Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 99

Real-world reasons parents should care about kids and online privacy

Matt_Brown via iStock

This post originally appeared on Common Sense Media.

If you don't want to have the bejesus scared out of you, don't talk to an expert on kids' online privacy. If you knew what was really out there — online predators, identity thieves, data miners — you'd lock up the internet and throw away the key.

The truth is, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The internet is so woven into our lives, we need to be aware of the worst-case scenarios that can strike when we're unprepared. Below are a few of those scary things that can and do happen. But with some eyes and ears to the ground, they are totally preventable.

Your kid could be spied on. Smart toys including My Friend Cayla, Hello Barbie, and CloudPets are designed to learn and grow with your kid. Cool, right? Unfortunately, many of these toys have privacy problems. As the 2015 data breach of Vtech's InnoTab Max uncovered, hackers specifically target kids because they offer clean credit histories and unused Social Security numbers that they can use for identity theft. These toys also collect a lot of information about your kid, and they aren't always clear about when they do it and how they use it.

Protect yourself. Make sure you buy a toy that has a good privacy policy that you understand. Only provide required information, not the optional stuff they ask for, and turn off the toy when it's not being used.

Your kid could get accused of a crime. Everyone has the right to privacy, especially in their own home. But home assistants such as Amazon Alexa, Google Home, and Mattel Aristotle are designed to butt their noses into conversations. These devices collect — and store — untold amounts of data. It's unclear what the companies do with the extraneous "noise" they pick up. And if it's subpoenaed, they might have to hand it over. Say your kid jokes about terrorism or something else illegal; if there's an investigation into those activities, the companies might have to cough up the transcripts. In Arkansas, a prosecutor asked for a murder suspect's Echo smart speaker in case its information could shed light on the crime. The suspect agreed to hand over the recordings, and Amazon was compelled to make them available.

Protect yourself. Turn off your home assistant's microphone when you're not using it. You also can prune your data in your devices' app settings, deleting stuff you don't want to store on your phone or in the companies' cloud servers. Or choose not to use a home assistant until the privacy regulations are ironed out.

Your kid could get hurt. With location-aware social media such as Twitter, Kik, and Facebook, kids can reveal their actual, physical locations to all their contacts — plenty of whom they don't know personally. Imagine a selfie that's location-tagged and says, "Bored, by myself, just hanging out looking for something fun to do."

Protect yourself. Turn off location sharing on your kids' devices, both in the phone settings and in the apps they use, so their status updates and photos are not automatically tagged with their locations. Make sure your kids never tell strangers their address, their school name, where they hang out, or where they're going to be. Teach kids to choose "no" when asked to share their locations.

Your kid could lose out on opportunities. Posting wild and crazy pics from prom '17 paints a picture for potential admissions counselors, hiring managers, and others whom teens want to impress. They may not care that your kid partied — only that he showed poor judgment in posting compromising images.

Protect yourself. Tell your kid not to share photos of questionable activities on the internet. If those kinds of photos do wind up online, tell your kid to ask his or her friends either to take them down or not to tag them so the photos can't be traced back. And remember to model responsible online sharing; don't share photos of your kid without asking permission, and share them with a limited audience — for example, only grandparents.

Your kid could be sold short. Schools are increasingly using software from third-party providers to teach, diagnose potential learning issues, and interact with students. This software includes online learning lessons, standardized tests, and 1:1 device programs. And the companies that administer the programs are typically allowed to collect, store, and sell your kids' performance records. Wondering about all those offers for supplemental reading classes you're receiving in the mail? Maybe your kid stumbled on her reading assessments — and marketers are trying to sell you "solutions." Curious why Harvard isn't trying to recruit your kid? Maybe they already decided she's not Ivy League material based on her middle school grades. (Learn about our Student Privacy Initiative.)

Protect yourself. If you know that your kid is going to be using third-party programs at school, find out what the software opts them into and what they can opt out of. Tell your kid to only supply required, not optional, information. If you have the time (and the stomach for it), you could read through the privacy policies of all the software your kid uses at school. Otherwise, talk to the principal about how the school vets companies' policies. If you're not satisfied, raise the issue with other parents (say, at the PTA meeting) to learn how your school can do more to protect student privacy.

Your kid could be limited. As schools automate procedures, they create student records with sensitive — and potentially damaging — information. Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), schools are allowed to share certain information without getting parents' consents. That means that an individual education plan (IEP), attendance records, a disciplinary record, prescribed medication, or even a high body mass index could be disclosed and used to unfairly disqualify your kid from opportunities, such as advanced classes, government services, or special schools.

Protect yourself. Schools are required to send parents information on how they handle student privacy. Find out what information your school collects, how it's stored, who gets to see it, and what future administrators are allowed to do with it. Under FERPA, you have the right to request, correct, or add an amendment to your kid's records through your district's educational department.

Your kid could be humiliated. Sharing fun stuff from your life with friends is fine. But oversharing is never a good idea. When kids post inappropriate material — whether it's a sexy selfie, an explicit photo session with a friend, an overly revealing rant, or cruel comments about others — the results can be humiliating if those posts become public or shared widely.

Protect yourself. Talk to your kids about keeping private things private, considering how far information can travel and how long it can last, and how they can talk to their friends about respecting one another's personal privacy.

Your kid's data could wind up in the wrong hands. The Cambridge Analytica scandal that involved scraping information from people's profiles on Facebook proves that you can never be sure how companies are protecting your data, who they're sharing it with, and what information they're giving to third parties.

Protect yourself.  When you sign up for a social media account, only provide the basic information needed to set up your profile. Services such as Facebook ask for a lot of information, but often it's not required to register. When you use third-party apps, such as a downloadable quiz on Facebook, review the information the app says it's taking from your profile. If it's over-reaching, for example taking data it doesn't really need or taking your friend's data, just say no.

Why weather forecasters still struggle to get the big storms right

Getty/Mario Tama

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

It was March 2017, and a winter storm named Stella promised to deliver up to a foot and a half of snow to New York City and parts of New Jersey. Officials pushed out blizzard warnings, suggesting the city was under imminent snowy siege.

But only 7 inches fell. Then-Gov. Chris Christie blasted forecasters. “I don’t know how much we should be paying these weather guys,” he said. “I’ve had my fill of the National Weather Service after seven and a half years.”

