You can find our podcast on computer science here
Computer Science 4 All
Upon reading the articles, I first thought “Hey this is a cool thing Obama is trying to do.” Then I was surprised to find such staunch opposition. I guess to computer science students like us, coding is the way the world works now. While it’s true that it would put a lot of people ahead, this is really only helpful for those that do go into jobs that require some coding. There are still plenty of other jobs that require no knowledge of coding whatsoever. While coding as the new literacy might be a bit of an exaggeration, there’s no doubt that computer use in general is a new form of literacy. Mavis Beacon and the use of common workplace software like Word and Excel is a good start (I don’t know if they still do that in schools, but I remember doing it long ago). Nevertheless, I think opening up more coding classes as a potential option to students would be invaluable to helping people explore the seemings scary world of computer science.
Obviously there are plenty of arguments for bringing CSE to more schools if former President Obama decided to address it. One reason is that students never explore it because they think it’s hard and only for a certain type of student. Another reason is that it really encourages creativity and building problem solving skills. These are skills that would benefit in any future employment. There are also some interesting arguments against adding more to school curriculums. One large problem is that curriculums are already very full as it is and there is no room for another mandatory class. Even if it were to become mandatory, a new problem is created in that there are not enough computer science teachers to staff these classes. This is because all other avenues of employment for software engineers usually have much higher salaries than that of a teacher. Finally, there’s the issue of potentially introducing technology to children when they are too young. We all judge those kids whose parents just stick them to an iPad, so perhaps we shouldn’t push them into a technical computer class at such a young age. All of these are challenges moving forward as well as the fact that there is no set computer science curriculum. Thus, research still needs to be done as how to best present the material to students.
While it’s a good initiative, I can’t but agree that it is probably a logistical nightmare to actually execute. Thus, it’s probably best if coding classes are maintained as electives. Computer literacy can be taught in another class altogether as I mentioned earlier; however, a new class should be one that introduces a language and then promotes solving problems with this new knowledge. Any of the usual beginner languages would probably do such as Python or Java.
Finally, I think anyone can learn to program, just as anyone can learn whatever they decide to set their mind to. The question is should we force everyone to? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean we can’t offer the opportunity and promote it. Taking a programming course in high school was honestly an awesome experience for me and big part of why I chose the major.
Project 4: Artificial Intelligence
We watched the Terminator (1984) for the project. You can find a link to the podcast here.
Piracy
When digital piracy began to rise, it was natural for the owners of the original content to become angry and try to prevent this. After all, if this was their main source of income, piracy was literally taking away from their livelihood. One approach to prevent piracy was to create DRM, essentially embedded code in the content that maintains control of how the media can be stored, manipulated, etc. While the approach somewhat makes sense, it has since caused an uproar in both pirates and non-pirates alike. One huge source of discontent is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act passed in 1998 that protects the use of DRM and makes certain actions against it illegal. Essentially, the DMCA criminalizes any methods of circumventing DRM that control access to copyrighted works. Obviously it opposes the production and distribution of any technology or services that circumvent DRM, but it even goes so far as to criminalize circumvention of access control even if the media behind it isn’t copyrighted. In terms of copyright, the law shifts blame so that ISPs can no longer be held as accountable for any criminal activities done through them.
The reduced liability for online service providers is referred to as the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, but it comes with strings attached. Foremost, the OSP in question is required to follow specified guidelines when dealing with possible infringed material. For example, if the OSP receives a claim concerning infringement that they oversee, they are required to block access to the alleged infringed media and even delete it completely if they have the power. There are also provisions that protect the OSP in the case that the media in question is not actually infringing any copyright.
I believe that freely downloading or sharing copyrighted material is ethically and morally wrong, much along the same lines as the meme-worthy commercial from the 90’s saying “You wouldn’t steal a car.” I say that sharing copyrighted digital material is wrong because it is not the same as sharing a book or a car. Sharing copyrighted digital material usually just involves duplicating the media and for these reason it is wrong. Things like owning another version or sampling are a gray area because often times they are at the discretion of the user. Personally, if I happen to be “sampling” some software for awhile and find it useful, I go ahead and purchase a license. However, I must admit that there are many cases in which I haven’t paid for things which I ought to have. Most of the time I really don’t care because I figure I’m a poor college student and some big company or rich person is out there losing a few dollars at most. I think besides cost, the reason many do this is addressed in the article “Whatever Happened to the War on Piracy?” which indicates that piracy was always a service issue. As services like Spotify and the like become more convenient, our modern-day convenience oriented society will drift away from piracy.
