Coding in schools

Computer Science has been a growing field in the last decade or so. It seems that everyone is now taking a liking to the art. After reading a few of the articles for this week, I am not sure where I stand on the issue. I understand both arguments and they both seem valid. Computer Science has the potential to be the new literacy. I think companies are definitely making a strong push to make this a reality which is why I see this happening. However, there also seems to be a belief that teaching coding in school is a waste of time.

I guess the argument against teaching programming in high school is that it is a waste of time. In one of the readings, it was stated how most people in America are already programmers, even if they’ve never even looked at a line of code. These programmers use other tools like Microsoft Excel and Access to interpret data and visualize results with the same logic a stereotypical Computer Scientist uses. Another argument is that we won’t even have coders in the future. This argument sort of makes sense with the rapidly growing field of artificial intelligence. Machine learning algorithms are essentially learning like humans do. Who is to say computers won’t be able to code themselves in a few years? In this case, wouldn’t it be ideal to devote more time to developing the creative side of students?

Nevertheless, it seems giant companies and their CEO’s are constantly pushing for more computer science in schools. Apple launched coding camps for kids using their language Swift. Mark Zuckerberg has been a strong supporter of code.org, an organization that advocates how coding will be an essential skill in the very near future. The idea is that these companies want the best people to write their code. If everyone knew how to code, in theory, the level of programmers would be incredibly high. Learning to code has essentially become this era’s space race: a pursuit of innovation, growth, and massive strides for humanity.

Ultimately, I think some form of coding should be taught in schools. At the very least, I believe perhaps some of the logic that goes behind coding should begin in kindergarten. I think everyone has the potential to learn programming. I believe, as a generation, we are tech savvy and therefore probably won’t struggle that much to understand how to do it. Nevertheless, perhaps forcing it on kids is not the best way of going. Unlike literacy, I believe not everyone might be inclined to learn the skill. I like the argument that there already exists programmers that don’t need to write code. I do believe AI will become increasingly smarter and the level of coding required to produce great things at companies will be simplified. In that case, perhaps it might be a waste of time.

Patents

In one of the readings, Microsoft general counsel explains, “Protection for software patents and other intellectual property is essential to maintaining the incentives that encourage and underwrite technological breakthroughs. In every industry, patents provide the legal foundation for innovation. The ensuing legal disputes may be messy, but protection is no less necessary, even so.” Patents protect creators from others using their invention for a certain number of years.

I do believe there are are some limitations that come from patents. Hindering the ability to use inventions and manipulate them freely has to hinder creativity in some way. However, an argument can be made that patents do the opposite. Because companies or entities are not allowed to forge inventions that are patented, they often choose creative ways around the patent. In some cases these inventions failed miserably like the Microsoft Zune (to Apple’s iPod). Nevertheless, there is some creativity in copying a product in a different manner. It’s like Youtube covers of famous songs. Sure, the Youtuber didn’t write the song but he or she still made a version that, though lyrically and melodically the same, is his or her own version of the song.

Tesla is a big proponent of no patents. In fact, they encourage others to steal their technology as they believe this is the best use of it. Letting others use their technology which is constantly striving to improve humanity, lets others do the same. In Tesla’s case, their mission is to produce electric cars that are environmentally friendly. Putting patents on these vehicles would effectively prevent others from manufacturing these cars which would mean more profit for Tesla, but would also mean their mission is being fulfilled which undoubtedly should be their goal.

So if I had to come up with a sure fire rule: patents yield profit but prevent creativity. In software, it becomes even hazier. I really do not have a good answer for this. Software can be very different and completely the same. Software is typically built on layers and layers of code. Some of these layers can sometimes be replicated by accident. In this sense, patenting software makes close to no sense.

Patent trolls essentially try to make more out of the abuse of the patents they own through many methods like litigation. In the readings, a company called Commil sued Cisco for using one other patents. Commil, which was a startup that made nothing from their patents, won $63.7 million. They owned these patents purely for this type of scenario. I think this is evidence that patents are broken. When creativity is taxed in this form, how can we say we are doing what the purpose of software really is: creating. If companies cannot create freely without having to worry about paying $63.7 million to a company that had no plans of ever creating the product in the patent, then I would argue creativity is constantly being lost.

