DRM

From the readings, what exactly the DMCA say about piracy? What provisions does it have for dealing with infringement? What exactly are the safe-harbor provisions?

The DMCA stands for Digital Millennium Copyright Act which is a law that aims to prevent piracy and give protection to service providers. This act comes in two parts, a “anti-circumvention” portion and a “safe harbor” portion. DMCA has a safe-harbor provision that allows companies that host user generated content protection from copyright infringement accusations. What this entails is an immediate removal of material suspected to have infringed on copyright laws.

I think the ethicality of sharing and downloading copyrighted material is based on the situation. If a user shares copyrighted content in hopes of giving a large population access to a particular content, it is probably unethical. On the other hand, if it is sharing a music file on a small scale, such as with one friend or something similar, it may not be unethical. By sharing it with the larger community, the user should be able to understand that this action may impact the original content creator negatively, such as profit loss. This then would be unethical since the user knowingly hurts the individual. On the other hand, I think that small scale sharing, such as with a friend can be ethical. For example if you share a music file that you want to play at an event that you are organizing, but your friends laptop can be used, it is ethical to share your music file with your friend to be able to play the song at the event you are hosting.

I have participated in the sharing of copyrighted material. When I was younger I used to use Limewire to download songs I was interested in. Like Stephen Witt I didn’t realize it was not legal until I had been using it for a long time. When I did realize, it didn’t feel like a crime because it was such a common and normal practice. I think many people engage in this behavior because pirating has been around for so long. Even before services like Limewire, I would pirate using cassette tapes. I would hit record when the song I liked finally played on the radio, and stop the recording when the song ended. Then I would just play my cassette tape whenever I wanted to listen to that song.

I think that even with streaming services such as Netflix and Spotify, the problem of privacy will still exist. Although these services allow users to listen to a song or watch a movie as many times as they want as long as they pay the fee, there will always be people who want to own the content. Other people want to get back at the music industry for ripping them off. In the end, sometimes people want to be able to access music or movies without the internet and cannot do so with these streaming services, so pirating comes into play. Furthermore, sometimes, it is not even possible to find a way to legally purchase the material which also brings pirating into the light. Ultimately, pirating is a real problem for artists and content creators who need to be paid for their work. I think that while streaming services cannot solve this problem, it is a step towards solving it.

Self Driving Cars

 

There are many motivations for developing and building self-driving cars. Colleen Sheehey-Church, president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, states that self-driving cars can prevent driving while intoxicated accidents as “a self-driving car can’t get drunk.” Self-driving cars will follow traffic laws and prioritize safety even when the passengers are intoxicated. Along with self-driving cars comes with the idea of a shared network between cars. The argument that self-driving cars are more safe than human operated vehicles stem from the hardware and software used to create the self driving car. These vehicles come equipped with many sensors provide more insight on surroundings than a regular human can obtain and process. Tesla, for example, comes with 8 surround cameras to provide a 360 degree view of the immediate environment. These cameras can visualize up to 250 meters in range, and is complemented with twelve ultrasonic senors at 500 meters. Furthermore, Tesla’s self driving car is equipped with a radar to allow “sight” even through heavy rain, fog, dust and through the car ahead. When these hardware features are coupled with a robust software, the self driven cars can see more than the average human can, and react in the safest way possible. Lyft president John Zimmerman suggests that with self-driving cars and the shared network that inevitably comes as a result, there could potentially be less pollution due to less wasted time looking for parking and less traffic due to the increased safety of self-driving cars. This could change the way our cities are built with more parks and larger sidewalks than roads. With all these capabilities, self-driving cars seem to have a definite advantage over human operated cars, especially when it comes to making safe decisions. Despite this, there are many social and ethical dilemmas that arise as self-driving cars become a thing of the present. Programmers and car manufacturers must consider how self driving cars must approach situations where a crash is inevitable. According to a recent survey published in Science magazine, there seems to be a contradiction in what consumers want their potential self-driving cars to react in crash situations and what type of self-driving cars they are willing to use. These consumer believe in the utilitarian idea that in crash situations, the self driving car should make a decision where the most number of lives are saved or spared from injury. What this ultimately means is that the passenger in the self-driving car will be susceptible to possibly fatal injuries. As a result, these participants selected that they would not want to ride in cars that may choose their deaths over the lives of countless others. Despite this, I think that self-driving cars should still choose the utilitarian method. Of course, the car should be programmed to select the method in which all lives are saved, but at the most dire situations, I think it is best to prevent the most injuries. Other ethical decisions also arise from self driving cars. Who would the car choose to save if there was only 1 pedestrian on the road that may get hit. Does it sacrifice it’s passenger or the 1 pedestrian. Should it be programmed to value children lives or adult lives? There is no way for self driving cars to become widespread unless it addresses these challenging issues. The other problem with self driving cars is when an accident occurs who is held accountable. With all the sensors installed on the car, I think the video recap of the event can pinpoint when a pedestrian is at fault. However, if the car malfunctions and injures someone, I think the company who created the software to control the car should be at fault. It should be the company’s responsibility to ensure that the software is as bug free as possible and do strict testing to make the safest vehicle possible. In addition the governments should help by passing legislation that ensure only vehicles above a certain safety standard can be allowed on a road. I would definitely appreciate self-driving cars but can see how it may disrupt the society in various ways. Although Zimmerman suggests that self driving cars will help lower pollution I wonder if it may actually increase pollution. This is because Zimmerman suggests that in the future, there will be less privately owned vehicle because society will turn to the convenience and safety of self driving cars. However, this may negatively impact the use of public transportation which is known to reduce energy consumption and pollution. Desipte this, if there can be self driving cars, I’m sure there may be self-driving buses in the future too.

