This week’s articles presented a lot of interesting arguments in regards to the growing importance of coding and how we should deal with it. While the articles made many good points about how coding is kind of like the new literacy, I don’t entirely agree with this description. If a person does not know how to read or write in plain language, they will seriously struggle in today’s society and have a hard time getting a job. While code and technology as a whole is becoming more and more important as time goes on, a person can still do very well for themselves even if they do not know anything about coding. Because of this, I don’t necessarily agree with the idea that coding is the new literacy. At the same time, if a person does know how to code, this can help them tremendously in getting a job and just getting a better understanding of technology as a whole.

 

While I don’t really think coding knowledge should be considered the new literacy, I do think that it is a good idea to introduce people to computing. Obviously technology is a field that is growing at an incredible rate, and I think everyone would be better off if they had at least some baseline knowledge of coding. Even if a person wasn’t going to pursue a career that involves coding, it wouldn’t hurt to be able to understand how to. Although I think it is important for people to have this understanding, I realize the obstacles that come with trying to push for increased Computer Science curriculum. The articles noted how expensive it is just to implement small, one-off CS workshops in schools, nevermind actual year long classes. Similarly, finding and training the amount of teachers required to implement a CS curriculum at a school is incredibly challenging.

 

If schools are able to implement a CS curriculum on a large scale, I think it should be taught as an elective rather than a requirement. Some people may have no interest in learning about coding and don’t plan on ever having to use it in their careers, so I don’t think they should be forced to learn it. I don’t think CS should replace any other subjects, it should just be taught in addition. I think baseline computational thinking should be taught in this CS4All curriculum, as this is the most important aspect of CS in my view. If you are able to understand that, you can easily apply it and learn programming as a result.

 

I think it’s pretty clear that everyone has the ability to learn how to program. Everyone starts out at the same level when they first start to learn how to code, and no one really has a starting advantage that makes them more able to learn. Everyone has the ability to learn how to program, and I believe that in an ideal world everyone would learn to program. If everyone learned how to program, everyone would have a better understanding of the world around them, and they would potentially be able to develop software solutions that can make life easier.

 

 

• From the readings, what exactly are patents? What are the ethical, moral, economic, or social reasons for granting patents?

• In your opinion, should patents be granted at all? Are they really necessary or beneficial for society? Do the promote innovation or do they hinder it? Explain.

• Additionally, should patents on software be granted or should patents be restricted to physical or more tangible artifacts? Explain.

• Finally, is the existence of patent trolls evidence that the patent system is working or that the system is broken? Explain.

 

 

A patent is a legal document that grants a creator ownership over their creation in exchange for enlightening the public on their creation. The owner of the patent has exclusive rights to the product, and no one else is allowed to make, use, or sell the product that is under patent. A patent provides a 20 year monopoly on the product for the creator. While I would argue that the idea of patents are good in theory, it is clear that patents have been weaponized and used for all the wrong reasons.

The benefits of handing out patents are very clear. If somebody works hard to create a product, then they deserve to receive all the benefits and profits. A patent provides an incentive for creators to want to develop products because they know they alone will be the ones who will profit from it and no one else can come in and steal their ideas. When used properly, patents are very ethical in my view and provide the best economic benefit to society as a whole. In these cases, I think patents are necessary and beneficial to society, as they do in fact promote innovation.

In my opinion, the creation of software is no different than the creation of a tangible, physical artifact. Because of this, I think it is clear that patents should be granted for software products. I know that if I worked hard to develop a piece of software that I knew that I could profit from, I would want the security of knowing that no one else would be able to use / sell my work for their own gain. It is clear to me that as technology becomes more and more intertwined with everyday life, the government should grant patents to software developers / creators.

Where the issue of patents becomes morally gray is when patent trolls are allowed to thrive. A patent troll is a person / company who uses patents as a legal weapon and a tool for litigation. Patent trolls will often purchase the rights to patents from companies who are looking to liquidate their assets. The readings this week noted that many of these patents are very broad and as a result can cover a lot of different products. After acquiring these patents, patents will in turn threaten others who they view as infringing on their patent with litigation. Patent trolls will demand royalties for use of the patent, and people will often pay them instead of fighting in court as patent litigation can get very expensive. The articles this week discussed a company called Lodsys, which targeted small app developers with patent lawsuits. When companies like this, which solely exist for the purpose of patent litigation, target creators, it discourages people from wanting to develop products, which stifles innovation. These small creators can’t afford to be like Microsoft and make all of their products open source, so they must be encouraged to develop their products without fear of litigation from patent trolls. In my opinion, patents should continue to be granted as they provide clear benefits, however something must be done to curb patent trolls.

