From the readings, what exactly are patents? What are the ethical, moral, economic, or social reasons for granting patents?
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention, and are a form of intellectual property. The reasons behind the granting of patents is that they encourage innovation through new inventions and improvements by rewarding inventors with the exclusive rights to develop and sell their products with the incentive of little competition for as long as the patent is valid. This lack of competition is a big incentive for inventors, as it'd allow them to recoup their costs of invention and then some, whereas this return wouldn't be as probable if anyone could take anyone's ideas. Because of the nature of the public disclosure of patented inventions, it also encourages a culture where keeping products secret ("trade secrets") is less commonplace. 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. The argument against patents is that they actually effectively cause the opposite of what they're intended to do, that they actually hinder innovation and commercialization. There are a number of broad and weak patents that aren't being capitalized on economically and simply effectively exist to keep others from creating new things that would use the material of one of these patents as an ingredient. Another criticism of the patent industry is that they don't fit all industries appropriately, possibly including the software industry. As far as whether patents should or shouldn't be granted... I'm not sure. From the outside (where I consider myself to be standing), I could see the logic behind both sides, but I think some hard quantitative research would need to be examined in order to have a proper argument one way or the other. My gut reaction would be that it would stifle innovation, especially if patents are offered for every little thing, as one wouldn't be able to make a decent system or product without infringing on some patent somewhere. Additionally, should patents on software be granted or should patents be restricted to physical or more tangible artifacts? Explain. I think that patents in general could benefit from being restricted to more complex or specific (less general) things. As long as the Supreme Courts can't respond to the problems of gridlock that the multiple broad overlapping software patents cause, then the problems like the ones outlined in the meetings will continue to occur. Finally, is the existence of patent trolls evidence that the patent system is working or that the system is broken? Explain. Evidence that the system is broken, surely. They're adding no value themselves while restricting others from being able to create and market their products and inventions. That is an obvious sin of the latter more than the former.
0 Comments
11/19/2017 0 Comments Reading 12: Self-Driving CarsWhat is the motivation for developing and building self-driving cars? What are the arguments for and against self-driving cars? Would they make our roads safer?
The reasoning behind the push for self-driving cars range from sentiments that self-driving cars will be safer than human-driven ones, the cost of transportation for those without cars will be lower, and that people will be able to either rest, work, or play in their commutes rather than focus on driving. On the other side, you have those who are understandably concerned about the viability of such vehicles. Some articles cite the numerous issues we've had in implementing them so far, including situations where the computer's lack of a "human" element results in it not judging another car's actions like a human would, resulting in a crash. Some are concerned about the technological side of it, worrying about our ability to implement such cars in general, nevermind all of the real-life mistakes (see: accidents, deaths) that would have to occur in order to work out the inevitable kinks. There's also liability issues that would come to surface if such a car killed someone (or multiple people). I personally think that self-driving cars are something we don't need and shouldn't pursue (at least not now). I think that the primary push for them seems to be the interest in making roads safer. As for that point, I think it's safe to assume that a majority of the auto accidents will result from careless driving by one or more parties, and a smaller part of the large majority from conditions (weird construction situations, dangerous weather, etc). This is something that can be solved through other means than far-fetched technological innovation. Want to get rid of poor drivers? Let's make the test to get a license more difficult and require a more reasonable level of all-around ability. Let's make drivers take the test more often than once in their entire life. Let's continue to push for people to not text or goof off while driving (which we've been doing and have seen driving fatality rates fall). Inventing a complex system of self-driving cars is overkill, unnecessary, and wasteful. And, it's all of these things and only presents a possibility of being safer, overall. Screw that. How should programmers address the "social dilemma of autonomous vehicles"? How should an artificial intelligence approach life-and-death situations? Who is liable for when an accident happens? I think that there's great importance of the way that an AV's (autonomous vehicle's) decision making occurs. It's important to note that this isn't a programming problem as much as it is more of an eclectic one, requiring thought and approach from several disciplines, including ethics and philosophy. The consequences of these discussions and how they're ultimately programmed are great, and it's necessary that they're viewed as such. I think that it makes most sense that a vehicle will be more willing to sacrifice itself than to harm someone else outside of the AV. If someone wanted to recklessly decide that having an AV was in their best interest, they should be the ones to deal with the negative consequences of that decision, not other people. I feel that's very simple. Liability would likely lie with the company who made and operates the vehicle, provided that no laws or rules were being broken by the owner or the person otherwise harmed. What do you believe will be the social, economic, and political impact of self-driving cars? What role should the government play in regulating self-driving cars? It'll be great, I'm sure. Not great as in positive, but definitely impactful, for better or for worse. This makes sense, as we're discussing changing the way our world has operated for the last century. Modifying the daily commute and more, an inevitable part of daily life. Companies' stock will rise and fall depending on the success of their AVs, politicians' voter numbers will be affected depending on their view on AVs and how they'll approach either supporting or operating against them. It'll be a big conversation moving forward as long as some people are interested in pursuing it. I feel that the government should definitely be involved in the regulation of these cars, because the implications are huge, and no one has the comprehensive authority to oversee this but the government. Would you want a self-driving car? Explain why or why not. Definitely not. I don't even want a car whose systems are connected to a computer, as many cars are in the last few years. They're easily hackable, and the consequences of such 'hackability' is dangerous. I will continue to trust my own ability to make proper and correct decisions on the road, and will likely refuse to put more trust in another computer or person as long as I live. From the readings, what is artificial intelligence and how is it similar or different from what you consider to be human intelligence?
