reading 11

From the readings, what is artificial intelligence and how is it similar or different from what you consider to be human intelligence?

• Are AlphaGo, Deep Blue, and Watson proof of the viability of artificial intelligence or are they just interesting tricks or gimmicks?
• Is the Turing Test a valid measure of intelligence or is the Chinese Room a good counter argument?
• Finally, could a computing system ever be considered a mind? Are humans just biological computers? What are the ethical implications are either idea?

Artificial intelligence is the stuff of sci-fi movies where robots take over the world. It refers to the intelligence of machines and non-living beings. Generally the difference between the two is the ability of humans to learn from their surroundings and from social cues and from history to make decisions and assumptions, while computers are known to only be able to use the information immediately before them or the inputs they can interpret. But that is changing quickly, though it is still considered “weak AI” because it cannot interpret the way humans think or attempt to fully think independently. Though machines are moving closer to that, they cannot do that fully autonomously because it’s very hard to set specific rules that are easy for a human to identify, but difficult to interpret into code.

Machine learning is a way of getting computers to know things when they see them by producing for themselves the rules their programmers cannot specify. The machines do this with heavy-duty statistical analysis of lots and lots of data. (Rise of the Machines)

AlphaGo and Watson are two of the most advanced computers in the world today. Another Economist article points out how many moves are possible in AlphaGo—10¹⁷⁰. With this many possibilities, strategy can’t be hardcoded into the machine if it’s expected to be successful. Therefore, the program has to be “smart” and learn from its opponent and other games and continue to develop its database of knowledge and not stay stagnant. That’s what Watson also has going for it—it recognizes trends in large amounts of data. And can materialize that information in milliseconds.

What I really like about the Turing Test is that it’s not saying that a machine is a human, but it’s saying that machines can eventually be programmed to be smart enough to respond like humans. That after 5 minutes of questioning, 70% of the time, the interrogator (X) will not be able to tell if the subjects are a person or a computer. And I think that where we are in the advancements of computers and AI, that this is a fair statement. Obviously the most intelligent computers still have a long way to go before they’re even close to imitating a human brain, but they’re much farther along than the first computers were. But the difference between the first computers to the computer that I’m writing this post on is comparable to the huge leaps in advancement seen from the modern computer to Watson or AlphaGo. This clip from The Imitation Game, about Alan Turing, the inventor of the Turing Test explains his test.

 

Computers attempt to mimic the human mind and to make the connections that the human mind does. But even after all our advances in science and the study of the brain, there is still so much that we don’t know about it. Like thoughts for example—there is still no scientific understanding of thoughts because there is no way to physically recreate them in a brain. And though computers can mimic the synapses and neurons in the brain, as they’ve done with a rat brain, but this modeling is nowhere near as complex as the human brain is. And that is where I don’t think that computers will ever reach the same level as the human brain. Because the human brain is still such a mystery to us and so vast and beyond our control—created by God in a way that we cannot comprehend. And the key part of the human brain is that it learns and understands and thinks and develops, from the day we’re born to the day we die, in a way that a computer might approach but I don’t think will ever quite reach. Though, after seeing the movie Bicentennial Man, I do feel for the main character, a robot named Andrew, and can only hope that one day he becomes human too.

reading 10

From the readings, what exactly is Net Neutrality? Explain in your own words the arguments for and against Net Neutrality. After examining the topic, where do you stand on the issues surrounding Net Neutrality?

• If you are in favor of Net Neutrality, explain how you would implement or enforce it. How would you respond to concerns about possible over-regulation, burdening corporations, or preventing innovation?
• If you are against Net Neutrality, explain why it is unnecessary or undesirable. How would you respond to concerns about providing level playing fields or preventing unfair discrimination by service provides?
• In either case, discuss whether or not you consider that “the Internet is a public service and fair access should be a basic right”.

Ironically enough, in my procrastination for doing my homework today, I was reading theSkimm and it even referenced net neutrality—in regards to Netflix. Netflix recently exposed that they have been limiting streaming speeds over certain cellular data networks (AT&T and Verizon specifically). They said they were attempting to keep users data usage in check. And they were saying that this was not violating net neutrality, which they are big supporters of.

Net neutrality is “the idea that your cellular, cable, or phone internet connection should treat all websites and services the same. Big companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast want to treat them differently so they can charge you more depending on what you use” (I thought this website did a really nice job of explaining it). So Netflix wants net neutrality so that anyone using their service doesn’t have to pay more to use it. Cable companies want Netflix to pay more because there is often very high traffic on their site, but obviously Netflix doesn’t want to pay an increased rate on something they already have, and feel is unjust as is.