Trolling

I once saw a tweet saying, “How is cyber bullying even real? Just walk away from the screen. Just close your eyes.” Trolling is a form of online bullying in which individuals harass others behind the shadow and anonymity of a computer screen. Trolling starts with a joke or two targeted at an individual. The jokes, often done in a hateful manner, begins growing into harassment. All of a sudden, it’s everywhere. Trolling leads to an unstoppable force of constant harassment.

One article that I read states the facts. “In a Pew Research Center survey of 2,849 Internet users, one out of every four women between 18 years old and 24 years old reports having been stalked or sexually harassed online. Two out of five people said they’d been victims of some form of online harassment. And nearly three-quarters of responders said they’d witnessed harassment online.”

It’s hard to say whether or not companies have to address this issue plaguing their sites. The sticks and stones argument can definitely be made in some situations. Jimmy Kimmel has a segment called “Celebs read mean tweets” in which celebrities read tweets from trolls on Twitter. Though they are often seen as humorous, this segment is a perfect example of how cruel the internet can truly be. At the end of the day, it might be argued that all things online should be taken with a grain of salt.

Nevertheless, sometimes things go to far just like it did during Gamergate. Gamergate was targeted to a group of women who was a victim of a hate article written by an ex boyfriend of one of the woman. In it, the author of the article claimed this woman advanced her career through unethical and immoral means. Users used #Gamergate to hurl insults at these women based on the idea of not needing to be politically correct and poor journalistic ethics. Regardless, this showcased not only how misogynistic the video game community, but also how quickly people can turn to terribleness when anonymity is guaranteed.

Real name policies are, in my opinion, fairly important. I agree people on the internet should definitely have the ability to express themselves. I think you could argue that regulating speech on social media sites can get pretty difficult. However, in real name policies, companies can guarantee people will be held accountable. This will make users think twice about what they write.

I don’t really know if trolling is a real problem or if it is just something we should get accustomed to dealing with. At the end of the day, trolling is a form of cyber bullying and bullying should never in any situation be tolerated. I, personally, have never been trolled but I don’t think I would appreciate being harassed online. I don’t think it’s a problem that can actually be solved but I definitely think it is a problem that should be address. Whether it is in school or by the companies in which trolling thrives, there should be a movement to end harassment online.

Project 3

 

 

 

• Finally, when is whistleblowing the ethical or right thing to do? Is “honesty always the best policy” or are there times to remain silent? Can transparency be forced upon others? Is it desirable?

 

The revelations in Vault 7 definitely influence my views on government surveillance. The CIA tools that were leaked show how much power they actually have. Applying algorithms to commit cyber attacks on other countries shows how dangerous these tools actually are.

Likewise, these tools were released to the public. We live in a world where normal people have access to CIA tools. The tools that give our country immense, unfathomable power online are now in the hands of everyday people. Yes, I am deeply concerned about my privacy and safety online.

I mentioned in the podcast how ignorance is not bliss. Not when it comes to things the magnitude of governments. I agree that there are certain secrets that should remain secrets. National security should always be at the center of everything a government does. However, after the fact incidents that governments hide because they look bad should not ever in no way be kept a secret.

I think Wikileaks has a track record of being unbiased. I am sure Julian Assange would hate a Trump presidency yet he still released information that hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances. I think that is why I trust Wikileaks. They are not seeking to destroy anybody in particular. But rather, they are doing their best to take the lies away from government.

I think there are times where whistleblowing is necessary and times where it is not. Ultimately, it comes down to two questions: does the public deserve to know and will this not put anybody in jeopardy? If the answer is yes, then yes, at all costs by any means necessary whistleblowing must occur. I think Wikileaks has done a good job of protecting their whistleblowers so I firmly believe they are doing a great job of respecting these two questions.