 

The issues that come with the topic of self driving cars came to the forefront of public consciousness recently when a self driving car struck and killed a passenger in Arizona. This incident sparked a lot of discussion about the implications of the growing development of autonomous vehicles. Our discussions on artificial intelligence and automation last week lead perfectly to this week’s topic of self driving cars. The motivation for wanting to develop and build self driving cars is clear. In an ideal world, self driving cars would run without issues and be able to eliminate needless deaths as a result of traffic accidents. One article this week noted that self driving cars could potentially eliminate about 35,000 deaths per year. These hopes of an ideal world with perfect self driving cars are not currently realistic, as there are still many issues that confront the development of these vehicles. The accidents by the self driving Ubers and Teslas that were discussed in this week’s articles just show how far away we are from this idealized world.

These incidents highlight the dilemma that programmers face when designing autonomous vehicles. If presented with a situation in which a vehicle must choose between striking a pedestrian or injuring a rider, what should it do? This issue is a tough one for me, and I am not really sure on where I stand. I guess I would want the car to approach any situation like this by making a decision that will has the lowest amount of risk for all parties involved rather than choosing just one decision that will definitely save one party. This would probably be rather hard to implement, but I believe it would be the best course of action for programmers to take.

The growth of self driving cars will have big impacts on society aside from public safety. Driver is one of the most common jobs in the United States, so a world where self driving cars are a viable option for companies would result in a lot of people losing their jobs. Similarly, in order to develop self driving cars on a massive scale, it would likely require massive infrastructure upgrades which would cost the public a lot of money. As of right now, there isn’t any significant legislation in place that provide guidelines on the development of autonomous vehicles, but I believe that something like this is very important in order to make sure that safety will always be a primary concern. It seems as if companies are putting the drive for innovation above that for safety when it comes to the development of these vehicles, and I think the government should step in and provide clear guidelines that makes sure that these companies don’t completely disregard public safety.

For me personally, I would not want a self driving car with where the development is at right now. There is still too many question marks for me to be completely comfortable riding in one of these vehicles. If it gets to the point where self driving cars are used by a vast majority of people and the safety of these vehicles is ensured, then maybe I would consider getting one. Until we reach this point, however, I don’t have any interest.

 

Based on this readings, I would define artificial intelligence as the attempt by machines / computers to mimic human behavior in decision making. Artificial intelligence systems receive input from it’s environment, and in response make decisions that will maximize the chances of achieving some goal. AI is similar to human intelligence in the sense that artificial intelligence systems learn from past decisions, and alter their future decisions based on the outcomes of the past. In my opinion, this is about as far as the comparison between AI and human intelligence goes.

 

In recent years, there has been tremendous progress in the field of artificial intelligence. There have been many systems created (such as AlphaGo, Deep Blue, and AlphaZero) that are made to solve very complex games and become virtually unbeatable. Although these systems are rather isolated in their usage and may seem like interesting gimmicks, I believe that the success of these systems just goes to show the potential of the AI field. The tactics and methodology used to create these systems can further be used by broader applications that have more functionality, so these machines are big steps in the field of AI. To me, the most interesting AI system that we read about in this week’s readings is Watson. What Watson accomplished is an incredible feat, and as one of the articles noted, no one would have thought that something like that was possible 20 years ago. Clearly, artificial intelligence is going to be a big part of the tech community going forward, given how much money is being spent by these big tech companies in researching and developing AI systems.

 

After reading about both the Turing Test and Chinese Room theory in regards to classifying AI systems, I believe that the Chinese Room theory is a very good counter argument against saying a AI system has a “mind”. I agree with the notion that if a system doesn’t really understand what it is doing, then we can’t really say it that it is thinking. The system is simply providing an output based on input from it’s environment, it isn’t really thinking. For this reason, I don’t really think a computing system can ever be considered a mind, nor have morality. To me, there is just something off about this notion that makes me hesitate to really consider a computing a “mind”. I also don’t agree with the statement that humans are just biological computers, but I have a hard time explaining what makes a mind a mind.

