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.
0 Comments
9/29/2017 0 Comments Project 02: Individual ReflectionWhy is it challenging for women and minorities to break into STEM fields? What sort of obstacles do they face? Is this a problem that needs to be addressed or an inevitable reality we should accept?
It's challenging for women and minorities to break into STEM fields because of the adversity that they have to face the entire way through from as far back as primary education. Girls aren't seen as smart in STEM subjects as their male peers, and there's a greater percentage of minorities who are relatively poverty-stricken compared to their white counterparts, which generally is connected with a sub-optimal primary education experience. Applying to schools may be aided by affirmative action, but for women and minorities wishing to pursue STEM majors, they will have to be prepared to enter an atmosphere where they are a minority in both the classroom and the industry that follows. Once they're applying to jobs, they may be passed up for a similar or slightly less qualified candidate with a more obviously male or white name due to the stigma surrounding hiring women and minorities for certain roles or in certain fields. Once they have those jobs, they likely have obstacles to overcome in a white-male dominated environment and field, ranging from sexual harassment, racism, lesser pay, and more. As discussed in the "Squadcast", they have to be strong and possess extraordinary ability to perform in order to succeed. As I've expressed in an earlier blog post on diversity, more diverse teams are more successful teams. In my opinion, I think we need to look one step further and see that it should be a focus from a moral/ethical standpoint in addition to a results-driven one. Are role models important? Growing up, did you have any role models? Who has inspired you or motivated you to pursue your STEM field? Discuss whether or not the person you profiled inspires you and if the person's story resonates with you. I personally think that there is value in having role models, although I don't think it's completely necessary or should be a primary motivator for someone's personal journey. Growing up, I looked up to a couple of sports stars that seemed to embody qualities that I personally wished to emulate through my life. They were viewed as generally clean, upstanding individuals. They were respected by their teammates, not only for their skills, but for their character. They were captains of their teams, in which case the quality leadership they seemed to display were significantly more intriguing to me than the title of "captain". I loved looking at examples of outstanding, positive, well-rounded people. Even though I felt their life's circumstances and respective personalities were unique, they were tangible examples of people who held all of those qualities I valued from early on. I wasn't personally inspired to pursue a STEM degree by anyone other than myself, really. I found my way into CS because of its value in the job market and my personal interest coming into Notre Dame in wanting to be challenged by the discipline I'd choose to pursue. While I didn't have a role model that inspired me to pursue a CS degree, I can say that many of the role models I've held over the years have been similar in the sense that they had come from tough background and had to constantly overcome personal adversity through the course of their lives and to where they got to at the point that I was looking at them and being inspired. "Squadcast" Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfcOSEs0cUU&t 9/23/2017 0 Comments Reading 05: WhistleblowingFrom the readings, what is your opinion of Chelsea/Bradley Manning's decision to leak sensitive information to WikiLeaks and her subsequent sentencing? Is what she did ethical or did she violate her duty?
I think that Chelsea Manning’s decision to leak sensitive information to WikiLeaks was one that wasn’t handled with the care it possibly should have been. I feel that she deserved appropriate prosecution for what she did (irresponsibly and carelessly disclosing classified information), as should anyone who does the same. An article by Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic feels that Chelsea Manning deserved the reduced sentence that Obama’s commuting delivered. I felt that he primarily points to two legitimate points of contention surrounding the legitimacy of the classification system as well as how leaks are treated differently depending on who catalyzed them. In response to the former, I’d agree that some things are classified questionably, but I think it’s reasonable to believe that while there may be a high number of ‘false-positives’ (situations where things are overclassified), there are an important proportion of things that are appropriately classified (or not underclassified). As such, the overclassification of a number of documents doesn’t change the fact that there are still documents at these levels that truly require that level of classification due to their nature and the potential for impact of national security. A top-secret document is one that is defined as potentially causing “Exceptionally grave damage” to national security. If 100 top secret documents are leaked, and 99 of them are falsely overclassified, the person who leaked them have still leaked information that could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security. Additionally, pointing out the selective prosecution of leaking of classified information isn’t a legitimate defense to the actions of a person like Chelsea Manning. If someone did this illegal/careless/harmful thing, that isn’t changed by who else does or doesn’t. I think it’d be incredibly difficult to say that this selectiveness isn’t an issue, sure. But the response to that needs to be to focus on prosecuting everyone according to the described injustices, rather than say that everyone should face minimal consequences. “Everybody’s doing it” doesn’t cut it as a defense for serious wrong-doings. I do think it’s the duty of one to speak out against gross injustices that they become privy to, especially if they’re in a position where they can take actionable steps to do so. The catch here is that I also feel that it’s one’s duty to do so responsibly. There are very likely better ways to bring the type of injustices to light that Ms. Manning saw than simply “vacuuming up as much classified information” as she could and “just throwing it up into the air”, as Adrian Lamo put it, someone who was even held on a pedestal by Manning herself. Should she have been protected under the Whistleblower protection laws? Is she a revolutionary hero or a traitor? I one hundred percent feel that those who report and appropriately respond to what could gross injustices and abuses of power should be protected. I don’t feel that Ms. Manning responded in an appropriate manner to what she felt this information was, and as such, I think that she shouldn’t be protected. The manner in which she elected to respond was careless and the potential for damage to national security as a result of this would lead me to feel she’s much closer to being a traitor (to her duty, if not her country entirely) than any type of “revolutionary hero”. Is the lack of diversity a problem in the technology industry or is the gender gap overblown? Is it something that needs to be addressed or is it just a (possibly unfortunate) reality?
