Final Reflection Podcast

Link to downloadable file:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0CUu4TIs84PLTExSGZyME1CUUE

Cheers!

Thanks Prof. Bui!

Computer Science Education

As a computer science major that never had even a minimal exposure to coding prior to college, I am definitely excited to see the country beginning to embrace the study with open arms. There is no doubt in my mind that studying computers helps develop problem solving skills and ‘algorithmic thinking’, but I feel that calling coding the new literacy is going a bit too far. Coding is not the same as reading or even doing math problems, and there’s no reason to believe it should replace them. Without those fundamental skills it would be impossible to code and effectively develop computer programs. I can guarantee no one is writing the next great app without the skills to read Stack Overflow or Rails documentation. That being said, there is nothing to suggest that computer science should not be considered on par with sciences like physics or chemistry. Each of these skills teaches a unique way of thinking and provide students a way to develop a deeper understanding of the world we all live in.

I think that over time computer science will become a requirement to some extent, but I think this will take phasing in. One of the biggest challenges with teaching computer science is that we still don’t know how exactly to teach it, and there is a significant vacuum of computer science teachers, especially at the high school level. Unfortunately, I feel it may be a generational progression to all American students learning computer science to some extent. At the moment there are just too many positions for computer scientists to fill, and most of likely pay better than a teacher’s salary. However, I think over time as more and more people are exposed to the field, there will be a larger body of qualified computer science teachers.

I do feel that anyone can learn to program. Surely some will be more adept to it than others, but is this not true of every other subject taught in our schools? There truly is not any intellectual skill required for coding and computer science that cannot be developed. I feel that more than just coding should be taught. In many ways coding is just a trade that would be developed with a handbook. The real work and mental challenge of computer science comes from the theory and the practices to best utilize coding. If America is truly invested in developing a new generation of coders and innovators, this will be a necessarily component of the curriculum.

Computer Science Education

Review of Ex Machina

The link to our podcast is below:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0CUu4TIs84PUmVEOEttWkZkTkk

Thoughts on Automation

Automation is an issue that sometimes feels like it is more encompassing to me than it actually is. Of course, technology has dramatically shifted the way we live and interact with the world over the last 25 years, but it not as if people have stopped seeking jobs or developing skills for fear of an imminent robot takeover. Yes, some jobs like travel agents have suffered from online, automated competition, but we still largely interact with human laborers for many of the services that have driven our economy for the last 3 decades. There is no denying that machines have driven cheap manufacturing jobs out of towns like Youngstown, Ohio, but it is hard to say whether the exact same thing will happen as computers continue to mature.

Perhaps one of the most visible areas of my life where automation seems to be approaching is in rides. Without a doubt, Uber has been the app that has most noticeably changed how I go about my day-to-day life. Instead of ever worrying about calling a cab or relying on a sober friend for a night out, I know I can call on my trust friend Uber. This form of “On-Demand” services is sure to continue to grow, and for the time being it seems to be garnering income for individuals that would not have. Uber drivers are able to generate supplementary income, and services like Postmates influence users to buy goods they may have lacked the motivation to purchase in the past.

Clearly the Luddites were not correct about technology and jobs in their day and age, nor for next two centuries following. I do feel there was some legitimacy to what they were doing and their cries certainly are worth listening to, but I’m not convinced the pace of technological development can ultimately be stopped in cases where it truly provides better service and efficiency. An examination of the unique benefits human labor can provide should always exist, but I do not think it’s likely we will throttle technology.

