Pilkun n… <krhm> kutittelua

Minulla ei yleensä ole tapana antautua intiimeihin akteihin välimerkkien kanssa, mutta tässä tapauksessa eräs poissaolollaan loistava pilkku suorastaan vaatii läheisempää huomiota.

Yhteisöpalvelu Facebook nostattaa tuon tuostakin enemmän tai vähemmän kiehuvia ja kuplivia tunteita. Usein turhaan, mutta aina toisinaan ihan aiheesta. Kuten nyt.

Uudet ja vähän vanhatkin ehdot

Facebook on jälleen kerran uudistamassa palvelunsa käyttöehtoja. Samalla, kun jokaisen käyttäjän on hyvä tutustua siihen, minkälaisia muutoksia uudistukset tuovat tullessaan ja miten ne vaikuttavat omaan palvelun käyttöön, on myös terveellistä luoda katsaus siihen, millaisia ehdot ovat tähän asti olleet.

Tässä tullaan kysymyksen ytimeen.

Myönnän ja tunnustan itse olleeni kohtalaisen suurpiirteinen Facebookin käyttöehtoihin tutustumisen osalta. Tuo pumaska on melkoisen pitkä ja puuduttava, ja olen pitkälti tyytynyt käymään läpi FB:n niistä laatiman yksinkertaistetun tiivistelmän.

Tiivistelmä vain ei kerro kaikkea. Käyttöehtoihin on nimittäin upotettu yhtä sun toista, joka paljastuu vasta varsinaisen sopimustekstin huolellisella lukemisella ja kieliopillisella jäsentämisellä. Tulee mieleen, onko tässä tapauksessa kysymys vain käyttöehtojen suomentajan kieliopillisesta huolimattomuudesta vai suorastaan palvelun tekstin muotoiluun tarkoituksella ujuttamasta kikkailusta.

Pilkulla ja sen paikalla on väliä!

Kyse on Facebookin käyttöehtojen oikeus- ja vastuulausekkeen 2 pykälän ("Tuottamasi sisällön ja tiedon jakaminen") 2 momentin (numeroidun listan 1. kohta) virkkeen muotoilusta.

Tämänhetkisessä muodossaan, joka on ollut voimassa jo 15.11.2013 alkaen, Facebook käytännössä ottaa itselleen, ilman korvausta, täydet ja rajoittamattomat oikeudet käyttää palvelun käyttäjien omille aikajanoilleen tuottamaa sisältöä, miten parhaaksi näkee. Tämä koskee ilman rajoituksia myös käyttäjien tekijänoikeuksin suojattua materiaalia, kuten valokuvat, videot ja kirjoitukset.

Toisin sanoen voimassa olevien ehtojen mukaan Facebook voi halutessaan luovuttaa eteenpäin, vuokrata, lainata, myydä tai haukata aamupalakseen minkä tahansa käyttäjiensä palvelun alle tuottaman sisällön suorittamatta siitä sisällön omistajalle minkäänlaista korvausta!

LAINAUS:
"

Oikeus- ja vastuulauseke

Oikeus- ja vastuulauseke (jäljempänä "lauseke" tai "ehdot") perustuu Facebook-periaatteisiin, ja se ohjaa yhteyksiämme käyttäjiin ja muihin Facebookin kanssa toimiviin tahoihin. Käyttämällä Facebookia sitoudut noudattamaan tätä lauseketta ja siihen tehtäviä muutoksia jäljempänä olevan kohdan 14 mukaisesti. Tämän asiakirjan lopussa on resursseja, jotka auttavat ymmärtämään Facebookin toimintaa.

1. Yksityisyys
Käyttäjän yksityisyys on meille erittäin tärkeää. Olemme laatineet Tietojen käyttöä koskevat käytännöt, jotka sisältävät tärkeitä päätöksiä siitä, kuinka voit käyttää Facebookia jakamiseen ja kuinka me keräämme ja käytämme tuottamaasi tietoa ja sisältöä. Kehotamme sinua lukemaan Tietojen käyttöä koskevat käytännöt ja hyödyntämään niitä, jotta voit tehdä hyvin perusteltuja päätöksiä.