One reading suggests that artificial intelligence is a sub-field of computer science whose goal is to enable the development of computers that are able to do things normally done by people, especially with regard to things associated with people acting 'intelligently'. The extent to which AI mimics human intelligence depends on whether we're discussing 'strong' or 'weak' AI, where a 'strong' AI system tries greatly to mimic human thought, and 'weak' AI systems have little weight put into how the machine does its work, instead focusing on the results. Further classifications of AI include whether it's 'general' or 'narrow'. General AI is designed to reason in general terms, and narrow AI is often designed for a more specific group of tasks. Are AlphaGo, Deep Blue, and Watson proof of the viability of artificial intelligence or are they just interesting tricks or gimmicks? I think that they represent a specific subset of the above AI groupings. As one reading says, even Watson isn't able to express a thoughtful view on something like ISIS, because that type of opinion isn't something that can be formed by its own system (unless specifically programmed to do so, thus not meeting the definition or requirements of an AI system). Is the Turing Test a valid measure of intelligence or is the Chinese Room a good counter argument? I think that the Chinese Room is a good counter argument, as its logic, at least at a surface glance, appears solid to me. I think that there's more to the characteristics of true artificial intelligence than simply simulating genuine, human intelligence. Are the growing concerns over the power of artificial intelligence and its role in our lives warranted? Are you worried about the potential dangers imposed by artificial intelligence? Explain why or why not. Warranted? Sure. I think it's reasonable to question the viability of this type of technology because of its breadth, power, and the uniqueness of it. For the same reasons, I think it's reasonable to be inquiring as to whether this is a type of advancement that we shouldn't engage in or pursue. With great power comes great responsibility... and opportunity for possible disaster. That being sad, I'm not too worried. As Eric Schmidt and Sebastian Thrun of Fortune write, there has been this type of worry and skepticism leading up to a number of history's technological innovations. I do believe that the scope and consequence of this type of development is greater than many of those, even, but I also believe that there's a long way to go between the place where we have to worry about machines with that level of independent power and ability and where we are now. With all of our most talented minds in the world thinking about this issue, I imagine we'll do everything collectively possible to work to ensure that the future of AI is one in our favor, rather than against it. If, at that point where we have all of our greatest minds involved and it still doesn't work out for us, then GGWP no-re, we would've gotten elim'd by the Covies anyway when they made their way to Earth in 2552. Finally, could a computing system ever be considered a mind? Are humans just biological computers? What are the ethical implications are either idea? Body 11/4/2017 0 Comments Reading 10: Trolling, AnonymityFrom the readings and from your experience, what exactly is trolling? How does this behavior manifest itself and what are its causes and effects? Likewise, what is cyberbullying and how is it different from regular bullying?
