Ethics Introduction

In your first blog post, please write a short introduction to who you are, what your interests are, why you are studying Computer Science (or whatever your major is), and what you hope to get out of this class.

Additionally, in your opinion, what are the most pressing ethical and moral issues facing Computer Scientists? Which ones are you particularly interested in discussing this semester?

I am Jack Ryan, a senior Computer Science major at Notre Dame. I hail from “fake Chicago”, a nickname given to the suburbs closely surrounding the city. I’m interested in music, basketball, computer security, and writing code to solve important problems. I chose to study Computer Science for a couple reasons:

• I get to solve difficult problems and see the visual results of my efforts
• Software is advancing quickly; we are in the midst of groundbreaking innovation
• I like computers.

I hope that this class arms me with new perspectives on my interactions with the computer, whether I am actually writing code or simply browsing the Internet. Computer Science is currently faced with some incredibly difficult ethical dilemmas. Autonomous technology is advancing quickly, and people are losing jobs to robotic employees. This past summer, I interned for a company that is largely involved in robotics and automation; although the goal is never to put humans out of work, it is a sure consequence.

“…many workers in existing industries will be stranded on the wrong side of software-based disruption and may never be able to work in their fields again. There’s no way through this problem other than education, and we have a long way to go.”

-Marc Andreessen, Why Software is Eating the World

In addition to automation, I am interested in exploring the topic of hacking in computer ethics class. Computer security is always an issue in the connected world, and I would love to learn different perspectives on the hacking culture.

Project 5: CSE Curriculum

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B703s8JOTKrlam5CQVI1Q21OVlU/view?usp=sharing

The Space Wolf

After reading the articles, do you believe that coding is the new literacy? Should everyone be exposed or required to take a computer science or coding class? 

After reading the articles, I believe that we are in demand of more programmers but I don’t believe that everyone needs to be a programmer. That being said, I do think it is valuable to take at least one computer science class, as it teaches a different way of thinking about things. It requires people to think about things in an abstract way in order to solve problems.

Also, I think it is useful to understand how a lot of software works under the hood. For example, consider the following quote:

“Right now, many people use dating apps with no idea how the algorithm that could literally help them meet their future spouse works.”

–A Plan to Teach Every Child Computer Science

You really could have no idea how the software introduced you to your future spouse, and I believe that is something worth knowing.

How should computer science fit into a typical K-12 curriculum? Is it an elective or a requirement? Does it replace existing subjects or is it an addition? What exactly should be taught in this CS4All curriculum? Is this computational thinking? programming? logic? computer literacy?

Computer Science should be required at least once in a typical K-12 curriculum. It seems like learning programming from a young age is a big advantage when pursuing a career in computer science. It also teaches you how to begin thinking analytically from the start. It should be an introduction to programming, possibly with an object-oriented language like Java. My first programming course in high school was Java and I felt like it was a good way to be exposed to programming and object-oriented design. It is also important to have a helpful IDE so that you aren’t throwing young students into a terminal and trying to explain Unix at the same time.

Can anyone learn to program? 

Yes. I think anyone can learn to program, at least at a very basic level. That being said, I don’t think anyone has the ability to become Donald Knuth or Linus Torvalds. But to create a simple webpage or GPA calculator, yes I believe anyone can do it with practice.

Should everyone learn to program?

Yes. It teaches you how to solve abstract problems. Even if you don’t intend to become a software developer, this way of thinking helps you in other aspects of life.

 

 

Ex Machina – Project 4

Forgot to mention in the podcast that it is about Ex Machina…

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uEfw3ANJ0wSzU2cnBiMGR4eW8/view?usp=sharing

Internet of Things

What is the motivation for developing and building many Internet connected devices? What are the arguments for and against the Internet of Things (IoT)? Would they make our lives easier?

Pros: 

• Convenience – to unlock my front door, I now don’t need to carry around keys anymore and can simply use my mobile device instead
• Sophistication – if my car’s navigation is connected to the Internet, it can give real-time suggestions on routes based on current traffic
• Scalability – Instead of having to create a physical key for each door, simply have a program generate a private key automatically and you have instant access

Cons:

• Security – Looking at my “scalability” answer, the same idea is very much a negative (you can easily hack access to someone’s house)
• Privacy – With more everyday devices connected to the internet, the odds of being tracked by the government and/or companies are much higher

The question is: do the pros outweigh the cons? In my opinion, no. History has shown that no system or application can be made 100% secure, and IoT devices are no exception. Also, the fact that we will be tracked more often by government agencies is a big negative.

“If the Internet is a free-for-all, and with the Internet of Things we’re putting the entire world on the Internet, what does that make us?”

-The Internet of Things is a Surveillance Nightmare

That being said, it is virtually inevitable that IoT will become more and more prevalent in our lives with each passing day.

How should programmers address the security and privacy concerns regarding IoT? Who is liable for when breaches or hacks happen?

