Computer Science Education

How does Notre Dame’s computer science curriculum match up with the ACM guidelines and the ABET criteria? Does it mostly meet these learning goals or does it fall short?

From looking at the course titles of the ACM guidelines, it seems as if Notre Dame offers Computer Science classes that have similar titles or cover similar information as the ones listed in the ACM report.

As far as the learning goals listed in the ABET accreditation criteria, there seem to be a fairly strong match between those goals and the academic experience I have had as a Computer Science major at Notre Dame. We have been evaluated as students, have qualified faculty teaching courses, our education corresponds well with Notre Dame’s mission, the student outcomes from my perspective have been strong problem solving skills and a strong sense of ethics, and our curriculum has helped us reach these goals.

It was a nice realization upon reading both the ACM guidelines and the ABET criteria that we have been following along so closely here at Notre Dame. It has increased my confidence in my qualifications as a computer scientist as compared to the other students in my graduating class from other universities around the world.

What do you think of the ACM or ABET guidelines for a computer science program? What areas or topics need more exposure? Conversely, what areas or topics require less coverage?

I think both the ACM and ABET guidelines are pretty comprehensive for the most part, and largely cover what makes a qualified computer scientist that will further the field in an ethical manner. However, no guide can be either all encompassing or perfectly succinct, as are both the ACM and ABET.

Firstly, I feel like the ACM course catalog has an over-coverage of Artificial Intelligence and Human-Computer Interaction. I want to preface by stating that I do feel like these areas are definitely the next area where there will be an explosion of research and invention. However, this needs to be balanced with exposure on other areas of computer science that may be equally important like encryption and network security.

Secondly, I feel the opposite can be said about the ABET guidelines – they are too vague in parts, and thus almost too easy to be followed by institutions looking to cut corners. For example, the general guideline stating that “The program must have published program educational objectives that are consistent with the mission of the institution”. It is one thing to publish objectives, and quite another to ensure these objectives are being achieved. Also, the strength of this guideline depends on the mission of the institution. I think this objective could be improved by ABET providing its own basic mission to ensure more uniformity in the institutions seeking ABET certifications.

Of course, these are very narrow suggestions, because I do think overall both ABET and ACM provide strong guidelines that will ensure that participating institutions will provide their charges with a quality computer science education.

Do you need to go to college to be a good computer scientist, computer engineer, software developer, or programmer? Do you feel Notre Dame has prepared you adequately for your future career? Do you know everything you should know (or want to know)? Explain.

I do not think that college is a hard and fast requirement to be a good computer scientist. But to quote one of my favorite comedians Chris Rock, “You can also drive a car with your feet, that doesn’t make it a good idea”. My point is that while it is possible to be a good programmer without college, college will make you a better programmer, or at the very least increase the chances of you turning out as a good programmer.

Notre Dame has definitely provided me with a lot of programming skills in many areas that will help me advance my career. However, what it has uniquely provided me was a melting pot of people with different points of views and given me experience in interacting with them. This will definitely help me in my career more than any programming skills will.

I don’t think I will ever know all I want to know, however I don’t view that as a negative. I look forward to learning new things in my career which will help me improve as a programmer. That being said, college has provided me with a solid foundation of knowledge that will make learning new things a lot easier.

Internet Trolls

From the readings and from your experience, what exactly is trolling? How does this behavior manifest itself and what are its causes and effects?

According to Wikipedia, an Internet Troll is “a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.” In other words, an internet troll is an unsavory person who is given licence to communicate his or her basest ideas that society has otherwise deemed unacceptable, due to the anonymity of the internet.

In terms of how this behavior manifests I think the quote from the theatlantic.com article The Imminent Death of the Internet Troll attributed to Margaret Atwood “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.” Men tend to make threats that are threatening to women such as online harassment and threats, whereas women tend to make more biting comments about personalities and content.  The cause of this behavior is quite simple – in response to the rise of the PC (politically correct) movement that has hugely increased what is and what is not socially acceptable, people have identified the internet as an outlet to voice their now unacceptable views and behavior due to its anonymity. This is the reason that the comment sections of most articles and videos are filled with the vitriol and hatred that many of us wished we would have gotten past by now. The effects of internet trolling is the creation of a very divided online experience. There is a tacit understanding that if you are willing to share your thoughts through any format be it an article, a blog or a video, you must be thick skinned and willing to accept the most vicious criticism, for it is coming. I am fully ready and prepared to be skewered in the comment section on this blog post, and in fact I look forward to it.

