Coding and software has definitely become not only a huge part of every day life, but also has provided an exploding technology field in desperate need for engineers, especially computer scientists. I also strongly believe that any exposure to technology, coding, or the idea of “computational thinking” at a young age is beneficial and really helpful to develop future technological literacy. I wish more than anything that I had opened a terminal before the first day of Fund Comp sophomore year because of the learning curve that I have had to overcome when I compare my coding experience with those that had the opportunity to take even one coding class or wrote even one code in high school. While I put this on myself by choosing a major I had no experience in, I would have had much more success early on and access to many more internships and opportunities earlier in my college career if I had had the experience and confidence to do so. However, while I feel that it is extremely advantageous to promote computer science exposure in education, I struggle to say that it should be required. When I think about how hard it was for my high school to even implement online standardized testing (due to lack of computers, infrastructure, and trained staff) I can’t help but think about how many minority and low-income students will be left behind from these initiatives because it is extremely expensive to implement them in low funded schools. Honestly, I have little faith that these programs to get CS into all schools would ever reach those that most need it and that have the least exposure to coding throughout their lives. These are the children that do not have computer scientists as parents or teachers and that even have a hard time retaining a math teacher which is obviously much more important to an overall education. The cost of implementation is, in my eyes, one of the most problematic issues of the CS4All campaign. While I do think it would be extremely beneficial to pursue placing CS in all schools, I think there may be some already standing structural barriers that would inhibit the program’s impact on the students that need it most.

I also strongly believe in the growth mindset and the idea that everyone can learn to code. While I have been forced to adopt a growth mindset to be successful in CS at ND, looking at how far I have come since freshman year shows me that this is true. I struggled for a very long time thinking that CS was just not for me (and that I was destined to be a Sociology major). While this is still probably true, I have definitely learned that coding is something that anyone can learn with the proper teacher (one that does not only teach to code but teaches computational thinking, as discussed in the second article). A deep understand about how and why code works is beneficial to understanding how to be a computer scientist or engineer. But this is not something that is inherent in an individual and can be learned if given the correct tools and support system.

Patents are a form of intellectual property that gives the owner of the patent a right to exclude and restrict other people from selling, making, or using the invention or technology for a period of time (20 years). Owners, then, are legally allowed a monopoly on his or her technology for a few years after establishing the patent. Patents were originally created in an effort to promote innovation through incentive and protect the rights of individual inventors and small companies. While this may have worked well for a while, systems and processes often get abused and the patent process is not different. The system has become controversial in that some say patents are actual inhibiting future innovation and are not allowing new companies to grow and thrive due to the abuse by patent trolls. In general, while patents may have had good intentions, it is believed that the present implementation of the system is not efficient nor fair to small companies and individual inventors and, therefore, should either be removed or revised. I think it is really important that we keep the essence of patents in law moving forward, but that we place a larger emphasis and ensuring that the patent system is protecting the rights of citizens and giving everyone equal access to the world of innovation and entrepreneurship and opportunity to improve their lives through technology that they designed. Some people have worked for years on an invention or technology and they have a rightful place to be proud of the accomplishment and rewarded for their work, so I think it is unfair to the general population of inventors to remove the concept of patents from law completely. However, I also think that the laws should be revised and changed as necessary to ensure that patent trolls are no longer able to take advantage of small companies unable to protect themselves in court against patent infringement cases. In addition, I think the concept of a business based solely on finding some small, budding entrepreneur to take advantage of is unethical and honestly a boring excuse of a business for people that were unable to be successful on their own. I do not think that these businesses that do not have any source of revenue besides as a result of court hearings should exist and I believe them to be very unfair and counteractive to innovation.

Lastly, I do believe that software should be patented. I do not think that software technology is any different from the tangible technology that was originally covered by patents. Software technology and computers in general are new territory that has not been explored yet in terms of the legal, social, and economic ramifications of innovation and technology. However, this does not mean that there is any significant difference in the importance of these technologies nor in the lengths to which we should protect it and its owners as has been done with tangible technology in the past. It is important that we figure out the right thing to do about patents now before software becomes an even more integral part of every day life.