 

I think that initially, when reading about net neutrality, the initial predisposition would be to compare it to Obamacare as Senator Cruz compares it. Net neutrality doesn’t involve government directly, but rather prevents ISPs the ability to charge certain websites more money for streaming capabilities. It prevents service providers from creating monopolies in the industry and from making money for running an internet service during peak times at the same bandwidth they have at lower demand. To me, it’s very clear that there should be net neutrality—there only people being hurt by having it really are the service providers and those in the government being paid to support those ISPs. And honesty, they make enough money that I don’t feel too bad. If restricting the Internet means that certain people can’t use it and access it a the availability they can now, then it definitely isn’t worth the fractionally faster speeds. The picture below is a fun and easy way to understand net neutrality.

So in regards to the internet being a basic right—as of now, it is considered one, and so to take away access to it would infuriate the American population. No one should be deprived of the wealth of information that is contained in the Internet, especially not by IPS or the government. The beauty of the internet is that it was created in order for people to use it and to share information on it and to bring about a smarter population on the whole. Almost all people have access to a landline telephone—the internet needs to be the same way. The internet is one of the greatest educational resources available, and to restrict access to something that was never created to be restricted would be cruel.

 

 

project 03

Option 2: Security + Encryption

Project 03

• Is encryption a fundamental right? Should citizens of the US 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?
• 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?

When we discussed this in class, I came to the conclusion that I want to be able to be in control of my information. I don’t think I’m a very private person, mainly because there really isn’t anything very interesting to know about me, so if you want to know it, go ahead, but whatever I tell you will probably put you to sleep. Even saying that though, there is some information I would not like to get in the hands of certain people—stalkers, hackers, pedophiles, and the like. So personally, I am going to be careful with the information I give out. But if someone else, like the government decides to access the information that I choose not to advertise on the internet, then that’s not really cool with me. I want to be able to be in control, and therefore, I think that encryption should be a fundamental right of US citizens.

So when the case of FBI vs. Apple came out, I was on the side of Apple, because all the devices I use are Apple, and I want to know that whatever information I store on them won’t get into the wrong hands. Again, it’s not like there’s anything crazy important on here, but I do have my credit card numbers stored on my devices, and if Apple created a backdoor to their devices and that somehow got in the wrong hands, I wouldn’t want to jeopardize my money or my private identification information.

In terms of support, I don’t think anyone is necessarily fighting the overall right to encryption—I think that so many people support it that anyone who tries to fight it will gain no support from the masses. In terms of social, people can share on social media what they want—they have control over that, and so if more information than they want, then that is their fault. But in instances like the one of FBI vs. Apple where there is this not a fight for complete loss of encryption, but just in a specific case, then I think there will be more people fighting for the government’s right to protect versus personal privacy rights.

Overall though, I think that personal encryption will win. For son long it has been the norm—that people have the right to privacy, and since they’ve had it, they’re not going to want to give it up. And I think that people will not let the government take over their right to privacy, and honestly, what does the government need with all of the stupid texts I send in my family group message anyways?

reading 09

From the readings, what exactly the DMCA say about piracy? What provisions does it have for dealing with infringement? What exactly are the safe-harbor provisions?

• Is it ethical or moral for users to download or share copyrighted material? What if they already own a version in another format? What if they were just “sampling” or “testing” the material?
• Have you participated in the sharing of copyrighted material? If so, how did you justify your actions (or did you not care)? Moreover, why do you think so many people (regardless of whether or not you do) engage in this behavior even though it is against the law?
• Does the emergence of streaming services such as Netflix or Spotify address the problem of piracy, or will are these services not sufficient? Is piracy a solvable problem? Is it a real problem?

The DMCA is an additional to the Copyright Act and says security-related tasks that involve circumventing security systems, encryption research, or reverse engineering software [are] illegal.

 Due to the ease with which digital works can be copied and distributed worldwide virtually instantaneously, copyright owners will hesitate to make their works readily available on the Internet without reasonable assurance that they will be protected against massive piracy. Legislation implementing the treaties provides this protection and creates the legal platform for launching the global digital on-line marketplace for copyrighted works. It will facilitate making available quickly and conveniently via the Internet the movies, music, software, and literary works that are the fruit of American creative genius. It will also encourage the continued growth of the existing off-line global marketplace for copyrighted works in digital format by setting strong international copyright standards. Copyright of Digital Information

The safe-harbor provisions are the government’s way of ensuring protection for service providers. If they follow a set of guidelines set out by the government they can reside in the safe harbors and be protected from any impending storms. It’s a way for ensuring that service providers won’t have to pay for violations of copyright laws within the safe harbors guidelines.