What ethical or moral obligations do technology companies have in regards to preventing or suppressing online harassment (such as trolling or stalking)?

Companies definitely have a moral and ethical obligation to do their best to suppress and remove elements that harass people online. However, I feel this definitely comes with a caveat, for putting in place rules to regulate speech always have unseen and unwanted consequences. The importance of stopping online harassment must be balanced with the equally important interest in not suppressing ideas. I therefore believe that very rigid and narrow boundaries must be set for what qualifies as online harassment. In my opinion, simple criticism, and name calling cannot and should not be grounds for dismissal from the online service. Lumping in criticism with online harassment leads to a slippery slope, and inevitably leads to suppressing of ideas that the majority of people find distasteful or disagreeable. This is very harmful in a free society. However, this does not mean that all speech should be tolerated. In my mind, the line should be drawn at explicit death threats or threats of severe violence, as is mandated by the Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). In this landmark ruling the Court found that any speech that promotes “imminent lawless action” is not protected by the First Amendment. I think the same standard should be applied to online forums.

Is anonymity on the Internet a blessing or a curse? Are “real name” policies useful or harmful in combating online abuse? 

I feel that anonymity on the Internet is neither a blessing or a curse – it is a necessary evil. While I do agree that “real name” policies will be effective initially in combating online abuse, it will eventually promote a different and in my opinion more harmful type of online abuse – the censoring of users with unpopular opinions. This may seem like a heartless attitude towards speech, but I truly believe that the right of a potential commenter on this piece to criticize my views and opinions, no matter how viciously or distastefully they choose to do so, are more important than my right not to get my feelings hurt. In a free society, it is important to give everyone a voice, especially to those you disagree with.

Is trolling a major problem on the Internet? What is your approach to handling trolls? Are you a troll?!?!?

Trolling is undoubtedly a problem. Ideally the Internet and indeed the world would be a perfectly welcoming place filled with nice people who never have feelings of ill will towards one another. However, this is not the reality that we must live with. It is a fact of life that there are racist, homophobic, misogynistic and bigoted people in the world. However, flagging and disposing of a user who is accused of being any or all of these things creates a worse situation – an Orwellian space where an unseen authority determines which thought or belief is allowed or not. This is truly scary, and antithetical to the ideals any liberal democracy such as ours is founded upon.

My approach to handling trolls is simply to either ignore them, or if I find their points of view interesting enough to respond to them. If someone truly writes something blatantly offensive or insensitive, I do not give them the importance they seek by taking them seriously. I brush them off and go on with my day.

I certainly do not think I am a troll, because I largely refrain from commenting on any online media unless I feel I have something constructive to say. However, I don’t feel like this is a question I can answer, only my fellow internet users can. So I guess in answer to the question, I hope not.

I would like to conclude this piece by sharing a video of one of my favorite shows South Park, that I feel is very relevant to this discussion. In this episode, the school creates a social media filter that doesn’t allow any negative comments about any of their users to be posted on their profile. All the children can see is the positive comments people have for them, leading to this very funny but thought provoking song:

Safe Space

 

 

Artificial Intelligence

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

According to the article in the readings What is artificial intelligence? on computerworld.com, artificial intelligence is described as “a sub-field of computer science. Its goal is to enable the development of computers that are able to do things normally done by people – in particular, things associated with people acting intelligently.” Artificial intelligence is similar to human intelligence in that it is supposed to enable a man made machine to make choices and do the activities humans routinely do in an intelligent manner, in other words not randomly but with reason and logic. They are often able to learn and adapt, two very “human” characteristics.  However, it is still not the same as human intelligence. Human intelligence stems from a natural living being, whereas artificial intelligence stems from a man made machine, and that difference is an important one to keep in mind.

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

AlphaGo, Deep Blue and Watson are immense strides in the field of artificial intelligence. They proved that artificial intelligence can be made to be so sophisticated at a particular task that it can perform that task better than a human. And not just any human, but the best human in the world at that activity. However, an important thing to keep in mind is that AlphaGo, Deep Blue and Watson were created to play Go, Chess and Jeopordy! respectively. While these are all impressive feats of engineering, two things are true: their human opponents came in to their game severely underestimating the opposition, and these games are basically one task – they don’t really mean that any of these computers can replace a normal everyday human. So, in my opinion, these three are still in the category of tricks and gimmicks. However, given the rapid and sharp rise in the abilities of robots, it is not inconceivable to see in the future there might well be a robot that could replace an intelligent human being. So I think these three robots are at the same time proof of the future viability of artificial intelligence, but are right now just interesting gimmicks.