There is a lot of motivation for self-driving cars with arguments stemming from increased safety to increased efficiency, ease of every day life, and further technological innovation. First, some argue that self-driving cars would increase the efficiency of our daily lives by removing the driving task from our day. It is incredible technology that has the power to change how society functions at a very foundational level and remove a menial task from our lives (arguable). In addition, many argue that self-driving cars would remove the risk associated with human driver mistakes and therefore increase the safety of those travelling by car. However, this is a contended statement as self-driving cars have already been involved in several fatal accidents throughout the testing of the technology. This brings up the ethical issues regarding the topic which include how to design the algorithm for deciding how to react to situations and obstacles. I think that self-driving cars definitely have the potential to make our lives safer and easier and do not at all believe that there should be a halt of innovation in this area. However, I do believe that there should be extra safety precautions and safety drivers that are competent in ensuring that the cars are not endangering society during testing. The testing of these cars should be widely known to the community so that they can be on higher alert when walking in the area as well as highly regulated as the technology would hold the power over life or death in extreme situations and is worth being a priority for the companies that are building the cars. It is unacceptable that Uber had ignored several safety precautions such as disabling the emergency braking system for a “smoother” ride and some cameras and sensors had been removed from the design, as was discussed in the first article. It is also unacceptable for companies to take advantage of society’s lack of depth knowledge of the technology and cut corners to simply increase profit and rank among its competitors.

I think it is really hard to decide the approach for the algorithm for decision making for self-driving cars. As discussed in the article, it comes down to the “trolley problem,” which is the thought problem where you must decide between saving and individual (the driver and people in the car) or a group of people (the individuals that are involved in the accident with the self-driving cars). While I think I would choose to save the pedestrians on the road or in the other car, I also understand that it would be hard to get into a car knowing that it would allow me and my family to die if there is a greater good. It is a deep moral and ethical dilemma that, while provides a more than extreme situation that is unlikely to occur often in real life, still provides a space for conversation about how best to approach the autonomous car revolution and what safety measures and safety net should be instilled to ensure no one is hurt in the process.

I cannot say that innovation has not contributed significantly to shaping our social, economical, and political world that we live in today. Modern technology, especially automation and AI, has the power to radically change the world in terms of transportation, manufacturing, and even international development. However, while I do agree we should always continue to innovate and look towards the future role of technology in the world, we absolutely cannot forget to consider the equally as radical negative implications that a shift to automation would cause for society. A change of this scale is unprecedented and unexplored territory and while we should not be afraid of what is to come, we must be prepared for what might happen in consequence. In this case, a shift to automation in many low-level, laborious jobs could result in massive unemployment rates for the citizens in which robots replace. There seems to be mixed results in some of the economic studies on the subject, including some that determine foreign trade has a larger effect on American unemployment, and therefore the effects of automation do not need to be addressed but this is silly and unethical. As a programmer we study the worst case and the worst case of this situation should matter and be considered. A massive shift to automation in low level jobs would result in the most vulnerable and marginalized populations being forced into unemployment with a lack of resources and capital to find another profession or support their families. The United States is already experiencing some of the highest rates of socioeconomic inequality in the world and the problem of inequality will only be severely exacerbated come a shift to automation. Inequality has risen significantly and, as was discussed in one of the articles, America will soon no longer be a place to fulfill the American Dream. Increased unemployment due to automation may result in the further division between rich and poor in this country, similar to what has been observed with technological revolutions in the passed.

While the possible effects on inequality should in and of themselves be enough to convince people that the effects of automation are serious and must be acknowledged, one can also consider that much of our individual experiences within society are based on our ability to actively take part in it and be a productive member of it. This is part of our inherent human dignity that each of us carries as a member of the global society. Automation would result in the undermining of one of the most basic human experiences for all of these people. We value connection to each other and to the wider society and to accept this being taken away from some of the most foundational members of our society is saddening. It is hard to hear people such as the first author write, “While technology is partly responsible for years of middle-class wage stagnation, it has mostly hurt the less educated and helped the more educated,” and then have the ability to, without a blink of an eye, move on like the ideology behind complacency with this statement is not the reason for our societal division today. My family has owned a small trucking company in Los Angeles for most of my life and it became my grandfather’s livelihood and legacy. I have studied a bit about the impacts of automation on the trucking industry and while I may be partial, it would hurt me to see my family unable to get back on its feet because robots that I helped create took their jobs. Respect for others and their rights to fully participate in society are all you need to see that we must be prepared for what is to come, whether that be pulling the world out of another Dark Age or dividing its people even further.

