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.

Project 1 Blog Post: Manifesto & Portrait

How much does the Manifesto reflect your individual feelings and thoughts? Is it a warcry? What is it?

How much do you identify with the Portrait? Where do you differ?

How significant are stereotypes to how you view the world and how the world views you? Do you think the presence of a Manifesto or Portrait is helpful or harmful?

Our manifesto strongly reflects the feelings I hold toward the default trajectory of Notre Dame computer science students. It is absolutely a war cry, and I hope it can serve to prompt Notre Dame computer science students into considering their postgraduate options more fully. The manifesto is a critical look at the assumptions underlying the pacing and focus of Notre Dame’s computer science program. It is a call for change, a request to reevaluate how Notre Dame computer science students are prepared for postgraduate life and thus broaden the kinds of opportunities available to them.

Our portrait conveys the stereotypes of Notre Dame computer science students, especially in the context of the broader pool of computer scientists. The portrait highlights some of the differences that makes Notre Dame computer science students unique, including a less “nerdy” demeanor than is stereotypical and a tendency to go out and party on weekends. I would contend that for myself, I am even less “nerdy” than the typical Notre Dame computer science student, and I am likely more liberal as well. For the remainder of the portrait, however, I would consider it to be mostly accurate, if overly stereotypical.

Stereotypes are incredibly powerful; they are the genesis of misunderstandings that are at the center of age-old conflicts. The more we assume about a group of people, the less we are able to engage with their reality. While stereotypes can help a group coalesce by providing initial points of conversation and community, they should never be taken to be more than a social conjecture that serves as a shortcut to fully understanding someone. Manifestos and portraits can serve as critiques of stereotypes and rallying points for change movements, but they should never be taken as a “Constitution” of sorts. Documents taken in that way exclude rather than include, and they reinforce the legitimacy of stereotypes. So, the presence of a manifesto or portrait can have both positive and negative ramifications, depending on the content, tone, and interpretation of the message.

Job hopping

Where do you see your career headed? Do you plan on staying with one company or do you envision moving from job to job?

Is there such thing as company loyalty? Should you be loyal to your company and should your company be loyal to you? How do things such as non-competes and trade secrets influence your opinion? Are these contracts fair? Are they ethical? On the flip side, is job hopping an ethical practice?

My childhood dream was to work for Apple; I never really thought that much about what I would do afterword if I ever achieved that goal. Fast-forward to adulthood and after a successful internship, I have the incredible opportunity to return there full-time. My experiences there this summer brought to my mind the same questions as those asked above; the notions of loyalty, reciprocity, and employee restrictions were constantly on my mind as I evaluated Apple as an employer.

What do you do once you work for your dream company?

Apple inspires an incredible degree of loyalty from both its customers and its employees, and it is fairly unique in this regard. Most companies in the tech sector, and in Silicon Valley especially, are not this way. As many of the articles indicate, moving between jobs is incredibly commonplace, and so most companies are attempting to stifle the degree of turnover in their own ranks for financial reasons. Apple has an additional reason to fear turnover, however: the unique and powerful culture within the company is the result of passionate individuals who love what they work on and “understand” the goals of the company. Turnover for Apple, then, is an indication that the culture is not “sticking” and that employees do not feel a connection to their work. Additionally, each new employee is another factor in the evolving corporate culture and a potential point of culture dilution.

I haven’t thought fully on whether I will try to remain at Apple for a long time or if I will seek employment elsewhere after a few years; I feel it’s absurd to answer this question, as I do not know where I will stand within Apple after a few years. I respect and appreciate the culture that Apple has permeated, and so I used to have a negative opinion of those who cycle through jobs consistently, since it implied to me that they did not engage strongly enough with what they were working on. But the Forbes article we read (http://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2014/06/22/employees-that-stay-in-companies-longer-than-2-years-get-paid-50-less/#55e7cbc8210e) reveals that there is more to a job change than dissatisfaction or indifference. If companies do not have the structure to adequately reward and promote employees, then it is justifiable to seek a new employer for that “fresh start.”