2. Tuottamasi sisällön ja tiedon jakaminen
Kaikki Facebookiin lisäämäsi tiedot ja sisältö ovat omaisuuttasi, ja voit hallita niiden jakamistapaa yksityisyysasetuksilla ja sovellusasetuksilla. Tämän lisäksi

1. annat meille tekijänoikeussuojan alaisen sisällön, kuten kuvien ja videoiden (tekijänoikeussisältö), osalta seuraavat nimenomaiset luvat valitsemiesi yksityisyysasetusten ja sovellusasetusten mukaisesti: annat meille ei-yksinomaisen, siirrettävän, alilisensoitavan, maksuttoman, maailmanlaajuisen luvan (tekijänoikeuslupa) käyttää mitä tahansa tekijänoikeussisältöä, jonka julkaiset Facebookissa tai Facebookin yhteydessä. Tämä tekijänoikeuslupa päättyy, kun poistat tekijänoikeussisällön tai käyttäjätilisi, ja jollei sisältöäsi ole jaettu muiden sellaisten käyttäjien kanssa, jotka eivät ole poistaneet sisältöä.

"

Tämänkaltaiset pykälät sisällönjaon mahdollistavissa palveluissa ovat tiettyyn rajaan asti täysin ymmärrettäviä. Ilman niitä palveluilla ei olisi laillisia mahdollisuuksia hoitaa palvelukuvauksensa mukaista toimintaa ja saattaa käyttäjiensä tuottamaa sisältöä toisten käyttäjiensä nähtäväksi.

Ongelma Facebookin kohdalla on yhden pilkun puuttumisessa.

Nykymuodossaan virkkeen muotoilu antaa palvelulle huomattavasti suuremmat oikeudet ja valtuudet kuin se tarvitsee tarjoamansa palvelun tuottamiseen. Samalla se käytännössä mahdollistaa käyttäjiensä kohtuuttoman riistämisen – Facebook voi halutessaan ansaita käyttäjiensä tekemällä työllä ilmaiseksi!

Jos tuossa virkkeessä olisi yksi pilkku enemmän, ehtopykälän sisältö muuttuisi radikaalisti. Jos kohdan "käyttää mitä tahansa tekijänoikeussisältöä, jonka julkaiset Facebookissa tai Facebookin yhteydessä" sanojen "jonka julkaiset" jälkeen olisi pilkku, virkkeen merkitys olisi käyttäjien kannalta tekijänoikeudellisesti kokonaan toinen ja antaisi silti Facebookille täysin riittävät oikeudet oman palvelunsa toteuttamiselle parhaaksi katsomallaan tavalla.

Pilkun vaikutus

Nykymuodossaan teksti siis antaa Facebookille vapaat kädet tehdä käyttäjien palvelussa julkaisemalla sisällöllä mitä huvittaa.

Entäpä tuon mitättömältä tuntuvan pilkunviilauksen jälkeen?

Tuon yhden, siis yhden ainoan, pilkun lisäämisellä Facebook rajoittaisi käyttäjien sisällön käyttöoikeutensa vain palvelun tai siihen liittyvien muiden toimintojen yhteyteen. Toisin sanoen, sen jälkeen Facebookilla ei olisi enää oikeutta myydä tai muutenkaan luovuttaa sisältömateriaalia eteenpäin palvelun tai siihen välittömästi liittyvien toimintojen ulkopuolelle.

Ei ainakaan ilman asianomaisen käyttäjän nimenomaista, erillistä suostumusta.

Olisiko siis Facebookin korkea aika osoittaa vastuullisuutta ja oikeudenmukaisuutta, ja isojen hienojen muutosten sijaan lisätä tuo yksi ainokainen pilkku oikealle paikalleen tekstiin?