The term “Fake News” encompasses a variety of different news and information available to the public that is either maliciously intended to influence social beliefs and movements or simply made-up news used to reduce the sharing and popularity of a certain ideology or belief. The controversy surrounding the concept of fake news is epitomized in the examples discussed in the articles such as the alleged actions of Russian politicians in the 2016 US presidential election as well as mob attacks and other violent events in developing countries such as Myanmar and small villages in India. As a sociology minor I find this phenomena fascinating (and horrifying at the same time) and am really interested in exploring more about social movements, social networks, and social media and the intersection of these fields. Looking at my personal social media, I have always noticed an initial bias based on the majority political ideals of the population I was raised in Los Angeles. However the more I have engaged with social media and have been old enough to contemplate and consider the information that I am consuming the more I have noticed the small instances of fake news on my time line. Whether it be a false tweet about the death of a celebrity or unregulated hate speech it is definitely something that is present in our lives at an all time high. As Professor Weninger discussed in the article he spoke in, the public is now deciding what information gets reported and spread so it is a controversy that should be addressed before it gets out of hand (although mass mob lynchings in developing countries should be out of hand enough and be a wake up call to truly consider the best way to regulate the sharing of information on the internet and social media). I am having a hard time deciding who’s responsibility it is to take responsibility for this regulation and it may be that it will take a combination of government organizations, private firms, and social movements to truly address the issue holistically. As an (almost) educated college graduate I understand that I have the ability and should take responsibility of validating the information that I choose to read and believe. I also believe that the technology companies enabling the speech has the responsibility to at least attempt to remove information and posts that are hateful and incite violence while doing as much as they can to respect the privacy of individuals that are genuinely using the platforms without malicious attempts. In addition, I share the worry with Professor Weninger that the way we understand and utilize technology is extremely different from the ways in which technology is used in other parts of the world and technology companies in the US have to do a better job of understanding the ramifications of their technology outside of the educated and generally wealthier American population. The effects of fake news have the potential to seriously influence big worldwide events. I definitely think it is possible that Russia had a role in the 2016 election and that this has the potential to get even more problematic as social media and technology takes a more central part of every day life.

Online censorship is a ethical and moral concern that deserves utmost attention from American technology giants that own and build the technology used in the process. Censorship is used by authoritarian governments to suppress online information that promotes democracy or any opposing ideals. As discussed in the articles, the largest proponent of this censorship is the Chinese government, which has asked American technology companies such as Facebook and Google to develop search engines and methods to censor online content. Freedom of speech is an American ideal that forms the foundation of democracy and provides a platform in which citizens can voice their opinions and values to government and hold them accountable. This is not allowed in China and the government actively suppresses any information that does not support the regime, which I view as unacceptable and extremely unethical. It does not open the space for any conversation about the effectiveness or morality of the government and allows for further violations of basic human rights of the citizens. Not only is it unethical for governments to participate in online censorship, but I believe it is also unethical for technology companies to help enable these governments in doing so. There is an ethical dilemma for company executives that struggle to mediate the capitalist call to increase profits and shareholder value and the moral challenge of upholding American democratic ideals and human rights. Here, I resonated with Vox article discussing the consequences and controversy of Google’s DragonFly search engine. As it states in the article, the nature of American economy and business encourages companies to focus on maximizing profit when making strategic business decisions, despite any negative consequences for the community or violation of ethical and moral principles. However, companies should be held to the same ethical standards as individuals and should not use their technology for the harm of others, whether that be physically or through a violation of their rights.

In terms of the removal of the Daily Stormer website, I agree with the decision. I do understand the censorship of information on topics that are dangerous to national security or undermine America’s moral ideals and laws. There is a difference between censoring this sort of data versus data promoting democracy and advocacy. There is a line that could be drawn when it comes to online censorship and it should protect the basic human right of freedom of speech as it aligns with America’s laws and ethical standings. It is illegal to discriminate against race, gender, and religion and wrong to post racist comments online that incite violence. Therefore, while there is an argument for freedom of speech there is a thin line between free speech and hate speech and hate speech should not be tolerated. Therefore, I agree with the decision to take down the Daily Stormer website. I believe that as technology continues to become a more integrated part of every day life and platform for global conversation and interaction, the risk and consequences of online censorship will increase as well. Even now, American companies are not only participating in these dilemmas in the United States but all over the world. It could develop into a larger problem in the future.