Is the Turing Test a valid measure of intelligence or is the Chinese Room a good counter argument?

I think that the Chinese Room is a great argument and I think that it is true that just being able to execute a program to carry on a conversation does not mean that the computer executing the program has intelligence, understanding or consciousness. However, the Turing Test is still a scary test for a computer to pass. Even if the computer cannot truly understand what it is doing, the fact that it is able to fool humans into thinking it is a sentient being is harm enough. The potential for abuse in this situation is very high. We are seeing some of the side effects programs that can carry on a conversation with a person are having on the public. For example, there have been numerous cases of people cheated out of money or personal information by such robots on online dating sites like Tinder. Hence, I believe that the Turing Test doesn’t quite meet the standard of a valid measure of intelligence but certainly meets the standard for cause of concern.

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

I do not think a computer system could ever be considered a mind simply because of the Chinese Room argument. I believe that it is truly impossible for a Computer to gain true understanding and consciousness. True understanding and consciousness would imply awareness of self and surroundings, and a questioning nature of the meaning of life and existence. Because no human has the answers to these questions, or indeed a detailed understanding of how the human mind works, it is impossible for us to replicate that onto a man made machine.

The ethical implications of considering a computer a mind are quite considerable. Most importantly, we would have to consider a computer a sentient being, and hence treat them as such, which would drastically change our way of dealing with computers. It is conceivable if computers have understanding, they would be aware of their rights, and we would have to reward them for doing tasks. They would have the ability to feel bored, sad, happy, angry and so on, so we would have to choose the tasks we assigned to them carefully. These are important things to keep in mind on our quest to make computers think like humans.

Net Neutrality

From the article on USA Today, net neutrality is defined as “the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring some sources or blocking others. It prohibits ISPs from charging content providers for speedier delivery of their content on ‘fast lanes’ and deliberately slowing the content from content providers that may compete with ISPs”. It seems like a simple enough concept, and a pretty straightforward issue. However, politics has a way of complicating everything, so it is no surprise that once President Obama got involved, people’s opinions on net neutrality were sharply divided along party lines.

The arguments for the net neutrality are simple. If Internet service providers are able to discriminate between sites in terms of the speeds they allow users to access them, and divide the internet into slow and fast lanes, there will be a clear divide between companies that are able to get into the fast lanes and those that cannot. If the ISPs are allowed to construct slow and fast lanes, the bigger more established companies will be able to afford the fast lanes while the newer emerging startups will not. This will kill competition. For example, say a new startup creates a brilliant new search engine that will rival Google. If they are not able to afford “fast lane” service, they will be given slower service. This will definitely be a huge mark against them in the consumers mind. It doesn’t matter how much better their search algorithm is if it takes twice as long to access their website compared to Google. In this way, Google’s deep pockets will be able to kill off any competition it might have in the search engine market, by driving up the fixed cost of that industry. Eventually people will stop trying to compete with Google, thus stifling innovation and creating an untouchable monopoly.

The arguments against net neutrality (in my opinion) are not as straightforward. The companies that stand to gain from no neutrality regulations (ISPs), and political opponents (the Republicans) believe that neutrality regulation will actually stifle competition and innovation. They believe that this regulation would increase governmental bureaucracy, decrease ISPs incentive to invest in projects that provide faster internet service and service in areas with poor or no coverage, and would prevent them from recovering the costs of providing service to high needs customers such as Netflix. According to Broadband for America, an industry trade group, this regulation would “threaten millions of jobs and a diverse array of stakeholders” (http://www.inc.com/associated-press/obama-inflames-debate-on-net-neutrality.html)