Typerä kysymys. Tietenkin olisi!

The significance of scale

The recent events in Japan got me to think about various kinds of scales. You know, the sheer magnitude of the earthquake was a very good reminder of how insignificant we, human beings, are compared to the forces of nature. Not to say anything about comparing with even larger entities.

Let's picture in our minds... Earth's diameter is roughly 12 800 km and the thickness of its crust is about 5—70 km which includes all the variation from the deepest trenches of the oceans to the highest mountains of Himalaya. Now, let's imagine this blue planet of ours as a ball the size of a billiard ball. At this scale Earth's crust would feel to hand just as smooth as the surface of a billiard ball.

You would need a state-of-the-art microscope to be able to detect all those tiny wrinkles and scratches we see as mountains and ocean basins.

We, ourselves, would be smaller than viruses on the surface of that billiard ball!

If we want to emphasize the importance of mankind even more, let's take the comparison to cosmological level. On that same relative scale, compared to our own galaxy The Milky Way, even a single quark would be enormous compared to the size of a human being.

And yet, some people insist they need to go on a diet...

Thinking along these lines it should become very clear that there's absolutely nothing we can do to save ourselves when faced with a major (catastrophic) natural phenomenon. Even on Earth scale, let alone on cosmic scale if one would ever happen.

From this point of view it's pure madness how some groups or individuals try to grab as much wealth and power as they can totally disregarding the well-being of their fellow members of this same species. Or force-feed some bizarre ideological attitudes to others. What do they think they will gain?

If, one day, the whole mankind were to experience a total extinction, the Universe wouldn't even notice.

We, even the wealthiest and the most powerful of us, are not significant...

Haven't they learned anything?

Australia's flagship airline company, Qantas, has had two engine failures within just a couple of days. One Airbus A380 and one Boeing 747, both heading from Singapore to Sydney. With the A380's incident Qantas has cast doubt over the design of the engines.

It has been brought up, however, that there is a possibility of damage to the engines caused by volcanic ash. As you may have noticed, there's a catastrophic volcanic eruption going on in Indonesia where Mt. Merapi is erupting more forcefully than in a long, long time. Of course, the Indonesian officials have been a little bit too eager and quick to deny that the volcano had anything to do with the failures saying that the locations of the incidents are too far away from the volcano.

Well... Two incidents, in a very short period of time, in the same area, in the same flight route... The probability is just rising a bit too rapidly. And, please, just do this small exercise: draw a line from Sydney to Singapore on a map, or vice versa, and tag the location of Mt. Merapi on the same map. What do you see?

According to the latest measurements the (visible) main ash column and plume reach out as far as 350 km west from Mt. Merapi. Not terribly far, that is. But, what I think is more important, the column reaches upwards all the way as high as 16 kilometres, which is far beyond any cruising altitude of any passenger jets. And one thing that has been happily ignored is the fact that in different altitudes the winds blow in different directions. Thus, in the higher altitudes the ash may very well have been carried by the winds to the route of the Qantas jets.

And, as we learned from the Eyjafjöll eruption in Iceland, the winds are perfectly capable of carrying the ash very, very far away and in surprising directions.

This, of course, is speculation, but very plausible speculation. I'd like to see any atmospheric mappings of the ash distribution by altitude levels, similar to those provided in connection of the Eyjafjöll eruption last spring.

I just wonder why the Indonesian airspace hasn't been closed down. Haven't they really learned anything from the past?

Just two very good examples. The British Airways flight BA 009 from Kuala Lumpur to Perth in 1982 during the eruption of the Indonesian volcano Galunggung. The Boeing 747 suffered a total engine failure, all four engines, after flying into the (nearly invisible) ash cloud. And the KLM flight 867 in 1989, where a 747 flew into the ash cloud of the Mt. Redoubt volcano in Alaska and suffered a total four-engine failure.