For anyone following the weather, forecasts for big storms are sometimes still roller-coaster rides – with sudden shifts in track or intensity. As a meteorologist who forecasts for a large urban market, I can attest to the frustration. Why can’t we get it right every time, given this era of 24/7 weather data, dozens of satellite and sophisticated computer models? The answer lies in the quirks between the most popular forecasting models.

Battle of the models

Computer forecast models have become the mainstay of weather prediction across North America and many other parts of the world. Run on fast supercomputers, these sophisticated mathematical models of the atmosphere have gotten better over the past couple decades.

Human forecast skill has improved by approximately one day per decade. In other words, today’s four-day forecast is as accurate as a three-day forecast was a decade ago.

Forecasters in the U.S. routinely examine several models, but the two most discussed ones are the American and the European. When the models disagree on the track of a big storm, forecasters must often choose which they believe is most correct. This decision can make or break a critical forecast.

Most meteorologists agree that the European model is the most skillful. This was cemented in March 1993, when it correctly forecast the track and intensity of a historical Nor'easter. Called the “Storm of the Century,” the storm dropped a blanket of heavy snow from the Gulf Coast to the northern tip of Maine.

The storm was a milestone for what is termed medium-range forecasting, or forecasts made three to seven days out. The European model nailed the prediction five days in advance. That meant officials could declare states of emergency before the first flakes ever flew.

Fast forward to 2012, and the Euro was still making correct calls on big, dramatic storms. But this time, the lead time went beyond eight days. The storm was Hurricane Sandy, a massive Atlantic storm. More than a week in advance, the European model predicted an oddball westward jog in Sandy’s track, whereas the American model arced it eastward and harmlessly away from the East Coast. Score: another major victory for the European.

European versus American

Why does the European do so well, compared to its American counterpart?

For one, it’s run on a more powerful supercomputer. Two, it has a more sophisticated mathematical system to handle the “initial conditions” of the atmosphere. And three, it’s been developed and refined at an institute whose singular focus is on medium-range weather prediction.

In the U.S., the medium-range American model is part of a suite of several models, including several short-range prediction systems that run as frequently as every hour. The time, intellectual focus and costs are shared among as many as four or five different types of models.

The public has heard about the European model’s victories. But forecasters also know that the American model is quite skillful; it’s had its share of wins, albeit less high-profile. One of these was Winter Storm Juno, a 2015 Nor'easter that severely impacted the New England coast. Forecasters put out a dire warning for 24 to 36 inches of snow across all of New York City. In an unprecedented move, Mayor Andrew Cuomo shut down the subway system in advance, a move never done for an impending snowstorm.

This doomsday snow forecast was based on the European model. The American model predicted that the storm would be displaced about 50 miles further eastward – shifting the big thump of snow away from the city proper. In reality, Juno took this eastward track and Central Park ended up with “only” 10 inches – a significant amount if snow, but not a crippling 2 to 3 feet. The unnecessary economic losses from the city’s shutdown were huge, putting meteorologists on the defensive.

In the case of winter storm Stella, the American model massively overpredicted snowfall. But a short-range model called the North American Model correctly predicted a storm track 50 to 100 miles further east.

Predicting the weather

It all comes down to this: Weather forecasters have many choices for predictive models. The art of forecasting is based on years of experience spent with each model, learning the unique biases and strengths of each. The National Weather Service and other forecasting outfits have made strides in better communicating forecast uncertainty, given the inherent spread in the models. But it still often comes down to that gut feeling: European or American?

Researchers are taking steps to improve U.S. medium-range weather prediction by doubling the computer speed and tweaking the way the model ingests data. Companies like Panasonic and IBM have entered the arena with their own novel weather prediction models.

In the meantime, while we wait for the American model to “catch up” to the skill of the European, there are a few ways people can learn to decipher the forecast message. Individual model runs are less skillful beyond about five days; what you’re looking for is run-to-run consistency. Also, seek out forecasts that frame the predictive uncertainty. For instance, a forecast may suggest alternate scenarios for an upcoming snowstorm: a 20 percent chance of up to 15 inches, or a 20 percent chance that only 4 to 6 inches will fall.

Jeffrey B. Halverson, Professor of Geography & Environmental Systems, Associate Dean of the Graduate School, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The Facebook controversy: privacy is not the issue

AP/Andrew Harnik

This article was originally published by Scientific American.

Cambridge Analytica’s wholesale scraping of Facebook user data is familiar news by now, and we are all “shocked” that personal data are being shared and traded on a massive scale. But the real issue with social media is not the harm to individual users whose information was shared, but the sophisticated and sometimes subtle mass manipulation of social and political behavior by bad actors, facilitated by deceit, fraud and the amplification of lies that spread easily through societal discourse on the internet.

Any pretense to privacy was abandoned long ago when we accepted the free service model of Google, Facebook, Twitter and others. Did the Senators who listened to Mark Zuckerberg’s mea culpa last week really think that Facebook, which charges nothing for its services to users, was simply providing a public service for free? Where did they think its $11 billion in advertising revenue came from, if not from selling ads and user data to advertisers?

Let’s identify the real issue. The tangible damage resulting from identity theft and the loss of personal financial information are growing problems, but they typically are not caused by our use of social media platforms, where we share a lot of information — but rarely our credit card or Social Security numbers.

The controversy about Cambridge Analytica that landed Zuckerberg before Congress actually began brewing over a year ago. It was a controversy not about privacy but about how Cambridge Analytica put vast amounts of personal data, mostly from Facebook, into its so-called “psychographic” engine to influence behavior at the individual level (see When the Big Lie Meets Big Data, published here in March of 2017).

Cambridge Analytica worked with researchers from Cambridge University who developed a Facebook app that provided a free personality test, then proceeded to scoop up all the users’ Facebook data plus that of all their friends (thus leveraging the actual users, who numbered less than a million, to harvest the data of more than 80 million people). Using this data, Cambridge Analytica then classified each individual’s personality according to the so-called “OCEAN” scale (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism) and fashioned individually targeted messages to appeal to each person’s personality.

