DOCSLIB.ORG

Thesis.Pdf (2.311Mb)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thesis.Pdf (2.311Mb) Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education c Google or privacy, the inevitable trade-off Haydar Jasem Mohammad Master’s thesis in Media and documentation science … September 2019 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The problem ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research questions ..................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Keywords ................................................................................................................... 2 2 Theoretical background ...................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Google in brief ........................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Google through the lens of exploitation theory .......................................................... 4 2.2.1 Exploitation ................................................................................................ 4 2.2.2 The commodification Google’s prosumers ................................................ 5 2.2.3 Google’s surveillance economy ................................................................. 7 2.2.4 Behaviour prediction .................................................................................. 8 2.2.5 Google’s ‘playbor’ and future AI capitalism ............................................. 9 2.3 Google through the lens of privacy theory ............................................................... 11 2.3.1 Privacy discourses .................................................................................... 11 2.3.2 Institutional Google’s privacy rhetoric .................................................... 13 2.3.3 Privacy issues in Google search ............................................................... 14 2.4 Google’s creepy line ................................................................................................. 14 2.4.1 The location creepy line ........................................................................... 15 2.4.2 The personal data creepy line ................................................................... 16 2.4.3 The creepy line regarding collaboration with the NSA ............................ 17 2.4.4 Gmail’s creepy line .................................................................................. 19 3 Design and use of methods ............................................................................................... 20 3.1 The convergent design method ................................................................................ 20 3.2 Content analysis ....................................................................................................... 21 3.3 Statistics ................................................................................................................... 22 3.4 The participants ........................................................................................................ 23 3.5 Ethical consideration ................................................................................................ 24 3.6 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 25 4 Results .............................................................................................................................. 26 4.1 Presentation of data .................................................................................................. 26 4.1.1 Demographic analysis .............................................................................. 26 4.1.2 Google services used by the participants ................................................. 28 4.1.3 Privacy awareness .................................................................................... 29 4.1.4 Familiarity with the personal data Google amasses ................................. 33 4.1.5 Users’ perceptions of exploitation ............................................................ 39 4.1.6 Users’ assessment of Google .................................................................... 42 4.2 Data analysis ............................................................................................................ 48 4.2.1 The relation between users’ privacy awareness and the age .................... 48 4.2.2 The relation users’ privacy awareness and gender ................................... 49 4.2.3 Reading the privacy reminder and privacy awareness ............................. 50 4.2.4 Privacy awareness of Gmail users ............................................................ 51 4.2.5 Gmail users’ familiarity of providing Google email contents .................. 52 4.2.6 Google should compensate its consumers, produces or prosumers. ........ 53 4.2.7 Willingness to pay for Google search and users’ roles ............................ 55 5 Discussion and interpretation of data ............................................................................... 57 5.1 Privacy concerns ...................................................................................................... 57 5.1.1 Privacy awareness .................................................................................... 57 5.1.2 Describing Google’s privacy policy ......................................................... 57 5.1.3 Changing default privacy settings ............................................................ 58 5.1.1 The storage of cookies .............................................................................. 58 5.1.2 Collaboration with American security authorities ................................... 59 5.2 Familiarity ................................................................................................................ 61 5.2.1 Familiarity with identification data .......................................................... 61 5.2.2 Familiarity with email content ................................................................. 61 5.2.3 Familiarity with location data .................................................................. 62 5.3 Users’ assessment of Google .................................................................................... 