Month: October 2019

I think in general it’s not good to have the government watching and recording us. “Big Brother” can lead to censorship, limit free speech, and limit personal liberties. People aren’t as likely to speak their mind if Big Brother is watching, especially if what you’re saying is critical of the government. I personally do not think I have much to hide but I think it’s a problem and am concerned that it’s becoming more intrusive and more widespread. If I know Trump were reading my texts, for example, or had the ability to see them, that would keep me from speaking freely. While I do recognize the security benefits of having surveillance everywhere and being able to solve or prevent crimes or terrorism etc., I do not think it is acceptable to be under constant surveillance. The government should not surveil people without their knowledge, like in the NSA/Snowden case we discussed. In my opinion, we cannot be truly free when we are under constant surveillance.

It is difficult to draw the line between privacy and security, while I don’t think we should be under constant surveillance, I do see the security benefit to having eyes almost everywhere to potentially prevent crimes or terror attacks. However, when this technology and constant watching leads to something like locating illegal immigrants, not considering the other issues with it I mentioned before, it crosses the line of not leaving us with privacy. I think the government’s next step would be to be more transparent about how we are being monitored and what their security justification is for it. I think it’s unrealistic to expect the government to stop all surveillance but being more open about the benefits of it could be beneficial.

I think technology companies are responsible for protecting their users’ privacy. Since private companies are not owned or run by the government, they shouldn’t be giving our information to them. I think these companies should have practices in place to prevent harmful activities on their platforms, programs or initiatives for anti-bullying or anti-terror that kick those users off their platforms or have some monitoring for harmful things like these. While this could be some type of surveillance from companies on their users, they are private companies and users are willingly signing up for their products/services. However, in the case of government surveillance, we do not sign a terms and conditions agreement like we do with most technologies. Tech companies may have vagues statements about data collection but they at least give some type of disclaimer to users while the government does not. The engineers and developers at tech companies must consider their own privacy when developing products. Would they want this data about themselves to be recorded or monitored. I think government officials making surveillance decisions should ask themselves similar questions. Putting themselves in the shoes of the people they are watching, imagining themselves as an illegal immigrant and being deported because you were found on a security camera, they could make better decisions centered around personal privacy.

Engineering accidents are not merely accidents but the result of poor engineering processes and management. Poor engineering processes leading to a failure is the responsibility of the management since they are responsible for how project run and with what processes. Since so many engineering projects directly impact human life (as seen in the bridge examples in class and Therac-25 and Challenger readings) there need to be more checks on engineering implementations because of the severe consequences a mistake can cause. The management also needs to take bugs and failures more seriously than we saw in the big mistakes of the Challenger and Therac machines, if the erosion and injuries had been considered more severe than the management did, the deaths could have been prevented.

Engineers are obligated to speak the truth to an extent. If there are problems that could cause failures in what they’re working on or there are injustices happening, they should speak up in the appropriate manner. The truth/problem should be shared with the proper channels in order to fix the problem and it shouldn’t be shared with the public unless necessary. It is difficult to make a decision about whistleblowing but I think that proper channels should always be used. In the case of Manning, he/she should have communicated his issues with the injustices he was seeing with his superior, following the military’s chain of command, since there are ways for whistleblowers to report abuses. If his superior didn’t listen, care, or was the cause of the problem, he could contact his congressman. There are better channels to release confidential information like through a credible news outlet, releasing information on the condition that confidential parts wouldn’t be shared. This was the case with the Pentagon Papers and can allow injustices to be made public when necessary to fix them without breaching his security clearance. Manning ultimately released sensitive information that could help our enemies which makes him a traitor. I can understand why he felt the videos/information needed to be shared with the public but he shouldn’t have gone about it in the way that he did since he created a threat to national security.

I’m not saying that whistleblowing is inherently wrong, but if it is necessary, it should be done through the proper channels to prevent more harm than the abuses being reported. Whistleblowing can hurt the person who does it but can benefit the greater good and public when they have knowledge of certain injustices. There are some cases where breaking the law can be necessary for the betterment of society and for justice through whistleblowing. Knowledge of injustice is not always a good thing, especially when it is something that you personally, or in general, cannot fix. The government has a lot of corruption but I do not think I need to know everything that is wrong with the government since I couldn’t change it and it is not directly harming me, in general. In this case I’d say innocence is bliss and I wouldn’t want a whistleblower to reveal injustices that I can’t do anything about.