It's a legitimate issue, and I feel it's one to be taken seriously. Despite the country's population being nearly 50-50 in terms of gender and the number of non-Caucasian Americans on the rise, the numbers in the technology industry continue to poorly reflect these numbers. It is clear from the readings that the number of potential applicants that fall into these categories are not appropriate for that level of representation (not enough minorities or women graduating with CS degrees, in other words), but I can't imagine that this isn't connected to the perception and state of the tech industry. If women or minorities don't feel that the industry that they'd end up in as a result of their loans, sweat, and tear would even be fairly welcoming to them, why would they want to elect to take up that field of study and career track? Complaining that there simply "isn't enough of them" to fill those numbers isn't a fair or sufficient argument, in my opinion. If the ethical basis for arguing for diversity (and against cultures that discourage it) weren't enough, note that studies have shown that diverse teams perform better and are more successful than those with little diversity. A 2015 McKinsey report on 366 publicly traded companies found that those in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean, and those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to have returns above the industry mean. In an analysis of 2,400 companies conducted by Credit Suisse, organizations with at least one female board member yielded higher return on equity and higher net income growth than those that did not have any women on the board. If you believe it is a problem, what are some obstacles faced by women and minorities? Why do these challenges exist and how could the technology industry (or society in general) work to remove these barriers and encourage more participation from women and minorities? They all have to fight the "old boys' club" atmosphere where it exists, when employees are hired primarily because they're their friend's sons or some equivalent. Plenty of at least anecdotal evidence shows the difference it makes to some employers seeing a domestic male's name as opposed to something different. In addition to the hiring challenges they face, there's a number of issues that they seem to have to face, ranging from sexism in the form of treatment from management and upward mobility, pay differences, perceptions of incompetency, and more. What do you make of either the Uber or Google controversies? What is your reaction on the events and the aftermath and what do these events say about diversity in technology? I read Susan Fowler's account on her experience in Uber as a woman (http://bit.ly/2kX7hjw), and found it to be legitimately infuriating. Her and a lot of other women at the company had to deal with a lot of poor treatment on the basis of their gender alone, ranging from sexual harassment to institutionally unfair treatment from departments like HR who are in place specifically to handle those types of issues. In my opinion, Uber has deserved and will continue to deserve losing business and reputation for the lack of their ability to operate with care in regard to serious issues. I'm sure that Uber is not alone in perpetuating some extent of this style of culture, and as long as this type of dynamic occurs in as many places as it does (not to say it's everywhere, but just that it seems to be much more common than it should be), I think we collectively need to continue to take actions against it. Provide a summary of the highlights of the new Code of Ethics and why you think those components are important.
