Computer Science Education
Nearing the completion of my Computer Science education at Notre Dame, I feel that I can accurately comment on its quality. I can also analyze how closely the education I received aligns with general Computer Science education guidelines and criteria. The Computer Science 2013 Guidelines provide 18 “Knowledge Areas” for all comp-sci graduates, so I decided to see how many of these Knowledge Areas I have been taught during my time at Notre Dame. Scanning the list, I see that there are some knowledge areas that we’ve obviously covered, like Algorithms, Architecture, Operating Systems, and Programming Languages, and then there are some that are offered as electives, and many students would not have exposure to them, like Graphics and Visualizations, Networking and Communications, Human-Computer Interaction, and Information Assurance and Security. Is it a problem that the mandatory curriculum at Notre Dame does not include classes from all 18 knowledge areas? Well, later on in the 2013 Guidelines, a set of principles for Computer Science students is listed, and many of these principles mention how graduates should learn in a way that they could be flexible and work across many disciplines and be prepared for a variety of professions. Maybe a Notre Dame computer science student could hit all 18 knowledge areas if he chose to overload schedules and work hard for it, but for many students (including me), there are some topics of computer science that interest us and some that do not. Exposure to different parts of computer science is very important, and being able to choose certain classes as electives rather than be forced to take it allows us to learn what parts of computer science we love. I got to take Biometrics, Networking and Security, Web Science, Databases, and Data Mining because they sounded interesting to me, and sparked further learning. The balance that Notre Dame provides is important for fostering a student attitude that enjoys learning and discovery rather than being forced with an impossible course load.
But is a college education necessary to be a good computer scientist? For me personally, I don’t think there’s any way I could have acquired the knowledge I have without college. Learning from professors and alongside classmates was something that could not be replicated on my own. I do think, though, that it is possible to be a great computer scientist without formal education. It’s not the way I learn, but for many, self-teaching is the way to go.
However, I did not go to college just to become a great computer scientist. I came to be a part of groups and activities, build relationships, extend my faith, and become an improved human, in general. Not only become more educated, but become a better person. Notre Dame has helped me be the type of computer scientist that not only has the knowledge, but also has the ability to make ethical and educated decisions based from what I’ve experienced at this university.
Internet Trolls
The anonymity of the Internet has made it easy for users to post whatever they want, and not face any repercussions. Anonymity gives a new-found freedom to users, and the users that use this freedom to post offensive things or try to start arguments are known as “Internet Trolls.”
In my experience, there is a complete spectrum of Trolling. On one side are harmless trolls whose trolling is clever, in good taste, and not really offensive. On the opposite side are offensive, bigoted trolls who post only to hurt people. I’ll talk about both of these type of trolls.
The best example of the harmless troll I can think of is a user known as “Ken M.” Ken M comments on posts as a character who seems like the most oblivious person on the face of the earth, basically baiting other users to respond to his ridiculous comments. From the outside, and knowing that Ken M is a troll, the comments are hilarious and they don’t hurt anyone. Ken M even has a sub-reddit dedicated to his clever acts of trolling. (https://www.reddit.com/r/KenM/)
On the other, darker side of trolling are the hurtful, bigoted trolls whose only purpose is to spread hate and harass others. I was first introduced to these types of trolls when I was in high school, when the website Formspring became popular among teenagers. Formspring is a website that allows people to anonymously “ask questions” to users. However, what the website really allowed was for people to post hateful comments directly to people, and to do it anonymously. Formspring became the perfect medium through which to cyber-bully people. I didn’t personally have a Formspring account, but I saw many of my classmates’ pages. Even likable people’s pages were filled with hateful comments, usually girls being called “whores” and “sluts.”
This spectrum also has examples in-between these two extremes. What about the protestors who troll the Westboro Baptist Church? These trolls are technically harassing, but their main purpose is to silence the organization that was originally spreading hate. Trolling isn’t always a black and white subject, and it is sometimes difficult to see which examples are ethical and should be allowed, and which ones are not.