With the same amount or even more care than the security and privacy concerns regarding software in general. The company that sells the IoT product is responsible for breaches and hacks, and indirectly the programmers and testers of the product are responsible as well. It is your job as a programmer to test extensively, and when a device is going to be integrated so much into people’s personal lives, it becomes more important than ever to write secure code. You don’t want to be the developer who introduced a bug that allowed a hacker to crash a vehicle on the highway. Sure, maybe your name won’t reach the media, but you know that it was you who wrote that code. But, humans are humans. There is no human who can write perfect logic into software without any possible errors. A hacker who spends all of his or her time trying to reverse engineer your product may eventually find a way in. And no, it is not your fault. It is human error. Which is why I am worried about the possibilities presented by IoT connecting too many facets of life.

Artificial Intelligence

From the readings, what is artificial intelligence and how is it similar or different from what you consider to be human intelligence?

Artificial intelligence is exactly what it sounds like: artificial. That being said, there is no doubt that it is powerful. Machines can mimic intelligence by executing algorithms that maximize their probability to succeed at some task. For example, a chess AI will make a certain move because it has calculated that particular move to be the best chance for it to win the game.

Are AlphaGo, Deep Blue, and Watson proof of the viability of artificial intelligence or are they just interesting tricks or gimmicks?

I think as time goes on, true artificial intelligence becomes more and more viable. The reason I can’t say all three mentioned technologies prove its viability is because, consider this snippet from one of the articles:

Deep Blue, for example, combined more than 8,000 different factors in the function it used to evaluate board positions. Deep Blue didn’t just say that one rook equals five pawns. If a pawn of the same color is ahead of the rook, the pawn will restrict the rook’s range of movement, thus making the rook a little less valuable.

–Why AlphaGo is Really Such a Big Deal

This, to me, is not proof of the validity of artificial intelligence, because it involved a ton of human knowledge about the subject matter to succeed. However, the same article talks about the neural networks behind AlphaGo, and that is a whole different matter to me. If machine learning technology gets to the point where you can just tell a computer: “Learn how to do X, Y, or Z” and just feed in some training data, then AI might become more similar to human intelligence. Obviously a computer cannot truly “feel” emotion, but with enough social interactions and training data to learn from, the emotions could be mimicked as well as the corresponding reactionary moves.

Finally, could a computing system ever be considered a mind? Are humans just biological computers? What are the ethical implications are either idea?

This is a difficult question to answer. I feel like this question is somewhat similar to asking, “If you separated the brain from the body, and connected it to a bunch of machines, could it ever think as a normal human?” I’m part of the group that says no, although it is difficult for me to explain why. While I was sitting here typing this blog, I got distracted by all sorts of things. Occasionally these were things that would cause me to stop and think: “Should I do laundry before tomorrow? Why is my cup of coffee on the floor? This song would be really cool to learn how to play sometime”. I didn’t act on any of those, and they didn’t really contribute towards an end goal. I’d like to think that everybody would have different thoughts even in the exact same situation. I believe that the soul is part of what makes us who we are, and that the body cannot live without it. From a purely spiritual standpoint, I would argue that a computing system could never be considered a mind. That being said, I do think that a computing system could mimic a mind. It can learn from its surroundings, make decisions, react to physical and emotional stimuli, and more. But no, I don’t believe that a machine could ever be considered a mind.

Online Censorship

From the readings, what are the ethical, social, and moral concerns regarding online censorship? Should governments be able to suppress certain forms of speech? Should technology companies engage in the suppression of speech performed on their platforms? Consider the following:

• Is it ethical for companies to remove dissenting opinions for governments?

I do not believe it is ethical to remove dissenting opinions. I suppose this applies differently to other nations, but at least for the United States, it is unethical. One of our unalienable rights is freedom of speech, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Sure, some of them are going to be extremely controversial and evoke anger or sadness, but they should still be permitted.

• Is it ethical for companies to remove information broadcasted by terrorism organizations, or about terrorism organizations?

In my opinion, yes this is perfectly ethical. If a terrorist group posts on Facebook something along the lines of “Big terrorist meeting tomorrow at 8pm to plot our attack on America; be there or be square”, I feel like that post can be safely removed without too much hesitation. On the other hand, if the post just contains information about a terrorist group, such as what they stand for, this should probably be grouped with the “dissenting opinions” and stay online. There is definitely a line to draw, but of course the difficulty lies in the placement of that line.

The next two questions relate back to question 1, “is it ethical to remove dissenting opinions for governments?”. In my opinion, you cannot remove hateful content or content that disagrees with government ideals. Online censorship is a serious concern; you should never think that what you are viewing censored material on the Internet.

Project 3 Reflection

Is encryption a fundamental right? Should citizens of the US be allowed to have a technology that completely locks out the government?

I disagree with calling encryption “a fundamental right” because it is not something that has been around for much of mankind’s history, and so that is a difficult thing to say for sure. That being said, I do think that citizens should be able to have a technology that locks out the government. If I knew that, no matter what, the government would only look at my data in the case of an extreme crisis, then I would probably feel differently. However, I have read about extensive government “surveillance” programs that make me question whether I can trust Uncle Sam with all of my personal data. So yes, I do believe citizens of the United States should be allowed to have a technology that completely locks out the government.

