Reading 12

Trolling is a very interesting topic to me because of its extreme prevalence in Internet culture. To me trolling is using inflammatory comments to try and get a response out of someone. My definition of trolling limits the comments to be fairly harmless and while provocative could not be construed as harassment. Trolling to me is not being misogynistic or saying you are going to murder someone. That is just plain harassment. From the Guardian article, they provide a different and more detailed definition of trolling, “There’s a term for this brand of gratuitous online cruelty: we call it internet trolling. Trolling is recreational abuse – usually anonymous – intended to waste the subject’s time or get a rise out of them or frustrate or frighten them into silence. Sometimes it’s relatively innocuous (like asking contrarian questions just to start an argument) or juvenile (like making fun of my weight or my intelligence), but – particularly when the subject is a young woman – it frequently crosses the line into bona fide, dangerous stalking and harassment. “ I agree with parts of this definition but once the actions become more malicious I do not think it is trolling anymore. I think the base root of trolling based on my definition is simply there are a lot of bored people on the Internet. However, the more malicious and hurtful troll definition is caused by something worse. In the Guardian article it discusses how one troll was a spewing hate on the internet because of his own insecurities and this is probably the case for most people who try to hurt and put down others on the Internet.

I think companies have some obligation to prevent trolls, but they cannot begin to overly censor their users or else they will lose them. I think what twitter is doing by improving their reporting function is a step in the right direction. Morally and ethically they are responsible to a point because they are providing a conduit for abuse to happen but their obligation to fixing it is somewhat limited due to peoples’ desire to have free speech.

I believe anonymity is a blessing on the Internet. It provides far more help for people who are in trouble and can’t use real IDs than the cost of allowing some people to abuse the anonymity by sending hate over the Internet. The slate article had some very good points regarding this issue, “‘Real names’ policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people…Among the types of people listed (other than dissidents in a repressive states) for whom pseudonymity is important: people who are LGBT, abuse survivors, “people from small communities,” politically active people or religious people who may suffer discrimination at work if their beliefs became known, etc.” This shows that the anonymity of the Internet has a tangible benefit for a lot of members of society. Most people believe that by using real IDs on the Internet that trolls will disappear but this again is simply not the case according to the slate article, “Research about online identity shows that “real ID” policies are not as effective as their proponents claim. Disqus, an online commenting platform, conducted an informal analysis of about 500 million comments by 60 million users and found that pseudonymous users wrote better comments (and more of them) than those who were using their real names, with anonymous users being responsible for the bottom-feeder-quality comments.” This shows that even with real IDs people still aren’t accountable for their actions. Therefore, I believe that the anonymity of the Internet is a blessing and far outweighs its costs.

In my life I have not really dealt with trolls, but I would follow the common advice of “not feeding them.” Based on my definition of a troll I do not think it is an issue, but once it crosses into the harassment stage where there is stalking and threats of violence I believe this is an issue on the Internet that needs to be addressed.

Reading 11

According to the article on Computerworld, artificial intelligence (AI) is a sub-field of computer science. The overall goal of AI is to develop computers that are able to complete tasks that are normally done by people. It does not matter how the AI accomplishes the task so long as it mimics what an intelligent human could accomplish. There are two camps of AI, “strong” and “weak.” The strong group is trying to genuinely simulate human reasoning but there are currently no real world examples of this. The weak group is currently what we have for AI machines that mimic human behavior and respond in normal fashions like Siri. There is a grey area for the group that merges the two ideas and the result is IBM Watson. For me AI is currently a long ways away from human intelligence because computers are able to think in ways of answering questions even if they are abstract, but they cannot synthesize the information and use it to develop and improve themselves which is a distinct characteristic of human intelligence.

