reading 06

From the readings and in your opiniong, 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 supportive of government backdoors, how do you response to concerns of privacy and intrusion? Are worries about Big Brother simply paranoia? When and why does national security trump individual privacy?
• 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?

I would like to preface this by saying that the San Bernadino shooting was a terrible tragedy and in no way to I support terrorism or acts of violence against residents of the United States—citizen or not. Also, this blog post involves a lot of rambling, so I apologize in advance—I had a lot of thoughts on this one.

I understand Apple’s apprehension in creating an operating system that would be able to break through any of the security encryptions on an iPhone. As seen in this very case—a lot of people use iPhones (even terrorists), and so to have created this program in the first place that would be able to unlock and phone with sensitive information on it would be useful in this situation, and maybe other federal investigations similar to this one, but who says that’s all that it would be used for?

We are not asking to expand the government’s surveillance authority, but rather we are asking to ensure that we can continue to obtain electronic information and evidence pursuant to the legal authority that Congress has provided to us to keep America safe. (Going Dark)

I know that the FBI is meant to protect me, but I feel like the quote above is really just them saying they want more access to information they shouldn’t necessarily have access to.

Also, FBI employees expect their own personal phones and devices to stay encrypted, then why are they asking Apple to write this program that could ultimately put themselves at greater risk? It seems to me that the FBI is being a tad short-sighted while Apple is looking at a bigger picture of what creating this backdoor could mean for iPhone users across the world. There is a reason such backdoor does not already exist, even though there is the capability for it to exist. I think that Apple saying that they don’t have a program to break into a locked phone is something I find comfort in—as an iPhone user, I feel reassured knowing that my information is important to them, and they will protect it in the same way they’d want their own information to be protected. After watching a few episodes of Mr. Robot, I know see how easy it is for a hacker to get my information and to hack my computer and, in the case of the show, blackmail me to do terrorist activities, and isn’t that what this whole case is fighting against?

Eileen Decker brought up three points in looking at the FBI’s case against Apple: the company’s distance, or “remove” from the case; whether the government’s request places an “undue burden” on Apple; and whether the company’s assistance was “necessary.” And in this case, Apple does not seem to meet any of the criteria above. Said iPhone, though designed by Apple, is not their specific problem anymore—they have no claim on the device. It would be an additional burden on Apple to take the time to write this decryption code which, if in the wrong hands could be very dangerous. They are asking Apple employees to take on forensic roles in this case—doesn’t the FBI have people for that already?

Ken Dreifach, an Apple lawyer explained their side very well, ultimately explaining that the FBI is overstepping it’s bounds by asking Apple to do this. They are imposing power they do not rightfully have over this company in order to learn something that may or may not help them in their investigation—for all we know their could be nude pictures saved on the phone, or maybe nothing at all.

In response to the argument “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear,” I will say there are some things that I would rather people didn’t know about me. I find it is always better to keep an air of mystery about me—but really, I don’t have anything to hide from people, but there are some things I also don’t feel fully comfortable with the entire world having the possibility of knowing. An experience earlier this year, cemented my position on this: I don’t have anything to hide, other than my bank account numbers and social security number, and the things of that nature, but there are also some things that not everyone needs to know about me. If I want someone to know something about me, then I would like to be the one sharing it rather than someone finding out without my knowing. That I think is my biggest issue—not being the one in control of how my information is spread. And if Big Brother has his hand in the cookie jar, then who’s to say he won’t share such information without my knowledge or permission? Or what if someone is able to take that information from Big Brother (maybe using Apple’s supposed knew decryption algorithm), then where does that leave me?

project 02

PROJECT 02

College traditionally has been viewed as a place of learning, not necessarily job training and yet students are spending more and more time preparing for the job interview process. Should colleges adjust their curriculum to face this reality?

If so, how would you change the ND CSE program to better prepare students for the workforce?

If not, discuss why you don’t think changes are needed and how the ND CSE program already supports students.