It isn’t ethical for people to download or share information that isn’t theirs. Even if they can justify it to themselves—they might justify it by saying it’s just “sampling” or “testing.” If it’s copyrighted, then it isn’t moral to do it. But that doesn’t stop people. Because why pay when you can get something for free? And if you’re moral and feel inclined to pay for these things, why is it ok that people get for free what you pay for? It doesn’t seem fair. If not everyone pays, then why should you pay? This is where the slippery slope starts. It’s like an older sibling justifying their wrong actions by saying the younger sibling did it first, but obviously the older sibling should know better. Younger kids can be guilted into feeling bad for doing something wrong when they know they shouldn’t. Adults on the other hand look for things to be fair. And when you’ve got free riders who try to get things that other people pay for, the people who are paying for it are going to be less inclined to want to pay for it themselves.

I have definitely felt this way before—why should I pay the jacked up iTunes and Target prices for albums when I can just download them for free off the internet? I’ve definitely shared an album on a CD or over air drop with a friend before. It’s almost easier than buying it, and definitely cheaper. So why not? I don’t buy my music or movies anymore, but rather subscribe to streaming services that allow me a much cheaper a more versatile option than purchasing individual  songs, tv shows, and movies. When I did, I didn’t have a job, so it was my allowance money I was spending on music, so if my friend allowed me to save a few of those previous dollars, then I was going to take advantage of that. And it was really easy—I could just burn it on a CD and pass it on. Or I could send it via AirDrop. So easy.

In regards to streaming services, I really thought the article Whatever Happened to the War on Privacy? said it well. Streaming services give you the most bang for your buck while also being within the bounds of copyright laws and giving artists and actors payment for their work (though they might not believe they receive enough for their works). But I’ll take the music, tv shows, and movies at a set price when I have access to thousands of them at my fingertips.

reading 08

From the readings, what exactly are patents? What are the ethical, moral, economic, or social reasons for granting patents?

In your opinion, should patents be granted at all? Are they really necessary or beneficial for society? Do the promote innovation or do they hinder it? Explain.

Additionally, should patents on software be granted or should patents be restricted to physical or more tangible artifacts? Explain.

Finally, is the existence of patent trolls evidence that the patent system is working or that the system is broken? Explain.

Patents protect peoples ideas and inventions and art and other creative effects from being copied by other people. It’s a way for an inventor or creator to take credit for their work and get paid for it, fully and solely, and to prevent other people from taking their ideas and claiming them as their own and being paid for it. Patents ensure that everyone’s ideas are respected and they are given credit for their hard work. They ensure that those who put the effort in receive the benefits—they make things fair. They also motivate people to continue to invent and research and learn more because there is an incentive to their doing so. Patents don’t intrinsically seem to be a hinder to the world—it’s when those patents are infringed upon or people attempt to steal other people’s patents that issues arise.

I think patents should be kept and used, and not only because they are the reason I’m able to go to Notre Dame (my dad is a patent lawyer). Patents make things fair. And that’s what I think I find most important—that things are equal. If someone puts in the work to discover something new, then they should be rewarded for their efforts. And this is the problem for drug companies if patents didn’t exist. Other companies might fare better.

A common argument against patents is that they hinder invention because if a company holds a patent for 20 years, it means that no one else can attempt to fix it or develop it further and make it better. But I would like to object and say that maybe it’s the opposite—maybe companies are fighting so hard to avoid breaking patents that they end up discovering a new way to do things. The smartphone patent wars are something that come to mind. All of the major cell phone industries are in this race to be the first to create and perfect the newest smartphone technology. Apple has a very different touch screen interface than most other smartphone companies, and that’s probably because Apple patented their way of designing it so that other companies couldn’t copy it, so instead, they worked around it and developed a new way of perfecting the touch screen.

Patents are often very nit-picky. They have these little minute details that companies fight over, and these are the types of cases my dad covers. It’s all about trying to find a way to do something in a different way so that it doesn’t infringe on another companies patent. And this is where new invention arises.

Patents should be granted for software and not just physical objects. I can only imagine the number of patents on my Mac operating system. I know that certain patent cases deal with how certain aspects of closing out of an application on your phone. So obviously, with the way that computers and cell phones have developed in the past decades, software is equally as vital in the individuality of devices and how they work. So software ideas should be protected in the same way.

Patent trolls means the system is obviously working—not efficiently, but it’s working. It is the trolls that improperly reap the benefits of others hard work. But not without compensating the inventor for their patents. I think Ilkka Rahnasto says it well:

“The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for.”