Self-Driving Cars
One of the biggest reasons behind self-driving cars is the idea that computer-assisted driving will greatly increase safety on the road. According to one of the Ars Technica articles, more than 33,000 people die on US roadways annually. Not only is it such a large number, let’s be honest, car accidents can be absolutely gory and brutal scenes. Aside from laws and law enforcement, it seems the best way to try and combat this issue is to employ the precision of a computer and thus reduce human error on the roadway. Second, self-driving cars would most likely do wonders for the usual congestion and traffic found in large cities. Ideally, if a network of self-driving cars was ultimately formed, these cars could communicate with each other and optimize the flow of traffic. Finally, big companies have motivation to build self-driving cars for huge piles of money. While Tesla might be interested in providing self-driving cars to consumers, we also have to remember the Lyfts and Ubers out there that are losing money to their human drivers. If in the future they would instead be able to utilize self-driving cars and cut out the human drivers completely, there would be no more middle man and the business would be pure profit. Thus, a lot of the pacts, grants, and agreements currently made in this field include ride-sharing companies as partners.
I feel like programmers don’t really have to directly address the social dilemma of autonomous cars because the employed AI isn’t composed of if–>then statements. Rather, large neural nets and constant machine learning allows the self-driving cars to gain more and more experience with real driving conditions. It’s important to note that situations like choosing to hit a bus of children vs. hitting a pedestrian very rarely ever present themselves in real life. Moreover, self driving cars employs such a wide variety of sensors in all directions that they can see more of the environment than most human drivers. In this sense, they can see a situation forming in the distance and avoid it from the very start. In the end, it’s a computer. Life and death situations are going to come down to number crunching and self-driving cars will make the choice that has the lowest probability of risk. Aside from the one accident in the Tesla, I feel it’s safe to say that humans are to be held liable when accidents occur. Especially if you’re watching a movie or napping when car companies clearly state that your hands need to be on the wheel.
Self-driving cars are certainly the future. Socially, I envision traffic disappearing and the stress of driving along with it. Economically, all I can say is that car insurance companies might not have much of a job left to do. Politically, regulations will likely come about, but they won’t differ too much from current auto regulations. Instead, the focus will be on the software and how much it has been tested. Perhaps it will even become illegal to drive manually because you pose that much more of a risk to people on the road. In the end, I think the pros outweigh the cons, and even if one freak accident happens once every year, the outcome is much better than the alternative. I would certainly want one myself. Maybe cars could even do things like prevent drunk driving or drive themselves to a car wash once a month. The possibilities are endless.
Trolling / Anonymity
Trolling online is when a (usually anonymous) user tries to frustrate, frighten, and/or get a reaction out of another user through a variety of means. This can be as simple as an annoying direct message to the user and expand all the way into the realms of stalking and harassment. Personally, at that point I think it is ignorant to call it trolling anymore and people what call it what it truly is. Where does trolling come from/ why do people do it? There isn’t one single answer to this, but it usually stems from cultural and social problems rather than any problems in the online platform’s architecture itself. Unfortunately, most think that the problem arises purely from anonymity online, but this is false as seen in the Coral Project article which cites various research. The reality, at least in the US, is that conflict, harassment, and discrimination of people due to gender or color is very real in real-life interaction, and thus the use of the web is simply another platform where this problem can manifest itself.
At the very least, technology companies should take action to prevent online harassment and stalking when there are clearly legal ramifications. This is the least they could do ethically, but some might say that they should try harder morally. On one hand, the company could do more to filter and weed out these types of interactions from the start so that they never happen. On the other hand, I think Facebook addresses another key aspect which is creating a more transparent reporting and appeals process for certain issues like “real name policy abuse.” While the example is very specific, it is important for companies to listen to what there users have to say whether they are reporting an issue or dealing with report abuse. After all, aren’t users what online platforms are built around anyway?
While I consider myself a gamer, I have to say this was honestly the first time I had heard about Gamergate. As a regular user of Reddit and other online sites, you don’t have to tell me that misogyny is rampant on the Web, but I’m honestly shocked at what these supposed “gamers” did. If anything, the hypocrisy speaks for itself. Here are women in the gaming industry that are pointing out misogyny, and to prove them false, you send them death threats, harassing messages, and dox them??? Like I said before, anonymity isn’t the issue here. The cultural and social norms behind all the anonymous users out there need to change before any real progress can be made, because as it stands, this isn’t freedom of expression. You don’t have a right to harass and stalk.