I am firmly on the side of network neutrality. We need to protect the interests of the emerging companies and by extension innovation at all costs to prevent monopolies. History and economics have shown time and time again how bad monopolies are for the economy. At a time when we are looking at the worst cases of corporate welfare and crony capitalism that our country has ever seen, this regulation would go a long way to prevent these harmful phenomena from happening in the tech sector. I disagree with all of the arguments against this regulation. First and foremost, it is imperative to point out that the internet is clearly a utility, that can and should be regulated by the government. The internet is a utility in the same way that telephone networks, gas, water and electricity are utilities. We use the internet as much as the other utilities, and in today’s world, access to the internet is of a comparable importance as that of the other utilities. Secondly, I disagree with the argument that this regulation would prevent innovation on the network speed front. There is still competition between service providers. If Comcast provides slower internet than Time Warner, I will switch providers. The regulation does not mandate that all providers have the same speed, just that each individual provider cannot distinguish between companies. Thirdly, I disagree with the argument that this regulation would prevent the ISPs from expanding into areas with little or no coverage. This argument to me makes no sense. This regulation does not seem to affect ISPs incentive to expand at all. Again, this comes down to competition. ISPs are competing with each other to provide coverage to different people. If Comcast does not want to foray into a particular area and Time Warner does, then Time Warner gains those customers. If anything, this regulation does a huge service to those areas (presumably poorer areas), because they ensure that those people can have access to the entire internet at the same speeds as the rest of the country.

Overall, I feel this is an essential regulation that needs to be passed to ensure a healthy economy. The tech sector, especially the startup culture in this country is a huge revenue producer. The fact that Silicon Valley exists in the United States has ensured that most of the exciting new innovations in tech have occurred here and have allowed Americans to reap the benefits of those innovations. We should not let corporate greed and an irrational fear of the government from protecting the most important public utility of the 21st century.

Letter to Government Representatives addressing encryption

Dear Mrs. Murray,

We are writing this to urge you to take a strong position on the recent issues of encryption that appears in the Apple case. As you are well aware the FBI is trying to have Apple create a special access point into an encrypted phone. This phone was used by the San Bernardino terrorists that killed 14 people and wounded many more. We strongly believe that Apple should be forced to cooperate in this case in order to help protect the American people and hopefully stop further terrorist attacks down the road.

Apple has repeatedly said that creating any backdoor for the government to get around encryption would cause massive damage to the security of the phones and make them much easier to hack. This however is not completely true. If the unlocking of the phone was handled correctly the FBI could unlock the phone and Apple would keep its security. All that Apple would have to do is using the device ID release a targeted update that can only go to that phone. In the update they would just have to change the number of attempts before the phone erases its data to infinite from the 10 it currently is at. This would allow the FBI to get into the phone and would not compromise any other phones. The phones would be safe and the FBI would be able to use the information on the phone to hopefully stop further terrorist attacks.

The other big argument that Apple has against creating a backdoor is that it could be a slippery slope. If they do it this one time, then soon all phones in any crime will automatically be unlocked and the concept of encryption will fall away. However, we disagree with this sentiment. This was a major terrorist attack and as such is very different from even a murder. If considerations are put in that the unlocking can only be done for terrorist attacks or matters of national security and a certain level of court has to make the order for each phone that is unlocked in this manner, it will never become commonplace. Another measure that Apple could take is require the inputs to be put in manually so that a person would have to go in and enter every single combination by hand. This would help ensure that the government would only want to use this unlocking in special circumstances.

We are aware that a balance must be struck between national security and personal freedoms. It would be amiss for us not to note that privacy concerns are legitimate. It would be a disaster if our quest for national security eroded our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. However, going to the other extreme would be disastrous as well. In this particular case, given that the phone in question possibly contains information that would help protect the citizens of San Bernardino, and indeed the citizens of this country, against future attacks, along with the fact that it is possible for Apple to provide the FBI with what they need  without creating a back door that will affect everyday citizens should push the decision in favor of the FBI.

We hope this letter will help inform you of our reasoning and position on this particular case of encryption.

Sincerely,

Calvin Rutherford

Vaishnav Murthy

Kevin Boyd

Encryption Reflection

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

As we see in the First (right to free speech), Third (right against quartering troops in peace time), Fourth (right against illegal search and seizure), Fifth (right against self incrimination) and Fourteenth (right to life, liberty and property) Amendments, there is an inherent right to Privacy afforded to American citizens by the Constitution. The Supreme Court said as much in several controversial cases involving sexual liberty in the twentieth century. This established right to privacy, in my opinion, can be extended to a right to encryption. We absolutely have a right to keep our electronic data safe and secure from prying eyes, just like we have the right to protect our tangible private property by means of locks and safes.