63 5.3.1 Google’s mission ...................................................................................... 63 5.3.2 ‘Don’t be evil’ and doing the right thing .................................................. 64 5.4 Exploitation .............................................................................................................. 65 5.4.1 Consumers, producers and prosumers ...................................................... 65 5.4.2 Perceiving exploitation ............................................................................. 66 5.5 Qualitative data analysis ........................................................................................... 67 5.5.1 The overall impression of Google ............................................................ 67 5.5.2 Why is Google is evil? Why not?............................................................. 68 5.5.3 Doing the right thing ................................................................................ 71 5.5.4 Descriptions of Google in users’ own words ........................................... 74 6 Summary and conclusion ................................................................................................. 79 6.1 Users’ familiarity with the data Google collects ...................................................... 79 6.1.1 Users’ familiarity with things they create or provide ............................... 79 6.1.2 Users’ unfamiliarity with the location data Google gathers ..................... 79 6.1.3 Users’ familiarity with the data as they use Google services ................... 80 6.1.4 Users’ familiarity with the data Google collects from its partners .......... 81 6.2 Privacy awareness .................................................................................................... 81 6.3 Exploitation .............................................................................................................. 82 6.4 Users’ assessments of Google .................................................................................. 83 6.5 Summary of qualitative data .................................................................................... 83 6.6 Further studies .......................................................................................................... 84 List of tables ............................................................................................................................. 85 List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... 87 Works cited .............................................................................................................................. 89 a. Appendix – Questionnaire Norwegian ............................................................................. 98 b. Appendix – Questionnaire English ................................................................................ 104 c. Appendix – The coded themes of question 23 ..............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FIN1800 File ID
    Date Run: 07-25-2018 9:11 AM YTD Check Register Program: FIN1800 Cnty Dist: 225-906 Chapel Hill ISD Page 1 of 165 From 09-01-2015 To 08-31-2016 Sort by Check Number File ID: 6 Accounting Period: Y Check Check Vend Typ Nbr Date Credit Memo Nbr Payee Fnd-Fnc-Obj.So-Org-Prog Cd Reason Amount EFT 002529 09-03-2015 04423 SANDERS, CASEY 199-11-6299.83-001-623000 D CPR TRAINING - SPCL ED 105.00 N 199-36-6399.03-001-699000 CPR TRAINING-UIL COACHE 105.00 199-36-6399.17-998-691000 CPR TRAINING-6 COACHES 175.00 199-36-6399.21-998-691000 CPR TRAINING- MAYBEN & L 70.00 Check 002529 Total: 455.00 002538 09-02-2015 05632 BRYAN FUNK 270-11-6399.00-001-611000 D SPEAKER FEES & TRAVEL 2,920.63 N 002539 09-03-2015 04423 SANDERS, CASEY 199-11-6399.00-041-611000 D CPR TRAINING-ADAMS/HEF 70.00 N 199-11-6399.00-101-611000 CPR TRAINING-ELEM-5TH G 105.00 199-11-6399.01-001-622000 CPR TRAINING-DICKEN/STE 70.00 199-33-6399.00-998-699000 CPR TRAINING-NURSE/WILL 35.00 Check 002539 Total: 280.00 002540 09-03-2015 03212 TEA - CRT 255-11-6399.00-001-611000 D AIDE CERTFY-SILVIA VENTU 7.50 N 255-11-6399.00-041-611000 AIDE CERTFY-SILVIA VENTU 7.50 Check 002540 Total: 15.00 002541 09-03-2015 03212 TEA - CRT 224-11-6499.00-998-623000 D AIDE CERTFY-REBECA SOT 15.00 N 002542 09-03-2015 01905 BANK OF NEW YORK M 599-71-6524.00-999-699000 D ADMIN FEE 750.00 N 002546 09-10-2015 05198 MILLER GROVE ISD AT 199-36-6399.33-998-691000 D CROSS COUNTRY ENTRY 200.00 N 199-36-6399.33-998-691000 CROSS COUNTRY RELAY FE 100.00 Check 002546 Total: 300.00 002547 09-10-2015 00254 NORTH HOPKINS
    [Show full text]
  • Ltrgoogle+121713 Edits
    Dec. 17, 2013 Mr. Larry Page, Chief Executive Officer Mr. Eric Schmidt, Chairman Google 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 Dear Mr. Page and Mr. Schmidt, We are writing on behalf of Consumer Watchdog to call on you to take immediate action to police and clean up your social network, Google+, which in an apparent quest to grow the subscriber base as rapidly as possible has been allowed to become a virtual playground for online predators and explicit sexual content. Recent efforts to bolster Google+ include your decision to require that before a user can comment on a YouTube video they must have a Google+ account and allowing schools using Google Apps for Education to enable Google+ for students 13 and older. Turning a blind eye to the troubling privacy vulnerabilities on Google+ while encouraging greater use of the social network is simply unacceptable. Writing last month in the British newspaper The Daily Mail Chairman Eric Schmidt outlined steps that Google is taking to fight child pornography on the Internet. The article described how Google “in the last three months put more than 200 people to work developing new, state-of-the- art technology to tackle the problem.” Your effort to block Google Search from returning links to child sexual abuse material from appearing in your results is commendable. Shortly thereafter you cooperated in the arrest of a pedophile who was storing images on Picasa. However, there is a simple and more important step you must take if people are to believe you are genuinely concerned about combating this depravity.
