project 5

Here is our podcast:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3g0XWX4yp3GR3NOWkY3RDFBX1k/view?usp=sharing

Project4

Our podcast is at:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3g0XWX4yp3GTVc5VGF2WDg1U28

Reading12

There are obviously many ethical, social and moral issues associated with online censorship by the government. First and for most is the limitation it puts on the freedom of expression. Second, it restricts people’s access to materials on the Internet, which is against the Internet’s fundamental idea of sharing. Third, it signifies government’s increasing control over its citizens.

From a government’s standpoint, there are reasons for controlling its citizens’ Internet usage. Social and political instability is a government’s worst nightmare, which is often the result of spreading discontent among the population. As the Internet becomes an increasingly popular tool for people to communicate, it also becomes the breeding ground for such discontent. But if this is a global phenomenon, why are some governments, such as the ones in China and the Arab world, so worried and resort to online censorship while other governments seem less affected? In China, people are mostly aware of government’s tight control over traditional news outlets such as television and newspapers. Therefore, they tend to view the Internet news as more genuine source of information, the less official looking the better. As a result, the government feels increasingly losing control: all their address to outside accusation sounds like cover ups. Sadly, instead of rebuilding the credibility of official news outlets by increasing transparency, the government decided to tighten its control over the online informal news outlets. In the Arab world, the impact of social media poses a more immediate threat to the regimes and the stability of the region. As stated in the article The truth about Twitter, Facebook and the uprisings in the Arab world, pictures and videos posed on social media sites including facebook and twitter have contributed to the revolutions in significant ways. Some people even called the Tunisian revolution “the twitter revolution”.

In order to exercise online censorship, China built the “Great Firewall of China”, which blocks access to facebook, twitter, youtube along with many other sites that contains “sensitive material”. Governments in the Arab world, with less resources, often operates on a smaller scale. The article mentioned above states that, “the Tunisian authorities attempted to harass those posting on Facebook. If they became aware of you on Facebook they would try to divert your account to a fake login page to steal your password.”

Compared to the measures mentioned above, a “more polite” way of exercising Internet censorship is to ask the technology companies to take down materials they deem inappropriate. In my opinion, it would be unethical and immoral for a company to follow these requests. The mission of tech companies should be promoting Internet access not restricting them. If the companies lose their independence from the government, the Internet environment we enjoy today may soon disappear.

Luckily, online censorship measures such as Firewall can never block all Internet traffic. There are tons of tools that can circumvent such restrictions. They are even publicly advertised on Baidu, the Chinese Internet search engine. I think these tools are neither unethical nor illegal. The tools provide services that help their users use the Internet to a fuller extend. Online censorship is about blocking access to certain materials on the Internet not making accessing these materials illegal. Therefore, these circumventing tools are not breaking any laws. I think it is important that governments exercising online censorship understand the unique nature of Internet communication and see it as a channel for listening to their citizens’ concerns, instead of trying to control it with elaborate measures. Technology companies should also play a more active role in defending against limitations of freedom of speech and maintaining a censor-free Internet environment.

 

 

 

Reading11

Artificial intelligence or AI has great influence on the future, not just in the field of computer science but human life in general. Because of this technology companies such as Google and Facebook take great interests in AI research and compete fiercely for AI startups. In pop culture, Artificial Intelligence is represented by the likes of the Terminator and Samantha from Her. The textbook definition, on the other hand, is much less romanticized. According to the article What is artificial intelligence?, “artificial intelligence is 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. ” The article also introduces the distinction of two AI theories: strong AI vs. weak AI. Strong AI aims at simulating human reasoning; weak AI aims at simulating human behavior but tells us nothing about how human thinks.

 

Many interesting developments in the field of artificial intelligence have brought us machines such as Deep Blue that defeated human players in the game of chess, IBM Watson that first appeared on Jeopardy and is now helping out in the field of diagnostic and, most recently, AlphaGo that won at the game of Go. The trend in the field shows that computers’ dominance over human being is expanding from areas requiring its traditional strong suits of logic thinking and mathematical reasoning into areas where human beings are thought to excel. Compared to chess players, Go players rely heavily on intuitions, which makes AlphaGo’s recent victory all the more significant.