Project 3

• What trade-offs are you making when using the cloud? Have you consciously evaluated these trade-offs? What is your justification?

When using the cloud, you are using another companies’ hardware resources to help store and access memory and help make expensive computations. By using the cloud, you are at risk of losing your privacy if the cloud service ever gets hacked. In addition, if the cloud somehow fails, if your company relies on the cloud, it will go down with it, and cannot resume until the cloud is back up again. Relying on the cloud essentially requires you to give up some control to the company running the cloud service. The justification of these trade offs is the time saved from not implementing your own cloud service, a support team to help integrate cloud to your system, and cost of not having your own support team.

• 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?

It could be worth it to manage your own private cloud service. This is because you can implement it the way your specific service needs it to be, and can give it specific privacy settings you deem best. I envision a future where it is more possible to use your own services rather than third party ones. This is because the world is understanding the importance of knowing how to code and as more people learn, the more possible it is for them to create their own cloud service. However, I do think that third party services will still be popular because creating your own cloud service would be extremely time consuming and requires a team to maintain it. Small companies do not necessarily have the resources for this and would then rely on big companies to help out.

• Do you have the moral standing to complain about encrouchment on your privacy when you consciously give away your information to third party services?

I think that you can have the moral standing to complain about the encrouchment of your privacy when you consciously give your information to third party services. This is because cloud service companies help their users by storing data or helping provide more resources to do computer computations. Users who sign up for these services use it for that purpose, not to have the content of their data analyzed and manipulated. There are other services that can do that. Therefore, I believe cloud companies should not breach the privacy of their users.

Trolls & Anonymity

Trolling is when people under the guise of anonymity, post deliberately offensive remarks to hurt/insult/offend another person. Usually, it is to incite a response, other times it is just done for fun. As Lindy West mentions, trolling is “recreational abuse – usually anonymous – intended to waste the subject’s time or to get a rise out of them or frustrate or frighten them into silence.” Although many people believe it is an unavoidable part of the internet, where you must either accept it or get off the internet, it often can have serious repercussions. Although companies should do their best to prevent abusive comments, it is often difficult to implement a solution that is 100% positive to the entire community. However, this doesn’t mean they should not try. I think twitter provided a good example of this by creating a bot that aims to help trolls understand their effects of their harmful comments. I think that Gamergate is a good example of how dangerous trolling can become. Because of the anonymity the internet provides to users, people can harass and frighten their their victims through doxxing and leaking information from hacks. It is scary to know that if you upset the wrong person, your accounts can all be hacked, personal and sensitive information like bank accounts can be leaked, and addresses and phone numbers shared with the world. Now, you potentially are no longer the target of one person, but of the world.  This was the method used against Anita Sarkeesian who discussed the role of women in video games, Zoe Quinn who was falsely accused of unethically promoting her game, and Phil Fish, a man who came to the defense of Quinn. I think that this is evidence of the dangers of anonymity on the Internet. While it is freedom of expression, when it threatens a person’s safety, and the people involved’s safety, it should not be tolerable. While the ability to troll people only stems from anonymity, I do not think that real-name policies should always be enforced. Although this can discourage users from posting abusive remarks online, it does not protect users from harassment. Trolls would have an easier time trolling by simply taking the real-name user handle to find information from. In addition, as governments are becoming more invasive to their citizens’ privacy, real-name policies can be hurtful to activist who speak out against the government. For example, Iran is known to arrest people based on online activity and it is important for the identities of these activists to be protected when the your government does not allow freedom of speech. Trolling is definitely a real issue on the internet. I don’t think it is ever possible to completely prevent trolling but by raising children not to bully, teaching them the consequences of trolling, teaching them to be fair and kind to everyone, even those who do not look like them or think like them, we can decrease the amount of trolling in the future.

