Online Advertising

From the readings and in your experience, what ethical concerns (if any) do you have with online advertising? How is it performed and what methods are utilized to aggregate and analyze information? Considering the Internet meme that If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold.

What protections should companies provide over user data? Who owns that data and who controls it? Should companies be able to sell that data to third parties? Should they share the information with the government when requested?

Do you find online advertising too invasive or tolerable? Do you use things like NoScript or Adblock? Why or why not? Is it ethical to use these tools?

 

“Free is a good price.”

—Pew Research Study

I found this quote to resonate powerfully with me on the topic of advertising and the monetization of users. I study economics as part of my minor (Philosophy, Politics, and Economics), and a large part of economics is research into the psychology of price. As the quote implies, free is the best price, and it is incredibly difficult to overcome the psychological power of free. There is no linear progression from free to, say, $0.99; rather, there is a huge gap in the desire required to spend even as little as $0.99 for something when there is a free alternative. This trend is visible everywhere; people will drive distances to get free food instead of spending money at a closer location, attend uninteresting events that are handing out free T-shirts, and download poorly designed free apps and games that are plagued with ads.

The Internet is a compelling demonstration of a simple premise: “What if everything you do is recorded?” Such is the reality of the Internet: every click, keypress, and mouseover has the potential to be collected and recorded. Even the amount of time spent on a page can be recorded. Since this information is trivially acquired, it was a natural progression to ask what could be done with such vast quantities of information. And, of course, the answer was monetization. Parallel advances in machine learning have allowed large amounts of small data to render insights into individuals. This process, however, is often opaque to the consumers who are being tracked. However, even when confronted with the truth of how their activity reveals their preferences, which are then exploited for targeted advertising and profit, few people care. “Free” is simply too powerful a word, and when deciding between paying for something and offering one’s clicks and keys to a corporation, the decision is made daily and is obvious.

I get frustrated when people complain about losing privacy in this way; it’s the company’s product, and they can do with it what they want. Being ignorant of the ways in which corporations make money is not justification for indignation at the discovery that your information is being processed and sold, especially when there are alternatives available. This is a different situation than government surveillance; in the former situation, the free market determines the value of such information collection, but there is no free market for governments. If people don’t want Google to collect their information, they don’t have to use Google.

Awareness is important, however, and I do believe that it is unethical for a corporation to collect this data without informing users of the practice. Without complete information, users cannot make informed purchasing decisions. But if presented with two options and given full information on the products, it is the user’s responsibility to decide if their privacy is worth $0.99.

Apple and the FBI

There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.

— Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

From the readings and in your opinion, should technology companies implement backdoors in their products for the benefit of the government? Are companies like Apple ethically responsible for protecting the privacy of their users or are they ethically responsible for helping to prevent violent or harmful activities that their platforms may enable? How are these two conflicting goals to be balanced in a world of free-flowing communication and extreme terrorism?

• If you are against government backdoors, how do you response to conerns of national security? Isn’t save lives or protecting our nation worth a little less individual privacy. How do you counter the argument: If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear?

The debate surrounding Apple and the FBI’s conflict can be clarified by focusing on the two questions it asks:

1. Can the US government compel a private corporation to assist through labor of its employees?
2. Do US citizens have a right to privacy?

The first question is one concerning the nature of capitalism in the United States and can be approached without needing to engage in matters of privacy or national security. Simply put, the FBI is compelling Apple to build and deploy certain software that is not part of Apple’s business model. Is that OK? The concept of “unreasonable burden” applies to this component of the debate, as many consider this to be an unreasonable burden to place on a private company. This component of the conflict requires additional information on legal precedent on corporate compulsion for me to make a decision, but it does lead into the next question: if such compulsion is OK, in what situations should it be used? The FBI has been very clever in engineering this case: they brandish the phone of a dead murderous ISIS affiliate, and they say, “Why wouldn’t Apple want to get into this phone!?”

And now we are at the second question. It can be rephrased in several ways: is encryption immoral? Does one have a right to secrets and to privacy? Many do not consider this question to be relevant to the case at at hand because, after all, it’s only one phone. But it’s important for one’s concerns to not be allayed by the FBI’s claim that this less-secure version of iOS will be used only once, because, as Tim Cook says, there is no such guarantee. It’s a slippery slope to recognize the right of the FBI to compromise even one phone, because there is little difference between one phone and two. Additionally, it’s an easy step to ask for further compromises to the components that make iOS secure beyond those currently being requested.