So what is the implication of machines’ victories over human beings in these games? Should they be regarded as proof of viability of Artificial intelligence? To answer these questions we have to remember that the aim of Artificial intelligence is to simulate human thinking with computers. Machine beating human player at these games certainly makes exciting news stories, but a game of chess or Go is not a valid measure for human intelligence. Instead, we need valid measurement to detect artificial intelligence. The most prominent measurement of such is the Turing test which was proposed by Alan Turing in his 1950 paper. As stated in the article The truth about the Turing Test, “Turing had wearied of the interminable debates about whether machines could really think. The question we should be asking, he said, is whether they can behave the same way a thinking person does.” In other word, an AI is considered to have passed the Turing test if it can fool us into thinking that it is human.

The opposition to the Turing test points out that it is possible for a machine to pass the Turing test even if it does not have real understandings. This is the central point of the Chinese Room argument. But this argument shows the distinction between strong AI and weak AI instead of challenging the validity of the Turing test. It raises the question of whether true understanding is necessary for intelligence. However, it seems that whether the machine will pass the Turing test depends very much on the type of question it is asked. Also, the test assumes that we as entities of human intelligence have the natural and mysterious ability to recognize one another, which is never proven. Therefore, I think the Turing test is valid as a pragmatic measurement of intelligence, slightly better than chess games. We need more understanding of human intelligence in order to come up with a better measurement for artificial intelligence.

If a valid test is devised and a machine is able pass it, we have arrived at the era of artificial intelligence. There will be huge ethical implications: there will have to be debate about whether having a mind qualifies the computer for human rights. Our interactions with computers will change completely; we may have to think twice before switching off its power. On the other hand, the arrival of artificial intelligence will also shaken our superiority as human beings. Maybe we are just biological computers. Our sense of uniqueness and individuality will suffer. So far all these ethical concerns cannot stop our curiosity about artificial intelligence. Maybe as artificial intelligence research hits its milestones one after another, we can gain more insights into what life would be like with AI and adjust.

Reading10

Internet service providers (ISPs) such as AT&T and Comcast are able to actively censor certain contents by slowing down their access. Many people, with support from content providers such as Google and Apple, are seeking to prevent the ISPs from exercising their selective power. The principle is called Net Neutrality. According to the article What is net neutrality and what does it mean for me?, net neutrality states 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.” With the support from the government, supporters of net neutrality hope to create an Internet environment where all resources are equally accessible.

Many people support net neutrality because of their belief that it will help protect the openness of the Internet. They do not want to grant the ISPs the power of censorship over contents. They believe that such power can be easily abused. For obvious reasons, content providers support net neutrality. They argue that the consumers have the right to access content since they have already paid for connectivity. And the responsibility of providing a quality Internet access lies with the ISPs. Additionally, without net neutrality, content provider will have to answer to the ISPs as well as their costumers. This can lead to the problem of unfair competition. As stated in the article An Introduction to Net Neutrality: What It Is, What It Means for You, and What You Can Do About It, “while big services like Netflix could, in theory, afford to pay Comcast for using extra bandwidth, the small, lesser-known services—that could be big one day but aren’t yet—can’t.”

People against net neutrality are mainly concern with the restriction it puts on innovation and investment. They argue that ISPs have the right to distribute their network differently for different contents. In particular, video-streaming websites such as Netflix uses up a lot of Internet resource. Anti-net neutrality activists believe that the cost for upgrades needed to support the heavy traffic should be shared by content providers or their access should be restricted. Also, net neutrality is not welcomed among free market proponents. They believe that content providers should be able to compete freely for the limited Internet resource. The innovations resulting from the free competition could lead to more efficient use of the Internet.

I am against net neutrality because I don’t think it could lead to the kind of Internet environment its proponents dream of. I agree with the statement that “the Internet is a public service and fair access should be a basic right”. However, “fair access” does not mean “equal access”. If Netflix is taking up more resources than other content provider, it is fair for the ISPs to charge them more or slow down its delivery. In this case, forcing the idea of equal access would be considered unfair. Instead of asking ISPs to hand over the complete control over Internet accessing speed, the government should pass regulations and guidelines on criteria for slowing down content delivery. This way, ISPs are unable to exercise unfair discrimination for their own gain. Content providers will have to work hard on innovations in order to avoid being slowed down. Therefore, we could have a much better Internet environment for the consumers.

