Apple responded yesterday to accusations that it had in some way censored content on the iPhone 4S software Siri, which until recently largely omitted any information on contraception. The ACLU has started a petition urging Apple to fix the problem by giving the endowing “personal assistant” with knowledge about reproductive services, such as birth control and abortion. Apple adamantly denied any claim of censorship. Natalie Karris, a spokesperson for Apple said in a phone interview: “Our customers want to use Siri to find out all types of information, and while it can find a lot, it doesn’t always find what you want. These are not intentional omissions meant to offend anyone. It simply means that as we bring Siri from beta to a final product, we find places where we can do better, and we will in the coming weeks.”
The absence of information on contraception would not have been so glaring if it were not for the host of other random facts and quippy responses that Siri is capable of pontificating, including information on Viagra. (When asked to “beam me up,” Siri responds “stand still.” It also responds helpfully to the questions “Where should I dump a body?” and “How much wood could a wood chuck chuck?”)
The glitch was first reported on a blog called “the Abortioneers.” Several upset users have accused Apple of being pro-life, pointing to Siri’s knowledge of adoption centers, baby stores and pregnancy resource centers. Apple denies any bias on the issue, saying that the program is in no way intentionally leaving out information, but simply a work in progress. Normal Winarsky, one of the founders of Siri before Apple bought it in 2010, says Siri was designed to obtain response data from third-party services, and that this could be responsible for the disconnect.
A satirical television commercial for the South African-owned Nando’s restaurant group has been axed.
The ad depicted Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s difficulty in coming up with enough dictators to fill a Christmas Party this festive season.
Nando’s International Headquarters decided to pull the advert on Wednesday, after threats to Nando’s staff, customers and suppliers in Zimbabwe’s capital, Harare. Musekiwa Kumbula, corporate affairs director for Nando’s biggest shareholder, called the ad “insensitive and in poor taste.” It is still a crime to insult Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
The commerical, called the Last Dictator Standing, shows Mugabe and Muammar Qaddafi having a watergun fight; Mao Zedong and Mugabe singing karaoke; Saddam Hussein and Mugabe making snow angels in the sand, in their boxer shorts; Mugabe and Idi Amin mimicking that front-of-the Titanic “flying” scene aboard a tank; and most improbably of all, Mugabe pushing apartheid defender, ex President P.W. Botha on a swing.
Alas, whether by NATO bombs or natural causes, all of Mugabe’s invitees are now dead. It’s going to be a lonely Christmas. Despite the commercial’s popularity — it went viral on YouTube — Nando’s has withdrawn the commercial, citing physical threats to staff and customers at the Nando’s fanchises inside Zimbabwe.
Youth members of Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party had reportedly begun to protest outside Nando’s chain stores in Harare and elsewhere in the country. On Tuesday, a militant youth group loyal to Mugabe called for a boycott against the chain unless the 60-second commercial was dropped and an apology made to Mugabe, 87, who led Zimbabwe to independence in 1980.
Nando’s responded: “We feel strongly that this is the prudent step to take in a volatile climate and believe that no TV commercial is worth risking the safety of Nando’s staff and customers”.
In an horrific story that brings to mind the Soviets’ reworking of history, Yenesew Gebre, an Ethiopian citizen, a 29 year-old Ethiopian school teacher and human rights activist set himself ablaze outside a public meeting hall in the town of Tarcha located in Dawro Zone in Southern Ethiopia. He died three days later from his injuries. Later his sister and his father both claimed he had mental health issues (although no record exists of medication or treatment), and no-one was allowed to visit him in hospital. The death certificate, which was not signed by the official hospital coroner (who refused to sign it) stated blood poisoning as the cause of death. There are allegations that this was a faked death certificate.
Yenesew walked out of a public meeting on 11 November , saying the words “I want to show to all that death is preferable than a life without justice and liberty and I call upon my fellow compatriots to fear nothing and rise up to wrest their freedom and rights from the hands of the local and national tyrants.” He then set fire to himself. Yenesew was one of about 50 young men from the area who were protesting the reworking of civil boundaries, and were taking their case to federal courts, in the capital Addis Ababa.