The constructed code of ethics is short and simple. As I'll reiterate in the next responses, we felt that it's simplicity and brevity make it a more effective document, even if it isn't all-inclusive. No document is perfect. Are there weaknesses? What are they and why are they present? How can they be addressed? The described code of ethics isn't all-inclusive. That was intended, as we believed that a code of ethics that isn't followed (due to its breadth or complexity) is a poor one. It's brevity and simplicity better lends itself to being followed regularly. I don't believe that this can be resolved without compromising this focus, to some extent. The disparate subsections also suggests that the described points are disparate, when in practice, the points may overlap a reasonable amount. This may possibly resolved by restructuring the code of ethics in a different manner, but if one were to do that, they may want to weigh whether or not the removal of the organized section would diminish the important, calculated simplicity of the document. Is a Code of Ethics really that useful? Was the enumeration of your principles and beliefs a beneficial exercise? Explain. I do think that codes of ethics are valuable to have, whether on a personal or broad scale. I think that the bottom line is that the code of ethics is useless if it isn't consulted on a consistent basis. I felt like breaking down the ACM code of ethics was important in realizing this, as its great detail and length made it difficult to consult in a reasonable manner. By constructing our own we got to see how we might go about resolving that issue, including which points we'd prefer to stretch the most from an ethical standpoint. 9/7/2017 0 Comments Project 01: Code of EthicsPreamble
Sometimes we become so focused on the details of what we are doing that we forget that every decision has ethical consequences. This code of ethics will not only provide guidelines to ethical behavior, but also serves as a reminder of all the ethical decisions we face everyday. Coding 1.) Don’t plagiarize. Using someone else’s code or ideas for your own gain is stealing. Citing sources and paying for licenses is essential for ethical programming. 2.) Don’t maliciously obscure code. Making code harder to understand can be ethical under certain conditions. However, intentionally obfuscating code so that others cannot do your job is not in the spirit of the agreement you make with your employer. 3.) You are responsible for any code that you release or share. This means that you are responsible for any harm caused by your code, and that you should be able to explain what your code is doing and why. Work Environment 1.) Work to your fullest potential. Out of respect for yourself, your coworkers, and the work in and of itself, it is ethical to only do your best work as to meet or exceed expectations. If your fullest potential isn’t enough to meet the requirements for the task at hand, see the next point. 2.) Own up to your limitations. Don’t pretend to be able to do something you aren’t currently able to do as that can primarily only have negative consequences on the result of the task at hand. If you have some level of ability that’s better than none but less than required, be up front that you’d need to do some extra learning or work in order to complete the task appropriately. 3.) Don’t steal/offer trade secrets. Respect the rights and property of those you’re working with and for. By releasing trade or company secrets you may undermine the time and efforts of all involved with the work at hand. 4.) Respect the skills and experiences that all team members bring. Different perspectives and opinions, handled productively and respectfully, breed optimal results. Varied levels of experience in one scope of work allow the less experienced to receive tutelage from those with greater experience. Conversely, the more experienced may be able to receive fresh insights from those with less (but still reasonable) levels of experience or time in the field. These fresh insights may also be experienced through cross-disciplinary cooperation. Society at Large 1.) Respect data by securing and anonymizing where appropriate. If you go into industry, there is a good chance you will be working with the data of other people. Remember, this is not your data, and it is to be respected. Treat all data as if it were your own. Secure the systems that manage data, and restrict access to it, even within your own company. Anonymize data unless personal information is absolutely necessary. Err on the side of extreme caution, protecting user information is everybody’s responsibility. 2.) Don’t write malicious code. Don’t intentionally write code to harm others. This includes but is not limited to hacking and/or stealing from other individuals or companies. Exploiting code for personal knowledge is acceptable, but using these exploits outside of an educational environment is unethical. 3.) Consider views other than your own. Everyone brings their own unique views and opinions. Actively seek these out, in the hope of gaining new insight. Be wary of your biases own, and look to gather new information, not confirm what you already believe. If you disagree with someone, try to understand why you disagree instead of writing off their view. Notre Dame Students 1.) Recognize opportunity. Notre Dame students have a unique opportunity to learn at an institution that prioritizes the Catholic Mission and provides a strong liberal arts background. Notre Dame computer science students must take advantage of this multifaceted education and bring the lessons of other disciplines into their computer science training. Work to expand the field’s horizons while still being cognizant of the ideals upheld by Notre Dame. This will not only help Notre Dame students uphold the ethical standards outlined in this document, but will challenge students to solve problems in new ways. k 2.) Respect privilege. The ability to study at Notre Dame is a privilege available to only a few. Understand that your presence at this university is a special gift afforded to you not only by your own merit and work but also by the uncontrollable circumstances of your life and those around you. This is not to discredit your accomplishment, but to draw attention to those, who through no fault of their own, cannot be where you are. Give thanks for your privilege, and use its power to promote equity and protect the disadvantaged. 3.) Reflect on the decision to study computer science. As an undergraduate major, computer science is unique in its broad-reaching impact on society. Notre Dame students should reflect on their motivations and intentions of studying computer science. They must ask themselves what drew them to this field and decide how they will give back with the skills gained from their studies. 4.) Reach beyond. It is not enough for you to succeed. Everyone around you must also succeed. Notre Dame students must remember how many people helped them succeed and do the same in turn for others. Teaching is the one of most effective forms of learning, and is beneficial to everyone involved. Notre Dame students must uphold the Notre Dame community and not allow themselves to become self-focused and unnecessarily competitive. *Code of ethics was constructed by Allie Olshefke (aolshefk), Mara Staines (mstaines), John Johnson (jjohns48), and Nikolas Brooks (nbrooks3). From the readings and from your experience, can men and women have it all? That is, can parents have successful and fulfilling careers while also raising a family and meeting other non-work-related goals?