Trolling is the act of "sowing discord on the internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement." This behavior manifests itself most commonly in internet postings (on blogs or sites like Reddit or Facebook) and in comment sections of videos and articles. Cyberbullying is bullying that takes place over digital devices like cell phones, computers, and tablets., taking place through text, apps, social media, forums, gaming, shared content, and more. This often entails sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content about someone else. Cyberbullying is different from trolling in terms of intent, mostly, I believe. A true troll trolls for their own delight, to see what reactions they can arouse in people or what silly beliefs they can get the gullible to adopt. Cyberbullying is carried out with malicious intent, there being some feeling of animosity towards their target, legitimately wanting them to feel threatened, unsafe, or ostracized. What ethical or moral obligations do technology companies have in regards to preventing or suppressing online harassment (such as trolling or stalking)? I believe that technology companies have the obligation to control their products and services in a manner that doesn't allow people to use them maliciously and outside of their intended purposes. If a company's product could cause harm, then they need to do what they can to monitor it and control it appropriately. If a contractor for the government made a product that would allow law enforcement and local government to modify a streetlight for service or other usage, they'd need to go through a process of vetting who they're selling it to and be able to respond appropriately by shutting a tool down if someone was using it to cause harm or outside of the agreed terms. Guns aren't supposed to be sold to people who are mentally unfit to have them, pills aren't supposed to be given to people who don't have prescriptions. This doesn't necessarily mean that companies should prevent people from using their service without going through an authentication process (although maybe they should, but that's a conversation for a different place), but it does mean that they should be prepared to respond appropriately as needed to the problems that occur in lieu of that. What do you make of Gamergate? Is this evidence of the dangers of anonymity on the Internet or is this behavior something we simply need to tolerate in order to maintain freedom of expression? I think that it's terrible that women experience the harassment that they do on the internet, often because of nothing more than their being female and on the internet as a result of users' own personal issues. The gaming industry is one that isn't as welcoming or kind to women as it is to men, and it makes it that much more difficult for women who love to play, make, or watch video games and video game content. The continued harassment of any person, group of people is not okay, especially as long as the only grounds for that harassment is unfounded, unfair, discriminatory, or otherwise. I think that anonymity supports this type of cyberbullying in a way that wouldn't be appropriate or viable in person. Some do experience cyber bullying from those that they know, but the sheer number of those involved in harassing these women wouldn't be possible without the internet (and by extension, anonymity), as there's a big difference in the number of people willing to say those types of things to someone personally and the number willing to post an anonymous internet content towards someone they've never met (and never will). Of course, don't let this sentiment marginalize the severity or intensity of cyberbullying from a lesser number of people that one knows, nor let it marginalize the impact of tangible real-life bullying. I find it difficult to believe that the price to pay for freedom of speech (or for anything) is to tolerate unfair, unguided, uncalculated hate en masse. It's unnecessary and unproductive, and provides little tangible value. That being said, I don't doubt that some would feel less inclined to post legitimately impactful content on the internet if it was necessary that their identity was attached. One can't push for all-inclusive internet profiles for people without discussion of investing too much power in ""The Man", which makes that type of dynamic difficult and troublesome to consider. For me personally, I'm comfortable standing by all of my opinions, experiences, and sentiments, and I wouldn't mind such a system. I could see how others may feel differently, even despite not having opinions to hide from or be ashamed of. Additionally, while I could see the removal of anonymity making it more difficult for people to continue to cyberbully minority groups or people, that same removal of anonymity would result in those same groups and people being exposed to the rest of those whose interests may conflict with theirs. Is cyberbullying a major problem on the Internet? Do people, especially children, need special protection from harassment or should they just "deal with it"? I think it definitely is a major problem. It's difficult to watch any Youtube video with more than even a couple hundred views or less before you see comments that unfairly judge or attack the content creator or those who otherwise appear in the videos (or even just someone else in the comment section). On large shared posts on Facebook, one may see the same, especially if its a post about a hot topic like politics or police brutality. As said in the Imminent Death of the Troll, some problems can't be solved through system design alone, but rather require social change. "Just deal with it" is a response, and a legitimate one in my opinion, although it isn't a solution by any means, nor is it close to it. I think that people (and parents for their children) need to understand the landscape of the internet, as to know what the possibilities for personal harm are as well as how to deal with certain events or