On the other side of the argument, there is a legitimate need for transparency in a democratic society where citizens need information to form opinions of their public service to decide at the next election whether to continue to support or to replace their elected politicians.

Should it be up to the politicians themselves to decide what is private and what the public should know?  It certainly seem like a conflict of interest.

Should the public be able to know everything and decide which part is relevant? Should the politicians not be entitled to any privacy at all?

Then there are the lessons learned from Wiki-leaks. Should government diplomatic confidential documents be made public?  Should the government have no secrets at all?  Or is it possible to perform any diplomacy and negotiations without any cover of confidentiality?

Would transparent government have any spies? Should they?

Let's hear your ideas on Wednesday!

28-Mar-12 Should we encourage each child to think they are special (and deserve special treatment?)

This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing how we develop children's self image and identity in our society.

My perception is that the popular approach in western society is to encourage children to think that they are special individuals, unique, and potentially can accomplish great things. 

This seems to be the very foundation of a free and individualistic society. It is also the push to excel and stand out from the crowd, to think independently and not just to follow others.

So far so good.

But how does this upbringing work in our society of specialized skills where cooperation with others is an essential part of daily living?

How do we stand out from the crowd when they are also standing out from us?  who makes up the crowd?

How does a choir of unique soloists sound like?

Winning in games, tests of skills and such seems to be a strong motivator for us from an early age.  Is the appeal of being special and unique similar to the appeal of winning?  Can we all win in our own way without someone else being the loser?

Does being unique and special push us away from feeling part of the community we are in the middle of?  Is our empathy for others diminished because they are unique and special and therefore different from us?

Are we paying too little to the common ground we have with others?

From a purely efficiency standpoint, will the society as a whole work better if most of us are content with our lot in life rather than constantly feeling that we have not reached our potential?

Does feeling unique and special put us on an eternal chase that never ends as anything we achieve is soon not special anymore?

Then there is narcissism, at what point does feeling unique and special crosses the line to narcissism? to pushing others out of the way as they are less worthy?

Should we special people not deserve special treatment? If everybody gets special treatment, then it is fair to say that there is no special treatment for anyone?

Unless we have the version from the parable Animal Farm,  that everyone is special but some are more special than others?

How can the foundation of free society be the source of all these issues?

Where is the happy medium and how do we define it?

Should we continue to tell children they are unique and special?

Meeting on measuring effort versus results

Just came back from our Wednesday Ideas Cafe meeting and I have to say this is another experience.

I obviously did not frame the issue properly and as Mike mentioned, the topic did not resonate.

Shula also was not sure of the choice of the word "achievement" used in the talk title of "should we measure our achievement by effort or results".

Mano sees the issue as multifaceted, that effort is one of the many things that we use to measure, not just results, effort, either or, or together.  There are repercussions of the work on others, the setting that it was done in, etc, etc.

I tried to illustrate the point by using the example that we buy items and services very often without looking at the effort but use the price and quality as the main criteria.

Mike summarized it by saying that as an accountant, he always thought value of his accounting work was related to the time and effort spent.  However, if he needed a lawyer to defend him in legal battles, that he would choose one base on what results this lawyer can create, not how hard the lawyer is going to work.

This showed the completely opposite perspective of the service provider versus the user of the service.

Shula said that sports like figure skating and diving are judged by the level of difficulty which is proportion to the effort required to perfect those routines.  To me, it is the rarity of the routines that involved high levels of difficulty (and therefore, more effort) that make them more valued.

Rafi and Mano both mentioned that we need smart people as well as hard working people as there are majority of tasks in our society that just require effort with no way of getting around it.  Therefore valuing hard work as a virtue serves the purpose of motivating the majority of our population to do the majority of tasks that are highly dependent on effort and not innovation.

We then got into a discussion of work by the hour, for mechanic services to fix our cars, for lawyers and engineers.  Most seem to think that mechanics are arbitrary in their hours charged and seems to have no relationship to actual time worked.  My understanding is that they are based on "standard hours" for the tasks involved and not necessarily relate to the actual time. However, this seemed to be the basis for a lot of skepticism for work charged on an hourly basis.