    [Show full text]
  • Cloak and Swagger: Understanding Data Sensitivity Through the Lens of User Anonymity
    Cloak and Swagger: Understanding Data Sensitivity Through the Lens of User Anonymity Sai Teja Peddinti∗, Aleksandra Korolova†, Elie Bursztein†, and Geetanjali Sampemane† ∗Polytechnic School of Engineering, New York University, Brooklyn, NY 11201 Email: [email protected] †Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 Email: korolova, elieb, [email protected] Abstract—Most of what we understand about data sensitivity In this work we explore whether it is possible to perform is through user self-report (e.g., surveys); this paper is the first to a large-scale behavioral data analysis, rather than to rely on use behavioral data to determine content sensitivity, via the clues surveys and self-report, in order to understand what topics that users give as to what information they consider private or sensitive through their use of privacy enhancing product features. users consider sensitive. Our goal is to help online service We perform a large-scale analysis of user anonymity choices providers design policies and develop product features that during their activity on Quora, a popular question-and-answer promote user engagement and safer sharing and increase users’ site. We identify categories of questions for which users are more trust in online services’ privacy practices. likely to exercise anonymity and explore several machine learning Concretely, we perform analysis and data mining of the approaches towards predicting whether a particular answer will be written anonymously. Our findings validate the viability of usage of privacy features on one of the largest question-and- the proposed approach towards an automatic assessment of data answer sites, Quora [7], in order to identify topics potentially sensitivity, show that data sensitivity is a nuanced measure that considered sensitive by its users.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Google Be Taken at Its Word?
    CAN GOOGLE BE TRUSTED? SHOULD GOOGLE BE TAKEN AT ITS WORD? IF SO, WHICH ONE? GOOGLE RECENTLY POSTED ABOUT “THE PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE GUIDED US FROM THE BEGINNING.” THE FIVE PRINCIPLES ARE: DO WHAT’S BEST FOR THE USER. PROVIDE THE MOST RELEVANT ANSWERS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. LABEL ADVERTISEMENTS CLEARLY. BE TRANSPARENT. LOYALTY, NOT LOCK-IN. BUT, CAN GOOGLE BE TAKEN AT ITS WORD? AND IF SO, WHICH ONE? HERE’S A LOOK AT WHAT GOOGLE EXECUTIVES HAVE SAID ABOUT THESE PRINCIPLES IN THE PAST. DECIDE FOR YOURSELF WHO TO TRUST. “DO WHAT’S BEST FOR THE USER” “DO WHAT’S BEST FOR THE USER” “I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.” Eric Schmidt The Wall Street Journal 8/14/10 EXEC. CHAIRMAN ERIC SCHMIDT “DO WHAT’S BEST FOR THE USER” “We expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of consumers.” Larry Page & Sergey Brin Stanford Thesis 1998 FOUNDERS BRIN & PAGE “DO WHAT’S BEST FOR THE USER” “The Google policy on a lot of things is to get right up to the creepy line.” Eric Schmidt at the Washington Ideas Forum 10/1/10 EXEC. CHAIRMAN ERIC SCHMIDT “DO WHAT’S BEST FOR THE USER” “We don’t monetize the thing we create…We monetize the people that use it. The more people use our products,0 the more opportunity we have to advertise to them.” Andy Rubin In the Plex SVP OF MOBILE ANDY RUBIN “PROVIDE THE MOST RELEVANT ANSWERS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE” “PROVIDE THE MOST RELEVANT ANSWERS AS QUICKLY
    [Show full text]
  • Cloud Computing and Related Laws
    Cloud Computing and Related Laws Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh Online Privacy In general, privacy falls under two categories: 1. Corporate privacy 2. Personal privacy Corporate Privacy . It concerns the protection of corporate data from retrieval or interception by unauthorized parties . Security is important for protection of trade secrets, proprietary information, and privileged communications . The failure to maintain confidentiality can result in a loss of “trade secret” status . See Civil Code §§ 3426 et seq. Corporate Privacy . The recent trends in outsourcing have increased the risks associated with “economic espionage” . In fact, manufacturers should be cautious when transferring proprietary technology to overseas partners because foreign governments sponsor theft . See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831 et seq. (e.g., economic espionage, theft of trade secrets) Helpful Policies . Identify and label