 

 

Corporate personhood is the idea that a corporation, separate from its employees, executives, and partners, has some of the same rights and responsibilities as conscious human beings. As discussed in the first article, “How Corporations Got The Same Rights as People (But Don’t Ever Go To Jail),” corporations have won legal battles granting them equal protection under the law, due process, and legal representation. However the conversation of corporate personhood has moved beyond the declaration of legal rights and protections and is now addressing corporate freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The concept of corporate conscience and its acting out in legal proceedings has large social, ethical, and legal effects. For example, corporations are now able to refuse service to and discriminate against any population of people in which they deem to be against the owners’ religion and allows them to participate in unethical behavior without consequence (with many battles ending in settlements that the company can afford to dish out). While I do believe that corporations have the right to establish a culture based on their own political, religious, and social beliefs, I believe that a line should be drawn when these beliefs and following actions are contrary to national law and common ethical beliefs (such as discrimination). If corporations are going to enjoy the same legal rights, responsibilities, and freedoms as live individuals, they should be held accountable for acting accordingly and to the same ethical standards as human beings.

A specific case study for this issue is offered in studying the role of IBM in developing and maintaining infrastructure to aid in Nazi efforts to eliminate the entire German Jewish population. In this case, IBM and its German subsidiaries allegedly offered advanced technology that analyzed census data, tracked Jewish individuals, and streamlined genocide operations through the use of punch cards. The primary dispute in this case was that IBM not only sold its technology to Nazi leaders, but actively maintained them and custom-designed the systems to the Nazis’ needs with the knowledge of the company’s counterpart in the United States. While I do not agree with Black that the Nazi demand for data and associated technologies drove IBM’s future advancement and do not go so far as to say IBM is responsible for the success of the Reich, I do believe that (assuming Black’s research is correct and IBM executives in the US were aware of its German subsidiary’s actions) IBM’s actions and efforts were unethical and they should take responsibility and “move on” as many other companies have done in recent years. The Holocaust has, since the beginning of the Reich, been known to be an unethical and immoral movement that violates a myriad of human rights. In no world should IBM have partaken enabling the Nazi’s to continue to dehumanize the Jewish people (in fact, as computer scientists I am tempted to say IBM should actually have taken action to use its technology to stop the crisis in Germany). Further, corporations should definitely refrain from doing business with immoral and unethical organizations.

The development of the Internet of Things is driven by technological innovation and the consumer demand for convenience and centralization of the power of individual devices. I think the concept of smart homes and other IoT systems is innovative and honestly very interesting and useful. However, I also understand the dangers that they pose to peoples’ personal privacy and even physical well-being. The arguments against IoT devices speak mostly about their lack of security and the potential danger of putting critical sensitive data online. If these devices could be more secure I think they would be valuable for future development in technology and in improving our lives as consumers.

The responsibility of securing these devices lands on the manufacturers that build them. Security should be a characteristic that is deeply integrated with the system from the time of design, not just an after thought. Security should be valued instead of brushed off for the sake of sales and profit. Not only is it the responsibility of the manufacturers, but also the responsibility of legislature. Just as we have minimum security qualifications for food, automobiles, and infrastructure, there should be minimum qualifications for software-based devices that play integral roles in every part of our lives. No longer are computers simply being used for surfing the web an social media. They are now controlling our cars, homes, and finances. As was discussed in the first article, hackers now can even have the power to control the transmission of your car while you are on the road. Therefore they should be challenged to protect consumers in the same way with legislation as has been implemented with many other industries that directly influence our safety. While many say California’s legislation for security on IoT devices is weak and ineffective, I agree with those that said it was a step in the right direction. While there have been efforts to bring these concerns to the manufacturer’s and public’s attention, little action, if any, has been actually taken to improve security, so any action is helpful. With IoT, technology is entering a field that has never been explored before and programmers are still learning about best security practices and the endless possibilities of bugs and hackers. However, it is important to establish security as a requirement so that it shapes the development of IoT as it improves and innovates. I believe that the legislature in California is setting a precedent for technology security and while needs much improvement, is setting a baseline and shows that the government is keeping their peoples’ security and well-being at the forefront of their minds. Additionally, I think the rating system suggested in the articles would be helpful in helping consumers make an educated purchase and push manufacturers to increase security measures on their devices.

I do not think a world of interconnected devices is something to fear. It makes our lives more efficient, promotes further innovation, and enables better communication in every aspect of our lives. However, I do believe that with IoT comes more responsibility that requires our attention as much as in other fields and industries.