College students joke that often during recruiting season, when in the midst of applying to jobs, it’s almost as if they’ve taken on an additional class. They spend so much time perfecting resumés that on top of taking classes and homework and exams and extracurricular—all which are necessary to go on said resumé—it almost seems as if there isn’t enough time for it all. One of my roommates last semester spent a large portion of her free time working on her resumé and different cover letters and applying to all of these companies, only to get an interview if anything. And then she’d have three to four rounds of interviews, sometimes for them to simply say no. She’d put so much time and effort into applying to each of the companies without any definite confirmation that all her work would mean a job. And though it is true said friend often went above and beyond in most of these situations, I have definitely found this to be true.

Applying to jobs, researching companies, preparing for interviews, attending networking events, attending career fairs, meeting with potential employers, traveling to different cities for interviews—all of this takes time, time that college students don’t have if they’re taking 15-18 credits a semester, as most engineers are.

And though I don’t necessarily think colleges should adjust the curriculum, I do think that students who are serious about trying to get a job in the fall, as most seniors are, then they should understand that it might serve them well to not take too many classes so that they can ensure that they have time to focus on interviews and applications and not feel like their school work is suffering as a result.

For the EE curriculum, especially during fall of junior year, it is very heavy on the technical side of material. Juniors often take Electromagnetic Fields & Waves, Signals & Systems, Fundamentals of Semiconductors, and if you’re not in  a math class, then often you take a technical elective. So right there, it is not uncommon to see students taking 12 credits of heavily intensive engineering credits. And so I think the administration needs to understand that though Notre Dame students are often over-achievers, they aren’t super-humans. They fall prey to the pressures of applying to these jobs and of classes and expecting to be perfect.

So for the mental health of students, I think the administration should’t necessarily change the curriculum (other than just eliminating tests completely, but that’s just because I hate exams), but should rather be understanding of students who may not take a full course load of 15 credits. Mental health issues have come into light more recently, and I definitely believe that pressures that students feel in school can be big factors in mental health—I have personally been affected by the severity of my course load and the pressure I felt to be perfect for my resume so that I can get the best job out there for me.

Professors need to empathize. Simply be human, and not assign homework assignments the week there is a test so that students don’t feel like they’re drowning during job application season.

reading 05

From the readings, what were the root causes of the Challenger disaster? Was Roger Boisjoly ethical in sharing information with the public? Was his company justified in retaliating against him? What good is whistleblowing if “[i]t destroy[s] [your] career, [your] life, everything else”?

It seems very clear that the technical root of the Challenger disaster was an O-ring failure. But actually, the failure was that NASA managers knew that there was a high risk of such failures and did nothing to stop it. And seven people died as a result.

I am frustrated by this whole situation because something could have been done to fix it. People at NASA knew that there was a problem and chose to ignore it in order to meet budget demands and to prevent postponing this launch any longer. Which is dumb, because their lack of action led to seven families without a mother, father, wife, or husband. And there was no reason for it. It wasn’t random; it could have been prevented. But it wasn’t.

This picture shows the drastic difference in temperature at multiple launches and the amount of O-ring damage. It’s very clear that the rings are more damaged as the temperatures drop, yet obviously some people thought it would be a good idea to test the O-rings in a drastic drop of temperature (30°) and to put seven human beings in the aircraft when they did. Why does that make sense, especially when someone pointed it out to them directly? Because it was an “acceptable risk.” Ok, sure. Let’s use that term to justify this disaster—it was an acceptable risk, so they went ahead and launched a rocket they were advised not to. Good call, we should try it again some time. Or not.

I cannot blame Roger Boisjoly for sharing his information with the public because it had been made clear to NASA that there would be problems if this launch occurred. And he was shushed for speaking out the night before. His voice was heard, but by the wrong people. Why Roger Boisjoly’s name is the only one we talk about is odd to me—why don’t we use the names of the people at NASA who allowed the Challenger to launch, knowing that the temperatures were too low and could cause failure? I don’t see their names being thrown about, they being the ones who are forced to retire due to PTSD, they being the ones with their name posted all over the news. Rather, the one who took an ethical stand is the one who’s blamed.