Freedom of Speech is important, but technology companies have a responsibility to suppress online harassment. This is why you can “report” a users on Youtube or COD if you find something they say or do to be offensive. Yikyak, the “anonymous Twitter,” tries to prevent cyber-bullying by not allowing the app to be used within a certain distance from a school. That way, the people who are most like bully through anonymous mediums and be affected by harassment the most (i.e. teens and pre-teens) do not have the means to do it through Yikyak. I also thinks technology companies have a responsibility not to create things that foster and encourage harassment. A website like Formspring should not have even been created, even if its intentions were good.
Trolling definitely is a problem on the internet. Just look at Youtube comments for any video (especially a political video), or spend 20 minutes in a Call of Duty game lobby, and you’ll see how harassment and online anonymity go hand-in-hand. Personally, my approach for handling trolls is to ignore them. Sometimes, if I have a clever response I’ll fire back, but those occasions are rare. It’s not easy for everyone to ignore trolls and harassment, though. The negative side of trolling is a problem, and technology companies and internet users should be working diligently to solve it and make the internet a place where everyone can feel safe and free of unnecessary harassment.
Artificial Intelligence
In the simplest sense, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the sub-set of computer science that focusses on creating computer programs that can mimic human intelligence by solving tasks that normally a human would do, and solving them intelligently. With this definition, it is easy to see how most programs written can be categorized as AI. If I write a program that lists the first hundred prime numbers, the program would use the same logic I would use in solving the problem, but it would do it much faster. However, when I think of AI, I usually think more about complex programs that not only mimic human intelligence in performing calculations, but also are able to learn and adapt, and have intangible, hard-to-program characteristics like emotions or a sense of humor, all of which encompass the idea of human intelligence.
I remember watching IBM’s AI machine named ‘Watson’ that was a contestant on Jeopardy. One of the most difficult things the designers of Watson had to consider were all the puns and clever clues that were given as Jeopardy questions. For Watson to succeed in the game, he would have to understand the very human concept of humor. It was amazing to watch as Watson correctly answered questions that, at first, I wouldn’t think possible to be programmed. Watson’s capacity for something so complex as humor made me start to believe real AI was viable.
The Turing Test is used to test how successful an AI program is. If a computer can convince a human evaluator (usually through text-based conversation) that it is actually human, then the program passes the evaluator’s Turing Test. The recent film, “Ex Machina,” presents this very situation. A human evaluator is brought in to test whether a female AI robot can pass his Turing Test. The creator of the robot is so convinced that she will pass the test, that he tells the evaluator in advance that she is a computer, upping the ante. *SPOILER* The real kicker happens in the movie’s twist ending, when we find out that this AI program passed our (the viewers of the movie) Turing Test, without us even thinking about it. We were shown that this girl was just a computer, and we still believed she had human intelligence, including intangible human characteristics like emotions, trust, and love. *END SPOILER* The movie brings up a lot of the ethical issues surrounding AI, and I suggest it to anyone in the computer science field, especially the members of this class.
But can we ever truly reach complete artificial intelligence? Could a computer system ever be considered a mind equal to that of a human’s? I don’t think so. There are just too many intangible, complex characteristics that are a part of human intelligence. Can we program a computer to feel things like sadness, anger, and love? We’ve proven computers can understand humor and puns, but can they create jokes of their own? I think the closest we can get is for a computer system to simply mimic a human mind. Imitation but not equivalence.
Net Neutrality
Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should be impartial and neutral by proving equal service to all their customers. For example, this means that they cannot slow down internet services for competing companies (such as streaming services like Netflix), or speed up internet services for others on “fast lanes.”
Those who support the idea of Net Neutrality argue that without it, ISPs would have way too much power. ISPs would be able to slow internet to certain customers as they wished, and could potentially put competing companies and services out of business with this low quality of service. They could also raise prices if they know a service is in high-demand and requires a large band-width (like Facebook, for example). On the flip-side, if ISPs were to charge more to services that required more bandwidth, a smaller company that could be that big one day, would not be able to afford this higher price. The fair and level playing field that Net Neutrality offers is the underlying argument for supporters.
Those who are against the idea of Net Neutrality believe in the idea of a free market. These opponents believe ISPs have the right to distribute their networks differently among customers. With this free market structure, even if an ISP slows service for someone, or raises prices for customers using a higher bandwidth, that customer can just switch to a different ISP. This would force ISPs to strive for providing the best possible service to customers. Basically, opponents of Net Neutrality do not think it is right for the government to create laws that dictate too much on how ISPs run their businesses.