How important of an issue is encryption to you? Does it affect who you support politically? financially? socially? Should it?

It is actually not too important to me. I know that most of the time, my data is being used by powerful tech companies in advanced learning algorithms, and I don’t really mind that. For some reason, I feel more comfortable letting Google have all of my data than my own government. It does not affect who I support politically, and I don’t believe it should because I don’t think anyone should have the power to make an executive decision about encryption. It is an ethical issue and has many potential implications, no matter how it is handled. Nobody should be that powerful that they get to decide if people can completely hide their personal data.

In the struggle between national security and personal privacy, who will win? Are you resigned to a particular future or will you fight for it?

Personal privacy. I will fight for it if I have to, but hopefully it won’t come to that. What kind of a messed up society legally disallows people from having personal privacy? “Hey man, text your girlfriend all you want, but if we really want to we can tap into all of your conversations and read them in plaintext.” We might as well strap a recorder to our bodies and walk around taping everything for the government to throw into their database.

Electronic Voting

From the readings, what are the concerns surrounding electronic voting? 

From the readings, the main concern surrounding electronic voting is that it can be insecure. Since it is electronic, people are worried that it will be hacked. This is obviously a problem because skewed results could put somebody into office who was not actually favored by the majority of American people.

If you are willing to trust the outcome of the upcoming election, despite the use of electronic voting, how do you resolve or rationalize the security concerns above? Are these concerns overblown, or are there mechanisms that can be used to increase confidence in electronic voting?

I think the concerns are a bit overblown, but it is definitely a concern that you can hack the vote with $15.

“The American election system is decentralized by design, with state, county and local governments all managing voting. Even though many precincts use voting machines, none are connected to the Internet, nor are they connected to each other.”

–No, the presidential election can’t be hacked (CNN)

The quote above from CNN is exactly the reason I believe the concerns are overblown. Just because a few local governments can be hacked, it would be extremely unlikely that a hack could sway the entire vote. Unless, of course, a large group of individuals around the country all were able to hack their local elections.

In swing states, this becomes more of an issue. If the majority vote is determined by a couple thousand voters, a hack could make a significant difference in the outcome. This in turn would affect the number of electoral college votes, and could alter the results of the election.

In either case, discuss whether or not building an electronic voting system is really different from programming a typical CRUD application, mobile application, or photo sharing social media service. Are the security and integrity concerns that different? If so, how does that change the approach that needs to be taken in developing such systems.

I don’t think building an electronic voting system is much different than a typical CRUD application. For example, an app that keeps track of medical data needs to be just as secure as an application that manages votes. A lot of medical data is offline, just as the local electronic voting booths. It is inevitable that there will be flaws in electronic systems that can be exploited. The only way to avoid this is to have an electronic voting system where all of the votes are hand-counted, but even that still leaves room for human corruptness and human error.

Nudge

From the readings and in your experience, what are the ethical issues or concerns surrounding online advertising? Considering the Internet meme that If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold:

Online advertisements have become incredibly sophisticated in that they can target people based on all kinds of analyzed data. The idea of the advertising “nudge” is simple: over time, advertisements nudge you this way and that way to direct you down a path that a computer predicted. In other words, if the Internet realizes that I am a software developer, I start getting commercial advertisements on YouTube about JIRA. If I then give into the temptation and start using JIRA, I might start getting advertisements about why Bitbucket is so great. Over time, I am less likely to invest in a broad variety of products because of how focused my advertising is toward my interests. For example, consider a world where there was no data analytics for online advertisements. Maybe I would have been shown a personal massager (which I might purchase now that I think about it), a cool new pair of football cleats, or a discount on a flight to New Zealand. Obviously, many of these I would disregard, but the ones that I took a risk and purchased would help keep me balanced as an individual.

I believe that is an ethical issue in and of itself. The internet meme is very true: if you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold. Every time I see an advertisement about some new development platform, I know that my data was sold to help better target customers.

Does privacy become an unrealistic expectation in light of this pervasive information gathering?

In my opinion, no it does not. Just because your information is collected does not mean that there are individual people sitting at their desks reading all of your search history. Sure, the data is fed into algorithms and data analytics to help produce more targeted advertising, but it is not as if a Google employee is sitting there reading “Jack Ryan from Notre Dame just googled X, Y, and Z.” Plus, if you really wanted to protect your privacy, you could always browse the Internet logged out of all accounts and in Incognito Mode.

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 it is tolerable. That being said, I still use Adblock because it gets rid of some of the clutter on webpages and also saves me the hassle of having to click out of popup windows. I believe it is ethical to use the tools: it is a similar concept as muting the television during commercials, or fast-forwarding through them on a recorded show. The only difference is that you can “fast-forward” through them in real time. But that doesn’t make it unethical, because online advertisers know that this is a possibility and still willingly take that risk.