At the moment, universal basic income seems to be nothing more than an experimental idea that would face so much opposition in the political arena it would have to be clearly necessary to pass. If automation did eventually become such a problem that universal basic income where necessary to support the masses, then the level of income would have to be such that it only provides for the basics of life. I do seriously worry about a generation only compelled to lounge around the house and collect their government stipends. Since the country’s inception, Americans have been driven to reach higher and improve their quality of life through innovation. I could see certain scenarios where this standard of living exists for a minority subpopulation, but I do have faith in most Americans to reject the idea that the machines are our maids and we cannot be bothered to think critically and serve others.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is a concept that generally argues that internet service providers (ISP) should be neutral in how they grant access to bandwidth to users. In other words, ISPs cannot prioritize certain domains or users over others. The dialogue surrounding net neutrality often involves the question of whether or not the internet should be regulated as a utility, similar to electricity or phone lines. Advocates of net neutrality argue that the internet was founded on a principle of openness and fairness, and therefore, net neutrality must be defended so that major business or greedy ISPs do not disrupt these foundations. Pro-net neutrality groups claim it will maintain a level playing field and ensure quality internet access for everyone. Opponents of net neutrality adopt the notion that government intervention in business, especially one as large and vital to the greater economy as the internet, is dangerous and it stifles competition amongst providers. Additionally, the net neutrality opposition cites that the internet and the broader scope of technology change so rapidly and frequently that it is irresponsible to set up regulations that may be obsolete in only a few years.

After researching this topic, I am generally in favor net neutrality. I sympathize with the small tech start up who may not have the resources to compete with tech giants if net neutrality is undervalued. Additionally, many of the justifications for eliminating net neutrality cite the strain it may place on ISPs. While I understand this is a legitimate concern, I feel the greater concern should be for protecting internet companies and startups. There are far fewer ISPs than internet companies. The American economy has always emphasized encouraging small businesses and new innovation, but giving benefits to established ISPs at the cost of hurting startups does the opposite of this. The landscape of competition within the ISP domain versus that of Internet start-ups is much more limited. Setting up an ISP involves gaining control of telecommunications infrastructure, a much more unrealistic task than developing a web application or online retailer.

Of course, legitimate consideration must be made to ensure that over regulation does not occur. I would combat this by involving leaders in from both the Internet business world and the ISP world from the start. This would seek to ensure that those with the most vested interests in the matter are prioritized over political gains. Furthermore, I feel that it would be necessary to require that the laws undergo review on a frequent basis. Perhaps every 3 to 5 years the net neutrality regulations would be reviewed so that sweeping changes in the technology sphere could be accounted for if need be. At the core of this issue, I do believe quality internet access will come to be considered as more of a basic amenity. I worry that the word basic “right” may be to strong for this conversation, but I do believe Internet should be considered more like electricity and telephone line than like cable. People today depend on the Internet for so many aspects of our daily lives and providing excellent service to all at a reasonable price will help drive the American economy through the 21^st century.

Response to Observer Letter

Is encryption a fundamental right? No. I feel there is certainly no fundamental right to encryption in this county. If there not a fundamental right to health care, then I feel there certainly is not a fundamental right to encryption. However, I also do not feel the government has the right to demand that make our data vulnerable for the purpose of government investigation. The 4^th amendment grants us the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and it is generally held that we are more protected from search and seizure as the reasonable expectation of privacy increases. In other words, what you do behind closed doors in your own home is more protected than what you do in the town square. As this relates to encryption, I feel that the more encryption we use and the more private our internet activities are, the less the government should be able to interfere. Furthermore, if it were ever possible to develop a technology that completely locks out the government, I feel that there would be no reason the government could undermine this.

Personally, I am much less concerned about government intervention with encryption than I am with criminal intervention. I know that the government is often much more tied up with criminals and suspected criminals than it is with my personal data. However, criminals and black hat hackers do not possess this sort of prejudice. Some criminals will seek to attack me at any possible opening, and I would prefer to defend against them in the strongest way I can. I think this is less of political issue than it is of a social one. We all want to be secure and retain our privacy and I ultimately do not think the government aims to undermine this. However, their criminal prosecutions cannot succeed at the cost of our everyday privacy.

I think if such a battle between personal privacy and national security were to ever really exist, national security would win the day. Despite this, I’m not sure these forces are at direct odds and I also have faith that the American people place tremendous value on privacy. This leads me to believe that if things ever really got out of hand, we would exercise of civic abilities and right the wrongs of the government.

