Month: October 2018

Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers must treat all the data on the internet equally and cannot discriminate or enforce speed regulations against individual consumers, websites, platforms or methods of communication.  In other words, without net neutrality, internet service providers could now offer “bundles” similar to how television providers do for packages of channels on television.

The arguments for net neutrality are surrounded by the fact that internet should be a “public service” and that we should not restrict access or speed to anybody or for any individual website.  This argument also brings up the fact that there could be an uneven playing field as smaller companies may not be able to pay these large fees to internet service providers to ensure that their websites do not fall prey to slow speeds.  The arguments against net neutrality include an argument that, by revoking net neutrality, innovation will increase as the free market will take over and companies will now be driven to innovate in order to separate themselves from other companies on the internet.  Also, those against net neutrality raise questions regarding over-regulation by the government and claim that the free market will do a much better job in regulating the internet than government could.  In my opinion, while I do not feel very strongly either way, I believe that we should not have net neutrality and that it should have been repealed.  However, while I do lean more towards not having net neutrality, I do see and understand the issues brought up by those who are in favor of it.

Personally, I do not believe that net neutrality is necessary and that our internet could be better off without it.  As I have already stated, we have already seen how this “bundle” or “package” based internet could play out, as television has been doing this same exact business model for decades.  Some users could pay extra for packages that include HBO, Starz or Showtime because the base cable package does not come with these services.  I also believe that, with internet being totally regulated by the free market, innovation will increase as companies now have more incentive to compete for internet traffic against their competitors.  In response to issues regarding providing a level playing field or discrimination against internet service providers, I would argue that internet giants will always have a “leg up” on smaller businesses, but that might not necessarily be a bad thing.  With these giants being favored by internet service providers for paying large amounts of money to the providers to include high speeds on their websites, this could open up avenues of innovation for smaller companies to find other ways to compete with these giants.  These companies might not be able to compete monetarily with these giants, but they can try and find other ways to compete and open up other avenues of innovation.

I do not believe that the internet is a “public service and fair access should be a basic right”.  Again, I believe that this is similar to what the television model has been for decades and, with different bundles of cable offering different package, all television channels are not a basic right for everyone.  I believe that the internet should take this type of model and that it will be for the better.  I believe this because I have more trust in the free market being able to regulate the internet better than the government can.

Corporate personhood is the notion that all companies, separate from their workers, are, to some extent, treated as people in the eyes of the law and can enjoy some of the same rights and responsibilities as individual human beings can as well.  This obviously has legal ramifications as companies can have the same rights and responsibilities as individual people, so they can enter into contracts with other corporations or they can sue other people or corporations.  The social ramifications of this notion is that, in the eyes of the people, there is a question whether or not we should view the actions of corporations differently than the actions of individual people.  Should there be a difference in the way we view the actions of corporations and individual people if the two can, to some extent, be seen in the same light in the legal world?  The ethical ramifications are very similar, should corporations and individual people be viewed different with regards to the ethical aftermath of their actions.

 

With regards to the Muslim Registry database, I believe that workers can decide to withhold their work on a project based on their own personal moral and ethical beliefs.  However, I believe that, while they may personally hold out their work on a project they do not agree with morally, it may not make an impact on the project at all.  This is because the company, if they continue to believe that it is in the best interest of the company, will just find someone else that is willing to work on the project to take up that spot in the project.  Overall, individual workers holding out their work will not make an impact and therefore, I believe that workers should find other ways to speak out against projects or ideas instead of holding out on working on these projects.  With regards to whether or not companies should make decisions based on ethical or moral views, I believe that this should be taken into consideration, but should not be the end all be all for every decision that is made.  This is because, especially publicly traded companies, companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to do what is right for the company in terms of returns to their shareholders.  Now obviously I believe that companies should not do things that are extremely immoral or go against the company’s views entirely just for money, but I also do not believe that ethical and moral views should make the entire decision.

 

While companies and corporations are afforded the same rights as individual people, I do not believe that they should be expected to have the same exact moral and ethical responsibilities.  While this is not saying that companies should have no moral and ethical responsibilities, I think that companies should have more leeway than individuals since companies have people that they need to look out for.  Companies have employees, customers and shareholders that rely upon the companies and, in many cases, their livelihoods rest on how the company does.  If a situation presents itself that may be in the “gray area” of ethics, but would prove a huge success for the company and the people relying upon the company, then the company must weigh these factors before making a decision.  This is exactly what companies must do in the “Muslim Registry” issue.  Due to the easily accessible nature of this data, this act would lie in that “gray area” and a company must weigh this before taking on a contract.