While it is understandable for employers to want to avoid employe defection, non-compete and other agreements do so artificially. A company should strive so that its employees are engaged with what they do, compensated appropriately, and have no desire to leave. The prevalence of job hopping is a manifestation of the market of employees affecting the value of wages, and non-compete and other agreements stifle those market forces at employees’ expense. It’s a violation of the tenets of capitalism for the market to be restrained in this way. Ideally, employees would simply not work for companies with these agreements, but if all companies are sharing in the same practice, the market force is again stifled by a kind of “monopoly.” So, in this case, such agreements should not be allowed, as they synthetically affect the true value of work.

Hackers

From the readings and from your experience, what exactly is a hacker? That is, what are the key characteristics of the hacker archetype? Do you identify with these attributes? That is, would you consider yourself a hacker? What is your reaction to this characterization?

It is true that the original notion of the hacker was one of “subversion” (https://aeon.co/essays/how-yuppies-hacked-the-original-hacker-ethos). The word “hacker” and its societal connotations confirm this sentiment, as hackers are often perceived to be undermining security and infrastructure. Paul Graham discusses the connections between the hacker as creator and the hacker as infiltrator, remarking that the spirit behind both personas is the same: one of originality, iteration, and expression.

The intent of a hacker is central to his identity, and this is where a shift in the notion of “hacker” has occurred as hacking has become more mainstream. Originally, as indicated by “The Conscience of a Hacker,” hackers were intentionally amoral: driven by curiosity rather than ambition, they would break into things to prove a point instead of to acquire something. A rejection of traditional goals and application of ability confuses many, and this lack of understanding is central to how hackers relate to the world. Hacking used to be a kind of civil disobedience.

In today’s world, however, hacking has taken on a new meaning. The rise of hackathons demonstrates this evolution. While hacking used to represent a refusal of ambition, now it represents it fully. Hackathons were originally conceived as a way for individuals with similar interests to collaboratively build things and mentor each other. This already indicates a shift away from traditional hacker ideology: instead of iconoclasts, hackers were now team-builders. The very skills that alienated them from society now served as focal points for nascent communities.

While the social component of the notion of hacker was transformed by hackathons, hackers also began to be tempted by the financial rewards of hacking new technologies. It was quickly discovered that many of the resulting projects of hackathons were worthy ideas that could potentially become profitable businesses. A new kind of hacker began to attend hackathons: ambitious individuals seeking to create the next big thing. Now the intent of hackers began to change as well: profit motives supplemented and in some cases replaced curiosity.

The final change (so far) to hacker culture occurred when large corporations began to realize that some of the brightest potential hires were hackers. Technical ability, the original hallmark of a hacker, was now one of the most desirable traits for an employee, and hackathons became the best recruiting events an ambitious student could attend.

So, in order to claim the status of “hacker,” one must clarify with which version of hacker you identify. Personally, I have never felt alienated or defined by my technical ability, and I enjoy collaboration with others and integration with society. I also don’t tinker with technology in my spare time like many traditional hackers do. At the same time, I don’t look to technology as a profit waiting to be realized as many of those who now attend hackathons do. For me, I love that I can apply my skills to create something that benefits others. In no other discipline can your ideas be realized so quickly and the results of your work be so widely felt.

I go further than just a desire to change the world, however. George Hotz, the first person to hack the iPhone, represents the traditional ideals of the hacker reborn. In an interview, he remarks that “I don’t care about money… I want power. Not power over people, but power over nature and the destiny of technology. I just want to know how it all works” (http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-hotz-self-driving-car/). Rather than just pursue technology for its potential to disrupt, I see technology as a means to improving the lives of others. I try to avoid decontextualizing technology, as doing so evicts moral notions from computer science.