Neither subpoenas nor investigative journalists were needed to find all this out — most of it was publicly revealed by Cambridge Analytica’s chief Alexander Nix in a marketing presentation that received wide distribution on YouTube. Cambridge Analytica (owned partly by Robert Mercer, an early pioneer in artificial intelligence who has been a financial backer of Breitbart News and other right-wing causes) had already done work for the Trump Campaign, and Nix was seeking more business.

The real danger revealed by the Cambridge Analytica scandal is that the information and social platforms of the internet, on which we increasingly spend our time and through which more and more of our personal and social connections flow, are being corrupted in the service of con men, political demagogues and thieves. Russia’s troll farm, the Internet Research Agency, employs fake user accounts to post divisive messages, purchase political ads, spread fabricated images and even organize political rallies.

The danger of misinformation is not just political; it is commercial as well. Major purchasers of internet advertising know that the “pay per click” model is flawed. Competitors can set up bots (or even human campaigns) to click on their ads, driving up their costs and casting doubt on the value of an advertising campaign. The company Devumi sells Twitter followers and retweets to celebrities and businesses in order to make them appear more popular than they are. The followers are fake, cobbled together in automated fashion by scraping the social media web for names and photos.

Until Zuckerberg’s decision to testify before Congress, there was scant evidence that Twitter or Facebook were disturbed about any of this. Still, there are a number of machine learning tools that can be used to identify fake accounts or activity.

Benford's Law

In 2015, a University of Maryland professor, Jen Golbeck, discovered an ingenious real-time method for identifying fake social media accounts. She found that the number of a user’s Twitter or Facebook friends follows a well-known statistical distribution called Benford’s Law. The law states that, in a conforming data set, the first significant digit of numbers is a “1” about 30 percent of the time — six times more often than it’s a 9. The phenomenon, which is quite widespread, is named after physicist Frank Benford, who illustrated it with the surface areas of rivers, street addresses, numbers appearing in a Reader’s Digest issue, and many more examples.

In other words, if you looked at (say) a thousand Facebook users and counted how many friends each had, roughly 300 of them would have friend counts in the teens (1x), 100–199 range (1xx) or 1,000–1,999 range (1xxx). Only 5 percent would have counts beginning with a nine: 9, 90–99, 900–999, 9,000–9,999.

We can represent each Facebook, Twitter or other social media user as a network of linked users. A plot of an individual user’s links to other users might look like the figure below:

To assess whether a user is genuine, we can look at each of that user’s friends, and count their friends or followers. Specifically:

1. Consider a friend or follower of the account in question.

2. Count its followers/friends (“friend of friend”); record.

3. Repeat for all the remaining friends/followers of the original account.

4. Calculate the distribution of those “friend of friend” counts.

Russian Bots Were Revealed, Yet Stayed Online

Golbeck found that the overwhelming majority of Facebook, Twitter and other social media follower and friend counts followed Benford’s Law. On Twitter, however, she found a small set of 170 accounts whose follower distributions differed markedly from that law. In her 2015 paper she wrote:

“Some accounts were spam, but most were part of a network of Russian bots that posted random snippets of literary works or quotations, often pulled arbitrarily from the middle of a sentence. All the Russian accounts behaved the same way: following other accounts of their type, posting exactly one stock photo image, and using a different stock photo image as the profile picture.”

Golbeck told me that she and others posted lists of Russian bots active on Twitter three years ago, and they were still active as of January in this year. Twitter does not seem to care. More to the point, a meticulous cleansing of user records would have the financially deleterious effect of reducing its user base; in Silicon Valley business plans begin and end with a large and constantly growing user base.

Does it matter that fake Russian (and other) Twitter and Facebook accounts and attendant activity persist? What harm can they do?

They can create and distribute false information, which can be put in service of a Cambridge Analytica style psychographic campaign. In Alexander Nix’s presentation of this approach, one of his illustrations showed how alarmist, yet false, messaging highlighting fears of sharks is better than true, but boring, legal notices in keeping people off a private beach. Fake users can help generate the fake content that is needed to serve specific behavior manipulation goals.
They can enable extremists by providing them with a community (albeit a fake one); in the pre-internet age, these extremists would have faced a higher social burden.
They can amplify and boost the impact of pundits and commentators, selected to promote their goals.
They can cause commercial harm and distortions, by boosting products with fake reviews and sabotaging pay-per-click ad campaigns. One speaker at an analytics conference last year estimated that as much as 40 percent of the click activity for which advertisers are paying is fraudulent.
They will, in the long run, taint social media metrics, which is harmful to legitimate nontraditional businesses and organizations that rely on social media to promote their products and services. Fake users tie themselves to legitimate users to boost their own profile, thereby damaging the legitimate users. This blog post has an account of this phenomenon in the music community.

The Future

It is hard to see how government regulation will play a useful role. In today’s digital age, regulation is like placing rocks in a streambed. The water will simply flow around them, even big ones.

It’s possible that the social media titans will use tools at their disposal like those discussed here to drastically reduce the impact of fake accounts and manipulative behavior. Currently, we have the attention of Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, because of the peculiar Cambridge Analytica circumstances, where the storyline runs something like “Breitbart and Trump funder scrapes massive amounts of personal data from Facebook, uses it to manipulate opinion.” Meanwhile, Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, has made some promises to improve identity verification but has otherwise escaped the most recent limelight.

The ultimate solution may lie in a smarter public. Can people be taught to approach what they see on the internet with greater skepticism? P.T. Barnum would say no, but there is one powerful example of public education that had a good and profound end: smoking. The tremendous decline in smoking around the world is due largely to public education and an attendant change in behavior, not to regulation and not to greater public responsibility on the part of tobacco companies.

Tracey Ullman takes on Starz’s “Howards End”

Starz/Kurt Iswarienko

When Tracey Ullman was conducting research in preparation for the role of Aunt Juley Mund in Starz’s four-part miniseries adaptation of E.M. Forster’s “Howards End,” she discovered that her character was one of an ilk: the Forsterian Aunts.

Watch enough Merchant Ivory productions and you’re likely to understand the traits of such a woman. She’s sexless and disapproving of progress, watching over the younger women when they travel in order to keep them out of trouble. It sounds like a miserable fate.

But Ullman wanted to be a Forsterian Aunt. “I had a lot of fun with it, trying to understand these young people from a different generation and just falling short,” she told Salon, prior to the mini-series early April premiere.