Not to mention the planes that suffered damage to their engines during the early stages of the Icelandic eruption of this year, before they closed most of the European air space.

In my opinion, it's incredibly irresponsible to just wave off the possibility that these near-misses could have been caused by the volcanic ash of Mt. Merapi, spread all over to the atmosphere in the region of the Qantas' Singapore-Sydney route.

Religion, justice and human rights

The Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE) managed to create quite a tempest in a teapot. Their TV2 television channel aired a two-hour debate on last Tuesday (Oct. 12th) concerning the gay and lesbian community's attempt to gain the right to a legal marriage.

Following the program, an avalanche of resignations from the ev. luth. church of Finland started. By now, about 9000 people in just over three days have resigned. And the flow just goes on.

This has largely been due to the amazing performance of the opposing party, practically led by "the Sarah Palin of Finland" Päivi Räsänen, the chairperson of the Christian Democratic Party of Finland. Not that there's anything christian or even democratic, at least as far as I can tell by the party's manifests and public announcements.

A little bit of background.

Currently, the gay and lesbian people can't legally marry in Finland. They may register their relationship if they wish to do so. And many have.

However, couples living in a registered relationship don't have the same rights, claims, duties, obligations or possibilities as married couples. Thus, the current legislation in Finland places gays and lesbians in an unequal position from the rest of the population.

Moreover, in many situations where it's compulsory to tell your marital status, the registered relationship is not too unlike the Star of David the Jews were forced to wear on themselves in the Nazi Germany. It points out and labels.

This, if anything, is an atrocity against moral, ethics, justice and human rights in the modern world.

The Finnish government and parliament are bound by the Finnish Constitution, a number of international treaties, the UN Charter, the Declaration of Human Rights, the EU Directives and many more documents dealing with people's right to be treated equally in front of the law. Yet, they constantly fail to recognise the human rights of the sexual minorities.

The main reason is that the legislature is very effectively lobbied by a relatively small but extremely vocal and influencial group of extreme conservative and religious zealots. And these in turn couldn't care less about human rights as long as they contradict with their outdated and narrowminded religious views.

These "christian talebans", while a fairly marginal group within the ev. luth. church, also manage to affect the decision making of the church's administration. The result is that the church is frequently trying to meddle with the parliamentary, legislative processes of a secular state.

This is outrageous! Especially so, as every working Finnish citizen has to pay tax to the church regardless of whether he/she belongs to the church or not. From the members of the church the tax is collected directly. The non-members get to pay the tax indirectly within the prices of the products or services they buy from companies paying their taxes in Finland. It doesn't matter if the owners of the company don't belong to the church or if they don't even want to have anything to do with the church. The company still has to pay the church's portion embedded in the so called community tax.

Yet, instead of complying with the obligations of the state, obeying the laws and listening to the will of the people they take money from by force, the church practically hears only the demands of the fundamentalist zealots. As a result they are continuously trying to force all kinds of restrictions and alterations to the secular legislation of a secular state rendering the laws more according to the religious ideas of the extremists.

But let's go back to the debate...

The pro gender neutral marriage side was represented in the studio by a very heterogeneous group of people. Both gays, lesbians and heteros, quite a few experts, even one priest. They argued in a very moderate and civilised (and convincing) manner for their demand of equal, and justified, rights.

Their opposition, on the other hand, made a perfect demonstration of how totally estranged from the surrounding reality, people's sense of justice, moral and ethics they really are.

The opposing group continuously and consistently used absolutely incredible arguments to back up their views. One of the most ridiculous claims was that the [heterosexual] marriage is "an eternal, universal law of nature".

What nerve!

It seems to me that the Religious Right has a very shortsighted sense of time - or that they positively don't know what "eternal" means. A marriage as an institution didn't even exist before the very late medieval time. And it didn't take on the religious meaning and christian values and virtues until about 200-300 years later.

Instead, homosexual relationships were rather common e.g. in ancient Rome and Greece (which, by the way, is generally considered as the cradle of the western civilisation and culture) and usually were not frowned upon.