President Meles Zenawi’s immediate response was to send in a reinforcement of some 300 police officers, and to impose a complete news blackout and seal off the town. Telephone services to the town were cut prevent all news of Yenesew’s sacrifice from spreading throughout Ethiopia. Yenesew was buried by police without his family being allowed to attend. Presumably the intention of preventing a public funeral and burying Yenesew in an unmarked grave was to divert attention from the young man’s actions.
This action takes place within the context of Ethiopia’s extremely poor human rights and freedom of expression record. After Eritrea, it is the area where most journalist alerts originate, according to International Federation of Journalists.
In addition to the six journalists held in custody without bail since June 2011, on 14 November, 24 people, including senior opposition politicians and an outspoken Internet journalist, were charged with with plotting terrorist acts to create public chaos. They are accused of violations of Ethiopia’s harsh anti-terrorism law, which has been criticised by human rights and press freedom groups.
Vladimir Osechkin, 30, has become one of Russia‘s most successful freedom of expression advocates.
The former businessman fell foul of Moscow’s regional authorities in 2007, Osechkin claims he was asked to pay numerous bribes after he began building one of the biggest automobile sales centres in the area. He reported these extortion attempts to the prosecutors office. Controversially Osechkin was then charged with fraud, a claim he believes was trumped up to punish him for refusing to pay bribes. He was detained for almost four years in Mozhaysk pre-trial prison. It is worth noting that since Osechkin’s 2007 arrest, many of his accusers have faced criminal suits and corruption accusations.
When Osechkin was released on parole in June 2011 he had two goals: exoneration and to fight for prisoners’ rights, namely their freedom of expression.
He began by creating Gulagu.net (“no to GULAG”), where prisoners’ relatives, attorneys and penal system workers could register and post details of violence in prisons and suggest ways to confront abuse. The information provided can then be investigated by Russian prosecutors.
It is common that prisoners’ voices cannot be heard outside prison, Osechkin explains. Prison authorities often tear up prisoners’ written complaints in front of them and resort to beating those who dare complain. In August 2011 inmates in Mozhaysk were beaten and refused appropriate medical care. Records of their complaints of cruel treatment were allegedly destroyed by prison authorities so that no investigation would be launched.
This led to Osechkin’s first major campaign. Alongside inmates’ relatives, a whistleblowing prison staffer called Alexey Ivanov, turned to Osechkin for legal assistance and help publicising their plight. Osechkin published their evidence on gulagu.net and convinced other prison staff and former inmates to come forward. He sheltered Ivanov, who was threatened by his bosses after he gave evidence to prosecturos, and sent the statements detailing other allegations of abuse he had received to the Moscow region’s Prosecutor’s Office and Investigative Committee.
The result was outstanding. An investigation was launched, prison head Vyacheslav Melnik was removed from his position, the beating and physical abuse of prisoners ended and inmates were given a chance to complain to prosecutors, who began prison inspections.
Osechkin says that, while Russian non-governmental supervisory committees also conduct prison checks and are required to report on and investigate prisoners’ rights abuses, they frequently turn into circus shows. Supervisors are told how perfect the prison is and inmates are often threatened physical violence for expressing their concerns. Once supervisors accepted two iPhones from one of Russian big prison’s deputies, Osechkin recalls. Having been caught on the prison’s video cameras, the supervisors would likely face a bribery accusation if they were to report inmates’ rights abuses.
The Mozhaysk Investigative Committee is due to make a decision about filing a criminal case against the prison head and his deputies. If it files the case, Osechkin’s struggle for prisoners’ freedom of expression may well trigger real change in the Russian penal system.
If not, there is one thing he has achieved permanently: he has created an online space where all Russian prisoners’ complaints about brutal treatment can be documented without fear of censorship.