communications, should they occur. I think that there's a severe lack of care that goes into this that maybe should warrant more attention. Is trolling a major problem on the Internet? What is your approach to handling trolls? Are you a troll?!?!? I think that most trolling isn't a big deal, especially when carried out between two more intelligent parties who are tech or internet savvy, as one party recognizes what the other is doing and can take the communication for what it's worth. The main problem is when one doesn't understand what trolling is, effectively. If you're the one attempting to troll and you don't do it in an appropriate way, you're doing something that isn't trolling and maybe is closer to cyber bullying (or just being an asshole, in general). If you're being trolled but don't understand trolling (or don't recognize this instance as trolling), then you're going to misconstrue what's being said and waste time and energy responding to it. I think it's very important to try and refrain from feeding the trolls. Like I said above, it's primarily done in an attempt to get a rise out of you, and once they see that they're not going to get a valuable rise out of you (or that they can get more from somewhere else), then they'll leave you alone, which I prefer. I'm definitely not a troll, although I have been known to engage in trolling from time to time when I identify someone who has some glaring issue (blatant overconfidence or ignorance, usually). I'm a conservative, non-confrontational person, so if I went through the effort of trying to troll someone, it was probably warranted and worth it. Are "real name" policies useful or harmful in combating online abuse? Do you use services that require you to use your real name? Why or why not? See the above discussion. Basically, I'm not sure. I'd be down for it, but I see the issues they present for others. I do use some services that require that because the service that they provide to me is worth exchanging that information for (and I trust them to protect it appropriately). Finally, is anonymity on the Internet a blessing or a curse? Is the Internet itself a platform for useful and fruitful discussion or is it a wasteland of memes and trolls? What good can come out of an online dialogue? I personally think that anonymity on the internet is a curse more than it is a blessing. The lack of anonymity could make it more difficult to engage in certain types of discussions (or activities) than it does currently, and I feel it could make it a difficult place to voice and advocate certain less-popular agendas or sentiments. That being said, a lot of the value of the internet (online communication, shopping, content creation and sharing) would be primarily unaffected, and I feel that it's worth consideration of removing anonymity from the internet, even if it meant presenting some obstacles in engaging in certain parts of it. I think that the internet, as broad as it is, has room for both (and currently provides both). Even one site alone you can get both, like on Reddit or Facebook, even. I think that an online discussion allows for more uninhibited discussion and also allows for more inclusive conversation, as its easy for people to access from a lot of different places and walks of life. You'd be hard pressed to get the same level and quality of communication between two different people when they're face to face (having never met) compared to what you get when they're just names on a webpage or in a chat room. Etherpad Setup Tutorial:
Hosting an Etherpad your own server: 1. Install Node.js if you do not already have it 2. Clone their Github repository (https://github.com/ether/etherpad-lite#installation) 3. Enter the project directory and run `make` 4. Run `bin/run.sh` to launch the server Hosting an Etherpad on Heroku: 1. Create a Heroku account (https://www.heroku.com/) and make an app with a database of your choice 2. Clone the modified repository (https://github.com/bright-star/etherpad-lite-heroku) 3. Modify the settings.json.template file if desired and save the file with a new name. 4. Change the Heroku environment variable ‘ETHERPAD_SETTINGS’ to the new settings file’s name from Step 3 5. Commit and push to Heroku To use: 1. Go to the server in your web browser of choice 2. Share the Etherpad link with your collaborators 3. Enjoy! For more detailed information, troubleshooting, and an FAQ, refer to the Etherpad Github documentation: (https://github.com/ether/etherpad-lite) Etherpad Usage Video: https://youtu.be/yo7zRDO2gZA 11/3/2017 0 Comments Project 03: Individual ReflectionWhat trade-offs are you making when using the cloud? Have you consciously evaluated these trade-offs? What is your justification?
When one uses the cloud, they risk that their information is no longer "private" as it is viewable to those hosting the cloud. However, it allows for maximum robustness (if your device dies or is stolen, you don't lose your data). I haven't thought too much about it past electing to use them for their usability and backup capability. More functionality is better, and I don't value my privacy highly. Is it ever worth it to manage your own private cloud services? Do you envision a future where you may use your own services rather than third party ones? For those who wish to keep their business and work private, it'd definitely be worth it. I personally don't see a future where that's the norm for me, but possibly for others as privacy concerns grow greater in the face of various data leaks. Do you have the moral standing to complain about encroachment on your privacy when you consciously give away your information to third party services? I don't, so I don't complain! I assume that most of my information is compromised already and that anyone who really wants it that badly is capable of getting it. Past the general, convenient personal security practices, I don't wish to do much to protect it. 10/29/2017 0 Comments Reading 09: Net NeutralityFrom 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?
Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers and governments regulating most of the internet must treat all data on the Internet the same and not discriminate or charge deferentially by user, content, website, platform, application, attached equipment, or method of communication. In other words, the only thing that matters is the amount of data, provided that the data and services being used are legal. The presence of net neutrality allows for startups to supplant established sites and companies on the internet because they can’t monopolize it. Net Neutrality allows for fairer competition, and its absence would give favor to larger, more powerful companies. The FCC and the communications are both pushing against net neutrality, but that’s no surprise being that a great number of FCC officials come from careers in these communication companies (and presumably still have interests and partnerships there). Some popular reasons against net neutrality include, but are not limited to, that it: - Discourages investment - Burdens small businesses with more processes - Is good for the consumer These reasons have holes, and ultimately boil down to some corporate tomfoolery and sleight of hand. Overall investment is up, per the FCC, and there are a number of executives on record saying to their investors that net neutrality and Title II won’t negatively affect their investments. Small businesses (ISPs) do have to cover a couple more things to comply to it, but this can be solved through an allowance or tax break rather than revoking net neutrality and Title II entirely. The FCC has already taken steps to accommodate any businesses burdened by its regulations, so this isn’t an unreasonable idea, and it still allows for proper net neutrality. The reason they say it’s better for consumers is because there’s a possibility that certain services would be selected to no longer count towards data bandwidth caps. However, the excluded services would be selected by ISPs, whose ultimate goal is to make money. What interest would they have to exclude streaming services that would make them the most money? Little to none. I am strongly for net neutrality and believe that the prices we pay for internet can only increase (despite how expensive it already is) while the quality of service can only decrease (despite how poor it already is, see: Comcast) if they set their own rules more than they already do. 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? I’m in favor of net neutrality. We currently have it as is, and I think that we could continue enforcing it as we have. We’re weary of companies slowing down speeds as they see fit, cracking down as needed. As a consumer, we can be sure that it’s been better as it is compared to how it would likely be if it were removed. It doesn’t burden small corporations as explained above, and it doesn’t harm large ISPs in any way other than preventing further monopolization of the market. 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? I do believe that the internet, in one capacity or another, should be able to be used by all. I think that to access it on a personal device that you need to be able to pay for that device and for the service (as one pays for water or electricity). But I also think that internet access should remain publicly possible through a public library or some equivalent substitute. I do think that the government should have a role in the interaction of the economy, because if too much power were to swing in the favor of any powerful and necessary party (corporate or government), it could be difficult to counter issues arising from that. 10/21/2017 0 Comments Reading 08: Corporate ConscienceFirst, what exactly is the concept of Corporate Personhood and what are its legal, social, and ethical ramifications?
The concept of Corporate Personhood is that a corporation, a number of person united in one body for a purpose per NPR, has constitutional rights like that of a citizen of the United States. These rights extend to some rights, and not others. The rights it does extend to include the right to free speech, freedom from search and seizure, and more. However, it doesn’t include things like the right to marry or the right to “plead the fifth.” The ramifications of corporate personhood (or the lack thereof) are significant. The extent of corporate personhood may be said to be proportional to a corporation’s power. If they have little rights (or no corporate personhood), then they may be acted unjustly upon by the government. If their rights are too significant, then they may be able to do what they want with little accountability or consequence. In such a situation, we have to worry ethically about purposes for creating corporations, as it would seem to be the case that incorporating is a means of committing crimes and carrying out poor moral endeavors because they wouldn’t be able to be prosecuted appropriately. For the IBM and the Holocaust case study, do you believe IBM was ethical in doing business with Nazi Germany? Should corporations be responsible for immoral or unethical use of their products? Should corporations refrain from doing business with immoral or unethical organizations or persons? I don’t believe that IBM was ethical in doing business with Nazi Germany. Within the historical context of the time, even if the extent of the genocide wasn’t yet clear, it was obvious early on that the Nazi party were some bad dudes hell-bent on screwing over some Jewish people. It seems that there was enough to go on for IBM to understand that their machines would at least be used for heavy oppression of the Jews. I don’t think that companies should be held responsible for immoral or unethical use of their products provided that they legitimately didn’t know that they would be used for that purpose. If it was sold to them without suspicion of such use or if it was taken from an appropriately secured area, then I would say that the company isn’t liable for the activities that occurred. An exception to this would be if a product’s usage was pretty obviously restricted to criminal or immoral usage. As such, I do believe that corporations should refrain from doing business with obviously immoral or unethical organizations or persons. 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. Definitely. Put simply: I think it’s absurd that a corporation, a bunch of persons, can aid in murdering a population and suffer little consequence relative to what an individual person would if they did the same. If we don’t restrict them and hold them to the same standards as people, incorporating will increasingly be seen as a means to being free from accountability and the responsibility to act ethically. 10/9/2017 0 Comments Reading 07: Online AdvertisingIs it ethical for companies to gather your information and data mine it in order to sell you products and services? What responsibilities do companies have to their end users in regard to this information?