If we look at the code of ethics, the second point is avoid harm to others. The third is Be honest and trustworthy. Boisjoly was doing both of those things by whistleblowing. He expressed his case to those it was relevant to; made sure they knew that there were very high risks associated with launching the rocket. And he wasn’t the only one to have this gut-wrenching feeling that this launch would not go well. Yet, those without enough power often can’t do anything to solve the problem:

“As problems build up without crises, a lulling, false sense of security builds up too. And at critical moments, when institutions face tough questions, experts who sit lower down on the chain of command might be reluctant to hold up the decision-making process. Meanwhile, the longer the chain of command, the easier it becomes to defray personal responsibility.” (How Challenger Exploded, and Other Mistakes Were Made)

The more these instances get looked over, the more information that needs to be passed up in the chain of command for any actions to happen prevents tangible solutions to these malfunctions. There is a negative connotation with whistleblowing, but these people are attempting to find an ethical solution to a problem. And I’m not saying that people should be tattle-tales, because everyone hates that. But if people see a problem that they know they cannot fix, that is possibly harmful to others, then their action should be welcomed and not discriminated against.

 

reading 04

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?

There is proven to be a lack of diversity in the technology—in general over 75% of the industry is male, and the majority of that percentage is caucasian males. And this is an issue, because as one of the articles said: “After all, engineers build gadgets and software for men, women and people of every color—and a diverse workforce means a more expansive understanding of what customers want” (Silicon Valley’s plan to be more diverse). The problem with not having a diverse workforce is that the people creating the projects can’t always meet the needs of those that will be purchasing or using their products. Which is not ideal for the companies—they’re creating a very biased product that doesn’t fit the needs of all their consumers, meaning unhappy people who won’t use their products anymore.

As a woman in the tech/engineering industry, I definitely notice the gap in gender and minority. At the beginning of the semester, I was the only girl in three of my six classes—I dropped one of the classes, and another had another girl enroll in it—but even with that, I am definitely witness to the genre gap in technology.

After reading several articles on the issue, I’m still a bit confused as to where this gap stems from. Some articles spoke about classrooms not being conducive to female interests, that adding coffee machines and neutral tones over Star Wars posters would attract more females, or showing people with t-shirts about having friends versus t-shirts emphasizing coding. And maybe subconsciously these things matter to me, but I like to think that I can look past them.

But then again, maybe not. Maybe I thought I could, but actually can’t. It has become more apparent to me in the classes where the ratio of male to female is drastically skewed, that I definitely have a fear of being seen as more inadequate. It is harder to connect with the boys who might live in the same dorm or those who already have a study group set up. And “nerdy strutting” is definitely a real thing, that drives me crazy and only adds to my feelings of inadequacy.

So speaking as a woman, I guess I can understand why such gaps exist. If you don’t feel like you fit in the first place, it does make it hard to connect. One article said something that I really stood out to me: there are many ways to exclude people in a workplace. I think exclude is a great word to describe what the minorities feel in the tech industry. They feel left out; like they don’t belong and shouldn’t be there in the first place. Though there might be similarities in the technical position they’re in, a large part of feeling comfortable in a work environment is being able to connect with people on a social level.

“As a culture women are brought up to be fundamentally insecure,” says Lisa Ling, and I definitely see truth in this statement, growing up in a family of four girls, and even among my roommates. Being a woman in a male dominated field doesn’t help those insecurities either. Even Barbie can’t seem to program without the help of boys. So I guess I should refine my earlier statement about being comfortable with being in a male dominated field: I do in fact notice the difference, but I really try to not let it affect me any more than being in a female dominated field. It is something that isn’t going to change in my generation at least.

Ideally programs like the ones at Harvey Mudd will take root and more girls and minorities will go into tech-related industries and be confident in their abilities and feel appreciated for their work. Obviously this isn’t going to change immediately, as it took a long time for anyone but white males to have the right to vote, but hopefully now that we realize this difference and are starting to make changes, that the gap won’t exist for much longer.

reading 03

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?