Computer Science as Science or Engineering

Is Computer Science an art, engineering, or science discipline? Explain your thoughts and the implications of your assessment.

This is an interesting question to consider, and in order to form a more complete answer, multiple perspectives have to be explored.

From the perspective of another engineer, Computer Science may not exist clearly within the realm of the engineer. Engineers are often said to apply math, science, and technology to solve real-world problems. They are challenged with creating robust solutions to the challenges that face society using existing knowledge, perhaps in novel ways. Computer scientists do much of this: they apply math within the context of technology to create tools that improve life. But is a computer scientist who works on games (or other projects less foundational to society) considered an engineer? Computer Science has grown into a field that encompasses a huge scale of problems, and not all seem to fit into the scope of an engineer.

If not an engineer, perhaps an artist? Many aspects of Computer Science contribute to things seen or heard by others, including graphics and sound. However, most would argue that a sound engineer or graphics specialist is not “inspired” in the way other artists are thought to be. Some would argue that some algorithms, by nature of their brilliance or simplicity, could be considered art. If art is taken to be those things that reveal truths about the world and ourselves, algorithms could be art in the same way that math could be, but I believe that the argument is weak. Art cannot be “proven,” but an algorithm can.

Computer scientists also generate new knowledge to a greater degree than is expected of a traditional engineer, and this is consistent with the other sciences. Areas such as artificial intelligence, computer vision, and natural language processing all require immense amounts of research into the human mind and body. They are subjects pursued not only for real-world benefits but for a greater understanding of the world and how we interact with it. Science, unlike engineering, has the direct goal of acquiring new foundational knowledge, as opposed to applying existing knowledge in new ways. “Experimentation” as it is envisioned in biology or chemistry does not as often occur, however, and so Computer Science does not completely align with the other sciences.

Ultimately, I believe that Computer Science is closer to engineering than the other sciences due to the easy applicability of findings toward solving problems, and it is closer to science than the other engineering disciplines due to the new knowledge that is being generated by the discipline. In this unique space, Computer Science excels at building on past success and iterating rapidly into the future. Computer scientists discover and improve the world simultaneously.

This pace of progress can be dangerous, however, as it leaves little time for computer scientists to consider the moral implications of their advances. For example, the field of self-driving cars is rapidly advancing, and it is unclear if society is ready for the questions of morality that will accompany the technology’s adoption. Many computer scientists do not consider it to be their duty to explore these issues, and the retreat into either the guise of scientist or engineer in order to deny culpability. The scientist can claim that he simply discovers the knowledge, and it is the engineer who applies it that is morally responsible. The engineer can claim that the discovery of the knowledge itself by the scientist ushers in moral questions, and the engineer’s purpose is simply to apply the knowledge that has been discovered. Since Computer Science has feet in both of these camps, computer scientists are uniquely unable to escape moral culpability in this way.

Introduction

In your first blog post, please write a short introduction to who you are, what your interests are, why you are studying Computer Science (or whatever your major is), and what you hope to get out of this class.

Hi! I’m Zach Waterson, a senior CS major minoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE). I’m originally from the SF Bay Area and plan to return there after I graduate. I’m interested in consumer technology, specifically the ways in which it can improve the lives of others. I’m a huge fan of Apple for this reason.

I hope to learn from Ethics the ways in which technological progress should be pursued and the relevance of morals to the development of technology. When is it appropriate to reevaluate a technology on moral grounds?

Additionally, in your opinion, what are the most pressing ethical and moral issues facing Computer Scientists? Which ones are you particularly interested in discussing this semester?

I’d love to explore how the profit motive can legitimize potentially immoral uses of technology, for example in the area of consumer data collection. Artificial intelligence and the inevitable elimination of many jobs are also complex topics I’d also love to discuss. How will society need to restructure as more and more jobs are replaced by skilled automation techniques? Can we guarantee the creation of a generic AI that is benevolent?

Additionally, in today’s world, the balance between encrypted communications and national security should be investigated.