So do we have a right to privacy? It’s essential to consider the encryption technologies at the heart of the conflict (and at the heart of Internet communication in general) for their worth. Encryption allows individuals to communicate and store data securely without fear of theft or interception. Such technologies are typically deployed in the consumer space with the goal of preventing access to personal data by criminals; denying access to the government is a side effect. Without encryption, communications can be easily spied upon, personal data can be stolen, and identities can be compromised. The Internet (and the iPhone) would be a far less useful thing if there were no way to securely transfer data with authority.

So, given the tension just outlined, many come to the conclusion that we can keep encryption, as long as the government gets a backdoor. The problem with a backdoor is that the existence of such a skeleton key, even in the hands of a few, compromises the whole system, because there is no guarantee that the key isn’t being used nefariously. The system will “silently fail” if the key gets out of hand, and the entire foundation of secure Internet communication will be at risk. I understand concerns of national security, but I can’t avoid drawing the parallels to 1984: the dystopian state envisioned by Orwell was undeniably secure, but at what cost?

Project 2: DecoBlocks

Project is here: http://cse40175mmp.tumblr.com/post/139548649144/project-02-toy-story-video

What were your favorite toys or stories or movies growing up? What lessons did these things provide? Did they reinforce or promote certain gender roles or expectations? What influence did these things have in your life?

How does your proposed idea compare to your childhood favorites? Is it important that toys or stories or movies be inclusive or gender neutral? How important is for children to be exposed to STEM or positive gender roles/expectations at an early age?

One of my favorite toys were called Imaginext; they were walls and floors of buildings that you could use to build castles, fortresses, and war machines. I loved to wage wars between armies and bases, and Imaginext came with small spring-loaded crossbows and guns to shoot projectiles at enemy units and walls. They were great. Imaginext allowed me to relive some of the great battles of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which was (and is) one of my favorite movie series. This is a fairly masculine thing to do: fake wars, building castles, and high fantasy all fall in the category of traditionally male activities.

However, I also did plenty of things that were more on the feminine side of things. I loved playing The Sims, especially building and decorating virtual homes, and I loved to dress up in robes and costumes. I didn’t realize that those were more feminine things to do, and my parents never said anything, even when I asked for a black dress to wear (I thought it would make a great wizard’s robe!) I still love playing The Sims and dressing up in costume, and I still love fantasy battles and simulating great wars. Being able to manifest my creativity and desire for strategy simultaneously was immensely beneficial to me as I grew up. It allowed me to test academic desires in film, design, and engineering without fears of judgement from my parents.

It’s incredibly important that toys not be gender-biased, because there is no reason for them to be. Childhood is the most pivotal time for one to discover one’s interests and passions, and there is no reason to be constrained by preconceptions of which interests should go with which gender. There should be no reinforcement at the childhood-toy level that certain disciplines are easier than others, or that some interests are more fun than others. Toys should promote STEM fields in the same way that they promote painting, or writing, or athletics. All fields have the potential to be exciting for a young kid. I don’t understand why anyone would want to stifle their child’s interests through the toys they can play with.

Engineering Disasters

From the readings, what were the root causes of the Therac-25 accidents? What are the challenges for software developers working safety-critical systems, how should they approach these projects, and should they be held liable when accidents happen?

The Therac-25, a radiation therapy machine, was the next iteration of a series of radiation therapy machines, each supposedly improving upon the last. While previous iterations, such as the Therac-6 and Therac-20, utilized hardware locks to prevent dangerous levels of radiation from being emitted, the Therac-25 had no such hardware locks and instead relied on software locks to ensure that the machine always operated safely. This prove to not be enough to keep the machine from injuring 6 patients, 3 of which died from radiation poisoning.

A race condition is a software phenomenon that results from code that does not anticipate nonlinear execution. A simple example are two successive increment operations:

a = a + 1

a = a + 1

If the operations that make up addition and assignment are not executed in the expected order, the final value of “a” could be 1 instead of 2.

The race condition is one of the most difficult bugs in code to catch, as it is inherently difficult to reproduce. Code that looks otherwise safe may not be, due to factors outside the code itself. Avoiding race conditions requires advanced knowledge of the coding language, programming paradigms, and the environment surrounding the code’s execution. Typically, only advanced software developers are aware of the pitfalls surrounding race conditions.