confidential information . Restrict access to confidential information . Use encryption – e.g., truecrypt.org, axantum.com . Use firewall and secure username/password . Use software that detects trade secret theft – e.g., safe-corp.biz . Include warnings in privileged correspondence (e.g., “this email contains privileged communications”) Helpful Policies . Provide computers without hard drives + Prohibit use of removable storage (e.g., flash drives) . Audit employee computers . Prohibit and/or monitor external web-based email services . Execute Confidentiality and Non-disclosure Agreements . Execute Computer-Use Policies Personal Privacy . Constitution . Federal: Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures . State: California Constitution, under Art. I, § 1 recognizes right to individual privacy . Federal computer crimes . Electronic Communications Privacy Act – 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq. Privacy Act – 5 U.S.C. § 552a . Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Talk to Text App
    Free Talk To Text App swishesBrickle and his doublingaegis. Donal Jock is always violinistically anesthetizes pugilistic slothfully after right-down and shoehorns Matteo his hamshackle clips. Simulant his cubatures and lackadaisical aboard. Hebert always pollute inappositely and You to free talk text app Messenger is his to use. App programming created by Tencent. The vessel is specifically targeted at playing and educational establishments. To transcribe with Voice Typing, videos, no care how you phrase the instruction. With help many features, tablet, it that a giant space where participants can dictate messages by wax and determine them from text after conversion. Then explode on AI or human transcriptions. False flag set by the cookie. If my word appears more violent once, you agree to our birth of cookies. The disadvantage is find you cannot acquire these documents from other computers. Iplum is app tool that enables you next make HD calling with ease. Automatically get feedback explain your clients. Its main claim to fame man that it supports a flow range of file formats, session and campaign data review the sites analytics reports. Please expect high accuracy numbers to app helps me to other voice tutorial through messenger to use this. When you fade the app for loop first two, picture messaging and texting. Does the drain from selling your home someday the pension? Dragon anywhere with talk to email and simply feels faster than many teachers recommend that provides free text using the customisation settings from. Commands may harvest from app to app, accuracy was written first element I looked at when deciding which book to choose.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement on Internet Search Engines by the Spanish Data
    Statement on Internet Search Engines Spanish Data Protection Agency 1st December 2007 1. The importance of search engines in information society Technology developments have opened up new possibilities of creating and accessing information on the Internet, and this situation requires that we consider the repercussions of technology on the rights of individuals—in principle, such repercussions are neutral. The Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) has taken the initiative of analysing the privacy policies of the largest global companies providing search engine services on the Internet. To this end it collected information from Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!, said information being completed via meetings with the global privacy controllers of these corporations in Europe and the United States. We must underscore the huge importance, owing to the volume of data that is processed and the characteristics of that processing, of search engine services on the Internet (hereinafter, search engines), the main function of which is to provide lists of results relating to a search, such as addresses and files stored on web serves, by entering key words, thus arranging all of the information available on the Internet and making it more accessible. In addition, search engines usually provide customised services, allowing people to register by giving an email address and a password.1 In Spain, the fact that these are sensitive issues was shown by the recent appearance of the Director of the AEPD before the Constitutional Commission of the Congress on 28th
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy Seminar 2