Companies don’t need to hinder the growth by not sharing ideas for 20 years, they just want to be compensated for their hard work and for getting their first. If patent trolls feel the need to hinder invention so be it—you’ve got many other companies in the race to continue to grow invention and technology that if some people decide to make life difficult for everyone else that’s an unfortunate roadblock, but obviously isn’t completely stopping invention (Moore’s law is an example of this). Ultimately, we should keep patents to protect inventors. Unfortunately the system may be abused by patent trolls, but as are many other parts of the government, and that’s why there are lawyers to fight such things and to try and keep the system fair.

reading 07

From the readings and in your experience, what ethical concerns (if any) do you have with Cloud Computing? What exactly is Cloud Computing? Considering the Internet meme that “There is no cloud. It’s just someone else’s computer”:

• As developer, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the Cloud? Describe any experiences you’ve had in using the Cloud as a development platform, what led you to use it, and if you plan on using it in the future.
• As a consumer, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the Cloud? Describe what sort of Cloud services you use on a regular basis. What trade-off are you making in utilizing these platforms?

The other weekend I went to an IEEE conference where we had some people from Workiva, a company that creates a cloud-based compliance and risk platform used by many major companies for SEC compliance. What they talked about was cloud-computing and the security behind it and what it means for us as engineers and as consumers. The focus was using the cloud as a computing utility, and how it can work to our advantage.

They spoke about how the cloud is actually a very useful thing—you can store large amounts of data, that would require multiple servers and data rooms offsite. And you can access it any time and you can harness the extra power to run operations at a faster and higher speed—such as compressing human genomes, or having thousands of people play Worlds of Warcraft at the same time.

For example, the company I worked for last summer, an engineering construction consulting firm, stores all of their data offline. They have thousands of different blue prints and designs stored at a separate location because in this instance, they didn’t need to always have the information ready at a moments notice, and so it was cheaper to store it offsite than to try and accommodate the storage and power consumption required to handle such massive amounts of data in a small Chicago office space. They did have several servers at the office, which many companies actually use, called a hybrid cloud, in order to run AutoCAD and Revit, two different modeling systems that required a lot in order to run. So therefore, it was beneficial to be able to use those servers purely for running AutoCAD and Revit, rather than storing data. Ironically enough, this company actually designs the data centers used by cloud computing companies. These data centers are heavily temperature controlled and designed purely to be as efficient as possible—in terms of power, physical space, and storage space.

But back to Workiva. Something the presenters said really stood out to me: “Companies pay us money to protect their information.” They did talk about security breaches they’ve seen—Mongo HQ, but also with Snapchat. A simple break in Snapchat’s security algorithm meant that millions of users private phone numbers became public.

Obviously by giving data to another company, you are relinquishing some control of that information, but it is also the goal of the cloud-computing company to ptrotect that data as much as possible.In terms of security with cloud computing, the company that stores your data is being paid to protect it. And they’re being paid to prevent it from being broken into by hackers, and they’re also being paid to protect it from government investigation as much as possible too. I looked at AWS’s Privacy Policy to see what their thoughts were on all of this. And this is what I found:

AWS will not disclose, move, access or use customer content except as provided in the customer’s agreement with AWS.

They also adhere to the Safe Harbor program designed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Ultimately the program says this:

• Notice – Individuals must be informed that their data is being collected and about how it will be used.They must provide information about how individuals can contact the organization with any inquiries or complaints.
• Choice – Individuals must have the option to opt out of the collection and forward transfer of the data to third parties.
• Onward Transfer – Transfers of data to third parties may only occur to other organizations that follow adequate data protection principles.
• Security – Reasonable efforts must be made to prevent loss of collected information.
• Data Integrity – Data must be relevant and reliable for the purpose it was collected for.
• Access – Individuals must be able to access information held about them, and correct or delete it if it is inaccurate.
• Enforcement – There must be effective means of enforcing these rules.

I agree with what a lot of these authors said about cloud computing—that the benefits of using the cloud outweigh the security benefits. The Department of Defense claims to have its own cloud computing system. But actually, it’s just their own private servers, which isn’t actually a cloud based system at all, just some extra servers at all. This I think brings the entire idea of ethical cloud-computing into perspective for me. For the cloud to be as secure as possible for each company, they would have to have their own personal cloud but that defeats the whole purpose because that just means they’d have more of their own servers, which is what they’re trying to move away from in the first place. In the same way that you won’t lay your own pipe, power lines, or telephone wires, neither would you have your own servers—it’s makes more sense to outsource it.

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.