 

Despite the fact that I don’t really think an AI system can be considered a “mind”, I do see how people may have concerns about the potential dangers that can come with artificial intelligence. Artifical intelligence has a lot of potential to be very powerful and have broad impacts on all parts of life, so it is fair for a person to be concerned about this growing power. However, I don’t think this fear of what could potentially come with more powerful AI systems should stifle any progress that is being made. I think it is a good thing that these powerful tech companies are investing in this field, and I think it can have a great positive impact on society.

 

Over the past few years, the term “fake news” has become part of the regular public vernacular when discussing politics and current events. While some people like to label any piece of news that they don’t like (or doesn’t line up with their own personal political beliefs), I think there is a more accurate and succinct definition of what “fake news” really is. To me, I think that “fake news” is deliberately false information / news stories that are spread with the specific intent to misinform the reader in order to achieve some type of goal. Fake news is created with bad intentions, and often aims to sway public opinion about certain issues. Obviously, fake news is mainly about political issues and elections, but it can really be about any type of issue. While some types of fake news can be harmless, I would say that for the most part it is dangerous. Some people may cast fake news off as harmless and annoying, but I think based on the articles we read this week it is clear that fake news can present a real danger to society and have grave impacts.

 

As of late, I have noticed that Facebook and Twitter have started to identify certain ads as political, and display who is paying for the ad. As such, I haven’t seen that much of what I would describe as “fake news” on my social media feeds. I think it is a good thing that they have started to do this, and I think that technology companies should monitor and attempt to suppress fake news. Because most people get most of their news from the internet, I think that these companies have a big responsibility to make sure that what people are putting on their platform is accurate and not meant to mislead. Even though I wouldn’t say that I am entirely comfortable with these private entities classifying information as “fake”, I can’t really think of a better way to deal with this issue.

 

Based on the articles this week and all of the news that has come out over the past 2 years, I think it is pretty clear that fake news playing a role in the 2016 election and the focus on fake news is warranted. The articles this week discussed how Russians posed as Americans and targeted specific voters with divisive messages in order to sway public opinion. One thing that I found really interesting from the New Yorker article was when the author said that the Russians were particularly effective in their efforts because the messages that they were spreading were shared with and amplified by the Trump campaigns divisive rhetoric.

 

I would say that I get a majority of my information and news from the internet, and as a result I am a little worried that I am living in a bit of an echo chamber. When we can pick and choose who / where we get our news from, it is very easy to tune out information that you don’t want to hear. As a result, people just get more entrenched in their own beliefs and often refuse to consider the other side of an issue. I would say that one way we can try to break out of this bubble is to diversify the sources where we get our news, and try to make a conscious effort to get a full understanding on important news stories rather than pick and choose what parts we want to believe.

 

From the readings, what exactly is Net Neutrality? Explain in your own words the arguments for and against Net Neutrality. After examining the topic, where do you stand on the issues surrounding Net Neutrality?

If you are in favor of Net Neutrality, explain how you would implement or enforce it. How would you respond to concerns about possible over-regulation, burdening corporations, or preventing innovation?

If you are against Net Neutrality, explain why it is unnecessary or undesirable. How would you respond to concerns about providing level playing fields or preventing unfair discrimination by service providers?

In either case, discuss whether or not you consider that “the Internet is a public service and fair access should be a basic right”. Additionally, do you have trust in an unbridled free market or does the government have a role to play in ensuring a level playing field?

 

Net neutrality is one of the biggest issues that faces the future of technology and the internet as we currently know it. Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISP) must offer equal access to all content on the web, and they can not discriminate against certain websites / content providers. Under net neutrality, internet service providers are not allowed to charge more for a user to access certain websites, and they can not give preferential treatment to sites that pay more. The Obama Administration put in effort to protect net neutrality, however these requirements / restrictions were recently repealed by the Trump Administration, so enforcing net neutrality is no longer the required of ISPs.