Letter to Observer

observer letter

The Issue of Patents

Patents are institutional legal protection that was explicitly specified in the United States Constitution with purpose of encouraging scientists, inventors, and artists to pursue their creative endeavors. A patent establishes that a certain person or company has the right to an idea or process because they were the first to come up with it. These legal rights allow the holder to license out their idea and prosecute those who use the idea, typically in a business application, without permission or paying royalties. Ethically and morally, patents seek to prevent the theft of the fruits of one’s hard work, and economically they seek to encourage people to push technology forward by ensuring that profits can be made.

I believe that patents have the right intention but certainly have been abused in business practices and at times, acted counter to their purpose. Despite this, I feel a complete elimination of patents would be overkill. I worry that if patents ceased to exist, many inventors or small business would be slaughtered because larger corporations would have the resources to take their ideas and reproduce them on a massive scale, effectively stealing the advantage from the original inventor. However, something must be done to address the aggressiveness which people guard their patents without really using them. Patent trolls are a perfect example of this, and definitely demonstrate how the current patent system can be abused. This is where we see technology being hindered, such as in the case of the airplane or the steam engine.

I do think there should be patents for software innovations, but I believe there needs to be a higher degree of a scrutiny in determining what is truly a novel software invention. In the This American Life podcast, one search for a general design of software returned around 5,000 results. This is absurd and shows how software patents are being granted far too liberally. I believe this is clearly why we see the issue of patent trolls arise. Almost anyone who has coded before knows that so much of software development involves applying existing principles to a problem at hand. It seems that those who grant patents need to be more aware of this and understand that only breakthroughs in software that are not seen elsewhere should be issued.

Online Advertising and Data Collection

While I am not excited or pleased with the fact that numerous companies and retailers likely have troves of information on my habits and spending patterns, I do not necessarily think it is wrong. The readings on this matter show that companies are not forcefully taking this information from consumers without their consent in a way that a identity thief might break into someone’s house and steal tax documents. Companies gather their data from the purchases that one makes with a credit card or by posting a public status online. To me this is similar to companies analyzing paper receipts or campaign signs on a front lawn – both things that could have been done 50 years ago. I’m not so native to believe these things are completely analogous, but I do not think companies using modern technology to gain a competitive advantage is unjust.

Companies use advanced data mining and machine learning techniques to predict how consumers will act. The New York Times claims, “Almost every major retailer, from grocery chains to investment banks to the U.S. Postal Service, has a ‘predictive analytics’ department devoted to understanding not just consumers’ shopping habits but also their personal habits, so as to more efficiently market to them.” I do not mean to imply that the ends justify the means, but this field of innovative statistics has been pushed forward by the business incentives it provides, and as a result, researchers around the world are applying these same methods to make predictions about health and hazard concerns ranging from epidemic outbreaks to earthquakes. This is surely a positive byproduct that I feel often is completely left out of the conversation.

While I am not going to crusade against internet advertising and mass data collection, I do feel there are some changes that should be made. Firstly, journalistic “sponsored content” is something that I feel is wrong and has no place in online journalism. This marketing concept emerged in response to ad-blockers and low online newspaper subscriptions. This idea is that online reporting sources like the Huffington Post will write pieces that subtly endorse products or companies by nesting references to them in articles. This ruins journalistic integrity and runs counter to the goal of spreading news and information to the largest group of people possible. HBO’s John Oliver reported on this matter and perfectly described how it undermines the trust in a “free and independent press”

The other issue that I feel should be addressed is informing consumers on what is data is collected on them and how it can be shared. The problem arises when people unknowingly are exploited. For example, if Target is collecting information when customers purchase certain goods, it is fine if Target privately holds that information because by buying something at Target, the customer essentially consented to giving Target that information. However, if Target is selling that information to the government or other corporations, they are broadcasting your private actions to parties without your consent. While this is fine distinction to draw, I feel is important one that needs to be addressed.