Living in a post fact world

The term “fake news” references a story or article that is essentially untrue. These viral hoaxes are often shared through social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

Fake news has become almost a buzzword for right-winged conservatives looking to cast blame on the media in recent months. To be fair, “fake news” did affect the 2016 Presidential elections. Realistically, however, it probably helped put our current president in office. Certain government officials in this country have started using the term whenever they disagree with a story. I believe this is why it’s still a problem. Calling CNN fake news does not necessarily hurt CNN’s reputation but rather just blurs the idea of what actual fake news really is.

One Facebook fake news writer who takes credit (or blame) for getting Trump elected with one of his hoaxes states his job is very easy because the American population refuses to fact check before sharing. His satirical, The Onion-like articles are always believed to be true, no matter how outlandish.

The truth is, I have seen many fake news articles on my timeline in the past. And every now and then I read them. I typically realize they’re fake stories but I would be lying if I say I hadn’t sent one to a friend in the past. “Tom Hanks is moving to Laredo, Texas” was the title. I was pretty excited and sent it to my parents. After googling for more articles, I realized it was untrue which made sense. Ultimately, ideally, I do not think fake news should be a detriment to society. Personally, I find them funny and entertaining.

Nevertheless, our world is less than ideal. When a thing like fake news has the ability to completely alter the course of a presidential election, companies need to find a way to suppress these stories. I, like most people, get most of my news from Twitter and Facebook. Though I am comfortable knowing what I am reading might not be true depending on the source and should therefore take it with a grain of salt before sharing the information, I understand not everyone does this. Companies should regulate fake news by at least labeling them as satire or giving a warning that the news you are about to read might not be true. Though it’s scary to think that companies will have the power to regulate what is shared to the public, it might be a necessary evil.

Like I’ve stated, I don’t think there is anything wrong from getting most of your news from social media. In fact, I believe that is what has led to a smarter, more politically active millennials. However, it is scary to think it has also caused us to live in a “post fact world”. When blatant fake news stories are shared by our own president, does the truth stand a chance? We are definitely living in a time when people simply do not care about facts. The next few years will determine a lot about where society is heading. As of now, it doesn’t look great.

IBM, Nazi Germany, and today

Corporation personhood essentially means corporations are guaranteed personal rights. That means companies have every right that an individual has, most notably the first amendment.

During WWII, many companies were faced with what to them was a tough decision. Business decisions are typically made in binary methods. By this, I mean businesses think in terms of making or losing money. So when Nazi Germany sought out these companies to help them, some of these companies obliged. One of these companies was IBM.

As it turns out, IBM powered Nazi Germany. They helped organize and improve the efficiency of this terrible organization. According to the readings, “the Holocaust had six stages: identify the Jews, isolate them, exclude them and seize their assets, put them in ghettos, deport them and, finally, exterminate them.”  IBM participated in each of them. They tracked census information of Jews, managed concentration camps, and used tattoos to keep track of prisoners. IBM chairman and CEO Thomas Watson even dined with Hitler before approving a school that would teach European schools how to operate and maintain the machines.

No, what IBM did during WWII was not in any way moral or ethical. Yes, corporations should be held responsible for the immoral or unethical use of their products. The actions that IBM committed during these times should not be in any way be condoned. IBM lent a hand to one of the most horrific and atrocious genocides in the history of humanity. No, their actions are not in any way ethical or moral for obvious reasons. Doing business with a man who is a racist anti-semitic man who constantly spewed hate surprisingly had repercussions. Corporations should refrain from being associated with any entity that is unethical or immoral. A corporation, regardless of corporate personhood, cannot just choose to make immoral choices just because they want.

It really is hard to determine things from hindsight. In the past few months, with everything going on in this country, I have been very interested in the history of Nazi Germany and the every day working class citizen during that time. I ask myself if they had any idea what was going on or if they truly believed what they were doing was actually correct. So if a person at that time how horrific Nazi Germany would be remembered what is to say IBM knew. Though now, it can be said their actions were incredibly disgusting, I struggle to say I would do anything different at that time because I simply do know what they knew. For them, Nazi Germany could have just been another country at war. Think about all the wars America has gone into in the past century. Businesses from everywhere are probably lending a helping hand to aid us. How do we really know where we stand in history? Did IBM know the amount of blood that would be on its hands? I would think so but I really do not know for sure. Ultimately, I think the moral of this specific case is to not mix business with war. No matter what, no good will come from it.