These religious and extreme conservative crackpots also demonstrate a very severe case of megalomania. They claim this man-invented institution to be universal. That is, embraced by everything in the whole universe. Hmmm... I'd say it takes quite a bit more than that for something to be universal. Such arrogance...

Also, I would tend to think that for something to be a "law of nature" it must be necessary and of fundamental essence to the functioning and holding together of the universe and cosmos. Would heterosexual marriage fulfill that requirement? Hardly...

The opposition also argued that homosexual marriage (and relationship) is "unnatural". Well, if it's unnatural, how come there are so many gays and lesbians in the world? Not to mention all the countless examples of homosexuality among the various species of the animal kingdom. Makes me wonder...

And when they couldn't make up any even remotely sensible sounding argument they consistently dug up the good ol' "It says in the Bible" -card. Of course, they completely managed to ignore the fact that the Bible is a totally man-made concoction which merely reflects the needs and desires of the religious and secular ruling classes of the last 3000-4000 years - and mainly of the Middle Ages.

Well, I have to admit, I feel mildly contented because of the performance of the opposing party. It was so convincing that a steadily growing (at least for now) number of people clearly have made their conclusion and are jumping off the sinking ship of the church and the Religious Right.

Just to help to further the suc(k)cess of the Christian Democratic Party I hereby grant them the right to use the following slogan in the coming elections:

"Intolerant ignorance - the preferred way of a True Believer™".

Heavenly rules and good life

I'm often wondering why so many people impose all kinds of artificial restrictions and limitations on themselves - and more often than not on other people. Restrictions and limitations concerning their lives and especially concerning their relationships with other people.

Amazingly often those limitations are based on "moral" or "ethical" codes derived from religious scriptures and teachings. God says how you must live, God says what you must not do, God says whom you may - or may not - love, or to whom you may show warmth, affection, tenderness...

Well, let me tell you one big secret... God says nothing!

I'm reading one extremely interesting book: Karen Armstrong's "A History of God - The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam". A very eye-opening and thought-provoking book, indeed. It's also an extremely neutral, analytical and impartial view on the religious, and partly social, political and cultural, history of the western and middle-eastern world.

Karen Armstrong is a former Catholic nun who had a serious crisis of faith when she was a bit younger. In order to solve her crisis she set out on a journey to find God - and to find about God. She studied countless religious writings, the history of religion (and christianity) and had discussions with several theologists and experts of their own religions.

At last one old jewish rabbi and a great expert on ancient jewish scriptures, told her: "I'm telling you a secret... There is no God!"

Not in a real sense. "God" is just a product of people's own imagination and represents people's desperate need to explain those things and phenomena in the world they don't understand. "God" is, or had been, merely a symbol or a metaphor for the higher or better purposes people wanted to strive for.

Unfortunately, that symbol and metaphor became quickly misunderstood and misinterpreted. Partly by mistake but in great part on purpose by individuals or groups who wanted to use it to strengthen their own influence, power and social or political position in the society.

Back to the commandments, rules, restrictions and guidance provided in the holy scriptures of different religions. Let's take a look at the holy book of christianity, the Bible.

The oldest texts in the Bible, the Old Testament, were written or gathered during a period of about 2000 years B.C. During that time most of the texts were edited or rewritten countless times. It's doubtful if there's much original thought left in them.

It has been deduced from some scanty remains that the very earliest notes have been more like ponderings of the universe and life and some humble wishes about how people's lives could be made better.

As it is often the case, the later generations saw them as a fit building ground for stricter rules and codes of conduct, and at some point along the way somebody came up with the idea of the more "real" or concrete "God" character to give even more weight to their attempts to lead the people to the direction of their choice.

And, of course, many rulers and kings used those scriptures and commandments to strengthen their power and to keep their subjects on leash - rewriting the texts as they saw fit.