However, allowing citizens to have technology that completely locks out authorities under any circumstances is dangerous to national security. Just like it we have the right to privacy of tangible property unless there is a warrant for it in which case we temporarily forfeit that right, we should have a right to secure encryption of our virtual data until there is a warrant for it, in which case the government should be able to access it. I am aware that this could be viewed as a slippery slope, but I must point out that the other solution – that there be a case where the authorities cannot access data under any circumstances – also has several unwanted consequences, in terms of significantly weakening our ability to keep our communities and our nation secure from threats.

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

Given that more and more of our sensitive data is in the virtual world, encryption is a hot button issue right now, as it should be. I feel that it is imperative that we elect representatives that recognize how important it is to have good encryption legislation. They must be able to recognize how important it is to strike the balance between personal freedom and national security as it applies to the virtual world. It would be a national disaster to have people in power who are unaware of how urgent it is to pass legislation on how much encryption should be allowed.

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?

There will always be a struggle between national security and personal privacy, especially now as we live in the age of increased consciousness about personal freedoms and how important they are, combined with the recent increases in terror attacks. There are people on both sides of the debate arguing for more emphasis on either side, and the issue is that both sides have excellent arguments that cannot be ignored. In my personal opinion, either extreme is an incorrect direction in which to steer our country. Being completely safe from terror attacks and crime will be scant consolation if our rights have been so infringed upon that we are not allowed to express our thoughts freely. On the other hand having complete and utter artistic freedom will be of little importance if our national security becomes so weak that we constantly live in fear of being attacked. The best solution, as with most things, lies somewhere in the middle.

I believe (and hope) that the future will show that this fight will continue, with both sides keeping the other in check so that we continue to live in a society that is both reasonably free and safe. However, there is always the danger that terror attacks give the national security side impetus to encroach upon our fundamental freedoms as we saw with the Patriot Act signed after the attack on September 11th 2001. However, I am sure that with a vigilant public, we will always steer the country back to parity.

Piracy

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?

According to Wikipedia, the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) criminalizes “[the] production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.” On the subject of safe-harbor provisions, Wikipedia states that Title II of the DMCA – the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) – provides “a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright infringement liability, provided they meet specific requirements. OSPs must adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to alleged infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) when they receive notification of an infringement claim from a copyright holder or the copyright holder’s agent. OCILLA also includes a counter-notification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users when users claim that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also facilitates issuing of subpoenas against OSPs to provide their users’ identity.”

Is it ethical or moral for users to download or share copyrighted material? What if they already own a version in another format? What if they were just “sampling” or “testing” the material?

Copyrights were created to protect inventors of goods and services from having their inventions stolen or used for free. This, in a way similar to a patent, encourages innovation and pushes society forward. I therefore feel that a copyright must be respected.

If the download of copyrighted material takes place from an authorized source, where credit (and payment if applicable) goes to the owner of the copyright, then the act is ethical. If, however, the download is taking place from a spurious site, where payment is possibly circumvented, it is akin to stealing and is ethically and morally wrong.In a similar vein, sharing copyrighted information is wrong, if it circumvents the restrictive distribution aspect of the material’s copyright. Even if the people downloading and sharing already own the information in another format, their actions would be morally and ethically wrong, if the activity was not taking place through the proper channels. A format issue does not excuse stealing. Nor does the excuse that the people were just “sampling or testing” the material. If the copyright owned by the distributors states that the material cannot be downloaded for these purposes, then it is morally and ethically wrong to download the material anyway for a self-created “free trial”.

Have you participated in the sharing of copyrighted material? If so, how did you justify your actions (or did you not care)? Moreover, why do you think so many people (regardless of whether or not you do) engage in this behavior even though it is against the law?

Since I am morally and ethically opposed to copyright infringement, I have to my knowledge, not engaged in illicit sharing of copyright material.

Now, on the question of why so many people engage in this illegal behavior, I think it truly comes down to a matter of convenience. It is similar to breaking the jay-walking law. While it is illegal to jaywalk, and you can get in trouble if you are caught jaywalking, sometimes jaywalking is more convenient than waiting for the pedestrian light to turn green. In a similar vein, while it is illegal to share copyrighted information, sometimes people find it the most convenient (read: cheaper) to do so than to pay for services that offer legal access.

Does the emergence of streaming services such as Netflix or Spotify address the problem of piracy, or will are these services not sufficient? Is piracy a solvable problem? Is it a real problem?

To address my last point, I do think that streaming services address the problem of piracy. This is because these services provide unlimited access to material for a nominal fee. This coupled with the fact that online piracy websites are either getting shut down or getting more expensive, as alluded to in the Slate reading Goodbye to Piracy by Steven Witt,  makes it less convenient to illegally share or download material instead of purchasing access through these legal portals.