As revealed by the article (http://hackaday.com/2015/10/26/killed-by-a-machine-the-therac-25/), AECL did not hire an advanced team of software developers, but rather a single novice programmer. Thus, the resulting assembly code was commentless, lazy, and prone to faults. This is the fault of AECL, who should not have put the safety checks in the hands of a single novice programmer, without any oversight or testing. One cannot blame the developer himself immediately, as his skill level is unknown, and recognizing the race condition may have been beyond his skill level. It was AECL’s duty to place safety checks at their highest levels of priority and to place a team of seasoned engineers on duty to ensure that the checks were more professionally crafted. The removal of hardware checks reeks of cost-cutting, which is disappointing for a company tasked with building medical hardware that can save as well as end lives.

If a system fails, it is the fault of the system that created it, not any one individual contributor. While the individual contributors should be aware of the gravity of their work and strive to make it the best they can, the “buck” ultimately stops at the head of the organization, who should be help accountable for an unsafe and lackadaisical work environment.

 

Diversity

From the readings and in your opinion, is the lack of diversity a problem in the technology industry? Is it something that needs to be addressed or is it just a (possibly unfortunate) reality?

If you believe it is a problem, then what are some obstacles faced by women and minorities? Why do these challenges exist and how could the technology industry (or society in general) work to remove these barriers and encourage more participation from women and minorities?

If you don’t believe it is a problem, then why do you think there is this recent focus on diversity? Is it fair that there are programs targeted to women and certain minorities, but not other groups? How would you address claims of privilege?

Lack of diversity is certainly a problem in the tech industry, just as it is at many universities in the United States. In its simplest notion, diversity is important because we as a society should be exposed to and welcoming of people of different backgrounds and perspectives in order to better understand what unites us as humanity. Diversity is essential from both a business perspective (better decisions are made when more perspectives can weight in) and a societal one (companies that become intrinsic parts of society should be representative and understanding of all parts of society). This goal should always be kept in mind when striving for diversity in a community, because aiming for diversity at a superficial level objectifies minorities and can have the opposite effect.

A lack of diversity in the tech industry can be seen as either the result of factors connected to the industry itself or related to the “diverse” individuals themselves. As Martin Fowler says (http://martinfowler.com/bliki/DiversityImbalance.html), there’s no evidence that women or minorities themselves are intrinsically less disposed to technical positions, and arguing so often requires circular logic. Eliminating those potential factors indicates that it is the industry itself that is obstructing women and minorities from thriving.

So, now one must examine why women and minorities seemingly face difficulties breaking in to the tech sector. I believe that similar phenomena contribute to the lack of women and minorities in tech: restricting culture, stereotypes, and perceived image filter out many nonwhites and women from pursuing or remaining in the industry. The societal environment in which women and minorities are raised is likely a contributing factor as well.

Gender norms are certainly to blame for at least part of the problem, as the NPR article concludes (http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding). These norms influence behavior later in life, as men are often surprised that women are technically savvy or interested in technology. This is negative feedback that discourages women from remaining in the industry or even entering it at all. Imposter syndrome is a powerful force in tech, and it is only exacerbated when your peers express surprise at your presence. A similar phenomenon exists for minorities: as Forbes remarks (http://www.forbes.com/sites/bonniemarcus/2015/08/12/the-lack-of-diversity-in-tech-is-a-cultural-issue/2/#491e63613957), getting mistaken for custodial staff is devastating and reflects deep cultural assumptions about minorities. This “unconscious bias” is the result of longstanding societal norms and so requires sustained personal reflection and awareness to fight.

Tech companies often claim that the lack of women and minorities is a “pipeline problem,” meaning that these companies are searching for qualified women and minority candidates, but there are not enough. This is a reframing of the problem that shifts blame away from the culture of the companies: it draws attention away from why women and minorities are less likely to enter the tech industry and attempts to refocus attention on factors so broad and pervasive, such as socioeconomic status and parental education, that they seem unrelated to the corporations. Would you want to enter an industry where you are the only one of your race and gender on your team or in your office? Such a situation is uncomfortable at the least, but it is what minorities and women face in the tech industry every day.

