As we near the end of 2016, and I review the engagement of the published blogs this year, it appears I need to update readers on the apparent stonewalling of our requests for information and review of MIT Senseable City Labs "collaboration" with Basel Action Network's GPS tracking of used electronics.
I slowed down on the reporting in part because I had to engage with actual attorneys... MIT's, one of the "collateral damage" processors at Hong Kong's Eco Park, and my own. Obviously Hong Kong Environmental Department attorneys must be involved in responding to BAN's accusations (in China Daily) that their legal opinion - that printer scrap is not hazardous waste and not illegal to import - was against international law (according to USA-based BAN.org). Also a few of the companies mentioned in the report as being in the "chain of export" cautioned me about the "Streisand Effect". If reporters were by and large (other than PBS and Time) ignoring BAN's study, why risk elevating it?
Well enough time has gone by for an update.
At the very least, this seems a strong reason not to publish the names of unwitting and unwilling test subjects involved in the chain. While we don't know about this particular case, we do know some in the chain were more "witting" than others. I revealed last summer that at least some E-Steward companies knew the trackers were in the field, and at least some were involved in selecting which devices to track.
This does not prove that BAN colluded with or warned their sponsor company that we had a device on our property, or that the information resulted in the delivery being cancelled until the device was off our property. That information is "continuously unknown".
It does show the need for MIT's existing rules on testing of unwitting subjects, and rules on conflict of interest. And there can be no bigger example of a conflict of interest than between Basel Action Network and Fair Trade Recycling.
I slowed down on the reporting in part because I had to engage with actual attorneys... MIT's, one of the "collateral damage" processors at Hong Kong's Eco Park, and my own. Obviously Hong Kong Environmental Department attorneys must be involved in responding to BAN's accusations (in China Daily) that their legal opinion - that printer scrap is not hazardous waste and not illegal to import - was against international law (according to USA-based BAN.org). Also a few of the companies mentioned in the report as being in the "chain of export" cautioned me about the "Streisand Effect". If reporters were by and large (other than PBS and Time) ignoring BAN's study, why risk elevating it?
Well enough time has gone by for an update.
- MIT did not confirm or deny that a copy of my letter was given to its Ethics Review Committee. They sent it instead to Basel Action Network, the organization we thought entangled MIT in the ethical research questions to begin with (and who I did not address in the letter for that reason).
- Evidence has come to light that BAN had the ability to control the outcome in real time. This risk was not addressed by Carlo Ratti's team. BAN admits they knew where the devices were at intermediaries DURING the study.
- My company shipped printer scrap to another shredder, on several occasions, which pays BAN e-Steward royalties. We shipped printer scrap to that company immediately before the load (also to the Chicago area) the month before the tracking device came to Good Point, and a month after the device was shipped to the company that exported it.
- DURING THE MONTH IN BETWEEN the company which pays BAN royalties stopped accepting our material! We had actual cancellations of deliveries of printer scrap while the tracking device was at our property!
At the very least, this seems a strong reason not to publish the names of unwitting and unwilling test subjects involved in the chain. While we don't know about this particular case, we do know some in the chain were more "witting" than others. I revealed last summer that at least some E-Steward companies knew the trackers were in the field, and at least some were involved in selecting which devices to track.
This does not prove that BAN colluded with or warned their sponsor company that we had a device on our property, or that the information resulted in the delivery being cancelled until the device was off our property. That information is "continuously unknown".
It does show the need for MIT's existing rules on testing of unwitting subjects, and rules on conflict of interest. And there can be no bigger example of a conflict of interest than between Basel Action Network and Fair Trade Recycling.