What does it mean to have it all to you? What examples from real life do you draw from in order to define what having a balance is? To me, “having it all” means that I’m able to find as much satisfaction as possible in the places that I’d like to find it without the requirements or obligations of those places infringing on one another. So, for example, if my personal goals were to succeed (by my own standards) at my place of work and also to take care of a family, I’d say that I “have it all” if I’m finding that I’m taking care of my family and my career in ways that I am personally satisfied. If I wasn’t able to succeed in my career as I’d like to because of the time that I’m spending with my family (or vice-versa), I wouldn’t have it all. I feel comfortable with evaluating the satisfaction I get from my various endeavors. If I liked to paint in my free time, I understand what the difference is between feeling satisfied by my own accord versus feeling satisfied because of some concrete, external goal or specific number of hours. For example, I’m able to say “Even though I only have the time to paint one hour a week, I know that I wouldn’t want to paint more than that, even if I had the time”, signaling my satisfaction with that. I prefer to spend much of my time engaged with something, so finding balance between my chosen activities is something I’ve had to do for many years. Have you ever dealt with burnout or guilt over missing out on some portion of your life? If so, describe how you dealt with this situation and what helped you overcome these difficulties. Undoubtedly. Burnout is real. To avoid burnout, one has to be very perceptive of the state of their mind and body, reacting appropriately when they find that one or both are beginning to deteriorate. It’s difficult to avoid, because in today’s connected “always-on” society, I don’t feel that we often give our mind and body the attention required to monitor ourselves in that regard. In my first couple of years here at Notre Dame, I felt pressured to perform. I felt obligated to my friends and family back home to make the most of my time here. The problem was rooted in my inexperience, thinking that the best way to do that was simply to work as hard and long as possible and that I could rest when I was done. Unsurprisingly in hindsight, I ran myself ragged, and after the first few weeks, I became increasingly unproductive and unhappy. After nearly two years of semi-proverbially bashing my head against the wall, I realized what I was doing to myself and figured that if my grades were going to suck despite how much time I’d been putting in, I may was well have poor marks and be happy and healthy. I then shifted my focus to taking care of my mind and body. After some time, I found that this paid dividends in my work, as well, as my improved health lent itself to better performance. I have since promised myself that I won’t accept being in a position where I can’t take care of myself appropriately, as that would necessitate that I’m not being the best me that I can be. And for my intended career of saving lives and having the impact that I’ll be able to, I strongly feel that sub-par performance is unacceptable. What can companies do to support their workers to find this balance and are they ethically obliged to do so? Was the opportunity for balance something that factored into your choice of career or job opportunity? Why or why not? I don’t think that companies are obligated to help their workers find this balance. I do think that they’re obligated to provide them the opportunity to find this balance and maintain it. Because certain special needs or desires may stand out from either the employee or the employer, I feel that at a minimum, both parties need to be honest about what they’re looking for and expecting from the other as they arrive at a hiring agreement. If a company’s workflow will require the employee to sacrifice more time than an average employee elsewhere, they should be comfortable discussing that and be open with sharing the limitations that this obligation may have on the employee’s time or flexibility. On the other hand, if an employee is looking to completely delve into their work and their personal definition of having it all is contained within that, they should express that they’re looking for every opportunity possible to do so as to avoid a company who believes they’re employees should put more time into other endeavors. Finally, is this balance important to you and if so, how do you hope to maintain it? What life-style changes or activities have you put in place to deal with finding a balance in your life and preventing burnout? This balance is incredibly important to me for the above reasons and I plan to maintain it by remaining focused on caring for my health and by appropriately managing my obligations and priorities to best match my personal aspirations. My hard rules general include exercising at least once every two days at a minimum, not working on schoolwork past 11pm the latest, and aiming to get at least 7 hours of sleep a day, at a minimum. Additionally, I am sure to mentally frame my free time as being conducive to my work time, realizing that I’m more productive when I’m happy, rather than viewing time spent not working as wasteful. |
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 |