Fake News

Fake News is essentially made up stories that pose as real stories. The purpose of it can be malicious or satirical. However, many argue that it has an influential role in politics, especially swaying the public’s opinion on various political issues. I believe that fake news can be both harmless and dangerous. News sites like The Onion feature many satirical articles that aim to humor its readers with its outrageous stories. It relies on its audiences’ common sense to realize the news is fake because of the unrealistic headlines and content. Fake News is different because the headlines are more  realistic and not as extreme. Although some of it may also be “out there,” they are usually very possible examples of real news stories.

I think that technology companies should help monitor and suppress fake news. It is important for people to get facts with little to no deception. Because the news is so important in shaping everyday life and public opinion, it is important for companies to present the most up to date and accurate news possible. I think that social media platform providers know the impact they have on the community and world. As a result, they have an increasing responsibility to help the world. I think that censoring fake news would be a positive benefit as it helps reduce the spread of misinformation and propaganda. Therefore, I think I would be comfortable with private entities like Facebook censoring information they deem fake. However those who enjoy reading the news should also make sure that their sources are valid. Since Facebook has a news portion to their website now, it is important for them to ensure the links that they personally share to be valid and legitimate. To be the best business they can be, they should make sure that their users are not deceived and get the best out of the “product”. Unfortunately there are many people who make their living off ads in these fake news sources. From the articles, these people do not believe that their work has influenced politics at all, and find the ability to influence people interesting. However, this is somewhat contradicting statements so either their article do not influence people, or their articles do influence politics (which essentially is influencing people).

 

I personally do use Facebook to get some of my news. When I click on trending news, I do try my best to make sure that the source is a recognizable media platform like the New York Times. Even when I randomly click links without first checking the source, I try to analyze the website to see how legitimate it is before I trust it and begin reading. The issue of having news echoed back at you is interesting. According to one of the articles, Facebook merely suggests articles that they believe the user will interact with based on previous interactions. I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing. However, I think that it should try to isolate the issues the user is interested and provide suggestions that offer opinions on the various sides of the issue. In addition, it can vary the sources that have content on that specific issue.

I don’t think that fake news will overcome real news. This is because people still want to know facts at the end of the day to make reasonable decision. What we can do is to make sure people are educated in this issue and understand the consequences of fake news.

 

Corporate Conscience

The United States Supreme Court has expanded the rights of corporations over the last few years. It has given them rights such as the right to financially support politicians in their campaign and to refuse federal mandates on religious grounds. Because corporations are comprised of many individuals, working together, they assume an “artificial legal persona”. Socially, this concept is especially important for religious entities such as churches to gain legal rights, and to exist beyond its creator. By giving companies personhood, property can outlast any one person’s lifespan and would not be subjected to inheritance laws. This helped stimulate and secure the economic development. In addition, ethically, it prevents the government from invading and acquiring company information without the warrant

I think tech workers and tech companies are right in pledging to not work on building immigration databases. Reflecting back on the ACM Code of Conduct/Ethics, it states that creating something that will discriminate negatively against a group of people should not be done. Creating a Muslim registry for example, can negatively affect Muslim immigrants/residents in the US. Furthermore, looking back in history, we know that many examples of a registry have resulting in the mass murdering or deportation of various ethnic groups. History and ethics tells us not to participate in creation of programs that will systematically hurt innocent lives.