With regards to companies collecting information about our online and even offline habits, I believe that it is totally within reason for companies to be able to do this and is not unethical at all.  Personally, I have no issue with companies collecting my data to try and put personalized advertisements on the websites that I use and would actually much prefer this than if a company didn’t collect data and just put generic advertisements on their site.  In reality, companies rely heavily on advertisements for their revenue streams and, especially for online social media sites that are free, advertisements may be their primary way of making money.  In light of this, I believe that companies, especially public companies, are morally responsible to their shareholders to make money and, if advertisements are the company’s main way of making money, then they are totally within their reason to put advertisements on their site and, as I previously said, I would much rather have advertisements for things that I like and am more likely to buy than for things that I would never buy.  In this world, we must submit to the fact that advertisements on websites are going to happen, so why not have advertisements for things we actually like than for things we would never buy on our most frequented websites.  Now, this belief is based upon the fact that companies are keeping your data safe and not using this data for malicious means.  As long as my data is being kept safe and within the company who’s service I am using, I have no issues with the company using my data for targeted and personal advertisements.  I would also like to address one of the gripes that The Atlantic article has with personal data collection: the fact that there are surveillance cameras filming in restaurants or public streets and credit card tracking that will track your credit card purchases.  Personally, I have very close ties to both Boston and New York City, and will be living and working after college in the surrounding greater Manhattan area, and have seen the benefits that this surveillance has.  Take, for example, the Boston Marathon bombing.  The Boston Police Department and FBI would not have had a credible lead unless the camera along Boylston Street had caught one of the bombers placing down his backpack in the crowd and then walking away before remote detonating the bomb.  Imagine if we did not have this camera there and, perhaps, had not caught the bombers before, as it was reported, they made their way to New York City for yet another attack.  Federal officials and police departments also use credit card tracking to try and track down suspects to see where they are in the country or out of the country.  I don’t personally understand the reasoning of people that have an issue with this because, if you are doing nothing wrong, then what is the downside of having cameras filming public streets or having your credit card purchases tracked?  These two means of surveillance are used by federal officials or police departments for tracking down suspects and the normal citizen should realize the good these means of surveillance gives us and not gripe with it.

After completing these readings and in my opinion, I fully believe that Edward Snowden is a traitor.  To that end, I believe that the US Government should wholeheartedly pursue extradition to try him for his crimes against the United States and our allies.  In Snowden’s working with the CIA, he had access to many classified documents and programs that our government was employing to keep both the United States and our allies safe from terrorism and other threats.  With Snowden leaking information regarding the NSA and CIA collecting data from the public in order to scan for threats and attempting to gain a better understanding of the people of this world, this operation is now completely useless.  This operation would now be completely useless because, with its running now public knowledge, the people that this operation was intended to monitor will now not communicate over these channels and might now not pop up in the US intelligence agencies’ radar.  Through his exposing of this information to the media, the people that the United States want to monitor might not be seen now.  Putting aside the legality of leaking this sensitive and classified information to the media, I do not believe that what Snowden did was ethical or moral.  I believe that because of the role he played in the CIA and the information that he had access to while he spent time at the CIA.  He had direct access to sensitive and classified information that our government was using to try and keep us and our allies safe and undermined our government’s attempt at doing that by letting the general public know about our covert and classified operations geared towards keeping our citizens and the citizens of our allies safe.  I believe that this is completely and wholeheartedly wrong and neither ethical or moral.  Because of these actions, he has undermined our intelligence agencies’ classified operations and, potentially, put our citizens and our allies in harm’s way.  With these covert operations remaining covert, we may have been able to detect possible signs or rumors of an attack on our country, but now with this operation being public knowledge, this possibility has gone by the wayside as the people that could have potentially committed this attack would not use these channels of communication anymore due to the possibility that their covert attack would be uncovered by our intelligence agencies.  In releasing this information about our intelligence agencies to the public, Snowden has potentially put American citizens in harm’s way and allowed an avenue for a surprise attack on our country.  Obviously, putting American citizens, and the citizens of our allies, in harm’s way and exposing them to potential terrorist attacks is not ethical or moral and is detrimental to the public.  For anyone trying to argue that Snowden is a hero, I would like you to consider the possibility that our intelligence agencies do not pick up a potential terrorist attack that may have been picked up through these leaked spy programs and think about the loss of life that could have been saved.  This is why our classified programs need to stay that way.