I think that it’s ethical for companies to gather your information and data mine it for the mentioned purposes, provided that it’s done through legal means and done for purposes that aren’t malicious. If a company wished to gather this information in order to propose deals and show ads that they felt I would be more likely to respond to as a consumer, that’s just market and consumer research. I personally think it’d be odder for them to be able to provide a better consumer experience and elect not to do it. As Rebecca Rosen of The Atlantic wrote in her article, “What Does It Really Matter If Companies Are Tracking Us Online?”, it’d be widely accepted as immoral if companies were using this data against users, as if they identified that a husband was buying flowers the day after his anniversary and jacked up the price for orders placed by him, his machine, or his payment information, etc. Companies undoubtedly have the obligation to keep this information stored securely. I imagine most terms and conditions allow for companies to retain and use that data, as well as reserve the right to sell it to who they see fit. Those conditions do not allow for malicious parties to freely gain access to that data, so companies need to do what they can to prevent such breaches. As said above, I also feel they have the obligation of using for non-malicious purposes and shouldn’t use this data to make for a poorer experience for their users, as users seem to believe that their data is being shared in exchange for a better experience, rather than a worse one. Does privacy become an unrealistic expectation in light of this pervasive information gathering? I think privacy online from the services you make use of is an unrealistic expectation in today’s connected atmosphere. A lot of these services we rely heavily on are free, but are only so because of their alternative methods of generating revenue (data mining us, advertising). If we wish to continue to use these services, we have to be prepared to meet their terms of operation. I do think that we can have certain expectations to be met in the name of protecting our privacy to an extent. We should be able to hold these companies accountable for not unintentionally disclosing our data to malicious parties, for example. There’s been discussion that’s been had about privacy on the internet being more reasonable to expect than in physical spaces because we’re accessing it from our personal devices and homes, but I feel that’s not reasonable as the internet’s sphere of influence is outside of your device or home. You’re connecting to several different places that effectively exist elsewhere. Do you find online advertising too invasive or is it tolerable? Do you use things like NoScript or Adblock? Why or why not? Is it ethical to use these tools? I think that most online advertising is tolerable. While some sites really over-do it (ads that block the whole page every time you scroll, play sound without warning, show NSFW images on an otherwise non-NSFW site), I feel most are okay for the good services that they provide. That being said, I personally do still use AdBlock. It makes for a better experience and eliminates most of those exceptionally poor experiences with certain sites that I alluded to earlier. Additionally, it provides protection from ads that introduce security flaws to the site (and by extension, your machine). There’s been discussion of it not being ethical because websites rely on ads to keep their services free for users, and by blocking ads, you’re keeping food from finding the mouths of the children of those who work for these companies. I find issue with this line of reasoning. You’re not obligated to stare at teenagers flipping signs on the road-side just because they’re there, you’re not obligated to talk with those who approach you at the mall from their niche kiosk or those who knock on your door at your home, you’re not obligated to purchase a product or use a service from a company just because the employees of that company have children to feed, so why should you be obligated (at first interaction) to subject yourself to this type of advertising? The counter argument to this sentiment would be that you’re actually using the service, so you need to “pay” for it. If the company feels so strongly that this agreement should be honored (despite users very rarely actively and clearly consenting to such ads and just going to a site), then they should detect users’ ad blockers and force the user to white-list their site in order to use their services. That way, if the user really wants to use their services and forgo AdBlock, they can. If they don’t, then they don’t get to use the services, either. I believe it’s a fair dynamic. 9/29/2017 0 Comments Reading 06: Edward SnowdenFrom 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?