 

 

 

e

Snowden

This past summer I saw the movie Snowden with Joseph Gordon Levitt. If I’m being honest, it was the first time I realized what he did. I had read about Edward Snowden and the NSA like every other American citizen but was never really outraged. When I got back to campus in the fall, I began noticing something in my classes: students with a small white piece of tape on their laptop webcams. For this simple reason alone, I believe Edward Snowden is a hero.

Edward Snowden (and his rubik cube) met with a team of journalists from the Guardian and explained to them what he knew. He shared a number of documents containing information stating the NSA was spying on its own citizens. Why did he do this? Love for his country.

What the United States was doing was without a doubt unconstitutional. What Snowden did was stand up for his rights as an American citizen. “The oath of allegiance is not an oath of secrecy”, Snowden has stated. Snowden saw a government that was invading the privacy of its own citizens and decided to fight it. Ultimately, Snowden’s actions forced the NSA to become more transparent in its actions, U.S. citizens to be more critical inquisitive about its government, and the government more accountable for its actions.

I understand the point of view of a government official so I understand why they would be hesitant to pardon Snowden. Snowden did disclose some information outside of his believed notion of securing the constitution is upheld. He leaked documents proving we were spying on the Chinese government and other foreign nations. Though he did expose an entire government organization and improved its transparency, he also leaked government secrets that had nothing to do with his oath of allegiance. For that reason, I do understand why a pardon is unlikely. Nevertheless, in the long run, what Snowden did was morally and ethically correct. He upheld the constitution and made this country better for it.  For that reason, I believe he should be pardoned or at least partially pardoned so that he can have a fair trial in this country.

Since hearing about the amount of government surveillance going on in this country where freedom and privacy are terms that are so often waved around with pride I have definitely began distrusting the government. As someone that wants to work in the tech industry, it probably is not good to have a stigma against it; but that’s what Snowden caused. We fear technology because it connects us to everything and in that sense eliminates our privacy. I do not think it is a coincidence that most of my classmates have tape on their laptop. I believe Snowden changed the way we look at our government and our technology. Based on the track record Snowden leaked, I don’t think it’s absurd to question these two things.

Job Interview Guide

ethicsproject2

To me, the most important part of the interview guide we created is the technical interview portion. From my experience, knowing the concepts we mentioned and that will determine whether or not you actually get the job. If you have a strong grasp on all the concepts, however, you are likely to do well and secure the job.

Another portion of our interview guide that I thought was important was improving your resume. Because companies have thousands of applicants to weed out before you can even get to the interview. Having a clean, wholesome resume that efficiently highlights your experience is crucial to hearing back from your potential employer. Jumping on this, I wish that I knew how important networking is to employers. Even if it’s not at a career fair, just emailing a recruiter to ask for help in the process goes a long way. I have applied to hundreds of jobs before realizing this. Since I started emailing recruiters, the response rate has increased dramatically.

I do not believe Notre Dame should adjust their curriculum to the job interview process. Realistically, all we should care about is learning the material and making sure we have a well rounded education in computer science. If we do not do well in the job interview process at least we can take comfort knowing once we do get a job we will be able to do great things. That, ultimately, is the most important thing.

Whistleblowing

The 1986 Challenger explosion is a traumatic moment in U.S. history. As CNN’s live feed captured the shuttle take off, one man and a few of his colleagues looked on nervously. This man, Roger Boisjoly, knew the proper decisions were not made. Boisjoly was an engineer at the firm Morton Thiokol who worked on the rocket boosters for NASA. Before the launch, he warned NASA and Thoikol about the danger of launching at such a cold temperature. Previous tests showed that the 0-rings, which kept the booster rockets sealed, would fail at 53 degrees Fahrenheit; the morning of the launch, the temperature was below freezing. Boisjoly understood this deadly risk which is why we made the strong recommendation of postponing the launch. Ultimately, the root cause of the Challenger explosion was a failure in the decision making process. The facts pointed to a strong risk of something bad occurring yet NASA was more interested in launching that day after many past delays.