 

Project 3 discussion

The link to our radio ad is here:

 

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

I think encryption is a fundamental right. The purpose of encryption is to block unauthorized access to private information and thus defend the fundamental right to privacy. Technology has greatly improved our lives and we should be able to use it without compromising our private information. However, the idea of privacy is fundamental but not absolute. In another word I don’t think that the right to privacy is the foundational principle of the society and basis for all of our decisions. Facing with today’s complex and sometimes hostile global political landscape, I don’t feel comfortable agreeing to the statement that people 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?

The issue of encryption is moderately important to me. I believe that it is a fundamental right but the situation surrounding it can be incredibly complex. The issue will not have a huge effect on my decision about who to support politically, financially or socially. However, I would be more likely to support someone who believe that encryption and privacy is a fundamental right and acknowledge that the real world is far from black and white so more discussion is needed when there needs to be a compromise between national security and personal privacy. 

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?

On this issue, I think neither side will gain a complete victory. The struggle between national security and personal privacy parallels the struggle between collectivism and individualism. It is important to understand that neither end of the spectrum is good for us. What is important is that we find a balance between the two. As long as the debate is ongoing, we will be able to discuss different situations independently instead of applying a rigid rule to all.

Reading 09

Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, is a law aiming at protecting intellectual properties in digital forms by regulating their usages. As stated in the article EFF – Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA consists of two main sections: the “anti-circumvention” section prevents users from using or developing tools that can circumvent the digital locks such as “access controls and technical protection measures”. The “safe harbor” section protects service providers from “monetary damages for the infringing activities of their users and other third parties on the net”. When found in violation against this act, a user will be asked to takedown the material to avoid lawsuits, which can lead to sever civil and criminal penalties.

Specifically, DMCA prohibits the use and manufacturing of devices that circumvent DRM schemes. I think it is ethical for companies to use these DRM schemes because they have the right to protect their intellectual properties with their own means. There is no difference between using DRM schemes and installing clothing store security doors in malls. Therefore, it is unethical for end users to circumvent these DRM schemes. Using the same analogy, circumventing these schemes would be the same as attempting to shoplift. The reason why people tend to be more ok with copyright infringement than shoplifting is their false idea about the Internet and sharing software products. It is true that Internet was built to facilitate sharing on a global scale. But sharing does not equal to getting and using things for free. People often confused the idea of readily available with the idea of easily produced or manufactured. There are free resources and open-source software on the Internet, which are designed to be freely used by everyone. It is important to recognize the fundamental differences between these products and the ones that are copyrighted.

However, many recent stories have indicated that DMCA is not quite effective at educating people about the value of copyrighted digital products. Instead, it is overreaching into other aspects of Internet usage, generating resentment and even more circumventing and pirating. The “notice and takedown” approach imposes restrictions on users’ freedom of expression. The example of this restriction is shown in the article The Tyranny of Copyright, which tells the story of students at Swarthmore College being asked to take down their posts that were found to be in violation of DMCA.

On the other hand, although there is no explicit mentioning of reverse engineering in DMCA, many court rulings have been in favor of using DMCA to restrict it, regardless of the purpose. The act made the assumption of any attempt at reverse engineering is aimed at finding loopholes and take advantage of them. It completely ignores the many valid reasons for performing reverse engineering. The article Software, reverse engineering and the law lists three of these legitimate reasons: first, reverse engineering is needed if the programmers of the product are no longer accessible, and reverse engineering can give us answers about the technology. Second, programmers planning on developing software that can interoperate with the one being studied may wish to use reverse engineering. Third, reverse engineering is a powerful method to study the software and probe for bugs and security flaws. All these uses are beneficial to the software company and the programming community. Therefore, whether reverse engineering should be permitted depends on why it is performed. For example unlocking a contract phone should not be permitted but personalizing software in vehicles or probing software for security bugs to enhance security should. It is important that DMCA remains flexible enough so that it does not destroy the collaborative environment vital to advances in the technology industry.

Reading 08

With numerous innovations in technological and scientific fields, people become increasingly aware of the importance and power of patent and its contributions to protecting intellectual property. Patent is defined in the article WIPO – What is IP? as “an exclusive right granted for an invention – a product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem.” There are many reasons for granting patents. From a moral and ethical perspective, the society has the obligation to protect its members’ belongings and intellectual properties or the creations of the minds are as valuable as any physical properties. Socially, granting patents praises creativity and encourages innovations, which has the potential to improve the quality of life for all human beings.