 

There are many reasonable arguments on both sides of the net neutrality debate. Those who are in favor of net neutrality argue that if ISPs were allowed to show preferential treatment to content providers who pay more, this opens the door for censorship as not all content has a fair shot. Similarly, this can hurt smaller companies that don’t have the resources to pay these ISPs a lot of money, which can stifle competition. This can make it hard for new companies to grow and compete with currently existing large companies. Supporters of net neutrality also fear that internet service providers are now able to slow the transmission of data and create internet fast lanes for a premium cost to the consumer. This week’s articles noted that some of the biggest supporters of net neutrality are big tech companies (such as Netflix), as they do not want to have to pay more money for ISPs to prioritize their content. The arguments against net neutrality are equally as valid as those for it. With net neutrality, ISPs are restricted from trying out new business models in an effort to maximize profits. Similarly, ISPs should theoretically have the right to charge based on how much bandwidth a certain site uses, and shouldn’t really be punished for wanting compensation for this.

 

I see both sides of the net neutrality debate, but I’d say that I side more with the arguments in favor of maintaining net neutrality. I thought that the point made in one of the articles that the only businesses that really benefit from repealing net neutrality are ISPs (and all other businesses suffer), to be rather convincing. Even though people may argue that repealing net neutrality is pro-business and pro-free market, it really only helps out ISPs. I think all content on the web should be equal, and nothing should get preferential treatment. Despite this, I don’t necessarily agree with the idea that the internet is a public service and access to be a basic right. I think the government should play a role in directing the future of the internet by ensuring net neutrality is enforced, and I disagree with the recent changes made by the FCC.

 

First, what exactly is the concept of Corporate Personhood and what are its legal, social, and ethical ramifications?

 

For the Microsoft Antitrust case study, do you believe what Microsoft did was unethical or immoral? If so, do you believe Microsoft should have been broken up as originally intended, or do you believe the enacted punishes were sufficient? If you don’t believe Microsoft was unethical or immoral, then what sort of limits do you put on “ruthless” business practices?

 

Finally, reflect on the following question:

“If corporations are afforded the same rights as individual persons, should they also be expected to have the same ethical and moral obligations and responsibilities? Discuss why or why not, particularly in the context of your chosen case study.”

Alternatively, if you do not agree with the concept of Corporate Personhood, explain whether or not morality or ethics apply to corporations. If so, what does it mean for a corporate entity to behave morally or ethically?

 

Corporate Personhood is the concept that corporations are entitled to the same rights and protections under the law that are provided to individuals. In the eyes of the law, corporations are viewed the same as any single individual when it comes to their rights. This idea has existed for some time, and has only expanded as time has gone on through a series of decisions at all levels of the legal system, specifically the Supreme Court. Viewing corporations as people and allowing them the same protections under the law has a widespread impact on this country and the lives of many people in it. One of the biggest decisions as it relates to corporate personhood came with the Citizens United decision. This decision ruled that corporations have a free speech right to spend an unlimited amount of money on lobbying political candidates. This obviously has large ramifications, as corporations with lots of money can have a large influence on politics. Another major decision came with the Hobby Lobby case, in which it was ruled that corporations have a right to freedom of religion. As a result, these corporations have a right to refuse some healthcare services to employees that are required by law due to a corporation’s religion. One of the biggest issues with corporate personhood is that when a corporation breaks a law, it is hard to determine who is responsible and should suffer the consequences, as the corporation is viewed as one single entity. The articles this week also discussed the issue in which companies can pick and choose which laws to follow, and are able to wiggle out of potential legal repercussions through powerful, high price legal teams. With corporate personhood, companies are given even more power than they already have to begin with (which is already a significant amount).

 

When it comes to the Microsoft Antitrust case, I think what Microsoft did was somewhat unethical. I don’t fault Microsoft for tying it’s own web browser to the Windows operating system. I think this is completely reasonable and they should not be punished because of this. The issue for me comes with the fact that they made it more difficult to install other web browsers (such as Netscape) and stifled performance of the system when these browsers were installed. The courts ruled that Microsoft exhibited “predatory and anticompetitive behavior”, and ultimately both sides came to a settlement that avoided the company being broken up. I think the enacted punishes (which included increased oversight and the allowing of non-Microsoft software) were sufficient. I think that it is clear that this was sufficient because it does not seem to be the case that Microsoft still has a monopoly on the software market. The New York Times article also noted that as a result of this case and the punishments, Microsoft has been a lot more cautious with the actions it takes.