I believe Net Neutrality is a GOOD thing, since it creates an even playing field by fairly balancing the power dynamic between the internet service providers and the users of that service. Without Net Neutrality, as the supporters of it said, the power of the ISPs would be too large. With a lack of regulations, ISPs could do whatever they wanted, slowing internet for competitors, or companies who do not want to pay inflated rates. A free market would only work if you assume companies are going to act ethically, which is not an assumption you can always make. And as supporters of Net Neutrality said, a level playing field allows smaller companies to have a fair shot at competing with bigger ones.
Regulations for ISPs would have to be implemented to enforce Net Neutrality. To enforce these regulations, I think recurring audits of the service that ISPs are providing to their customers, to ensure they are equal in speed and quality, would work.
Since the internet is a public service, and available to anyone, its user should have as much opportunity to use it as any other user. The gatekeepers of the internet should not be able to discriminate. It is unethical, and Net Neutrality makes this idea possible.
Project 3: Letter To Observer
For project 3, our group wrote a letter to the Editor of The Observer, giving our points on why we think encryption is important, and why Apple should not unlock the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone for the FBI. The letter is linked to below:
The question of whether or not encryption should be a fundamental right is an interesting one, because of the digital medium in which it exists. A court order can let the government into any house, building, safe, etc, but these are all physical spaces. Some may argue that data should also be something that the government should be allowed to see with a court order, but its medium allows it to be completely impenetrable. Doors can be forced open, but without a key, encrypted data cannot be touched by the government. I am still pretty conflicted on this issue, and whether or not this distinction should make a difference in laws. However, I do believe that allowing the government to get into encrypted data would require loosening of digital security, while allowing the government to get into physical spaces does NOT require loosening security. If digital security if forced to be lessened by laws, making it easier for the government to gain access to encrypted data, it’s also making it easier for hackers to gain access to this data. With this distinction, you can see why maybe the government should not have master keys to encrypted data.
So far, encryption has not been a too important issue in my own personal life. I’m sure if I was in possession of more sensitive data, or if I was a high-profile person, whose information could be considered valuable, I would find encryption to be a way more important issue. So because encryption IS so important (even though it doesn’t affect me, personally), the laws surrounding it should be delved into and settled, while also looking at the ethicality of these laws.
In the struggle between national security and personal privacy, I’m sure the government will win. While already seeing the measures the government takes to “ensure national security” through surveillance of phone calls and emails (that Edward Snowden brought to light), it seems that the government will always win, even when their measures seem over-intrusive and unethical. The government loosening encryption just seems to be the next step in a world where privacy is becoming more and more of a facade.
The DMCA and Piracy
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (known as the DMCA), “criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works” (Wikipedia). This relates directly to piracy since piracy is defined as the unauthorized use of someone else’s work, and when this “work” is digital such as music or movies, it falls under the jurisdiction of the DMCA.
The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) creates a so-called “safe harbor” for the Internet Service Providers and other Internet intermediaries by protecting them against any copyright infringement liabilities, or any second-hand liability from the copyright infringement of others.
From an ethical standpoint, pirating online material like music or movies is absolutely unethical. By pirating, you are stealing a product that you would normally buy, therefor taking money out of the pockets of people who worked hard to create that product. However, I am a hypocrite, since I get almost all my music for free, and watch movies online all the time. The way I justify it, and the way I think most of us justify it, is by using tunnel vision and viewing the transgression as a singularity, thinking “I’m not hurting this rich artist by downloading this one song.” But in reality, with the enormous scope of the internet, and how easy the internet makes it to share files in this large scope, piracy is a bigger problem than we think. So although I do pirate a lot of my media, I find myself buying albums of artists I really like and respect, and buying blu-ray copies of movies I really love, to monetarily support these artists. However, it should not be up to me to pay for only the artists I like, and it’s certainly not ethical. It is a habit I am trying to change.
Especially with movies, where the reason I don’t buy them is because I’m only going to watch it once, streaming services allow you to rent media rather than own it. Netflix gives you month-long access to a wide range of movies and TV shows for the price of a single DVD. I think streaming services such as Netflix, Pandora, and Spotify are a big step in eradicating piracy. However, I don’t think piracy will ever be completely eliminated, because of how easy it is to do, and how wide-spread of a problem it is.