In regard to AlphaGo, Deep Blue and Watson, I feel it is a mixed bag on whether they are real AI or just gimmicks. Deep Blue and Watson are definitely tricks/gimmicks because they are not learning or adapting, they either simply search a database for an answer based on key word inputs or evaluate a board with a program that gives value to chess positions. However, AlphaGo is definitely more AI and interesting as a result because Go takes much more intuition and there are no set “rule books” for a program to follow and get the best result. According to the Quantamagazine article, “Instead, by analyzing thousands of prior games and engaging in a lot of self-play, AlphaGo created a policy network through billions of tiny adjustments, each intended to make just a tiny incremental improvement. That, in turn, helped AlphaGo build a valuation system that captures something very similar to a good Go player’s intuition about the value of different board positions.” The way that AlphaGo got better at Go is in a sense the exact same way a human player would, by trying different strategies and slowly developing and learning what works.

I do not think the Turing Test is a valid measure of true AI. The basis of AI is whether they can think on their own. The Turing test does not prove this because it is simply an imitation game and not true thought. Also, Turing himself stated that using the test to decide if machines can think is meaningless and not worth discussion.

Finally, I do think a computer system could become a mind once it has the ability to abstract, synthesize and develop its own thoughts and ideas. Currently, computers have not reached that point so they do not have minds in the sense that humans have minds. I do think of the human brain as a biological computer, it in a way runs calculations telling our body what it needs to survive, it gives commands to our body and is essentially what controls everything within us. For ethical implications, I do think eventually we could have to consider basic rights for computers, if the computer is able to have sentient and individual thought it should be treated just like a member of our society (or else it might turn on us).

 

 

Reading 10

According to the USA Today article, Net Neutrality is essentially an idea that having an open internet is the best option. The principle is that ISPs should give consumers access to all legal content on an equal basis without favoring or blocking sources based on payment amounts. It means that ISPs cannot create “fast-lanes” for higher paying customers and cannot slow down or “throttle” others. Net Neutrality wants to treat the Internet like a common utility like water, gas and electricity.  This is summed up by the Lifehacker article, “Users should be able to use their bandwidth however they want (as long as it’s legal), and internet service providers should not be able to provide priority service to any corner of the internet.”

The argument for Net Neutrality is that people do not want to give too much power because it could be abused. If Comcast has a similar service to Netflix they could throttle speeds to Netflix and drive traffic to their platform. This is wrong because it destroys the idea of free market and allowing consumers to choose products based on their merit not because an ISP is controlling their internet speed.

The argument against Net Neutrality is that ISPs have a right to distribute their network differently among services. They argue that giving preferential treatment for certain things is sometimes required. Lifehacker lays out their argument as this, “[Comcast/AT&T] themselves aren’t “the internet”—they’re merely a gateway the internet, and if they’re each allowed to manage their networks differently, you’re more likely to have competition between service providers which ultimately, they claim, is better for the users. “

I am in favor of Net Neutrality because I fear that big ISPs could collude and slow down traffic to their competitors and break the free market.  A way to enforce it would be to create a board or agency that just monitors the data flow from Comcast and AT&T and see if there are anomalies in access speeds. I do not feel over regulation and stopping innovation would really exist because I feel like the Internet is a utility. By regulating say electricity it’s not like there has been a halt in innovation from products that use electricity it has actually made it more accessible. Internet has become a staple of society and therefore fair access should be a basic right.

Project 03

I believe encryption is a fundamental right in the sense that privacy in someone’s home is a right until the government gets a warrant. However, due to the fact that technology has currently outpaced the government the government is still unable to access certain things. Once the government develops a way to break the encryption without putting individuals’ personal data at risk for criminals I believe the government should be locked out. As we stated in our letter to the editor, “A hole in security is open for both good and evil, and opening a hole should be done with the knowledge that such holes make hacking by criminals easier as well.” Therefore, until the government finds a way to be “caught up” with technology I think US citizens should have access to technology that can lock them out.

The encryption issue is important to me because I believe it will set a strong precedent on future security questions. I firmly believe encryption is vital in protecting personal information but it does not entirely effect who I would support politically because there are more than issues of security. By being single issue voters is what weakens a country and I believe in looking at candidates in a holistic approach, and while no candidate will be perfect some benefits outweigh the negatives. Strong encryption rights would definitely be something I want but it is not the sole deciding factor in who I support politically, financially or socially.