Overall, I wouldn’t say trolling itself is a big problem on the internet. When saying this however, I separate trolling for trolling’s sake from real issues like harassment and stalking. Everyone can have a good laugh about being silly if done in good taste. Personally, I just ignore trolls, as I’ve never been one to willingly enter any type of conflict. If it bothers me so much, I’ll block it or delete it if it’s in my power. Then again, I really feel for all the minorities out there who receive the brunt of the trolling. I probably don’t understand what real degrading trolling is like.
Project 3: Privacy Paradox
The podcast for this project can be found here
To be honest, the challenges hardly did anything for me in terms of habits and my privacy. The first challenge encouraged us to look at the applications on our phone and see if they have access to things we didn’t know about. However, this is one of the things I like a lot about having an Apple phone because any access to things like Location Services or Contacts first requires the permission of the user. Therefore, no, I didn’t find anything that surprised me although I could see how the less tech-savvy would approve of things without knowing what they mean. Other challenges attempted to show us how our browser might be giving away identifying information, or how our Facebook likes can be used to profile us. In reality though, these were rather ridiculous as the scary “identifying” information totaled a whopping 17 bits of info and the Facebook profiling was not even close. Honestly, if someone can use 17 bits of info to steal my identity or something, I wouldn’t even be mad, just impressed. If anything, the only challenge that showed me anything was the one that required us to take 15 minutes away from all technology. It’s true, most of this generation consists of smartphone addicts and a little time away from screens could do us some good. Still… easier said then done.
In terms of the privacy paradox, the survey that was related to the podcasts labeled me a “realist” and I would say this is accurate. I’m all about the correct use of user data, and if a company offers to learn a few things about me in order to make my life easier, I’ll gladly give them that data if they aren’t obviously sketchy. Sure, take my name, email, etc., but of course I’m usually hesitant to give any company or site any sensitive information such as my social security number or bank details. Overall, the choice really isn’t hard because I don’t really care. For now, I like to think that I am careful enough to not myself in any big privacy risks anyway.
While I may be apathetic about my own privacy, I am wholeheartedly in support of privacy in general. The issue isn’t whether or not companies should be asking for personal data. This is easily solved by people who can decide whether or not to give it to them. Rather, the issue is what the companies do with the data once they do have it. It appalls me that the U.S. is one of the only large countries that doesn’t require data brokers to show users their own data! If a company is going to have personal data, it should be under the terms of that person alone. This includes being able to rescind or amend data if minds are changed. How realistic is this? Even I’m pessimistic… Obviously once the data is out of your hands you really don’t have control of it anymore. Nevertheless, companies should start being held accountable; so that even if the era of privacy is seemingly gone, users aren’t left to the mercy of those who hold their data.
Online Censorship
Online censorship is one of those topics that is hard to be completely for or against. On one hand, hate speech, terrorist activity, etc. which are inherently unethical should probably be censored on the internet by any company that holds themselves to a code of ethics. On the other hand, some content might be considered gray areas for censorship, as many people have differing views on what is offensive or intolerable and what is not. Thus, it would not be ethical to censor opposing views on controversial topics just for the reason that they oppose your views. Obviously this kind of mixes into social concerns if you consider how Facebook seemingly left trending conservative news out of its “Trending Section.” Hearing about this slightly concerned me mostly because Facebook is going against what it states the trending module to be, “topics that have recently become popular on Facebook” (as seen in the Gizmodo article). Nevertheless, I feel the people affected by this should also be held accountable, as perhaps they should seek to learn news from an actual news site and not just Facebook. After all, is any news source ever completely unbiased? At some point, it is also up to users to reference multiple sources and sites if they truly want complete news coverage.
In light of what I said above about hate speech, terrorist organizations, etc., I think that governments should have the rights to suppress these forms of speech. Similarly, I think that if a government is founded by its people and its people support the suppression of a certain kind of speech, it is okay for the government to do this. Unfortunately, if you want an example government that doesn’t do this, you need not look further than China. One would think that referring to its censorship as a “Great Wall” is just a silly reference to its actual wall, but the actual amount of censorship that the Chinese government undertakes is no laughing matter. According to the AmestyUSA article, freedom of expression is not only entrenched in international law, the Chinese Constitution even provides it! Yet, Chinese journalists like Shi Tao and Yang Tongyan were/are in prison because the Chinese government did not agree with their expressions. In cases like these where certain rights are extended in a governmental document, I am certainly against any online censorship by the government that infringes on these rights. Similarly, I think it is okay for technology companies to engage in suppression of free speech when it is bound by local law to do so. This extends the same logic as above where this is only ethical if the people are aware of/agree to certain suppression. On the other hand, technology companies should never go out of their way to aid censoring governments by skewing data or presenting false things. I am inclined to side with Google when they first defended some of their own censorship in China when they stated that would rather be able to offer the millions of people in China only some services than leave them without access to any of that information at all.
