The Dangers of Social Networking

The popular social networking site MySpace.com faces public scrutiny after a 13 year-old girl committed suicide last year. Apparently an ex-friend of the girl and her family created a fake profile of a boy named "josh" with which she had an online romance with for over a month. On November 15th, "Josh" sent her a message saying that they could no longer be friends because he had heard rumors about her and she would be better off dead. The girl, who had been suffering from depression for quite some time, hung herself in her bedroom the next day. 6 weeks after the incident, it was discovered that the profile was created by the mother of a girl who used to be friends with Meagan (the girl who committed suicide).

Upon trying to press charges against the woman who created the profile, Meagan's parents were told that there were no laws that this falls under. They are now trying to have new laws passed protecting children using the internet. Aside from the obvious mental instability of the grown adult who would participate in such a thing, Meagan was only 13 at the time and one is supposed to be a minimum of 14 years of age in order to create a MySpace profile. This brings up the issue of how to control who is using these sites and who is using false profiles.

A spokeswoman for MySpace failed to respond to calls seeking comment, but it is clear that something needs to be done in order to save their image. I am sure that this was not the first incident of its kind and I'm sure that it won't be the last. Any place where child predators and naive children have access to the same resources is not a safe one. If MySpace wants to avoid legal action as well as negative public opinion in the future, I would recommend that they institute some kind technology in which one's identity must first be proved in order to create a profile; maybe by entering a social security or driver's license number when registering. In any case, MySpace's failure to comment on this case demonstrates their lack of concern for the growing misuse of their services by minors.

Organ Transplant Ends Badly for Four Chicago Residents

Four organ transplant recipients in the Chicago area have been infected with HIV and Hepatitis C after receiving organs from an infected donor. One woman, after having a kidney transplant operation at the University of Chicago Medical Center was told that she had HIV and Hepatitis. Unknown to her, the donor was actually a high-risk gay man and according to CDC guidelines, sexually active gay men are not to be used as donors unless the patient is in an imminent life-threatening situation. Additionally, not only did the hospital not inform the patient of the status of the donor, but they failed to test the patient until another recipient of an organ from the same donor turned up positive for both HIV and hepatitis.

This being the first time since 1986 that HIV was transmitted via organ transplant, all of the area hospitals responsible face serious malpractice litigation. Plus, their reputations are greatly tarnished. Personally I don't know how good I would feel about receiving health care from a so-called professional that infected people with worse illnesses than they were already suffering from. It would be in the hospital's best interest to fire whoever was responsible for the incidents and immediately put into place guidelines and rules that would prevent such a thing from ever happening again. Oh and a public apology wouldn't hurt either.

More Toxic Toys Pulled From the Market

The toy industry really may really begin to suffer if things keep going as they have been recently. . . News surfaced on Wednesday with reports that the children's toy Bindeez (beads that sick together when sprayed with water) produced by Moose Enterprises, caused children to become seriously ill after swallowing them. The beads were found to contain a chemical that when metabolized, the body turns into gamma-hydroxy butyrate or GHB- a popular date rape drug. British stores immediately removed it from the shelves and the US has ordered a recall.

The Melbourne based manufacturing company issued a press release addressing the matter, albeit a little delayed, but what is troubling is that they did little to make up for, or even apologize for the incident. There have been no press conferences held or even statements given by the CEO, no attempts at saving their public image at all.

Even if Moose were to come up with the best explanation and apology for the situation, it is far too late to save their image. Public opinion is usually formed within the first 24 hours of a crisis and promptness matters more than anything else when dealing with damage control. The damage has been done and by thinking that they were invisible, this company may have effectively dug its own grave. Above all, if ever there were an example of what not to do in the event of a disaster, one need look no further than Moose Enterprises and their toxic bead fiasco.

A Vow of Silence is Not Always a Bad Thing. . .

If there is ever a question as to how to avoid putting your foot in your mouth, one need look no further than 1962 Nobel prize winner James Watson. Whilst casually browsing the CNN website, I found this little gem: 'Race Row' Nobel Winner Suspended. On October 14th, Watson was interviewed for a London newspaper and was quoted as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really." He went on to state that there was no reason to believe different races separated by geography should have evolved identically, and that while he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true." As a result of his comments, he was suspended from his post at a research laboratory and his British book tour was canceled.

A few days after the fact, Watson issued a public apology saying:

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. . . .I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have."

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

As much as he apologizes, it is clear that he meant what he said, and while I truly believe that he did not mean it quite the way that it sounds. . . he should know better by now that if one is in the public eye, they cannot just speak about controversial matters that are not first well thought out. He had to know that these comments would not be received well no matter what his intentions were. This is not the first time Watson has been under fire. He won the prize for discovering the double-helix structure of DNA in 1962 and has been known for making controversial public statements ever since.