My opinion is that Snowden is a traitor to the United States. On the surface, you see a government contractor steal and leak a bunch of documents and then proceed to bounce around Hong Kong, Russia, Cuba, and more, talking to people about whatever information he’s privy to. If it looks like something, smells like something, and feels like something, I’d naturally be inclined to call it something. I don’t believe that the US should pardon him for what he’s done, and I do believe it’s important to at least make it clear that if they have the opportunity to prosecute him appropriately, that they will. By pardoning Snowden and/or failing to prosecute him if possible, a dangerous precedent is set to suggest that it’s acceptable to steal top secret documents essential to the protection of national (and possibly international) security. The setting of such a precedent would give any person with some (even possibly unrelated) inclination against their respective section of the government motivation to steal and recklessly release the contents of documents that are classified for a particularly serious reasonMy opinion is that Snowden is a traitor to the United States. On the surface, you see a government contractor steal and leak a bunch of documents and then proceed to bounce around Hong Kong, Russia, Cuba, and more, talking to people about whatever information he’s privy to. If it looks like something, smells like something, and feels like something, I’d naturally be inclined to call it something. I don’t believe that the US should pardon him for what he’s done, and I do believe it’s important to at least make it clear that if they have the opportunity to prosecute him appropriately, that they will. By pardoning Snowden and/or failing to prosecute him if possible, a dangerous precedent is set to suggest that it’s acceptable to steal top secret documents essential to the protection of national (and possibly international) security. The setting of such a precedent would give any person with some (even possibly unrelated) inclination against their respective section of the government motivation to steal and recklessly release the contents of documents that are classified for a particularly serious reason. What exactly did he leak and how did he expose that information? Snowden released the contents of a variety of classified documents that detail NSA tools and data collection methods, the scope of their world-wide operations, and more. He exposed this information through coordination with reporters in different parts of the globe. Regardless of the legality of his actions, is what he did ethical and moral? I think that there’s a moral obligation to speak out against injustice, and that includes the systemic corruption he felt he was privy to. That being said, I also think that there are better ways (practically and morally) to take action against such things than others. I think he could have approached it in a different manner and still seen reasonable action taken against what would be found to require modification. Ultimately, 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? I strongly feel that, at worst, he severely harmed the country from a national security perspective. At best, I feel he accomplished little. To expound on the former, he disclosed documents containing top secret information. Information that is classified in such a manner because its release may potentially cause “exceptionally grave danger” to our country (the same country he was to work to protect, under oath). He also did this while in close conjunction with a number of foreign nationals, rather than operating with reporters or other contacts strictly within the country. To explain the latter, I’d point to the high-level view of what he’s tried to express to A.) US Citizens and B.) Foreign Nationals. What people take away from the part of the leaks pertaining to the US are “Oh, the government is spying on US citizens!’ and they believe that the government is weeding through all of their actions individually, looking for things to be concerned about. To believe that a government agency has the focus or resources to do that for every person in the US is ridiculous. The other, more accurate view is concerning whether the NSA should be collecting data en masse on the internet with no discernment as to if the bare data on their servers belong to Americans or foreign nationals. The NSA did admit to their data collection tools collecting information pertaining to US citizens and foreign nationals alike. I don’t see that this is a reasonable point to be contentious against being that the NSA (as a member of the Department of Defense) isn’t allowed to act or dig deeper on that data if it is found to belong to a citizen of the US, as that is out of their jurisdiction. It is the FBI’s jurisdiction, but because of the tendency of the media to blow things out of accurate proportions (and the population’s tendency to take reports from popular media outlets at the value of their headlines), we don’t see people feel the same animosity towards the FBI as with the NSA. I feel that those who complain about the lack of privacy because of large scale data collection don’t have much ground to stand on being that they don’t generally also seem to point towards private organizations (who sell user data to the highest bidder), but only towards government agencies focused on protecting our country. Snowden also spoke to reporters and foreign powers to tell them that the NSA is spying on them. The NSA is an agency in the Department of Defense, a group of government agencies literally dedicated to operations that extend far outside the physical boundaries of our country. This shouldn’t be a surprise to them, nor to us. It’s an obvious thing that everyone is spying on everyone else, and I feel that, at best, Snowden was just pointing out the obvious. I wasn't personally surprised by anything that I've heard come up as part of the leaks, so it hasn't affected my views on any of the above much. The only tangible impact I think I can point to is that the leaks revealed a number of useful tools that the US has been able to use to protect our freedom, thereby reducing our ability to continue to use them to do that and harming the security of our country. |
AuthorNikolas Dean Brooks is a current Senior at Notre Dame. This blog is for the "Ethics and Professional Issues" course under Dr. Peter Bui. Archives |