Targeted Advertising
The case from the first reading of Target trying to predict which female customers were pregnant is an interesting one, and brings about many questions of ethicality. In order to make this prediction of whether or not a shopper was pregnant, the shopping habits of known pregnant women were studied. After finding out what exactly these habits were, if a female shopper’s shopping habits changed to fit these new habits, Target would classify that shopper as pregnant. These “pregnant” women would then be put on a special mailing list, where Target would send them coupons and offers for merchandise specifically for expecting mothers. This would then cause the pregnant customers to use the coupons and offers to buy the products from Target, and increase Target’s sales.
The ethical questions brought up by this case encompass some of the bigger controversies surrounding targeted advertisement. On one hand, targeted advertisement saves companies money, by limiting and focussing their advertising resources. Also, as a customer, wouldn’t you want to receive advertisements and special offers for the products you actually want to buy? This is the reason that Nickelodeon has commercials for kid’s toys, MTV has commercials for acne medication, and ESPN has commercials for viagra. The upside of targeted advertisement is to focus resources and save time and money for both companies and customers.
On the other hand, many customers might see targeted advertising as an invasion of privacy. A pregnancy, for certain women, may want to be kept a secret (as it was for the teenage girl in the article). If Target predicts a woman is pregnant, and then puts her name on some list in a database, that data could be classified as very sensitive. What type of security measures should now be taken to protect that data? Should new, government-mandated measures be put on this type of data? What if Target starts trying to predict which customers are having an affair? Which customers have a heart condition? Which customers are gay? These potentially harmful pseudo-facts about customers would be stored somewhere, and a breach of this kind of data could be damaging to customers who never consented to this kind of personal information being collected and stored.
With that being said, I think targeted advertising is only ethical if the customer agrees that he/she wants to receive advertisement that is targeted, and therefore also agrees to having their shopping habits monitored and stored to do so. Otherwise, the customer is basically being spied on without consent, even if it benefits their shopping experience. No customer wants to find out that a company has them on a “pregnant” or “divorced” or even “gay” list in some database, with the risk of that information being breached. With this happening, customers are unknowingly putting their trust in that company’s security measures, and I don’t think that is right. You should be able to choose which confidential information you trust to a company like Target, like a credit card number or SSN. The ethicality of keeping a customer’s personal data all revolves around what that customer agrees to.
Edward Snowden
In 2013, CIA contractor Edward Snowden revealed to select journalists details of the US Government’s surveillance practices. Within these revealed documents was the fact that the communication data of millions of Americans were being collected. This data included phone records, emails sent through Gmail, messages on Facebook, etc. By revealing the documents that detailed these practices to a select set of journalists, rather than the general public, Snowden was attempting to make sure the news was disseminated responsibly (by not revealing anything that was overly sensitive to national security).
In an interview with John Oliver, Snowden said something that really made me feel that he was ethical in his actions. When asked, “Did you do this to solve a problem?” Snowden replied, “I did this to give the American people a chance to decide for themselves the kind of government they want to have. That is a conversation I think the American people deserve to decide.” I completely agree with Snowden. Even when ignoring the question of whether or not the government is ethical in collecting data, the American people at least deserve to know what the government is collecting and how they are doing it. A well-informed public could at least then have a conversation about it, and make changes to the current system if that current system is deemed unethical.
I wouldn’t necessarily go so far as calling Snowden a ‘hero,’ but he is certainly not a traitor. He wanted to reveal this information to increase the freedom of Americans, and let them make decisions about the government they live under. For this reason, I think his efforts benefited the American people. I know especially for me, knowing exactly how these government agencies were collecting personal information, and knowing the vast amount of information collected, I was kind of disturbed. It seemed like not only an invasion of privacy, but also that too much unnecessary information was being collected. The TJX data breach, one of the biggest data breaches of all time, was so devastating because TJX was not only collecting too much unnecessary personal information from customers, but they were keeping it for too long. There should be an adequate and well-explained reason for every piece of information collected and stored, and I believe this is a code of behavior that the US government should adopt and practice. Edward Snowden shining a light on this situation can bring about meaningful changes to the data collection practices in this country.
Ethics and Professional Issues Blog 