Piracy is a solvable problem, and I feel that we are on the right track to solve it. The trick is to make the consumer’s life more convenient. Increasing the number of services such as Spotify, Netflix or Hulu will further increase the convenience of legal channels and will eventually eradicate piracy.

Patents and Patent Trolls

From the readings, what exactly are patents? What are the ethical, moral, economic, or social reasons for granting patents?

Wikipedia defines a patent as “a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem and is a product or a process.” In other words a patent is a certification granted to an individual or a corporation by a government that certifies that the individual or corporation owns a particular invention. Using this patent the individual or corporation has the right to set restrictions on how, when and where this invention is used in the public. These restrictions include a payment of fees for anyone else who wants to use their invention.

The ethical and moral reason we have patents is to protect the inventor from being exploited by having his invention stolen by someone else. The economic reason for having a patent is twofold:one to ensure that for the period of the patent, the inventor can maximize his gain from his invention by eliminating competition that can use the same solution; two to ensure that no rival company can sue the individual or corporation for solving their problem in a similar way. These are commonly known as offensive and defensive uses of patents respectively. The social reason for patents is that they encourage inventors to continue trying to invent things, and thus come up with creative solutions to solve problems and advance society.

In your opinion, should patents be granted at all? Are they really necessary or beneficial for society? Do the promote innovation or do they hinder it? Explain.

As I alluded to earlier, patents do help give a stronger incentive to innovate. If anything it ensures that there will always be an arms race to the next great solution because if a patent to this solution is granted, it guarantees a huge financial payday for the inventor. This arms race ensures that innovation happens faster and more frequently. Now, the question is whether this constant arms race is good or bad for society. I believe that it is good. Innovation pushes a society forward. It pushes for more creative and efficient solutions to problems society commonly suffers from. This gives society more time to focus on other problems, and cyclically improves their standard of living.

Additionally, should patents on software be granted or should patents be restricted to physical or more tangible artifacts? Explain.

I feel that software should be treated differently from other physical and tangible artifacts. However this does not mean that patents should not be granted to software. The litmus test for whether software should be granted a patent must differ from the criteria for other physical objects. I feel the current set up we have right now works ideally. If the algorithm does something clearly new, we should grant it a patent. However, if a piece of patented software is significantly changed or reworked or improved, the patent cannot carry over. In other words, a patent granted to a rudimentary algorithm cannot hold for any and all changes that occur to that algorithm from then on, because that would have an opposite economic impact that what the patent is supposed to have, by stifling competition thenceforth. A patent is meant to temporarily hold competition from doing the same thing, thereby encouraging them to come up with something better. Thus, a patent can be granted to software, but must be updated any time significant changes are made to that software.

Finally, is the existence of patent trolls evidence that the patent system is working or that the system is broken? Explain.

Patent trolls are evidence that the system has some bugs in it. For example when VirnetX, a company that makes its income solely from suing other companies for patent violations, successfully gets awarded $626 million of punitive damages that Apple has to pay them, it evidences a system that has certain problems within it. A company that makes no products out of its patents should have them revoked, in my opinion. Being able to hoard patents and use them as weapons to get a huge payday from companies actually innovating and making products is antithetical to the reason behind having patents in the first place.

From the readings and in your experience, what ethical concerns (if any) do you have with Cloud Computing? What exactly is Cloud Computing? Considering the Internet meme that “There is no cloud. It’s just someone else’s computer”

Cloud Computing according to the New York Times, is a construct of computers connected to each other using sophisticated algorithms. In other words, the above quote is right. When you say something is stored on the cloud, that really is a euphemism for it being stored on another computer in an undisclosed location. Knowing this alone, there are some potential concerns. However, it is also unfair to suggest that there have been no advantages to the rise of this type of system.

As a consumer there are several benefits that have arisen from the rise of cloud computing. For example, as the New York Times article The Era of Cloud Computing states, many of the internet startups that have provided consumers with utility and entertainment only could come about due to the existence of public clouds. The article gives the example of SnapDX – a startup that helps with the diagnosis of autism in children. Without the cloud, their services would have taken a huge company dedicating hundreds of man hours to solving the problem.However, because of the cloud’s existence, the company just needs 22 people and the internet to function. Other popular entertainment services such as Netflix and Snapchat use the cloud to make online streaming and image chatting accessible and affordable. One of the biggest utility services that all of us use – Amazon, purely exists because of the cloud. At this point, it is almost unimaginable to live in a world where these services don’t exist, because they make our day to day activities so much easier and convenient. It is therefore unfair and plain out wrong to say that cloud computing has not changed the world for the better.