 

Although I do not agree with all parts of corporate personhood, I do think that morality and ethics should apply to corporations. I think corporations should be entitled to some rights, but we should keep in mind the massive amounts of resources at their disposal. I think corporations should act in a way that is ethical and benefits society as a whole, but I am not entirely sure how this can be enforced. All in all, I think the issue of corporate personhood is a significant one that is not easy to solve, and will likely take a long time before it is resolved fully.

 

From the readings and in your experience, what exactly is Cloud Computing and what are some ethical issues or concerns regarding it? Considering the Internet meme that “There is no cloud. It’s just someone else’s computer”:

• As developer, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the Cloud? Describe any experiences you’ve had in using the Cloud as a development platform, what led you to use it, and if you plan on using it in the future.
• As a consumer, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the Cloud? Describe what sort of Cloud services you use on a regular basis.
• Discuss the trade-offs are you making in utilizing these platforms as both a developer and a consumer. At the end of the day, do you trust the Cloud?

Cloud computing has become more and more relevant over the past few years. The joke that the cloud is merely “just someone else’s computer” is not that far off, as cloud computing involves utilizing a third party’s computing resources to store your own data or run your own processes. Cloud computing offers many benefits to consumers. Cloud providers typically offer users some type of subscription plan to have access to their tremendous amount of hardware, so users save a lot of money by only paying for the servers and not having to buy all of the hardware themselves. Along with saving money by not having to buy hardware, cloud services users have access to top notch hardware that allow them to run their jobs faster and store a large amount of data. They can access these servers instantly and at any time. Perhaps the biggest positive that comes with cloud computing is the scale it offers. Users and companies that utilize cloud services can use as much or as little of it as they require, so it is very easy to scale up usage if that is needed. This is extremely helpful to businesses/companies that are growing and need more space to store data. All in all, cloud computing lowers operating costs, runs efficiently, and is large in scale. 

This semester, I am in a Cloud Computing course where we are learning about and utilizing various distributed computing strategies. Along with this experience of using the cloud as a development platform, I also have used cloud services personally. Like most people, I use Google Drive and the Apple iCloud for personal storage. These services are great because of the convenience they offer, but they obviously have tremendous risks. According to this week’s articles, the recent iCloud hacker took a very direct approach with his attack. The article discussed how not even Apple’s two factor authentication and other security measures could have prevented this type of attack. This hack just goes to show how intrinsically risky cloud services are. This is particularly frightening because people store most (if not all) of there information / data in the cloud, so everyone is putting themselves at great personal risk. I was really struck by the fact that the Equifax hack effected about 44% of the entire US population, as this really emphasized the scope of the problem. Even though this personal data can be stolen, cloud service providers are pretty much covered from any blame by terms of service agreements that people make when they first start using the service.

When looking at the issue in it’s entirety, I think the benefits of the cloud outweigh the negatives. I definitely don’t trust the cloud to protect my information, but it is so ingrained in our lives now that it would be hard to get rid of. I think people just need to be more aware of these potential risks, and maybe be more selective about the information they share / store on cloud platforms.

From the readings and in your opinion, is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor? Should the US government pardon him for any possible crimes or should they pursue extradition and prosecution for treason?

• What exactly did he leak and how did he expose that information?
• Regardless of the legality of his actions, is what he did ethical and moral?
• Utimately, is what Snowden did beneficial to the public or did he harm the security of the United States and its allies? Personally, how have these revelations impacted you (or not) and your views on government, national security, encryption, and technology in general?

 

It has been a little over five years since Edward Snowden leaked documents to the press and fled the United States, and public opinion on him and is actions is still largely split. After going through the readings for this week and learning more about Snowden’s actions, I have a hard time labeling him either a hero or a traitor. For the most part, I’d say he sits somewhere in the middle. Although I don’t think he is entirely a hero or a traitor, I don’t necessarily believe he should be pardoned by the US government.