Ultimately, I believe Boisjoly was ethical in sharing this information. For one, he did so through the right avenues before going straight to the press. He first went directly to the presidential commission in charge of reviewing what went wrong and brought Major Gen. Donald J. Kutyna his memos to NASA in which he urged them to postpone the launch due to concerns over the weather.

I do not know if what he did was actually whistleblowing. The readings suggest that because he tried to go to the people above him and not directly to the public, that he was simply doing his job. He did eventually and in secret go to NPR and speak to them about the incident. Nevertheless, what he did do was shine light on a huge mistake his company and NASA made.

What Thoikol did afterwards showed they definitely believed he had just committed whistleblowing. NASA and Thoikol essentially tried to make his life as difficult as possible; Boisjoly recalls feeling like a “leper” during this period in his life. In an ideal world, no, this act was not justified. Boisjoly made his feelings clear before the launch and he was unfortunately vindicated. Ideally, Thoikol and NASA should have apologized to Boisjoly for not taking his concerns and the concerns of the other engineers more seriously. He should have been promoted for catching a mistake and preventing disaster. Unfortunate, this world is not perfect. I understand why Thoikol did what they did. Boisjoly brought them into the spotlight in which they looked like incompetent fools.

Whistleblowing is an intriguing part of society. Yes, these big firms or sometimes governments are definitely negatively affected but I am a believer that public knowledge is important. The kids who watched the live stream, the families of the astronauts who died, and the American people deserved to know the real reason why the Challenger exploded that day. NASA and Thoikol made grave mistakes that should never be repeated (though they were in 2003). Whistleblowing brings up accountability which is why I believe what Boisjoly did was brave and courageous and ultimately good for society.

A Systemic Problem

Every time I apply for a job there are two questions that always stick out to me. The first is race/ethnicity. I, obviously, always check “Hispanic/Latino”. For some reason, every single time I do so it feels like I’m answering correctly, as if this is the right answer to the question. Then, there’s the second one: gender. On this one, however, I don’t feel as correct. Yes, answering “male” for some reason dampens my spirits a little bit. I understand this is irrational but there’s something to be said about it.

Silicon Valley, it seems, has a “noble intention” to diversify its companies. With initiatives like Project Include, there is a push to hire more women and minorities. Why? Because the lack of diversity does exist. There is a lack of racial and gender diversity in Silicon Valley companies.

It is completely possible that this is something that just happens to be an unfortunate reality. The arguments begin with the idea that women just are not into the idea of programming for a living. Or perhaps they are more prone to staying at home and starting a family. Or maybe the masculine culture is off putting to women. Though most of these myths have been dismissed through studies, it could be possible that it just is a fact of life: women do not want to be computer scientists. In which case, what can be done? This argument, however, reaches it’s end when you factor in the lack of racial diversity. How can it be that an entire racial group or ethnic group is turned off by the idea of programming? This doesn’t make sense and proves that the problem is systemic.

What I found interesting in the readings is that diversity doesn’t necessarily have to do with race. When I apply for a job and check “Hispanic/Latino” they don’t ask me where I’m from. They don’t care that I was born five minutes away from Mexico and lived on a border city for my entire life. Diversity isn’t necessarily restricted to skin color. As the readings stated, walking into a startup in Silicon Valley is like “walking into the United Nations”. Dozens of nationalities can be seen yet somehow no one counts this as diverse. In this sense, I understand the opposing argument that the lack of diversity is overblown.

At the end of the day, these discussions are had because there is a fundamental problem with diversity with minorities and women. This alone closes the case on whether or not the issue is overblown. The problem is there and there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, the issue is systemic. These problems need to be addressed since grade school. In order to combat the idea of privilege and eliminate the idea of affirmative action or reparations, how about giving everyone the same opportunities to succeed. Programs like Code.org are a great start to accomplishing this goal. I am not sure hiring specific genders and ethnicities is a solution. Rather, we have to get students interested and involved in engineering and computer science earlier. That is how to fix the diversity problem.