I mentioned that in my engineering practice experience, we never altered the hours reported by our employees on their timesheets.  We may mark them down for thinking that it is unreasonable to charge the client for the results but never mark them up as it will destroy the basis of credibility for all our other billings.  My feeling is that not everyone believes that this can be trusted.

I now realize the amount of trust that I enjoyed with my engineering clients.  In truth, they do not have many options in checking us but on our side, the cost of losing our credibility on billing is too great to even think about doing anything but the right thing.  I also realize that there is a much higher level of skepticism and mistrust among the public at large and particularly towards business. 

My theory is that trust takes a long time and many positive experiences to build but can be destroyed quickly and by a few examples.  This asymmetry in the acquisition and destruction of trust is very vulnerable to mass media which depend on spreading bad news to promote their popularity.

Market competition also promote the race to the bottom among competitors to lower their trust relationship with their customers to come up with a lower product presentation price.

In the end, what was revealing is that in fixed price contracts where customers see us deliver the results for less than the agreed price and make a profit, there is a feeling that they have somehow missed something.  Should they not be glad that they have the result that they contracted for?

On the other hand, if the contract was on a cost plus basis,  it is based on effort expanded and subject to overruns.  Most customers would prefer a fixed price project to protect them from the risk of overruns but not comfortable with the profit taken if there is no overrun.

It depends on whether one is a user or provider of the service.

We are also reminded of the perils of focusing too much on results alone. A lot of results can be manipulated and externalities may be unintentionally sacrificed on the way to those results.  The same innovators that innovate to faster and more efficient results also tends to innovate to their own benefit and sometimes to the detriment of others.

My conclusion?  We need innovators that we can trust and enough definitions on externalities to keep innovators within the bounds of our expectations. Maybe tough to do but is the way to break new ground and keep improving.

14-Mar-12 Should we measure achievement by effort or result?

This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we are discussing how we value the fruits of our labors. 

When we look at the wonders of the world such as the Pyramids of Egypt, the Great Wall of China, or the buried Terra Cottar warriors in Xian, we marvel at the accomplishments done only with hand tools and manual labor, and at such a grand scale.

Of course, a major draw is the uniqueness of these wonders.  Would we be any less impressed if these were built with modern building machinery and mass production methods?

If we are less impressed, then effort must matter in how we value something.

When we look at a piece of art, should we inquire as to how much effort the artist spent in producing the art before we form an opinion of the quality of the art piece?

Or should we let the piece of art speak and connect with us and see if it evoke any emotions in us or communicate a message to us? 

If art truly is in the eyes of the beholder,  where does effort enter into the equation?

Should photography have any effect on realism in art? Is it realism if a realist accentuate certain aspects of an image? Should artist still endeavor to painstakingly detail paintings to make it as accurate as possible knowing that it will never be as accurate as a photograph but perhaps the work will be valued just for the effort expanded?

When traveling in less developed countries, one often find souvenirs and items that are obviously handmade but they are also mass produced (by hand).  Should they be valued more than the same items produced by machines at a lower cost and effort?

If effort is more meaningful in achieving something,  why do we not find more difficult ways of doing something instead of choosing the most direct path?  (After all, we value cross country walks, runs, bike rides to raise money)

If results are what mattered,  why do we tend to praise someone for their diligence and their hard work rather than their ingenuity (which seems to suggest short cuts and a hint of sneakiness?) 

Is it because effort is something that we can see whereas ingenuity is difficult to grasp?

Does knowing about the effort involved connect us more to the result and value it more?  Maybe the art is in the connection with the artist and the process of creating the art.  Therefore, effort becomes integral to the history and narrative associated with the art piece.

When we are told that someone is hardworking, what kind of person do we think of? Trustworthy? Dependable? Do extras just in case?