In 1997, Watson was quoted as saying that if a gene for homosexuality were isolated, women who find that their unborn child has the gene should be allowed to have an abortion. In 2000, he suggested there might be links between skin color and sexual prowess and between a person's weight and their level of ambition. In a British documentary aired in 2003, Watson suggested that stupidity was a genetic disease that should be treated.

Most of the outlandish things this man has said are not really that far-fetched if they are closely analyzed. Therefore, it is clear to me that he means well, but is just really bad at getting his point across. So. . . I guess my point is that if you are not known for being the most articulate person, the best way to avoid negative media attention is to not speak at all.

Ithaca College Issued RIAA Legal Notices, Violates Student Privacy

In this week's issue of The Ithacan, an article was featured about the issuance of even more RIAA legal notices. This is not the first time, nor the first school that has been targeted. In March, the IP addresses of multiple students were identified and the students were issued legal documents giving the choice of the following: an outrageous fine or an even more outrageous and costly trial. In the case of the RIAA who has been suing everyone they can get their hands on including children as young as 14, not much can be done to improve public opinion of them until they stop stomping on the little to get money. The RIAA needs to realize that suing innocent people for hundreds of thousands is not the answer, but rather promoting legal file sharing instead of illegitimately attacking young students.

That being said, the focus of my rant is not the RIAA, but rather Ithaca College. You see, many colleges and universities across the nation have been supplied with a lengthy list of IP addresses involved in illegal file sharing. After receiving these notices, the school is asked to forward the letters to the students owning the IP addresses. Otherwise, there is no way that the RIAA can link the IP address to a person. However, the schools are not obligated legally or otherwise to actually do so and in fact many institutions have refused in order to protect the privacy of their students. Two such universities are Boston College and MIT, who recently won a court case with the RIAA alleging that the subpoenas violate privacy policy.

Ithaca College on the other hand, not only eagerly released the names of the students to the RIAA, but they actually judicially referred the students themselves! As if a totally unlawful, outrageous, and unfair fine is not enough, an involved student must bear a black mark on their judicial record. Regardless of how one feels about piracy or file sharing, it is clear that if IC does not want to make a bad name for itself, it ought to start protecting the privacy rights of its students and they can begin by telling the RIAA to take their subpoenas and shove them up their money hungry asses.

China Bans Crude Birth Control Slogans

So I just happened to stumble upon this article when I googled a completely unrelated topic, but since I got a bit of a laugh out of it, I figured I would share. The article, China Family Planning Slogans, is about the Chinese government's recent decision to revise their campaign to encourage people to have fewer children.

In 1979, in order to slow the rapid growth of the already enormous population, China implemented the "one child" law. In addition, ads featuring slogans discouraging large families have been displayed throughout the country ever since. Such slogans included "Raise fewer babies but more piggies" and "One more baby means one more tomb."

Believe it or not,these ads were considered to be "poorly worded" and "full of strong language" by the Chinese people and they felt as if the government were "simply forcing people to give up having more babies." In light of this, China has decided to "give a friendlier face" to the family planning campaign stop using these slogans, replacing them with "warm" and "humanistic" slogans to promote birth control and encourage people to have less children rather than frightening them into not having more. Some of these new slogans include emphasis on the 'equality of boys and girls' due to the still widespread preference of having boys over girls.

I was just amused by this because I would think that anyone who was at all concerned about possible public outcry and societal opinion would never force citizens to get abortions and sterilizations and issue slogans such as those promising to "topple houses and confiscate cows" if the demands of population control are not met.

Spears' New Album Hoping For Pity Sales

Britney Spears is certainly no stranger to public relations crises. Recently she has been all over the news and most presently, she has had custody of her children taken away due to her highly irresponsible lifestyle. Jive, Spears' record label, has stated that they are doing everything they can to help Britney get through this rough time in her life and that they will stand by her no matter what. They have also called out the media as cause to many of Britney's personal problems saying that the paparazzi are exploiting her troubles therefore making it more difficult for her to cope.

The reason I bring this up is because it is indicative of the often true saying "There is no such thing as bad publicity." By supporting Spears, Jive makes themselves look good, while Britney has titled her latest album "Blackout" (out November 13). She claims that the title "refers to blocking out negativity and embracing life fully," but I think we can all see past that for what it really is: a publicity stunt. Clearly she is trying to capitalize on her recent misfortunes, and props to Miss Spears because it seems to be working. Everyone wants to know what's going on with her and what's more people will be buying her album, if for no other reason, to be privy to the train wreck that is Britney Spears. Beyond this factor, she has demonstrated that she is only human and the public will now find her much more relate-able. The bottom line is that every one involved will come out smelling like roses.