Snowden leaked a lot of sensitive information, a lot of which I was not aware of at the time. I had heard about the information regarding the government’s collection of cell phone data as well as data from internet companies, but I had not heard about the information regarding other countries. Snowden revealed many things, such as the hacking / spying the US was doing on Hong Kong, China, Angela Merkel, the EU, and many more people/groups. When leaking this information, Snowden did not go through proper channels. Instead, he leaked the information directly to the media. Whether or not he was right in leaking this information, I strongly disagree with this method of whistleblowing as the government later concluded that he endangered soldiers and intelligence in place to fight terrorists. He leaked highly sensitive material, some of which was deemed as having a serious negative impact on security of the US intelligence operation. After leaking this information, Snowden sought sanctuary in Russia, which is a geopolitical rival of the United States. 

Whether or not one views Snowden’s actions as legal or not, I would argue that his actions were definitely in a moral gray area. He was able to reveal to the public information pertaining to their own privacy and security, which can easily be seen to be a moral thing to do. On the other hand, he jeopardized the lives of many American soldiers and severely damaged US intelligence and it’s interests. Obviously Snowden viewed this as an acceptable risk to take as he was very driven to reveal this information to the public. Because he seems as if he stands by this action still today, I in a sense have some respect for him because he ended up doing what he thought was right in spite of himself.

I think it’s hard to say if Snowden’s actions had a positive impact on the public. While people discussed his leaks extensively when they came out, that public dialogue seems to have stopped and I haven’t really noticed a lasting impact from Snowden’s leaks. As a result, it seems as if the leaks did more harm than good for the country. It is because of this and the questionable legality that I disagree with the US pardoning Snowden.

From the readings, what were the root causes of the Challenger disaster? Was Roger Boisjoly ethical in sharing information with the public? Was his company justified in retaliating against him? What good is whistleblowing if “[i]t destroy[s] [your] career, [your] life, everything else”?

 

While the official cause of the Challenger disaster was a seal failure on the rocket booster, it is clear to me that the most significant cause of this tragedy was carelessness and recklessness on the part of upper management. The Challenger spacecraft had a seal fail on a rocket booster, which in turn caused hot gas to get out and ignite the fuel tank. The seals that failed were called O-rings, and these eroded due in large part to the low temperatures at take off. The sub freezing temperatures caused the O rings to grow brittle and useless, which in turn caused them to fail. Many people knew that this was an issue prior to takeoff, specifically Roger Boisjoly. Boisjoly told his managers of the risks that these O rings presented, as previous tests had indicated. Even though Boisjoly told his managers this, they viewed this issue as an “acceptable flight risk” and went ahead with the launch anyway. In their view, there was too much riding on the publicity of this launch to delay or cancel it all together. Thiokol and NASA went through with the launch anyway, and it resulted in a major tragedy and the death of 7 people.

 

I think that there is no doubt that Roger Boisjoly was ethical in sharing information with the public. Boisjoly had serious concerns about issues related to the launch, and he went through all the official channels to voice his concerns but was seemingly ignored every single time. Prior to the tragedy, he was excluded from a meeting where it was decided that they would go through with the launch. Clearly, the official channels that were put in place to prevent an issue like this were not sufficient in stopping the disaster. When Boisjoly was asked about his concerns by investigators after the launch, he simply told the truth. This caused Boisjoly to in turn be shunned by his colleagues and taken off important positions by his employer. Boisjoly eventually had to take medical leave from his job due to PTSD, and ultimately resigned. I don’t think that his company was in any way justified in retaliating against Boisjoly. Boisjoly did all that he could to try to prevent the tragedy, and after that just told the public the truth of what happened. It seems to me that the company was trying to make Boisjoly out to be the bad guy in the situation when it is clear that the blame is fully on them. It is clear to me that Boisjoly was treated extremely unfairly when all he tried to do is the right thing throughout the entire situation.

 

The Challenger tragedy and its aftermath as it relates to Roger Boisjoly just goes to show the risks that come with whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is, in most scenarios, a good thing when it is done to let the public know of a major wrongdoing that they are justified in hearing about. Whistleblowing is often done at great personal risk, and requires a person to be extremely selfless as they more often than not will suffer because of their decision to come forward. Whistleblowing takes a lot of courage, and many of these whistleblowers should be admired. After learning more about Roger Boisjoly’s story, I gained a tremendous amount of respect for him, while also feeling very bad about what happened to him as a result of his actions.