When we are told that someone is results oriented, do we think this person tends to 1. Cut corners?  2. May sacrifice something or someone in order to reach a goal?  3. Looks to cut out unnecessary work?

Finally, I am reminded of an earlier cafe discussion when some of us said that saying to someone "let's do lunch" is actually saying that we are not likely to get together with this someone again.  Is characterizing someone as a "hard worker" actually saying they are not smart enough to work faster or more efficiently?

I have been surprised so often that I would not be surprised by this one.

Come join us and let us know your ideas. 

Meeting on knowledge

I just came back from our Wednesday Ideas Cafe meeting where we discussed "knowledge" this evening.

I started off with Bertrand Russell's quote on why knowledge is so difficult to pin down because it is based on belief, fact, and the agreement between the two which is all difficult to define and pin down.

I also mentioned that we quite often use information and life experience without realizing and told everyone about the colored candy example. Say you walked into a room and there is a clear glass jar with candy of different colors. You pick a black one and it tasted like liquorice. What would another black color candy taste like?

The answer is that we don't know.  For to foretell the taste of another candy based on tasting one prior involve predicting the future.  At the very least we need a rule saying that the taste of the candy is directly related to the color of the candy AND that this rule will carry on into the future.

Shula pointed out that this is about induction and not the theory of knowledge.  She mentioned that the famous philosopher David Hume was despairing that we cannot be sure of anything in the future and that our confidence in things continuing as they are have no basis. 

However, Shula continue to relate that Hume then went down to the public house to have a few beers with his friends and all is well with the world when he came back to open his books again.

This showed that we are living in the grey area (yet again!!!) where we are never on solid ground and that true solid philosophical rational ground is perhaps not achievable in our everyday world.

Mike thought that some of these rigorous philosophical arguments actually take away the benefit and confidence from our everyday experience.  While we were not told of a rule that relate the taste of the colored candy in the example to the color of the candy,  our other life experience would tell us that this is a reasonable rule to use.  Practicality over rigor.

For me, the issue is being aware of these hidden assumptions we make, our thought process in coming to "know" something and where our confidence come from.  This is so that we will know when the foundation of "knowing" have been compromised and when we should question our "knowledge".

My theory is that we observe the world and we hypothesize theories in order to explain what is happening.  We then compare our observations against how the theories predict upcoming events.  Our confidence gradually builds with observations that confirm our theories and at some point, we pass a confidence level when we "know" how things are.

Dan said that he tries not ever to be in the position of "knowing" as that is when learning stops. He is therefore always open to new observations but that also mean that he is always unsure and in a state of flux.

Robert and Ricki both mentioned that they seem to know everything as a teenager but the more knowledge they accumulate, the more they realize there is so much more to know that they felt they know less and less of the world as they get older.

There was talk of data, information, knowledge, and wisdom.  What I found revealing is that data is just observations.  Information is extracting common threads and patterns out of data over time, geography, sample population, or some other space. This extraction process inevitably involve some organization of data to conform to a theory or hypothesis.  Therefore some subjective interpretation is involved.

Pulling information to form knowledge involves some internalization of the information for us to be even more confident that we "understand" a phenomenon. More hypothesis testing and more subjective interpretation.

Defining wisdom is a completely different topic but I would venture to say that it is another step of pulling patterns out of knowledge, therefore involving even more subjectivity and interpretation.

From solid and impartial data, we add subjectivity, interpretation, hypothesis, and fuzzy boundaries along the way to information, knowledge, and wisdom.

We also discussed that there is no firm basis for us to predict that the sun will come over the horizon tomorrow just because it always did, or that we will have gravity tomorrow, just as we always have.  But it seem pointless to worry about it.

Does it show that philosophy is too ivory tower like? or that we need studies like philosophy to show what we assume unknowingly ?

And to think that we get most of our "knowledge" from "trusted" sources or defer to authorities. We don't even get to observe most of the things that we get informed by the media.

Do we really "know" much at all?