Unfortunately, it has already been done. The results include broken families, and no open terrorist case. I think companies should make some business decisions based on morality and ethics. People want to support good companies and protest bad ones. In current times, people have shown their disapproval by not buying a companies product because of political ties they deem unethical or immoral. For example, many shoppers have protests Ivanka Trump’s brand because of the ties and support she has shown with President Trump. As a result, I think companies should make decisions based on morality and ethics. While the morality of some decisions are more obvious than others, some are not so clear cut. I think as a general rule, it would be good for companies to choose the decision that is more inclusive of all peoples, the decision that does not discriminate negatively against certain groups, or positively against certain groups.

I think that corporate personhood should not exist. There should be a separate set of laws that govern what companies can and cannot do. This does not mean that companies cannot have certain rights that they currently have due to corporate personhood. It simply means that there should be a separation between individuals and corporations. Since I believe that companies can have overlapping rights as individuals, there should be ethical and moral obligations and responsibilities. In the case of the Muslim Registry, as mentioned before, there are many historical examples of how specific registries has resulted in the loss of so many innocent lives, and unnecessary cruelty. These registries can hurt the companies own employees. Not only is it immoral to create registries that target a specific group of people, it is a bad business decision.

 

 

 

 

Online Advertising

Online advertising has been an increasingly integrated portion of our web browsing experience. When we surf our social media accounts, from instagram to facebook, ads are everywhere, just waiting for our cursor to hoover over and click. A tidbit I found interesting from the articles is that when users believe that companies are already taking and using their data, they are more likely to allow companies to continue the process. Even given the option to opt out with a fee, most do not take up the offer. On the other hand, if users believe that companies are not extracting their data, they would not accept a reduced bill in exchange for granting the company permission in using their data. This allows a pervasive cycle of continued aggression on your privacy and data. Currently, I am positive that companies take their users’ data without letting them know, frequently. It has become a commonality that many people simply accept. Despite this, I would say that it is not ethical for companies to infringe upon our privacy rights and use our data in ways that may be of detriment to us. Examples of this would be like what the article mentioned, having french fries in your fridge resulting in higher healthcare premiums.

Now that technology has become an essential part of our daily lives, we are producing far more data, at a higher rate, than ever. It is easy for companies to aggregate all the data users provide when interacting with their service and profile us. With this profile they can easily supplement their profits by selling our data and profiles to other companies that can use them to market products to us, and people like us. I think this can be ethical as long as the privacy issue of obtaining users’ data does not violate any laws and rights. A lot of this data is sent to companies that try to sell you services or goods. Due to my specific browsing history, I get a lot of targeted ads for things I might be interested in. To be honest, I do not mind it so much because I actually do click and browse if the ads look interesting. I think that some ads however, can be really invasive and turn off users. Usually these type of ads come in the form of popups or take an uncomfortably large portion of articles I’m reading. I use AdBlock because I would rather block all/most ads than to experience any of the invasive ads. In addition, even if they are harmless ads, I do not want to risk having ads that install malware or anything like that. I think that these tools can be ethical because as the articles mention, companies can request to be whitelisted if their ads are proven to not be harmful or invasive. Adblock users at least, also have the ability to whitelist websites themselves. If they are interested in reading websites that block users with adblock or similar tools, they can turn it off for that domain. Ultimately, I think adblock and software similar to it can be ethical as long as it allows flexibility of who is blocked.

privacy

 

I don’t think that technology companies should purposely weaken encryption or implement back doors in their product for the purposes of government surveillance. I think many of the reasons people are interested in these products because of they know the security that comes with the product. It, for one, would not be in the best interest of the business to weaken the features of their product. This may discourage users from buying their product and give less well known competitors an advantage, though probably slight. On the other hand, when companies comply to overreaching government requests, by giving permission, the companies might accidentally motivate the government to breach more privacy laws/regulations. Furthermore, if a backdoor is implemented, it allows non-government individuals the ability to invade people’s privacy as well. This can lead to more negative and potentially dangerous situations to arise. I think that companies like Apple are ethically responsible for protecting the privacy of their users and they are ethically responsible for helping to prevent violent or harmful activities. I think in order to do so, they should still work to achieve the best product they have but be open to helping the government when they have the appropriate legal documents like a warrant. I don’t think being open necessarily entails creating something that would devalue their product, but any means they feel appropriate.