I think in the long run the government will eventually beat encryption for a while but technology will always outpace the government. I am somewhat resigned to this fact but will continue to support encryption causes. There will always be encryption that criminals and terrorists will find a way to utilize and as stated in our letter by weakening customer-level encryption would only really hurt individuals and make them more susceptible to being hacked and taken advantage of by criminals.

 

Reading 09

The DMCA does not agree with privacy and addresses it with the anti-circumvention provisions. It bars the circumvention of access controls and technical protection measures. Essentially, the DMCA is trying to stop piracy by stopping pirates from defeating DRM and other content access or copy restrictions on copyrighted works. They also ban “black box” devices which help facilitate piracy. However, these measures do not seem to be working in their intended manner. The safe harbor provisions protect service providers who meet certain conditions from monetary damages for the infringing activities of their users and other third parties on the net. There are rules the service providers must follow in order to stay under this protections such as sending notice and takedown procedures. Safe harbor has been used to protect and allow the internet to grow.

I think that pirating copyrighted material is unethical but there is definitely a grey area. According to one of the readings, “Many young people don’t see anything wrong with downloading from unauthorized sites or ripping from YouTube.” I think in general there is some unethical-ness to the illegal downloading. But have an understanding for those who have the material just in a different format. People work hard to create music, movies and other copyrighted materials and thus deserve to be compensated for their work.

Growing up I used LimeWire to download some songs and I still occasionally rip songs off YouTube. However, my main consumption of media now comes from Spotify and generally they are able to adequately cover my music needs. I never tried to rationalize or justify my actions on downloading music. I think a lot of people engage in piracy not necessarily because they are trying to “stick it to the man” but simply because it is easy and convenient. If people find a way to get something for free it’s hard to convince them to pay for it later.

Streaming services have definitely impacted piracy use. They solve the problem to an extent by providing an easy way to access large amounts of media legally. However, I do not think piracy is that big of an issue that has to be solved quickly. I don’t think it will ever be solved just like crime will always be a part of the world. But I think the emergence of streaming services are decreasing the need/want to pirate copyrighted material.

Reading 08

A patent according to the dictionary is a government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention. Essentially, a patent is a document that gives its owner a legal monopoly over an invention. The purpose of these patents is used to promote people into sharing their ideas by protecting them from being stolen. Ethically and economically they prevent people from stealing and profiting off someone else’s idea or invention. Patents make it safe to share and to innovate.

Patents should definitely be granted, however the current use of patents in the software industry is excessive and bloated. In the reading the story of how a patent for the cotton gin was used to help prosper and develop the American economy and this is where I see the value. It protects and rewards innovators and inventors. Unfortunately, the over patenting of software is hindering this progress. In a vacuum patents are an amazing solution, but with the current legal understanding of software and technology patents there needs to be a change. The evidence suggests that in the software industry, the patent system does more to hinder innovation than to reward it. Inventors spend more money defending themselves against patent lawsuits than they earn from patent royalties. More and more entrepreneurs are losing sleep about the risk that patent litigation will drive them into bankruptcies. In the current system the patent laws are doing the exact opposite of what they are supposed to accomplish. They are not promoting innovation, they are stifling it because patent lawsuits are on the rise.

Currently, one of the main issues facing current patents is that the judicial system does not seem to understand the technical terminology. “Many judges seem to believe that some software is worthy of patent protection. The problem is that “software” and “mathematical algorithm” are two terms for the same thing.” I believe that patents should primarily focus on physical objects and that algorithms should be open source. If the code provides a distinct output or solution then maybe I can understand that, but I feel moving forward patents must have a more stringent for criteria and should not be handed out as freely. Essentially, if the invention utilizes the computer to manipulate numbers that represent concrete, real world values (such as a program that interprets electrocardiograph signals to predict arrhythmia or a program that analyzes seismic measurements), then the invention is a process relating to those real world concepts and is patentable.