In principle, patent is given as a form of recognition for inventions and contributions to the society. Granting patents can be beneficial for the society but can also be prone to certain problems. Patent acts as an incentive for innovations but also promote fierce and sometimes unhealthy competitions among inventors that could destroy the collaborative environment, which is essential for technological and scientific advances. Therefore, patent should be granted but should also be tightly regulated to minimize its adverse effects.

Even with an agreement on the legitimacy of granting patents, there is still a more specific debate on whether software products are patentable. The article named “The History of Software Patents” recounts the history of software patent laws. Supreme court has been going back and forth on its decision on this issue, which can be attributed to the difficulties in reconciling the difference between software products and the more traditional physical inventions. According to the article The Supreme Court doesn’t understand software, and that’s a problem, “The Supreme Court complained that in the process described in the patent, ‘each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.’ Such a generic patent, the court said, isn’t eligible for patent protection. ‘The mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer’.”

The article then argues that in its creative process, programming is more similar to writing a novel than building a car, which means that as a novel, software products are meant to be shared among people and are thus not patentable. However, in my opinion, this is not a valid reason for denying patent protection to software products. First of all, all the benefits of patent protection are applicable to software products: programmers have the right to protect their inventions just as any other manufacturers and it is quite obvious that incentive for innovations is important to the field of software engineering. Second, although the process of producing computer software is similar to writing novels, the usage of computer software is more similar to a car or a drug. Computer software provides a service that is not inherently unique. In another word, when a plagiarized novel is worthless, a duplicated computer software is not. This is another reason why intellectual property in the form of computer software should be protected.

The existence of patent trolls points to the problems with the current existing system. According to the article Jury: Apple must pay $626 million to patent troll VirnetX, patent trolls are companies that have no products and make their money solely through patent litigation. In recent years we see a raise in patent litigation from the 11% in 2014 to 35% in 2015, and patent trolls are responsible for up to 62% of all of these litigations. The behaviors of patent trolls are highly unethical since they are exploiting the system for personal financial gains. However, with many of the benefits of granting patents in mind, we should advocate for a reform of the system instead of calling for an end to granting patents.

Reading07

Cloud computing is the raising star in computer science. It harbors enormous potential and attracts some of the field’s most brilliant minds. The term cloud computing is often used broadly. Cloud computing is a type of computing that provides shared computing resources and data on demands. As explained in the article The era of cloud computing, “cloud computing refers to an efficient method of managing lots of computer servers, data storage and networking.” Compared to the long-existing idea of shared resources in computer science, cloud computing has three new aspects: the appearance of infinite computing resources, the elimination of upfront commitments of cloud users and cloud users’ ability to pay for the service on demand and for short periods of times.

Cloud computing is an incredibly powerful tool for developers. It allows them to gain access to a vast amount of storage and computing power. The parallel nature of cloud computing also contributes to speedup and higher efficiency. Cloud computing is especially beneficial to individuals and small companies. The company called SynapDx, which analyzes the genetics of autism, mentioned in the article The era of cloud computing is a perfect example of how cloud computing makes it possible for small company to work on big data projects. On the other hand, cloud computing does not beat local computing in all categories. The overhead of cloud computing can be significant if the dataset is small. And the communications among machines using and maintaining the cloud service is not completely fault tolerant. As a result, there is a tradeoff in cloud computing between data size and the problem of overhead and fault tolerance. Developers should consider if cloud computing is appropriate for their projects.

Cloud computing also offers many perks to consumers. Like developers, they are able to access large amount of data, including movies, tv shows, music and games. With large storage provided on cloud service, the need for personal physical storage devices such as CDs, DVDs and USB drives is diminished. This centralized storage is also better managed and organized. The disadvantages of cloud computing from a consumer’s perspective are issues with data security. A cloud service I frequently use is iCloud, and in 2014 there were issues with their data security when hackers leaked private photos of many celebrities. Therefore, the tradeoff in cloud computing for consumers is between the ease of storing and accessing large amount of data and the risk of having their privacy violated due to security risks in the cloud.