Currently airing Sundays at 8 p.m., the Starz version of “Howards End” arrives 26 years after the 1992 Oscar nominated film, but even at such a distance that production casts a long shadow. Part of that is a matter of casting: Americans may be more familiar with Ullman than the actress playing Aunt Juley in the film, Prunella Scales.

Meanwhile Hayley Atwell and Philippa Coulthard, who play Margaret and Helen Schlegel, can’t help but invite comparisons to Emma Thompson and Helena Bonham Carter, the women who played those parts in the theatrical classic.

Yet its impeccable production values and modern updates, courtesy of “Manchester By the Sea” screenwriter Kenneth Lonergan and director Hettie Macdonald, conspire to ensure its 1910 observation of economic divisions and social class feel relevant in today’s world.

The costuming, settings and demonstrations of graces reflect the story’s turn-of-the-century setting, but the amiable Schlegel sisters and the stuck-up Wilcoxes could be two families in any number of places in the U.S., Britain or the Western world.

For Ullman, mostly known for her spot-on characterizations of famous politicians and other public figures, to play Aunt Juley posed a special challenge. “I don't have my props. I don't have my wigs, my make-up, what [I] use so I can dissolve into somebody,” she said. But she was not deterred.

“Why not do it all?” she effused. “I love being funny and I love the discipline of drama.”

In this exclusive interview, the versatile star talks about her enduring affection for Forster’s novel and why the literary classic’s themes remain relevant more than 100 years after its publication. This interview has been edited slightly for length and clarity.

What was your connection to "Howards End" before this? Were you a big E.M. Forster fan?

I just loved the novel as a young woman. You know, you read things time and again during your life and you realized that the themes tend to repeat. It's so about the English class system, and the haves and the have nots. It's a wonderful story. And I'd seen the movie, which was wonderful. But to do four hours of it, gives it a different feel. To be sent the script and read Kenneth Lonergan's adaptation of it was rather thrilling. I love the way everyone's dialogue overlaps. Makes the conversation so naturalistic.

It seems that the naturalistic elements make it more attuned to the filmmaking style of today -- what we're used to seeing in the U.S.. For a long time, many of the period pieces viewers consumed came over to PBS via the BBC.

Ah, with that weird Edmund Gorey introduction.

Yes.

And who was it that used to sit in that big armchair and explain things? Alistair Cooke!

Right. This “Howards End” looks like a very different take, though. That's great, given your considerable adaptability. Did you consciously approach your character differently than the way she was portrayed in the 1992 film?

There's more in the miniseries for Aunt Juley, first off. I think in the original film — Prunella Scales played Aunt Juley — it was a much smaller role. Throughout the four episodes, it's much more of exploration of the family within it and the family connection with her. Juley, in the film she's called Mrs. Mund. She was married herself, but there's no mention of what happened to her husband. And as I get older, it's lovely to be asked to do things that, you know, 30 years ago or 20 years ago, my heroes like Prunella Scales or Maggie Smith or Judi Dench would have been asked to play.

I started out as a character actress, and yeah, I'm adaptable. I've done my own thing, but I grew up admiring Peggy Ashcroft. Oh my goodness, I just watched her in "Passage to India!" But I've looked back on those performances because I was sort of like a working class girl — not working class as workman . . . my mother would've said "definitely middle to upper class!" But yes, how you speak relates to our class system in England. And how you speak in these things made me nervous. I know I've never done that, you know, the "actress" voice. That interests me because I'm so into voices and accents, so I listened to very early recordings of women from that era.

It was struck by the simplicity of the way people spoke. It wasn't like, "Oh-ho hell-ooo!" you know? When we all met, it was like Hayley [Atwell] kind of set the tone of how we should sound. She's got a beautiful voice and just nobody's sounded plummy or putting it on or actressy. We just sort of felt like an average family.

The Schlegels, you mean. What about the Wilcoxes?

Oh well, if it were present day, they'd be like the more right-wing people that invest in companies that have lots of stocks and shares and are pretty rich, whereas the Schlegels are the more sort of curious liberal-minded bohemians. And then you have poor Leonard Bast, who's sort of the sacrificial lamb, the working-class man who can't get anywhere, stuck in a system.

Hettie Macdonald, our director, just set a beautiful tone for the whole piece. And it wasn't an exaggerated, you know, BBC-style drama. It looks stunning, but everyone looks real. It wasn't perfect. There was a scruffiness, this shabbiness to some of it that I love. Nobody wore any makeup. That's pretty brutal to not wear any makeup when you're sitting at a table like I was, in broad daylight with three 20-year-olds.

Beyond that, there's layer upon layer in the story that resonates even now. You're familiar with it?

Oh yes, it used to be one of those standard books on high school reading lists. But like you say, so many elements of class differences and conflict are timeless. And now that you've been inside Forster's story, what strikes you about the story that resonates with today's culture, not only in the U.S. but in Britain? When the series was in production you were dealing, of course, with Brexit, on top of all the other rightward shifts in Europe, and that has sparked a lot of renewed discussion about class divides.

There's such a huge disparity between the haves and have nots. It still very true in England, that as you open your mouth, you can tell where you're from, what you can aspire to, who you're connected with. And you know, public schools, we've just been through a period of Boris Johnson and David Cameron and George Osborne. It's like an Eton school reunion. And here too, you know, you have to connect yourself up to Ivy League colleges and privilege to get ahead. Economically, we really have gone back to this sort of Gilded Age. So yeah, lots of things resonate with today. And there are characters in the story who don't need to do anything, because they have a trust fund and inherited wealth. And it takes away your ability to make something [of] yourself or to understand the values of things or the struggle.

A lot of viewers in the U.S. know you mostly for your comedy work. And it's funny how people are continually surprised to see comedy actors take on serious dramatic roles.  

Yes.

Was there something about your background in comedy and your extensive mastery of character that augmented your work in "Howards End"?

Well, I started out as a theater actress. My first breakthrough role in America was in "Plenty" with Meryl Streep and, David Hare's play. But I've always wanted to be a character actress. My heroines are Jessica Tandy and Jean Stapleton.