Now, the second question we must ask ourselves, is whether the cloud has led to direct or potential harm. I would say very little direct harm, because these services are still in their infancy, but the potential for deep harm to the public is very real. As The Era of Cloud Computing explains, only a sizable company can offer effective cloud services. Because of this, even though many companies and people use the cloud, only a handful of people understand it. This situation – where a handful of people understand a service that soon a majority of people will want or maybe even need – is one where the potential for abuse and exploitation is enormous. Monopolies or oligopolies are never good for the common man, and it seems like the cloud computing industry is heading towards one. Soon, we could see a cloud computing industry that looks eerily similar to the cable industry, which has one of the worst approval ratings of any utility industry. Secondly, there has been an increasing trend to store sensitive personal information on the cloud. If the security of the server is compromised this information could be leaked or sold to the highest bidder. There have been quite a few of these leaks recently, probably the most famous being the recent celebrity iCloud hack. Leaks like these could be damaging to personal lives or careers.

I have not had the chance to use the cloud as a developmental platform, but I am looking to change that shortly. Given its meteoric rise, programming on a cloud platform is an important skill to cultivate and one that I am looking to do as soon as possible.

Overall, despite the potential for harm, I feel that cloud services are a net positive. The benefits are many and very important. The cloud can be the platform for innovation the likes of which the world has never seen. It gives small companies and creative people with visions the opportunity to realize their dreams. This can only be good for the general public.

Edward Snowden

From 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?

I personally think Edward Snowden is neither a hero nor a traitor in the conventional sense. If anything, I would take a stance that he is somewhere in the middle, with the needle slightly pointing to the hero side. I feel what he did was ethically and morally right. The government was clearly violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against illegal search and seizure, and the only reason that they were getting away with it was by not letting the common man know. By letting the world know, he made an attempt to right this wrong, which makes his actions (on paper at least), morally right.

All that being said, there was a little flaw in his implementation of letting the people know. Because he gave every document to the press, he put our national security on the line, because along with the evidence of government over-reach, there was also information on how the NSA surveillance was conducted against legitimate targets. As the article in The Diplomat states: “society has not appointed journalists or newspaper editors to decide these matters, nor are they qualified to do so”. Ironically in trying to take away some undue power from one source (the government), he gave as much (if not more) undue power to another source – the press. This certainly tarnishes his legacy; however, his end result of informing the American people in my opinion partially justifies his means. Hence, I would view him as a flawed hero.

What exactly did he leak and how did he expose that information? Regardless of the legality of his actions, is what he did ethical and moral?

Edward Snowden leaked information on illegal government over-reach. He was a defense contracter with Booz Allen Hamilton at the NSA, which gave him access to the secure artifacts that he would later leak to the press. He first leaked information on how the NSA reached out to Verizon, the cell service giant and through a secret court order to hand over phone information on over 10 million Americans on an ongoing daily basis. He followed this by giving his sources in the press, mainly The Guardian and The Washington Post, information about an online surveillance program known as Prism. Through this program the NSA was spying on the online communication of American citizens by, according to the BBC, “[tapping] directly into the servers of nine internet firms, including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo”. He also gave The Guardian and The Washington Post information on how the British surveillance agency ,the GCHQ, was using Prism to spy on their citizens by tapping into the servers of the same companies.

To repeat the answer to the previous question, I certainly believe that what Edward Snowden did was ethically and morally sound. In a free society, government over-reach can be a huge problem. The constitution, and the Amendments and the Bill of Rights all exist to protect us from governmental tyranny. By doing what he did, he fulfilled his duty as an American, and more importantly as a global citizen.

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?

Ultimately, I feel that what Snowden did was indeed beneficial to the public overall. I don’t think that his actions were without consequence – as there was a leaking of important government secrets that hurt our national security interests. However, it was more important that the American people knew that their government was monitoring them at times illegally.

Personally, this saga certainly affected my view of security. It certainly increased security’s importance in my mind. This saga also helped me realize the importance of citizen engagement in the government and ensuring that my rights as an American citizen are protected.