Patent trolls are companies that make no products, but go around suing other companies that do make products over supposed patent infringement. I think they are wrong and should be fixed but they show the system works there are just currently inefficiencies that could be addressed. By having lawsuits arise to try and have people protect what they think is theirs shows the basic ideas of patents work. However, the trolls are abusing this. While I currently don’t have a solution that could fix this I feel if patents became more difficult to obtain it might alleviate the issue.

Reading 07

Online advertising has become a pervasive part of using the internet. Personally, I have very little qualms with the supposed ethical issues that come along with data collection. When we buy something I do not think it unreasonable or unethical for a company to keep track of that to try and tailor their product offerings to me. In fact, I think it is convenient and a great way to reach consumers in a new and more efficient method. The way I understand data collection based on personal experience and through the reading nothing seems unethical in the collection method. Companies use public information provided by the consumer. The only minor improvement would be if there were times a company purchases the information maybe a disclosure would go to the consumer so they know there information is being utilized more. I agree with the meme referenced earlier and my position is supported by a quote from an Atlantic article, “free is a good price,” Pew said in its report. People like no-cost services, and are willing to forfeit some privacy in exchange for them. An individual’s data has become its own kind of currency. One survey respondent, referring to his use of Gmail, said: “To be honest, I don’t really care … I use Gmail for free, but I know that Google will capture some information in return. I’m fine with that.”

I do not believe companies should be able to sell consumer data they have collected but if there are public records that can be purchased that is ok. Currently, I do not think the government would need consumer information so I do not think they should have access to it. However, the world is never in a stagnate state and maybe in the future there could be a reasonable cause for the government needing the information. The unethical portion of the big data mining I felt would be more related to looking at someone’s spending habits and increasing their interest rates and denying mortgages. I think it would be reasonable to create a profile of someone and put them into a “high-risk watch” category and raise rates if they miss a payment but I do not believe in preemptive changes based purely purchasing habits. Another Atlantic article seems to summarize the main reason against big data, “This is about protecting consumers from profit-seeking corporations, who are gaining an insurmountable edge in their efforts to get people to part with their money.” This argument is too simplistic for me and I don’t believe companies are trying to abuse their consumer base into buying their products. It’s not like a targeted ad will force a consumer to buy the product, this argument is a does disserve to the general consumer by equating them to mindless consumers who will accept and purchase anything if a good advertisement is put in front of them.

Finally, I personally use an ad blocking service so I am biased on this final point. I think online advertising is annoying but primarily use the ad blocking to prevent spam and viruses. If there is a website purely with relevant target advertisements I would not mind removing an ad blocker. I however think using one is ethical because you should not be forced to look at advertisements unless you want to see them.

Project 02

Growing up my favorite toys were Legos, Pokémon/Yu-gi-oh cards and Nintendo 64. Playing with Legos was one of my favorite activities. I would build small towns, or robots and interact with them through Legos. This is very similar to the idea behind our DecoBlocks.  As I played with and used Legos, building villages and fantasy worlds or forming patterns, I learned to perceive and understand space while developing creativity. For the card games they helped me develop my basic arithmetic and for each game you would have to mentally keep track of how much life your cards had and had to quickly add and subtract in my head. Also, the cards had secondary market value so I would trade and sell them. Looking back on it now in a way this was kind of like trading stock and creating arbitrage in markets where people did not have full information. Sometimes I would be able to trade for a rare card because one of the other kids did not realize its value. So I guess in a way that’s what started my interest in business and the stock markets. In a way everything I played with growing up was definitely reinforcing gender roles and advertised towards boys while I was growing up. However, I feel Legos have recently tried to reach both genders.

As I stated early the DecoBlocks are very similar to Legos. In my mind they are a blend between Legos and Lincoln Logs. I personally do not feel that toys and stories or movies need to explicitly try and market for both genders. To me if a child is interested in a toy they wouldn’t really care or understand fundamentally that a toy is “meant for” boys or girls. So long as the toys don’t say “this toy is meant only for boys” I do not think advertising needs to overly try and gender blend advertisements. However, I do feel children should be exposed to STEM and positive gender roles and expectations early in order to promote diversity and equality. If children are raised showing that both genders are equal and that all fields are interesting I feel the world will develop faster and everyone will be more accepting in the future.