The Bible as we know it was mainly composed during the early medieval time. Again, not much thought was given to the original texts or the idea behind them but instead the aim was to produce as effective a tool as possible for ruling and subjugating the uneducated lower class folks.

The book was edited heavy handedly. Numerous texts were simply dropped out because they either contradicted with the objectives of the emperor or the pope or didn't support those objectives strongly enough. Even more texts were partially rewritten to give more support for the ruling classes.

Many of those parts and religious principles of the Bible that the christian community now hold as the centrepieces of their faith were actually concocted during that era. One of them is the deity of Jesus. Also, the principle of the Holy Trinity was completely made up by the Catholic church in order to suppress a number of uncomfortable questions.

And this same process has been going on in the other "big" religions, too.

So, to make a long story short: Is there anything to really hold as a guide to a good life in the scriptures and teachings of the monotheistic religions?

Not much, really. All the basic principles of moral and ethics have existed long before any of the present day religions. That one must not kill or injure or cause damage to other people and one should try to help those in trouble and treat everyone in an equal and humane way is a natural part of the human sense of justice.

For example the Bible hardly covers even that in whole. Instead it's filled with a sundry of demands and punishments each one more horrible and unjust than the other. Other than that it's mostly brainwashing and mere poppycock.

In the beginning I pondered especially on the rules and limitations concerning human relationships. People have a natural tendency to feel and show affection and tenderness towards other people. The strict and oppressive rules stated in religious teachings have almost managed to destroy that trait, instead bringing up the tendency to fear and hate everything different.

After all, the purpose of those rules has always been to prevent the uniting of large numbers of people which could pose a serious threat to the ruling classes and their self-imposed privileges.

About ETs and mankind

The question about the ETs, the intelligent extra-terrestrial life forms, has been around for decades. It has intrigued people's imagination and been the subject of countless stories and discussions. The thought that we might not be alone in the universe is at the same time both enticing and disturbing.

After all, for centuries we have been taught by the omniscient church that the Earth is unique and the man (Homo sapiens) is the sole crown of the creation. What utter hogwash...

Recently many outstanding scientists have stepped forward saying that yes, they believe strongly in intelligent extra-terrestrial life. One of the most respected is Stephen Hawking. Their reasoning is quite simple: it's statistically virtually impossible for us to be alone! Likewise, it's statistically highly probable that there exist countless highly developed civilizations around the universe.

What should we expect, then? And should we look for and try to contact the ETs?

Mostly the question about aliens has been dealt with by innumerable Hollywood sci-fi flicks of varying quality.

Sometimes the imaginary aliens have been portrayed as cuddly and pet-like, amusing creatures or more or less human-like characters stranded on Earth for one reason or another - and typically completely clueless about the way of life here.

Most often, though, the entertainment industry has been suspiciosly eager to present the aliens as a menace and a deadly threat to the human existence.

Makes me wonder, why? Is it the simple principle of threats and thrills and horror selling better? Or is there something else, bigger and deeper, buried behind of this trend? Or is it just a depressing mirror image of human behaviour and mentality?

The image has been so strong that even Hawking has sounded a warning against trying to contact the aliens.

It's sad that such a brilliant thinker and scientist as Hawking has fallen victim of such an extremely anthropocentric view of the possible alien visitors to Earth.

If, or rather as, such highly advanced civilizations that are capable of visiting Earth do exist, how likely is it that we haven't already been visited? And wouldn't they already have wiped us out if they were such a rogue bunch? There haven't exactly been any lack of opportunities...

I think it's probably the other way around. There have likely been countless visits to Earth throughout the millennia, but seeing us as the undeveloped, superstitious, greedy, war mongering and murderous creatures we are the visitors have been extremely cautious to step forward.

The contact would eventually lead to the humankind getting off the Earth and spreading out to the space. And we are neither ready nor mature enough for that, yet. As of now, Homo sapiens would probably pose a far greater threat to other civilizations than the others are posing to us.