When I started to read up on the issue of government surveillance, my mind immediately went to a funny Buzzfeed article that I had seen recently. Its title was "18 Jokes About the FBI Spying on People That Will Make You Laugh Then Feel Super Paranoid". A lot of it was about the FBI Agent that is apparently assigned to watch you through your webcam and about what they must think about you watching you go through the motions of your daily life. It's funny, and I laugh it off because I'm pretty sure it's not true (sounds like a pretty significant waste of resources), but the idea of someone constantly monitoring me and everything that I do on the internet sort of unsettles me. I don't have anything to hide, and I don't ever intend to do anything dangerously illegal, but the idea of being constantly looked at is no bueno.
That all being said, how do I feel about government surveillance? I'm on the fence. On the one hand, I think it's important that we have the option to have access to private data of individuals, particularly those involved in shady dealings or terrorist attacks. If invading the privacy of that person means learning about other potential issues that could come up in the future, then I say go for it. However, I understand the ramifications of tech companies purposefully weakening encryption to implement backdoors; even if it was something that could be turned off and on, it still risks the increased potential for a cybersecurity attack from a party that does not have the user's best interest in mind. As for whether companies like Apple are ethically responsible for protecting the privacy of their users, I do think they are to an extent. I don't think that the general population of law-abiding citizens should have their privacy invaded by the government. It's tricky, however, as one article had mentioned, how to define what privacy means since that in itself is somewhat of a social/abstract concept. So, to what extent is Apple obligated to reveal morally unjust people or those who may be participating in illegal/dangerous activities? I don't think that they can simply say "NO" in the name of privacy. I don't think that they could really stomach being part of the reason why something horrible happens, especially if it was preventable by sharing "private" information. In hindsight, it's difficult to turn a blind eye to the fact that sharing information could prevent terrible things, even if you are a strong advocate for privacy. How do you equate the privacy of one malicious individual over the lives of the innocent people who are affected? With that in mind, I suppose I would say I lean more towards government surveillance, but I believe that this surveillance needs surveillance. The government should not be able to just go around and monitor any person; they should need warrants and probable cause for doing so. Even though terrorist attacks are few and far between, I still think having the technology in place to be able to monitor erratic behavior is important and would give people an (ironic) sense of security. I don't know many people who would be against the government invading the privacy of a single individual who knew the exact time and location a bomb would go off in the US. Though it's tough to shirk away from the idea of being watched all the time, I believe the benefits of its potential outweigh the bad. So long as there is very thorough and serious surveillance over this government surveillance, I think that it would be good in the long run.
0 Comments
I find it hard to grapple with the technology industry and its meritocratic ways. I do believe that it is perfectly fine, even expected, for a company to want the people who have the highest skill level at the time. However, at the same time, I do think there is a lot that people, who may not necessarily have the skill set but are willing and able to learn it over time, can offer. I think it's also important that we, as Americans, put Americans first. I do not mean that we should exclude people from other nations. My family, like most, is one of recent immigrants. My mom's siblings are immigrants (but she was born in America), and my grandparents are immigrants from the Philippines. In America, they found opportunity, and they paved the way for me to be where I am today.
That being said, I think that it matters to an extent where the technology industry gets its employees. We should service the people that live in our country first before others. I do not, however, believe that we should be rid of the H-1B program. That may seem contradictory, but I think we need to scope out the best of the best from our own nation before we seek those from outside of the US. As to whether companies should be free to hire the best regardless of their national origin, I struggle with this. Are companies doing this because they want the best of the best, or are they doing this because they want the best for a cheaper price? How would companies react if they knew that they needed to pay higher salaries to foreign workers if they decided to go this route? I believe if they were okay with that, then companies should be allowed to freely choose who they want. However, if they want to have workers from anywhere regardless of national origin, I think that money cannot be the deciding factor in why they want this to be the case. I don't know if it should be called a moral/ethical obligation to America, but I do think that it should be a given that companies founded and able to form because they are located in the United States should have some sort of loyalty or patriotic love for their country. If it's possible to, as Trump said, "Buy American, Hire American", I do not think that companies should really be opposed to that, especially if you level the economic playing field with equal pay for all workers at their respective levels regardless of national origin. It's hard to answer whether nations should prioritize their corporations' needs over the needs of their citizens. I think there must be a balance because if you focus too much on one group, the other will be inclined towards restlessness and generally discontent. There needs to be a sort of compromise that allows nations to care about them semi-equally, and I think that reforming and revising how H1-B visas are given out would help alleviate at least a part of this struggle. However, as a disclaimer: I don't know a whole lot about the topic because I tend to stay away from politically polarizing issues, so I can't say that what I think is really educatedly backed or well-formed. I was surprised to read about the Therac-25 accidents, not because I don't believe that a software mistake could kill someone, but because I had never heard about it. It makes sense to learn about it in an ethics class, but I feel like a case study like this should be important to introduce to CS students early on in their studies, just so it's at the back of their mind. They should be aware that what we do and what we create has the potential to have important and significant ramifications to those that use it. It doesn't have to be a big, in-depth thing, but it should at least be mentioned, perhaps, when we start learning about code and start to encounter bugs.