Reading 05

The Therac-25 accidents were a horrible tragedy that brought to light issues within engineering and programming culture. The Therac-25 machine was a medical device that was used to help combat cancer. It would blast the patients with radiation beams that were safely reflected off of mirrors and other safety mechanisms. According to the article, “it was determined that the root cause of the problem was twofold. Firstly, the software controlling the machine contained bugs which proved to be fatal. Secondly, the design of the machine relied on the controlling computer alone for safety. There were no hardware interlocks or supervisory circuits to ensure that software bugs couldn’t result in catastrophic failures.” Essentially, safety mechanisms within the hardware were overwritten when the code was updated to be more software based. If the user selected X-ray mode, the machine would begin setting up the machine for high-powered X-rays. This process took about 8 seconds. If the user switched to Electron mode within those 8 seconds, the turntable would not switch over to the correct position, leaving the turntable in an unknown state. Overall, the entire system design was the problem. Safety-critical loads were placed upon a computer system that was not designed to control them. Timing analysis wasn’t performed. Unit testing never happened. Fault trees for both hardware and software were not created.

I think the challenges for software developers are mainly they have to try and think of every possible way for their code to go wrong and put safety measures in place. In my mind I think there should be overall fail safes and such that are normally in place and if there are unforeseen catastrophic failures that would not seem “normal” that the developers cannot be held liable. In my mind there is no perfect machine that will run in every possible way it could be used and it’s not fair to blame the engineers. For example, in the Therac-25 case the basics of the software and hardware should have been able to prevent these issues but by quickly switching between modes it caused an error that would not have been foreseeable. Granted, I do not have any real developer experience and do not understand the inner workings of a software development firm I do not see how it could be possible to write code that would prevent every error possible.

Overall, I think safety critical systems should be overly redundant to prevent issues and have multiple safe guards but it is also reasonable to understand that people will not always use software and hardware in its intended way and we therefore can’t hold the developers responsible.

Reading 04

Diversity is an issue within the tech industry. Currently, there is an extreme bias towards white males being hired in the Silicon Valley area. However, I do not feel this lack of diversity is as big of an issue as the public and media believes it to be. I agree with the Martin Fowler article that diversity is needed and should be fostered, “Lack of diversity is itself a problem. Different people think differently, and consequently come up with different ways to solve problems. If you have a bunch of people with the same background, they miss lots of ideas – leading to inefficiencies and lack of innovation.” I truly believe that diversity should be fostered and developed in order to increase innovation and create new and unique ideas. But it should not be a forced event where minorities and women are hired purely for getting the diversity numbers but based on their merit.

The idea that there is discrimination within the industry doesn’t seem to ring true to me especially in the world we live in where there is so much political correctness and activism. The PBS article about Google’s diversity, in the non-tech positions there was about a 50-50 split between men and women. I think a root of the issue is not discrimination within companies but more that there are not lots of female, Hispanic and Black engineers and CS students. The main issue is that there simply isn’t a large enough pool of minority candidates for companies to adequately fill their diversity needs without hurting the quality of their employees. This relates back to the hiring process where companies clearly stated they are very risk adverse in hiring candidates.

One way these issues can be slightly solved are by companies investing in programs that help get more minorities and women into the tech majors in colleges. This is exemplified by Apple fostering improvement by donating to organizations that work to develop and inspire women and minorities to become tech skilled and major in the field through scholarships. The best way to remove the barriers and stigmatization of nerdy programmers is to just advertise to the minorities and women as much as possible.

Another barrier I believe is the “boys culture” within companies. These cultures have been fostered for years of not really having many women around in the workplace. While I feel like it will be an initial barrier, once more and more women enter the workforce I feel this issue might naturally fix itself, but maybe I’m a naïve optimist.