What I do when I play the characters . . . I love "Saturday Night Live," but I think it's just impersonation, you know. The difference is sometimes I like to sort of inhabit the character or imagine another life for them. Like when I play Angela Merkel or I'm Judi Dench, I want to give them another persona, so it's not really a direct impersonation. I'm certainly not doing it because I want to make fun of them or be mean or glib. It's not satire in any way.

I just did a show for the BBC — and all my shows have gone to HBO -- and to be Nicola Sturgeon, Angela Merkel, Theresa May, Melania Trump in a show, is what people are wanting. To be Brigitte Macron . . . I can't believe Trump said what he did! I mean "You're in great shape"? Don't even get me started. Then, to have such dignity in the face of it. Can you imagine what the Macrons said once they got behind closed doors?

That's what I'm doing a lot of now, still, because I think that's what people are really wanting.

Who lives, who cries, who tells the story? Answer: Becky Albertalli, author of “Love, Simon”

20th Century Fox/Balzer + Bray/Decisive Moment Events

Everything about Becky Albertalli, author of “Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda” and “The Upside of Unrequited,” is loveable — like your high school best friend, if your high school best friend were a self-actualized cool adult who clapped back at people for being mean to you on Twitter. She is kind, smart, quirky. An Oreo aficionado. She loves “Hamilton.” As a former clinical psychologist who worked primarily with teenagers, Albertalli also has an innate understanding of the adolescent mind and its fundamental obsessions: sex, popularity, iPhones, sugar, yet she also adroitly portrays the quiet desperation and awkwardness that follow us all into adulthood. And when I say all, I do mean all. Maybe this is why so many adults continue to read YA — the pathos and bathos of this universal trope.

“Love, Simon,” the film adaptation of “Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda,” was released in March. Much in the vein of its predecessor, the film explores themes of identity, acceptance and longing that are synonymous with teen cinema. Yet the POV is that of a self-proclaimed “not-so-openly-gay” 16-year-old, Simon Spier: Nick Robinson (“Everything, Everything”), whose secret epistolary relationship with a boy named “Blue” is forced into the spotlight when an email falls into the wrong hands. Other stars of “Love, Simon” include Katherine Langford (“13 Reasons Why”), Jennifer Garner, Josh Duhamel and Tony Hale.

“I don’t want to oversell it, but it’s going to be like ‘10 Things I Hate About You’” Albertalli tells me over the phone. “Or one of the other John Hughes movies I grew up on!”

I laugh, wondering if anything will ever be “Sixteen Candles,” but then I remember how “Sixteen Candles” was partially rapey and racist — can you be partially rapey and racist? — and it makes me doubt my generation will ever truly heal or change.

What is remarkable about both “Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda” and its cinematic doppelganger “Love, Simon,” isn’t the coming-out trope, though that is, of course, summarily moving. The real kicker is that there’s now a mainstream coming-of-age-YA-novel-turned-movie about a gay boy. So what that he’s white and burby and his room looks like Crate and Barrel had a baby with Jonathan Adler; Molly Ringwald never had it so good. Film Simon is also bright and extremely endearing. What’s more, Simon’s friend group is diverse in a way that simply is without having to be explained. Rather than fighting to establish identity in a world that refuses to accept them for who they are, they mostly coexist in a suburban miasma of niceness.

Meantime, if you happen to follow YA Twitter at all, one of the early discussions about the film was whether or not it was cliché — it isn’t — but it follows familiar rom-com tropes. Albertalli’s response was to defend not so much her own work or the film, though she asserts the latter as beautifully written and conceived, as much as the importance of a gay teen romantic comedy arriving in a mainstream space where everyone can see it in their neighborhood multiplex. Do only straight people own clichés? And if not now, when?

The second kicker is that Albertalli turns out to be so nuanced in writing a cisgender gay male protagonist when she herself is a cis straight woman -- an interesting factoid in the era of #OwnVoices. Perhaps it’s Albertalli’s ability to capture the essence of the human spirit or her thorough grasp of voice, but both Billy Eichner and Andrew Rannells were among the many celebrities to tout the film on Instagram.

NYT best-selling YA author Adam Silvera (“History Is All You Left Me”) has proclaimed “Simon and the Homo Sapiens Agenda” the book he would have most liked to have read when he was a teen (Eichner called “Love, Simon” the film he would have most liked to have seen). Albertalli and Silvera are “book-married” and have recently finished a companion YA novel, “What If It’s Us,” which comes out in October 2018.

“The whole book started with character,” Albertalli says. “I followed Simon into the story. The easy part of that is what is it like to write a boy. I didn’t set out to make his voice more ‘masculine.’ Simon’s voice is a lot like my own voice. The gay part required more care — writing part of a marginalized community that I didn’t belong to. When I originally wrote "Simon," a sensitivity reader wasn’t a thing, but still — white, gay, boy Simon passed through many, many, many hands!”

Of course, who gets to tell what story, and how, continues either to evolve (or devolve, depending on your perspective). Author Lionel Shriver made the case for write-what-you-don’t-know and was excoriated. On the other side of the aisle, the #OwnVoices movement, founded by author Corinne Duyvis (“Otherbound”) as a hashtag to recommend books by authors who share identities with their characters and promote diversity in the children’s literature community, has since widened its scope to include all of publishing. This begs the question, if it’s so long “Sixteen Candles,” is it hello “Love, Simon?” What’s coming up the pike and who is opening the door? Is it even open? And if so, how wide?

“The conversation has even evolved since 2013 when I originally started writing ‘Simon,’’’Albertalli admits. “It’s not about how there’s one message or one person who can write this story but more how can we boost and lift the story and think about why we are telling it.”

Meanwhile, this same narrative inclusion is evident in Albertalli’s second novel “The Upside of Unrequited,” a coming-of-age story about twin-sisterhood, crazy crushes and first love. Protagonist Molly Peskin-Suso is a Jewish 17-year-old with generalized anxiety disorder and a passion for Pinterest.

She’s also not your typically thin teen protagonist waiting to whip off her glasses in a classic makeover montage. What’s fantastic here, and liberating, is that losing weight is never Molly’s (or Albertalli’s) end goal. Molly’s identity and humanity — Like Simon’s — is more kaleidoscopic and complex than just one action or modifier.