The solutions to these problems must be delicate, as they must balance the meritocratic ideals of the tech sector with fears of overly affirmative action. Programs such as Microsoft’s Explore seek to gather talented young students from a variety of backgrounds for a unique internship experience; the program’s focus on diversity makes it comparably difficult for a white male to be accepted into the program. In attempting to solve the problem of underrepresentation, do programs like Explore discriminate against white males? This question strikes at the heart of many debates over programs that value diversity, ranging from the tech sector to college admissions. Many argue that race and gender are irrelevant and should not be part of admissions processes at all. This “post-racial” argument, while noble and idealistic, does not acknowledge the reality that gender and race are incredibly relevant factors to life in today’s society, as they result in conscious and subconscious prejudice on a day-to-day level.

As a white male, I can’t deny part of me is agitated that there are programs like Explore that I am de facto less likely to be admitted into because of my race and gender. It is in times like these that I must remind myself of my white privilege. I know many individuals struggle to acknowledge the concept of their own white privilege; a large part of my collegiate experience has been growing to accept this reality. As a gay student at Notre Dame, I have become aware of the existence of “straight privilege,” and while I do not want to overly draw parallels between straight and male or white privilege, as they are all distinct phenomena, it has helped me come to a greater understanding of how society can systemically and subconsciously favor a certain demographic. Empathizing with others and attempting to understand or at least acknowledge another’s experiences and perspective is an essential trait of true maturity and central to movements toward equality.

Work-life balance

From the readings and from your experience, can men and women have it all? That is, can parents have successful and fulfilling careers while also raising a family and meeting other non-work related goals? What can companies do to support their workers to find this balance and are they ethically obliged to do so? Is this balance important to you and if so, how do you hope to maintain it?

In order to approach the question of whether men and women can “have it all,” it is important to consider what constitutes a “successful and fulfilling career” in our society, and how that compares to successful and fulfilling childrearing.

I agree strongly with the article that spoke against the use of the phrase “have it all” (http://www.salon.com/2012/06/21/can_modern_women_have_it_all/). It’s misleading and shifts the “blame” of not living a fulfilled life to the person and not to the metrics that define a successful career. Of course, with a finite about of time in a day and in a life, there will always be trade-offs. From my perspective and in my (limited) understanding of the sacrifices and rewards of childrearing, I think that one can “have it all” only if there is a shift in the standards of what one considers to be an acceptable level of devotion to one’s profession.

In today’s society, a successful career often requires complete devotion to one’s job; a “drop everything” mentality is considered necessary to creating the best work. Apple, for example, popularized this notion of near-obsession to one’s career. While this level of priority for work may have been questionable in the past, in today’s tech culture, it is nearly expected.

Only one other thing is commonly thought of as an acceptable obsession for one to have: one’s children. Only children can be given the amount of time and effort that jobs now demand without raising eyebrows from others. However, this creates a contradiction: how can one truly have two obsessions? One must give way to the other, as the first article says.

The article on work-family balance (http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/04/the-work-family-imbalance/) discusses this topic and reflects on the sacrifices that have to be made. These sacrifices may not seem socially acceptable for men and are seen as lamentable realities for women. Personally, I would consider one’s children to be my utmost priority, and the notion of work coming before them seems despicable to me. I would struggle to work for a company that did not allow me to spend time with my children when needed. Ideally, my employer would recognize that children and parents need to spend time together in order to foster healthy maturation.

Parental leave and other compensation-based incentives are a great start, but culture should be a part of the change as well. Mark Zuckerberg’s insistence on hiring young people comes from the reality that most of them do not yet have families, and so work can be their highest priority. His remarks implicitly indicate that he does not believe that work should (or can) supplant family as the ultimate priority for an individual. Employees with families (often mistakenly generalized to all older employees) should be employed under the expectation that their families come first.

A side effect of this conclusion has already come to pass in many Silicon Valley companies: tech companies simply pass over qualified older candidates in favor of younger ones that are more willing to sacrifice other aspects of life for work. This culture of “ageism” is saddening, as younger people should also have the opportunity to continue to learn, take on hobbies, socialize, and travel, and assuming an above-all commitment to work deprives them of that component of life. Whether government regulation or some other solution should be pursued to alleviate this phenomenon requires a more in-depth economic study, but I at the least will hope to maintain a plurality of activities that take up my time by pursuing employers that understand my priorities.