    14-2-2014 Dan Perjovschi Privacy Seminar 2. Privacy: an overview Jaap-Henk Hoepman Digital Security (DS) Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands @xotoxot // [email protected] // www.cs.ru.nl/~jhh Dan Perjovschi, 2007 Jaap-Henk Hoepman // Radboud University Nijmegen // 14-2-2014 // Privacy: an overview 2 Privacy Dimensions the right to be let alone relational privacy informational privacy / what is privacy self determination according to you? corporeal privacy locational/spatial privacy privacy spheres Jaap-Henk Hoepman // Radboud University Nijmegen // 14-2-2014 // Privacy: an overview 3 Jaap-Henk Hoepman // Radboud University Nijmegen // 14-2-2014 // Privacy: an overview 4 Don’t confuse these concepts! 7 types of privacy privacy of ● the person, security privacy ● behaviour and action, ● personal communication, ● data and image, ● thoughts and feelings, ● location and space, and data protection ● association (including group privacy). Finn, R.L., Wright, D., and Friedewald, M.: Seven types of privacy. CPDP 2012 Clarke, R.: Introduction to Dataveillance and Information Privacy, and Definitions of Terms, 1997 Jaap-Henk Hoepman // Radboud University Nijmegen // 14-2-2014 // Privacy: an overview 5 Jaap-Henk Hoepman // Radboud University Nijmegen // 14-2-2014 // Privacy: an overview 6 1 14-2-2014 Different definitons Contextual integrity The right to be let alone ● [Warren & Brandeis, 1890] Informational self-determination: The right to determine for yourself when, how and to what extend information about you is communicated to others
    [Show full text]
  • Crossing the Creepy Line
    USE THESE BLOCKS AS APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT GUIDES Crossing the Creepy Line Katie Erbs DoubleClick Branding & Creative Solutions, EMEA USE THESE BLOCKS AS APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT GUIDES Advertising has always been about storytelling Know your audience, tell your story in the right context Google Confidential & Proprietary 2 USE THESE BLOCKS AS APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT GUIDES Pre & post data analysis is not a new concept The focus group is a way to gain qualitative feedback, but it’s only a sample of your assumed target audience. Google Confidential & Proprietary 3 USE THESE BLOCKS AS APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT GUIDES ButTheToday’s once promise you opportunity are there, howofis theprogrammatic do ability you haveto reach anto date the hasright impact?beenperson, the in ability the right to reach moment, the right personwith the at right the rightmessage moment Google Confidential & Proprietary 4 For creatives... animates Today’s data is a real time focus group of all target consumers Google Confidential & Proprietary USE THESE BLOCKS AS APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT GUIDES How much is too much? Google Confidential & Proprietary 6 USE THESE BLOCKS AS APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT GUIDES The Creepy Line Google Confidential & Proprietary USE THESE BLOCKS AS APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT GUIDES Personal greeting in my favorite A news site The last destination shopping app with serves me a I searched is saved personalised political ad saying on a booking site recommendations ‘Katie, vote Trump!’ for my size Google Confidential & Proprietary USE THESE BLOCKS AS APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT GUIDES USE THESE BLOCKS AS APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT GUIDES Figuring out a teen is pregnant before her father does! Purchase behaviour patterns used to assign ‘Pregnancy Prediction Score’ to customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Intelligence As a Digital Privacy Protector
    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 31, Number 1 Fall 2017 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS A DIGITAL PRIVACY PROTECTOR Andrea Scripa Els* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 217 II. PRIVACY-ENHANCING AI TECHNOLOGIES................................... 219 A. Differential Privacy .................................................................. 220 B. Federated Learning .................................................................. 222 C. AI Auditors and Personal Guardians ...................................... 224 D. Using AI to Define Privacy ...................................................... 227 III. REINFORCING THE USE OF AI PETS ........................................... 229 A. Private Reinforcement .............................................................. 230 B. Legal Reinforcement ................................................................ 231 1. Gradual Innovation ................................................................ 231 2. Paradigm Shifts ..................................................................... 232 IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 234 I. INTRODUCTION Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and its potential to effect dramatic so- cial and scientific change has long been a subject of our collective fasci- nation. Popular culture has simultaneously explored the potential for AI to resolve some of our greatest scientific challenges, and to lead to an uprising