This is actually one of the most disconcerting topics for me to think about, especially being female. One of my goals in life is to get married and have a family, but in my mind that means that I will most likely leave my career to raise a family, because that is what my mom did, and I loved having her around when I was growing up. I want to be there for those everyday experiences in my kids’ life. But that leads me to question—what will happen to my career while I’m gone? Can I just put my work on pause?

Until I was 2, and my family moved to the suburbs of Chicago (where my dad grew up) from Washington, D.C., my mom worked on Capital Hill for a senator and my dad worked for a law firm. When we moved to Chicago, my mom stopped working and my dad became the sole breadwinner working for a law firm in the city, and spent a lot of time working his way up to become a partner in the company.

By the time I was 5, I had three younger sisters, and when my dad wouldn’t come home until 7 or 8 at night, which was around the time we would go to bed, my mom was the one who took care of us. And she was amazing at it. I don’t know how she juggled four girls, laundry, shopping, soccer practice, swim team, tennis practice, book club, doctors appointments, homework help, changing diapers, potty training, kissing boo-boos, mediating fights, teaching us to read, and then putting a hot meal on the table every night. She is wonder woman. And though my dad taught me the importance of a strong work ethic, and would often come home and help me study for my science and math tests after a long day at the office, I was always jealous of my fiends whose dads were home around 5 and would eat dinner with the family. My dad was busy working. Weekends were great when he could be home, but I know now how hard it was on my mom not having my dad there during the week.

I think finding balance is very hard. I saw my dad do it, but he was really lucky to have my mom at home for us during the week. I admire the single parents who have to work and take care of kids and raise them on a single income and pay for childcare. They are amazing. I honestly have no idea how they do it. Because I think family and work are very difficult to balance. I want to be successful wherever I am, and I don’t feel like I’ll be able to do that if I’m juggling work and children, because I feel like I wouldn’t be able to give one my full attention because I’d be so concerned about the other. I think one of these will always dominate my attention and the other will fall behind.

The article Why Women Still Can’t Have It All is very interesting, realistic, and true in many cases. A couple of quotes I really appreciated were:

“Just about all of the women in that room planned to combine careers and family in some way. But almost all assumed and accepted that they would have to make compromises that the men in their lives were far less likely to have to make.”

“Having control over your schedule is the only way that women who want to have a career and a family can make it work.”

I definitely think it is harder for women to balance work and family because society for so long has dictated that it is the female’s responsibility to be caregiver and the male’s responsibility to be the bread-winner. And because of that, women are more likely to leave their careers to take care of their families. It is statistically proven that women are less successful in the working industry. And as a result, companies are less likely to invest in women’s careers because their life span is shorter. Men are more likely to stay and grow at a company and can be groomed to take over certain positions. Women on the other hand are likely to take maternity leaves or to leave the company after having a few kids. And that is socially acceptable, and even expected.

I think companies are obliged to work with their employees, male or female, that choose to leave to raise a family. I think it’s easier in an industry where it isn’t as competitive or cutthroat, where there isn’t as much a risk of someone younger and single taking your position for sure. But I think companies need to realize that putting time and effort into an employee who leaves for family isn’t a waste of money.

For me personally, thinking about my career, I hope to be successful in my job for as long as possible. I am in college for a reason—I hope to be self sufficient and to earn my own money and be successful in a career. I’m not sure if the decision to leave my work and raise a family will be one I have to make, but I am prepared to do so in order to be there for my kids. But I also see the appeal of continuing to work. (I figure I’ll make that decision when it comes time though.) I definitely would want to go back to work after my children were out of the house, or able to take care of themselves. That is what my mom did—she started doing government relations within the University of Illinois, as she dealt with higher education policies when she worked on Capitol Hill. And she loved working again, and, even if I don’t get back into engineering, I at least want to do something else after I no longer have kids—maybe do something I felt like I never go to do before but always wanted to.