That all being said, Therac-25 was a radiation therapy machine introduced by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) in the 1980s following similar units donned with the same name (but different number). The difference between the Therac-25 and its predecessors, however, was that the Therac-25 featured safety measures that were implemented through software rather than hardware. Because of the hardware measures previously in place, AECL overlooked a bug in the original software that was ignored because the hardware took care of the problem the bug created. This would prove to be a deadly mistake. The bug allowed the radiology technician to set the machine incorrectly if they make a mistake in typing at a critical point in the machine's aligning of the magnets. If the magnets were not properly placed, a "Malfunction 54" appeared, which indicated that the machine did not know whether there was going to be an underdose OR overdose of the radiation. This message, however, apparently occurred relatively frequently and did not appear in the manual, so technicians tended to ignore the error when it occurred because it seemed trivial. However, when the magnets were not set and the patient received the radiation, the doses were at hundreds of times greater than normal, resulting in the deaths of at least 3 people and serious injuries of 3 more. One challenge that software developers working safety-critical systems face is a very thorough checking of their code, testing every single possible case, and making sure everything works in the expected way. It is crucial that when code has the potential to kill or seriously injure someone, lose or severely damage the equipment/property, or cause environmental harm that they take great care to make sure that these systems do not fail. I think that they should approach these very carefully knowing the magnitude of impact a mistake or bug can have. When accidents happen, I do not think that it is only the software engineers at fault. There are many different people working on a single project; it will probably almost never be just the software engineers who originally designed the code. One must also lay blame on the people who test and review the code because they are the ones who need to make sure they catch these mistakes. There should be a very structured way of combing through code to prevent mistakes caused by bugs or unknown input. However, because we are only human, it is difficult to catch every single thing. People who are going to be using products that have safety-critical systems should be aware of the potential for problems in the software so they can anticipate and do their own research on things. This way, they can make an educated decision about whether or not they want to go through with it. That all being said, it's hard to prevent accidents (because by their very nature, they are not foreseen or intentional), but if they are things that occur because of something we can control, we must take every action to prevent these things from happening. I don't believe the gender gap is overblown, but I don't think it's necessarily a problem. I believe that part of the reason women are underrepresented is not necessarily because they aren't being hired but because they aren't applying or interested in the field. In particular, it's obvious that even looking at our own CS class, there are far more males than females, and this is not out of the norm for the national average. In particular, the following graph really caught my attention: I remember how hard my high school pushed the STEM fields onto us. I went to an all-girls school, and they really stressed women empowerment and stretching the boundaries of what a woman "could" and "could not" do. I think that this graph really sort of reflects what about the STEM fields they push, however. I had never even thought about coding until I came to college and used MATLAB for EG 101010101001 or whatever. It wasn't something that was really offered at our school. There was an option to take AP Computer Science online, but taking a class online and in person are two very different things. At our actual school, we had AP Calc, Chemistry, Physics, even Financial Algebra, but no Computer Science. It just wasn't really something that they pushed.
I can also honestly say that I don't think I would have ended up being CS if Notre Dame didn't have CS in the College of Engineering. It wasn't something that crossed my mind, and it wouldn't have been introduced to me through that first EG class if it wasn't included. I'm not sure exactly how our percentage of women in CS compares to the average, but I wouldn't be that surprised if we were slightly higher than the norm because of this. That all being said, this gender gap in tech definitely stems (no pun intended) from a lack of interest or introduction to CS. Of course, there are other factors too. I didn't know about it, but sexism is strong in the industry, which is pretty disappointing. I do, however, remember watching CODE: Debugging the Gender Gap my freshman year and being surprised to hear women's testimonies about their experiences being a woman in tech. (Don't ask me to elaborate on that more, though, because I don't remember much beyond that feeling). I think there is a recent focus on diversity because of the politics surrounding today. Race and gender is something is at the forefront of a lot of people's minds, especially because of the man we elected as president. He inspired outrage, with countless Women's Marches across the country, and he made and is continuing to make minorities (particularly African Americans and Hispanics) feel unsafe in the country they call home. Because of this, I think there has been a hyperawareness to many issues regarding race and gender inequality, so the one that exists in the tech industry is being called out for being poorly diversified. It's interesting being an Asian woman in the tech industry. There appears to be far more Asians in the tech industry compared to other minorities, but I'll bet that the gender diversity within that subset of people is pretty poor too. (For title reference, if you have never seen Lava, a short film created by Pixar that has almost nothing to do with this Ethics assignment, click here)