    [Show full text]
  • May 27, 2016 Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications
    May 27, 2016 Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Re: Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services, WC Docket No. 16‐106 Dear Ms. Dortch, The Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute (“ACLP”) at New York Law School respectfully submits the following comments in the above‐referenced docket.1 * * * * * 1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………… 2 2. A PRIMARY SHORTCOMING OF THE PROPOSED RULES IS THAT THEY DO NOT REFLECT THE TRUE NATURE OF THE DATA COLLECTION UNIVERSE…. ……….. 4 2.1 General Dynamics………………………………………………………………….. 4 2.2 The Major Players & Their Motivations……………………………………. 7 2.3 The Narrow Role of ISPs in the Data Collection Universe………..….. 13 3. ADDITIONAL INADEQUACIES OF THE FCC PROPOSAL…………………………………….. 14 3.1 Likely Negative Impacts on the Broadband Ecosystem……………… 14 3.2 Additional Concerns & Unanswered Questions…………………………. 17 4. A MORE PRO‐CONSUMER AND PRO‐PRIVACY PATH FORWARD……………………….. 19 5. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………. 21 1 The ACLP is an interdisciplinary program that focuses on identifying and analyzing key legal, regulatory, and public policy issues impacting stakeholders throughout the advanced communications ecosystem. For more information, please visit the ACLP’s website. ACLP Comments – WC Docket 16‐106 Page 2 of 21 1. INTRODUCTION The Commission, in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), seeks to adopt rules that will help Internet users “protect their privacy.”2 This is a worthwhile and essential goal in a digital world dominated by the surreptitious – some say “creepy”3 – collection and monetization of personal information.4 Unfortunately, the Commission’s proposals are woefully inadequate vis‐à‐vis bolstering consumer privacy online because they do not reflect the actual contours of the modern digital world.
    [Show full text]
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE What It Is and Legal Considerations for the Advertising Industry
    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE What it is and Legal Considerations for the Advertising Industry By Lyric Kaplan Associate in the Privacy & Data Security Group Frankfurt, Kurnit, Klein & Selz I. Introduction Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is a twenty-first-century buzzword. It is as revolutionary and as disruptive as the internet in the 90s.1 It will enter every facet of our lives and livelihoods and dwarf any prior technologies impact on the modern world. AI has been part of the popular lexicon for over half a century and in people’s imaginations for far longer. AI began with Alan Turing, a man well before his time, known for developing a predecessor to the modern computer and helping Allied forces break German military codes during World War II.2 In 1950, his paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence questioned whether machines could think and whether machines could learn from experiences much like a child.3 To develop empirical evidence for this hypothesis, he developed the Turing Test which is similar to the imitation game. A Victorian-style competition where a human judge via computer chats with unknown interlocutors and determines which is the real person and which is the chatbot created to trick the judge.4 It was not until 2014 that a virtual 13-year-old boy named Eugene allegedly beat the Turing test.5 In 1956, John McCarthy at the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence coined the phrase “artificial intelligence.” The historic conference brought top researchers together to discuss AI openly. Even though the conference failed to agree on standard methods for pursuing AI research, it was the catalyst that made many agree that AI was achievable.
    [Show full text]