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.