“I never gave a size for Molly,” Albertalli says, her voice wistful. “I’ve been fat since fourth grade and bullied for it, but I still knew I couldn’t represent every kids’ experience. Fat has a range of experiences. I don’t think I could’ve written a positive representation of a fat teen when I was living it. I had to immerse myself in fat positivity. So in a strange way, ‘Upside’ isn’t an #OwnVoices book. It took me two years to write!” she says, laughing. “I rewrote it seven times!”

Whether the entertainment industry as a whole will fillip the sensitivity level and open-mindedness of YA is a whole other discussion. Till then, Becky Albertalli continues to challenge herself as a writer. Her next book, “Leah on the Offbeat,” is out this month. Sometimes it seems she never stops writing. Other times, she puts on her pajamas and fans out on Twitter. At all times, she is a fierce advocate for social justice. There may not be one voice, but there is Becky’s and she owns it.

Keeping Native American languages alive: In “Marie’s Dictionary,” Wukchumni lives on

Emmanuel Vaughan-Lee

The title of Emmanuel Vaughan-Lee’s film, “Marie's Dictionary,” may not make it sound as thrilling as “The Last of the Mohicans,” but it has as much resilient spirit — and, possibly, character development — as that drama from 1992. The short documentary brings us into the home of elderly grandma, Marie Wilcox, who has been endeavoring to keep her native Wukchumni language alive through the creation of a written and oral dictionary.

You can watch the full documentary, "Marie's Dictionary," on Salon Premium, our new ad-free, content-rich app. Here's how. 

Salon talked to Vaughan-Lee about the creation of "Marie’s Dictionary," the state of Native American languages and the film’s indelible subject.

Who are the Wukchumni?

The Wukchumni are a non-federally recognized Native American tribe from the Central California region. They are part of the broader Yokuts tribal group. Prior to European contact, as many as 50,000 Yokuts lived in the region, but those numbers have steadily decreased. Today, it is estimated that less than 200 Wukchumni remain.

How long did [it take] you to shoot the film? What was it like being with Wilcox?

The film was shot over the course of five days. Prior to filming, I had spent a few days with Marie Wilcox and her daughter Jennifer Malone, getting to know them both. Marie and Jennifer were a joy to spend time with. They welcomed us into their home, shared their lives and stories with us and made us feel like family. Marie is humble, kind and gracious — a truly remarkable person who has worked tirelessly to preserve her language for future generations. It was an honor to be able to film and share her story.

Can you tell us a little about the general state of Native American languages --  what's happening to them and if there are any effective government, non-profit or academic programs to keep them alive?

In the United States, 130 Native American languages are currently at risk, with 74 considered critically endangered. Many of those considered critical have only a few fluent speakers remaining. Since European contact, Native American peoples have been subject to cycles of oppression and colonization that have impacted their cultures and languages. They were often banned from speaking their languages, and youth were separated from their parents and grandparents and sent to residential boarding schools where speaking their native languages was forbidden. The impacts of this are still being felt today.

But despite this, throughout North America, indigenous languages are being revived and restored. Tremendous efforts are underway to teach new generations of language speakers and reclaim what was lost and taken from these peoples. There are numerous effective programs working to support this revival, especially at the tribal level and among the non-profit sector. The organization that first connected me to Marie Wilcox, the Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival, is one such program. Through training and mentorship, they work to support fluent speakers like Marie, to pass along their language to their tribal communities,

Do you have an update on Wilcox, her family and her language project and classes?

Marie and Jennifer are both doing well. In the four years since we shot the film, her family and members of her tribe have shown renewed interest in learning Wukchumni and honoring her work. Marie and Jennifer continue to help teach language classes to their tribe.

How have Wilcox's dictionary and classes inspired other tribes to keep their languages alive?

I think more than anything, Marie’s story served as an inspiration to other indigenous language restoration programs and efforts around the world. The methods of creating a dictionary and companion audio recordings were not new. It was how she did it, and the power of her determination to keep the Wukchumni language alive for future generations, that I think touched so many people working in the indigenous language revitalization movement.

What are you working on now?

I just released my first virtual reality film, a piece called “Sanctuaries of Silence.” The film is an immersive listening journey into the Hoh Rainforest, one of the quietest places in North America. It played at New York Film Festival and SXSW Film Festival and just had its online premiere on The New York Times Op-Docs.

I also have a new film called “Earthrise” premiering at Tribeca Film Festival later this month. It tells the story of the first image captured of the Earth from space in 1968. Told solely by the Apollo 8 astronauts, the film recounts their experiences and memories and explores the beauty, awe and grandeur of the Earth against the blackness of space.

Check out an incredible — mostly sad but also inspiring — chapter in a Native people’s history and one woman’s struggle to retain what’s been nearly lost. Watch "Marie’s Dictionary" on Salon Premium, our new ad-free, content-rich app.

Reading this in the app already? Go back to the main menu and select "SalonTV" to find Salon Films and Salon original shows.

D.C. Council Member who made anti-Semitic comment walks out of Holocaust Museum tour

YouTube

A city council member in Washington D.C. is facing heat for walking out of a Holocaust Museum tour only one month after he aroused controversy by posting an anti-Semitic video on his Facebook page.

Trayon White Sr.'s visit to the Holocaust Museum had not been publicized prior to the event, according to The Washington Post. It came after White attended both a Passover Seder and a bagels-and-lox breakfast with local Jewish city leaders, both in seeming attempts to rehabilitate his image and repair damaged relationships with the Jewish community.

Yet roughly halfway through the tour, White abruptly left, prompting Rabbi Batya Glazer of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington to text him as to his whereabouts.

The Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington has been very active in trying to improve White's image in the aftermath of the anti-Semitism controversy. Although White said that he had to leave for an event in Ward 8, which he represents, he was later seen standing by himself on a sidewalk near the museum.

When asked why he left the tour early and where he had gone, he did not respond and instead held a cell phone up to his ear. He also ignored a question about whether he had reevaluated his earlier anti-Semitic comment, although he did eventually say that he was happy to have gone to the museum.

"This opportunity has given me the chance to meet a lot of great Jews, a lot of people. A lot of good Jews that I’ve never had the chance to meet before. It’s an awesome experience," White told the reporter.