Have it all? Of course I want to have it all. I want a family (a loving husband, 2 kids, and at least one dog, but would prefer more). I want a job that I am challenged at and am excited to go to most, if not all, mornings. I want to be near my immediate family who has been there for me for all of my life. However, this begs the question of whether or not one can have it all. Do I believe it? I think it is attainable, though not without its obstacles. I look to my mom who had a pretty unorthodox life. She is a divorced, single parent who had to essentially raise my little brother and I by herself. Being a single parent, however, meant that she had to work to pay the bills because there was no other source of income. She didn't love her job, necessarily, but she had great friends there, and her family has always been close (her parents, siblings, and children all lived in Hawaii). It wasn't a typical 9-5 job, so she did work at odd hours. Nevertheless, she always had time to spend with us, and I never felt like I was without her presence. I would even say that she's probably too present, but I've never complained. I love my mom. In 2007, she graduated from the University of Hawaii with a BA in Psychology. It had been her dream to complete it, and like in most aspects of her life, she was an unorthodox student. Yet, she was able to earn her degree while being a full-time mother and worker. She's an inspiration to me. Even though she has pushed me to not fall into my footsteps, I still want to be just like her in other regards. She is a mom who sacrificed her weekends to work more so that she could spend the week with us (we spent the weekends with our dad, for a few years). She is a mom who loved her children unconditionally and pushed us to be the best "us" we could be. She is a mom who, despite not actually liking volleyball, accepted my choice to quit tennis and continue volleyball in high school, working even more to pay for club volleyball. She is strong, and she is an inspiration, and she has (usually) done it with a smile on her face. Seeing that, I think it's definitely possible to have it all. It does not come without its frustration and sacrifices, but it is certainly attainable. It would certainly be easier, however, if companies helped out a bit. I found it extremely surprising to learn that the US is 1 of 4 countries to not mandate paid maternity leave. To implement something like that would make it so much easier to "have it all". There would be less pressure to hold off on having a family (or never having a family). It would give families a chance to spend time with their children while still maintaining a successful career. Sure, it's not a surefire, foolproof solution that will magically make it work for everyone, but it would certainly take a part of the load off. I think companies should be responsible to support their workers to find this balance. I think it's inhumane to force your workers to put work above all other things. I understand that that is, by definition, what work is, but if the CEOs of the companies are allowed time off, then it's only just if their employees, do, as well. Otherwise, I think it feels pretty hypocritical and almost an abuse of power. I also understand that they worked their way to their position, but I don't think others (who, by the way, make up a significant more amount of the population than the few C Suites of major companies) should be penalized because they are not in that position of power. Finally, I find the work-life balance extremely important to my own well-being. Even in college, when I honestly don't really have that much going on, I always try to balance out my life. If, for example, I have a very stressful day and know that I don't have work coming up the next day, I always make it a point to take a break and watch some TV, play a game, read a book, or something just for my own piece of mind. I also like to workout, so I set time aside almost every day to make sure that I can make it to the gym because it's important to me to stay healthy and active. This is generally how I prevent burnout and find balance in my life. The Manifesto does reflect my thoughts because of the way that we wrote it. It was purposefully written the way it was because my partner and I do not believe that we really fall under the "typical CS student" label. I do not believe that our Manifesto is a war-cry. I think it is emotionally impact in the way that it's more inspiring than anything else. We wanted our Manifesto to convey that we are not a single being that can be easily defined just because we are ND CSE majors. We are more to that. We each have our own stories and our own drives, and we all have different goals in life. Regardless, we are united in our "label", but we do not want to be limited by it.
The general dislikes stem from things that anyone who has dealt with code has felt, so I do think I am very similar there. I am not like the typical ND CSE student; I don't come from a super rich family (I'm here mostly on scholarship, s/o to the FINAID office [I don't know if you share these reflections but pls don't share this fact]); I'm not white; I'm not male. In other ways, though, I am similar: I'm a new Catholic (baptized/first communion/confirmed last Easter); I do lean slightly towards the left being in a college environment and growing up in Hawaii. There are some things that I don't relate to, though -- I dislike that CSE students show up 15 minutes early to class on the first day since our seats pretty much become unassigned assigned seats and we're stuck there. I don't really like to code in my free time at all. I prefer to watch TV, read, work out, or be literally anywhere other than on my computer (I'd prefer shopping at Target than staying in and writing code). I think stereotypes really affect the way that I live my life. Being Asian, I've heard them for all of my life. I milk some of them -- "I'm Asian, I NEED rice with every meal". My roommate and I literally made a canvas thing that says "Rice is Nice" because we just kind of feel that way. I don't like to view the world through stereotypes, but it's hard not to when they exist because they are based on things people have experienced in many circumstances over and over again with the same group of people. I think the presence of a Manifesto or Portrait can be either damaging or beneficial. It really depends on what the content is. I do, however, lean more towards damaging because I don't think that we should really generalize about a population when we can't possibly know everything there is to know about them. I find it difficult to come to grips with that. These writing artifacts only do more to push stereotypes and generalizations down onto a population, and I don't think that's right. |
AuthorJulianna Yee. Archives
March 2018
Categories |