Corporate Personhood
Corporate personhood is the idea that a corporation holds a sort of separate identity than that of its shareholders. This means that a corporation possesses interests and an identity of its own. As the article from The Atlantic points out, one essential purpose of this separateness is so that shareholders can make “intergenerational investments” ensuring that their shares of the company are protected without being linked to the government or a specific family. Legally, this means that corporations themselves have various rights normally afforded by the Bill of Rights to people in the country. This includes a decision under the First Amendment that now allows corporations to directly contribute to election campaigns on all levels. Moreover, companies like Hobby Lobby can refuse to comply with a federal mandate due to the fact that it goes against the “corporation’s” religious beliefs. This also means that if a corporation is ever involved in a crime or something of the sort, it is the corporation that is at fault and none of the shareholders are necessarily singled out.
I can’t help but agree with the New York Times in saying that Black’s book on IBM and the Nazis seems a little overdone. I am absolutely not in anyway condoning how IBM helped the Nazi war machine run, I am just of the opinion that singling out IBM as the absolute core of the genocide tends to make the arguments less believable. What we do have is historical evidence, and this evidence shows that IBM along with so many other companies is how the Nazi party was able to carry out its terrible mission. Indeed, I think corporations should be responsible for trying to ensure that they only do ethical business. Unfortunately, there’s no way that they can keep track of everything all the time. See how Ford and GM apologized but also stated that their foreign branches were overrun and became disconnected from the actual corporation. I think this almost goes back to the idea of Codes of Ethics. I previously argued that they are useful and I think they would especially dictate what should be done in these types of situations.
I do believe in the idea of corporate personhood, and I tend to take the judicial point of view as taken by John Marshall in the NPR article. Just because the court agrees that a corporation has some rights that people have doesn’t mean that it has them all. Nobody arguing for corporate personhood is actually saying that a corporation is the same thing as a person. Nevertheless, if corporations are going to be considered as people-like, corporations should be expected to have the same ethical and moral responsibilities. This of course is to the point that it is most reasonable. In IBM’s case in Nazi Germany, perhaps it should’ve have done more to seize the means of production once finding out its purpose. Certainly, it shouldn’t have sought to do business with Germany once the motives were revealed. Whether or not it did is another question, but the fact remains that corporations should still expect to be held liable when it contributes to some problem.
Government Surveillance
What’s the point of encryption if the government is going to ask companies to weaken it? The whole thing seems like a rather poor argument on the side of the government, and perhaps if they could provide better reasons as to why they absolutely need these things then maybe technological companies would consider it. In the first article from the director of the FBI, this branch of the government at least tries to make it seem like they really “respect the fundamental right of people to engage in private communications.” The director himself mentions the types of compromises that have been made including the Wiretap Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but instead of providing concrete examples of how these are not adequate, he says the requirements for putting these into use are “demanding.” Well of course they are demanding! If you truly respect the Fourth Amendment like you say you do, then you will understand that some substantial evidence and criteria need to be met to give reason to push it aside. One of the things that is “demanding” is that often a neutral judge is needed to give the approval on things, but this shouldn’t be too much of a surprise because our government was founded on checks and balances. If you’re opposed to being “checked”, then maybe you should reevaluate what you are doing and why you are doing it. Kind of ironic because some arguments often follow the form “if you’ve nothing to hide…”, yet here the same thing can be said to government entities that want to skip the approval process.
This being said, it’s hard to state where technology companies ought to stand in the debate, and sometimes it may depend on the company. In the end, I think a compromise can be met through a cooperation between companies and government. HA, I know this will never happen, but besides it there really is no best side to the argument. I do however think that the government abuses their side of the argument whenever they can just say to anything: “but people might die.” As recognized by Granick in American Spies, the argument to have access to everything when the likelihood that you’ll even find something is really low, is just mathematically unreasonable. While I’m not saying that a single human life isn’t worth it, it’s a poor premise to assume life will always be on the line. So much data and manpower will be wasted if this is the approach taken, potentially weakening our security when it could be set to more important things.
“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear,” is what someone ignorant might say. Not ignorant in an insulting way, rather, they must not fully understand what is at stake here. Snowden mentions free speech with regard to this topic. Just because you’ve got nothing to say doesn’t mean you don’t want free speech right? People would be up in arms if free speech was being infringed upon as the government in now trying to do with our privacy. In the end, it’s a matter of principles and fundamental rights. We as people don’t need to justify why we need privacy, the government needs to justify why they ought to take it from us.
CSEthics 