I would say that I am against government backdoors and surveillance. I believe that privacy is an important right because governments can change and become corrupt. If privacy is not something that citizens value, it is easy for the government to possibly abuse their powers. Although I believe that surveillance can help save lives, it is necessary still, for the government to have appropriate documents to request information for tech companies. Although technically the government doesn’t collect “mass” emails, according to one of the articles, it is only because some type of filter is applied. This filter can be as vague and as all emails from 2000-2017 and still not be considered “mass.” This is unfair to those who have not committed any crimes or aroused any suspicion, for their personal data to be investigated. If the government has enough evidence that an individual poses a risk to national security, they should only be allowed to invade that individual’s online privacy. In addition by searching through large databases of many individuals’ personal data to find that one suspect,  the government may inadvertently discover negative information about innocent people and use that against them in the future. This is can be unfair if the information is detailed in the person’s record.

 

Interview Study Guide Reflection (Project 2)

1. From your experience, what are the most important parts of the guide your group constructed? What do you know now that you wished you new earlier? What is the best advice or guidance you’ve received?

In my opinion, the most important parts of the guide that my group has constructed is the overview of the interview process. I think it is important to familiarize yourself with the process so that when you actually have to experience it, you may not be as nervous because you know what to expect. In addition, I think the finding jobs portion is relatively useful as well because it gives you suggestions on different resources available and how to utilize them. It also details out dress code “rules” for those who aren’t to familiar with it as well. It gives a differentiation of the career fair to give students insights on which one is more appropriate for them, and how to best utilize it. I wished I knew more about negotiations and being able to understand the contract. Although I don’t think I would have made a lot of use out of it because I didn’t negotiate due to the fact that all new grads in my division make the same pay, it would be nice be able to understand how good my benefits are. I think the best advice I’ve received is to keep in touch with your old coworkers, choose a company where you will be motivated to thrive/wouldn’t mind working there for a good while, and making use of the different resources upperclassmen shared.2.

2. College traditionally has been viewed as a place of learning, not necessarily job                       training and yet students are spending more and more time preparing for the job                   interview process. Should colleges adjust their curriculum to face this reality?

I think that the CSE Department has a good curriculum to help students learn and be prepared for industry. We learn all the fundamentals like data structure, algorithms, operating systems, theory, etc. in all our major requirement classes. However I think that the timing of it should be earlier. I think there should only be one intro to engineering requirement. I feel like the most I took away from it was matlab, as I was not very interested in the other projects. I think some of the junior year spring semester courses can be pushed back to the fall semester instead of doing electives since it will just build on your fundamentals. Most importantly, I think algorithms should be learned earlier on in the curriculum, not during senior year. Overall I think the ND curriculum does a good job at helping students learn about the study of computer science but could work on the timing of these courses to help students be better prepared for jobs.

Therac-25

The Therac-25 was a radiation therapy machine. It is used to kill cancerous tissue inside the body by shooting beams of electrons. Unfortunately it is known in history as an example of deadly software. The root cause of the Therac-25 accidents was due to a software bug. This bug was found by Fritz Hager, who noticed that the turntable would not be set to the correct position if the switch to Electron mode occurred in less than 8 seconds after the machine began setting up for x-ray mode. Later on, it was found that a counter overflow would create a similarly dangerous situation. Overall, it was a combination of bad programming, and lack of testing that resulted in many deaths.

Some challenges that software developers face when developing safety-critical systems is how complex the interactions may be between software and hardware. Sometimes the software instructs the hardware to perform something it physically is incapable of. Other times, there are so many potential interactions between hardware systems that it becomes difficult to keep track of and discover how each system may potentially relate together. Coupled with software, it can be a difficult problem to solve. Another challenge software developers face is not understanding how their software will be used by the user. In the case of medical equipment, software engineers may not know how doctors like to operate machinery and create something that confuses or is not agreeable with the doctor(s).

I think that developers should make sure that have opportunities to interact with their future software users to make sure that they understand the user needs. In addition, like in the investigation of the Therac-25 Accidents papers, there should definitely be a lot of testing and quality assurance practices involved to figure out any bugs in the code. Lastly, documentation should be thorough so that it other developers or quality assurance testers can understand the code and examine for bugs.

I think that developers should not be liable when accidents happen. This is because everyone makes mistakes. Instead, I think the business should be held accountable. The company should have a clear set of standards that promote software at the highest quality. They should have a rigorous testing standard so that even if one developer makes a mistake, another one can catch it. As the potential for fatality or risk increases, the more strict the standards should be. In the case of Therac-25, I think the company is at the most fault for only having one developer work on the whole machine software.