Earlier, he had said that he planned on returning to the museum since he "didn’t get a chance to see the whole thing." He also said, "But I think it’s a lot of education here, a lot of synergy here between what happened to the Jewish community and the African community."

White has been under fire ever since he posted a video to his Facebook account which claimed that the Jewish banking family known as the Rothschilds were controlling the weather, according to The Washington Post.

"Man, it just started snowing out of nowhere this morning, man. Y’all better pay attention to this climate control, man, this climate manipulation. And D.C. keep talking about, ‘We a resilient city.’ And that’s a model based off the Rothschilds controlling the climate to create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities, man. Be careful," White proclaimed in the video.

White later texted an apology for the insensitivity of his remarks.

"I work hard everyday to combat racism and prejudices of all kinds. I want to apologize to the Jewish Community and anyone I have offended. The Jewish community have been allies with me in my journey to help people. I did not intend to be anti-Semitic, and I see I should not have said that after learning from my colleagues," White wrote in the text message.

Despite the controversy over his comments, White remains very popular in his ward of Washington, DC, where he is perceived as receptive to the needs of his marginalized constituents, according to The Washington Post. As the Post explained:

Yet in [White's] own ward, an area that includes Washington’s poorest neighborhoods, the response to the council member’s remarks has been far more mixed, with some expressing embarrassment and others remaining loyal, citing White’s record of advocacy for the community. In fact, a group of allies — including some who themselves have used incendiary rhetoric — hoped to rally on his behalf at an Anacostia church.

A lawyer who shared White's goals on social justice issues also told the Post that, while he doesn't share White's views on the weather, he understands why he would be inclined to believe in such a seemingly bizarre conspiracy theory.

"I don’t believe in weather-making machines — I have my own conspiracy theories that would make people think I’m crazy — but I don’t begrudge him that. When things happen to a community that are hidden from public view, and it comes out later, you’re going to be prone to believe something like that. Sometimes you bark up the right tree; sometimes you’re wrong," lawyer Aristotle Theresa told the Post.

 

Illinois gets it: Schools need therapists, not more armed guards

Getty/Shutterstock/Salon

Some Illinois lawmakers are proposing that schools receive extra funding to replace law enforcement in schools with mental health services — a direct rebuke to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, President Donald Trump and other Republican lawmakers who believe arming teachers and adding police in schools is the answer to making schools safer.

Rep. Emanuel "Chris" Welch, D-IL., told the Associated Press that he devised this proposal after advocates alerted him that providing mental health resources is the strongest method of curbing violence. "His plan, which is backed by 16 other Democrats in the House, would allow schools to apply to an optional grant if they promise to reallocate funding for school-based law enforcement to mental health services, including social workers or other practices 'designed to promote school safety and healthy environments,'" the AP reported.

It will likely face pushback, given the climate after the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, where many lawmakers pushed for more armed law enforcement officers in schools. More than 100 school safety bills or resolutions have been proposed in 39 states, since the Valentine's Day shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, according to the AP. At least one third of those involve putting armed officers in schools, under the name "school resource officers." Sessions proposed a school safety plan in March that would prioritize grants to states that promise to hire more school resource officers.

Parkland students and young activists across the country have called on lawmakers to take concrete action and devise policy around school safety under the banner of the #NeverAgain movement. When I attended a school walkout last month, not a single student advocated for more militarized schools. Nonetheless, Stoneman Douglas High School has already beefed up its security, with Florida highway patrol troopers serving in the school in the interim, CNN reported. Gov. Rick Scott requested that an armed law enforcement official stand guard at every school entrance.

Beyond the language coming out of the anti-gun student violence movement, this increased police presence puts black students in disproportionate danger. Black students represent just 16 percent of public school enrollment but 31 percent of school-related arrests, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Black students are also three times more likely than white students to be suspended or expelled, which significantly increases one's chances of entering the juvenile justice system. In the same way black adults are targeted, arrested and incarcerated at disproportionate rates to their white counterparts, the same is true for black students in schools.

This path from schools to incarceration is known as the "school-to-prison pipeline." Bahiyyah Muhammad, assistant professor of criminology at Howard University, said that when "draconian laws find themselves in a school system, instead of a place of social service, it's turned into a prison."

"This increased presence of law enforcement in schools does not necessarily enhance school safety," Michelle Mbekeani-Wiley from the Sargent Shriver Center for Poverty Law told the AP. "Instead it dramatically increases the likelihood that students will be unnecessarily swept into the criminal justice system often for mere adolescent or disruptive behavior."

Welch's plan for Illinois seems to heed the warnings of the school-to-prison pipeline. Whereas the pipeline incarcerates students rather than providing mental health and other social services, Welch's proposal advocates for the inverse.

Deputy Kip Heinle, former president of the Illinois School Resource Officers Association, told AP that the officers are "the best line of defense to keep students safe in school." But Marc Schindler, head of the Justice Policy Institute, told NPR there is no clear evidence that shows school resource officers bolster school safety. "In fact, the data really shows otherwise — that this is largely a failed approach in devoting a significant amount of resources but not getting the outcome in school safety that we are all looking for," he said.

Indeed, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had a school resource officer on duty when suspect Nikolas Cruz killed 17 people.

Americans support legal pot — but states don’t agree on how to regulate it

Getty/Juanmonino

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

On 4/20, many across the U.S. gather to celebrate their love and appreciation for marijuana.

Polls show that 64 percent of Americans favor legalizing marijuana. But, despite the majority support, there’s no clear consensus on how it should be regulated. As a researcher who has studied the impact of drugs in the U.S. and Mexico, it’s been captivating to watch states adapt as they attempt to regulate this illicit and stigmatized substance.

Many states permit medical marijuana, but there’s a wide variety of approaches. Today, 29 states currently permit medical marijuana and have an established system for regulating it.

Another 17 states have limited medical programs. These programs provide access to products with low levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and high levels of cannabidiol (CBD), with the goal of eliminating the “high” and maximizing medical benefits. Beyond that, the conditions doctors and patients can treat with cannabis vary from state to state.

Minnesota, New York and West Virginia don’t permit marijuana smoking as part of their medical programs. West Virginia, however, allows patients to vaporize marijuana plant matter, while Minnesota only permits consumption of marijuana in liquid extract form.