With the rapid advances in cloud computing, many of its ethical issues become apparent. A major concern is data security. The more connected the machines are in the cloud network, the more cautious we have to be about blocking unauthorized access within the network. According to the article Computing goes to the Cloud. So does crime, “Just as recent hacks reached critical information through innocuous-seeming things like heating and air-conditioning systems that were networked to other computers, cloud systems may have even more pathways in, and a greater number of potential targets out — basically, any connected devices.” However, security issue is not a unique problem for cloud computing, and the problem cannot mask its many benefits. The discussion on the ethics of cloud computing should focus on how to accommodate the storage of sensitive information on a platform that encourages sharing resources, in another word, how to give consumers the choice to control their degree of sharing. Cloud service companies need to ensure the security of the data their customers entrusted them.

As mentioned in the beginning, cloud computing is a relatively new field of computer science. Researchers are still working on fixing many of its issues. As mentioned in the article Computing goes to cloud. So does crime, “While caution is necessary, not all is doom and gloom. For one thing, the concentration of core computing systems into clouds means that computers are likely to be better managed, security flaws more frequently and thoroughly patched, and devices inspected in a more uniform way. All of those things are improvements over the current state of affairs.” Cloud computing technology will become increasingly mature and find its applications in many areas.

Reading06

The NSA scandal broke in 2013, when details about NSA’s surveillance programs were published by the Guardian. The story was soon picked up by news agencies around the world, causing outrage on a global scale. The man behind the scandal is Edward Snowden, a former employee of the CIA, contractor for NSA, and most notably a whistleblower.

According to the timeline of the scandal published by the Guardian, in May 2013 Snowden gained access to highly classified files through his work at defense contractor Booze Allen Hamilton. He then left the United States for Hong Kong, where he met with journalists and through them leaked information about NSA’s surveillance programs at home and abroad. The BBC article Edward Snowden: Leaks that exposed US spy programme summarized the leaks: Initial reports centered on a NSA surveillance program known as Prism, which allowed NSA to “tap directly into the servers of nine internet firms, including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, to track online communications”. As the scandal widened, more surveillance programs became known. On June 21 2013 the Guardian reported the UK spy agency was taping fiber-optic cables and sharing the information with NSA. The situation worsened with further reports on phone taping involving many of Washington’s allies including the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and many other EU leaders. It was also revealed that the NSA was collecting and storing SMS messages, almost 200 million of them per day, across the globe.

Whistleblowing at such a massive scale is bound to have profound social and political consequences. It has been almost three years since the initial reports, and it is interesting to observe the impact of Snowden’s action. According to Snowden, his goal was to invoke a public outrage concerning the illegal surveillance programs. However, in a post 911 American society people are equally concerned about counter-terrorism efforts as they do about their privacy. As a result, the public opinion is still evenly divided. Instead, what the scandal primarily achieved is, as put by the ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden, “the erosion of confidence in the ability of the United States to do anything discreetly or keep anything secret.” At abroad, people are much less understanding of NSA’s need for surveillance. With many allegations accusing NSA of spying on foreign leaders, the world became more cautious about US intelligence activities. Many European countries passed laws requiring stricter regulation on surveillance operations and collaboration with US intelligence agency.

The most unexpected and the most prominent effect of the scandal can be seen in the technical industry. Companies started paying attention to data encryption in order to protect their customers’ privacy. According to the Washington post article Edward Snowden’s impact, “The Snowden stories raised enough concerns about U.S. government spying — especially concerns outside the U.S., where opposition to U.S. spying is more universal — that it became a smart business decision for companies with a global customer base to increase the use of encryption.” The scandal has led to debates on whether it is ethical to allow government “backdoors” in their products.

It is hard to label Snowden as a hero or a traitor. What he did echoes the fundamental American value of privacy and free speech while also jeopardized public security. As for the morality of his action, it seems that his intention is a moral and ethical one, but he fail to consider the broader consequences of his actions. As commented by Hayden, “he [Snowden] believes he is acting for a higher good — an almost romantic attachment to the merits of absolute transparency — and he seems indifferent to the legitimacy of any claims of national security.” It seems that Snowden’s black-and-white sense of justice makes him unsuitable in the intelligence community where there are many grey areas. And the discussion of possible prosecution seems more appropriate after his extradition from Russia.

My view of the government, national security, encryption, and technology in general has not changed. I think all sides involved in this scandal were trying to perform their duties. Maybe a continuing debate would be beneficial and could lead to a dynamic balance between the counter-terrorism effort and the protection of privacy.