Technology companies should not weaken their encryption methods or implement backdoors in their products for the purposes of government surveillance. This would be an infringement on customer privacy and Apple, as the inventors of their products and all of its associated technologies, have a moral and ethical responsibility to mediate to the best of their ability the consequences that their technologies enable including privacy, violence, and criminal concerns. Asking Apple to weaken its security standards, which Apple has always worked to improve and make stronger because it is a pillar of their company’s values, is not only asking them to take steps backwards, but also to give up their customer’s private information without their permission. It completely undermines the relationships between all three parties: Apple, consumer, and government. There is an important sense of trust that should be continuously fostered between citizen and government. Asking Apple to create a backdoor to their own technology to aid in government surveillance of its citizens is a direct blow to the development to this trust and can have extreme negative consequences on citizen support for the administration. In addition, while it is related to national security and I understand the possible benefits of government surveillance, it is hard for me to reconcile the (potential) successes of government surveillance of its own citizens with the inherent immorality of taking private information from citizens without their permission. While I also understand that the government was asking Apple to create a backdoor for a single phone and single customer that was a suspect in an act of terrorism, I firmly believe that this would have set a precedent and the privacy of all citizens, terrorists or not, could become susceptible to government surveillance. I am not sure what the solution is as I completely understand the need for national security and surveillance on appropriate criminals or suspected criminals, there must be a way to go about the issue without taking advantage of the citizens it is supposed to be protecting.

I would respond to the argument of national security by citing one of the readings about the impact of the Snowden leaks. This article strongly states that there is little to no evidence of US mass surveillance ever actually thwarting a terrorist attack on US soil. Therefore, I ask the question why it is so important that Apple roll over and create the backdoor to its devices. Obviously, the government’s current surveillance strategies are not actually being successful and instead of pressuring Apple to weaken their security methodologies, they should maybe be investing time and money into developing different surveillance strategies that are actually successful and do not battle citizen privacy. In response to the argument: If you have got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, I would make an important distinction. While I am a law-abiding citizen with absolutely nothing to hide, allowing the government to take my information without my permission undermines my freedom under the Constitution and the values in which the United States was founded on. It is not a matter of what information is being taken, it is a matter of staying true to our ideals as a nation.

I think Chelsea Manning was doing the right thing in deciding to leak sensitive information to WikiLeaks. Not only does the public have a right to transparency in government and military actions, but also the investigation into the leaks did not give any evidence that the Manning’s actions led to weakness in national security or led to any physical harm. In addition, Manning’s intentions were in complete alignment with the Code of Ethics and therefore Manning was doing what she saw to be a good for all of American society. As scientists and engineers, we are called to challenge authority for the good of society and Manning’s actions did just that. She wanted to bring these topics to discussion and allow the citizens of the United States to decide for themselves if the government is adhering to laws and regulations and whether the government’s actions align with the needs of its people and of the world’s global citizens. Further, I believe that her extreme sentencing was unnecessary, especially based on previous precedents which resulted in 1-3 year sentences (versus Manning’s 35 years). I also agree with Obama’s decision to commute her sentence. Not only was the sentencing much too extreme to begin with, but also Manning provided complete transparency during the investigation, specifically in regards to her actions, intentions, and beliefs about why she leaked the classified information. She showed remorse for doing so and reiterated that her drive and motivation has always been for the good of society as a whole. While she did leak information, a violation of her duty as an Army officer, she was morally and ethically called to do so and I believe that she did the right thing in acting on this calling. There must be a way in which to hold the government accountable for its actions, especially those that occur behind closed doors. I understand that this information is crucial to national security and many things must remain classified, but when the lives and well being of civilians are at stake and there is past evidence that their lives are not being valued as they should be I believe it is important for there to exist a method of accountability. Until there is a way to provide transparency in governmental actions (and business, etc) without putting peoples’ jobs/freedom and national security at risk, I believe that whistleblowers should have a space to do the right thing.

However, I also believe that Manning should have been penalized in court, but only because I believe the Whistleblowers protection laws are correct in only protecting those that go to law enforcement rather than the media. I know there could be a sense of distrust in the system but whistleblowers should not overlook the importance of national security. I feel classified information in the hands of the media is much more dangerous than classified information in the hands of law enforcement and information can often be misconstrued or misinterpreted. Had Manning gone to the police instead of WikiLeaks, I would be much happier with her decision.