Colorado, where I am based, has a much more expansive medical program. Patients can access an array of products, from extracts to strains of raw plant material. While New York caps the amount of THC that a product dose may contain, Colorado and other states have no such limit on their medical marijuana products.

Meanwhile, recreational marijuana use has been approved for adults 21 and over by nine states: Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.

However, once again, states haven’t implemented their policies uniformly. Vermont, for example, does not currently have a system for commercial sale and distribution, and only allows individuals to cultivate two plants. Colorado, on the other hand, has developed a robust commercial system, allows individuals to grow up to six plants, and limits the amount of marijuana products an individual can possess.

Most states have struggled with how to navigate the public consumption of cannabis, which remains illegal. As states continue to debate and implement marijuana policies, the American public will begin to recognize what works (and what doesn’t).

While these policy inconsistencies may raise concerns for some constituents, these state experiments are a valuable way to figure out how this substance works and how it affects society.

Santiago Guerra, Assistant Professor of Southwest Studies, Colorado College

Before Trump was anti-Cuba, he wanted to open a hotel in Havana

AP Photo/Brennan Linsley

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Presidents Raul Castro and Donald Trump both canceled trips to April’s Summit of the Americas in Peru, avoiding a potential confrontation — though U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez lobbed insults at each other in their stead.

Relations between the United States and Cuba have grown tense under the Trump administration, which tightened economic sanctions against the Communist Caribbean island in 2017.

“We do not want U.S. dollars to prop up a military monopoly that exploits and abuses the citizens of Cuba,” Trump declared in June 2017. “We will enforce the ban on tourism. We will enforce the embargo.”

Those who follow Cuba-U.S. relations closely, as I have for 40 years, may recall that Trump has not always been so antagonistic toward Havana. Back when he was a real estate mogul, he was happy to overlook the embargo — twice, in fact — for a chance to open a Trump-branded hotel or golf resort in Cuba.

Trump Tower Havana

In September 2016, when Trump was the Republican presidential candidate, Newsweek magazine revealed that in 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts hired a consulting firm to explore business opportunities on the island.

Reportedly acting with Trump’s knowledge, representatives from Seven Arrows Investment and Development Corp. traveled to Cuba, which was then led by Fidel Castro.

There, they met with government officials and business leaders. The goal, a former official with Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts told Newsweek, was to get a jump on the competition if President Bill Clinton opened up Cuba to U.S. business. Ever since President John F. Kennedy imposed an economic embargo on Cuba in 1962, the Cuban market has been closed to most American companies, including the hospitality sector.

Because their business trip violated the embargo, Seven Arrows advised the Trump organization to disguise its payment to them as a charitable project, according to documents obtained by Newsweek.

The story broke in the homestretch of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. In his defense, Trump argued that although Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts had paid for the exploratory trip, it had done nothing wrong because it did not ultimately invest in Cuba.

Trump was courting conservative Cuban-Americans at the time. Because they generally oppose any dealings with the Castro regime, the Newsweek story was a political problem.

Soon after the article’s publication, Trump was in Florida making campaign promises to “reverse” President Barack Obama’s Cuba policy, which had relaxed restrictions on travel and re-established diplomatic ties.

Golfing and bird-watching in Cuba

But just months before the Newsweek report, Trump had been actively seeking to take advantage of Obama’s opening to Cuba, which created a wide range of exceptions to the embargo, including allowing U.S. companies to do business on the island.

Between 2012 and 2015, several Trump Organization executives responsible for developing golf properties traveled to Cuba repeatedly. According to Businessweek magazine, they claimed to be going to the island for golfing and bird-watching.

Businessweek asked Donald Trump’s son Eric, then an executive vice president at the Trump Organization, whether these trips had a business purpose.

“In the last 12 months, many major competitors have sought opportunities in Cuba,” he replied. “While we are not sure whether Cuba represents an opportunity for us, it is important for us to understand the dynamics of the markets that our competitors are exploring.”

Eric’s dad was more direct when asked to comment on the Bloomberg story. “They had some meetings,” Donald Trump admitted to Jim DeFede, an investigative reporter for CBS Miami.

In fact, two business consultants reportedly introduced the Trump executives to possible partners in Cuba and even prepared sketches of what Trump Tower Havana might look like. Miguel Fluxà, chief executive of Spain’s Iberostar Hotels and Resorts, which operates 17 hotels in Cuba, also said that the Trump Organization was trying to negotiate opening its own hotels there.

In early 2016, Wolf Blitzer interviewed candidate Trump and asked if he would open a hotel in Cuba.

“I would, I would,” he said, before apparently acknowledging the legal limitations imposed by the embargo. “At the right time, when we’re allowed to do it.”

American hotels in Havana

Trump’s surprising November 2016 victory put any possibility of a Cuba property deal on ice. To avoid potential conflicts of interest, the president’s attorney pledged that the Trump Organization would enter “no new foreign deals” while Trump occupied the White House.

In June 2017, Trump announced new sanctions tightening the U.S. embargo on Cuba. They specifically target the country’s tourist industry, effectively prohibiting U.S. hotels from doing business on the island.

Trump’s regulations also ban U.S. visitors from patronizing hotels or services run by the Cuban military’s tourism holding company, GAESA, which controls 40 percent of the hospitality business in Cuba. Americans cannot stay at hotels managed by European hotel groups like Iberostar or Meliá, either, if those companies are partners with GAESA.

As a result, the only American hotel company currently operating in Cuba is Marriott International, which was given a license by the Obama administration in 2016 to renovate and manage several Havana hotels. Its contract would be illegal under current regulations. Airbnb is also authorized to work in Cuba because it connects visitors with privately-owned home rentals.

Mainly, though, foreign hotel chains are reaping the benefits of Cuba’s booming tourism industry. The number of foreign visitors is projected to reach 5 million in 2018, up from 2.5 million in 2010.

The Spanish hotel group Meliá, which currently runs 33 hotels in Cuba, will soon open seven more. Iberostar is planning another 12.

But there’s no Trump Tower Havana on the horizon. With its former CEO in the White House, the Trump Organization is missing out on Cuba’s business bonanza.

Of course, thanks to President Trump’s sanctions, his American competitors are, too.

William M. LeoGrande, Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs