Month: September 2018

“You’ve got nothing to worry about, if you’ve got nothing to hide”. I’ve always been at odds with this quote, because whenever I rethink or look at it from a different angle, I’m always either agreeing with it or finding some flaw in it and it’s a cycle that happens over and over again.

However, I can’t help but think about a question my friend said: “Why do we leave our homes unlocked?”. Then the question extended further: “If there was total surveillance and through that accountability, would it be weird to still leave our homes unlocked?”. The initial worry would be that people could steal our property, or something of value. But in a world with surveillance, that wouldn’t be possible. So what’s the danger here?

It’s tough to initially see those dangers, and I think sometimes I like to invalidate those dangers myself which is why I’m so wishy-washy on this issue. I think that a lot of it comes to my exposure to social media and the tech industry’s big players. Social media facets such as Facebook and Twitter and tech industry giant Google emphasize that their products and vision act as forces of good. However, we’ve seen major privacy issues with these companies come up as well where Facebook user data was leaked during the last presidential elect and where Google was found to keep track of users’ locations even when they had the location GPS feature turned off. However, we still use these products because they have become quite integral in our lives, yet because of this are blind to the dangers they hold.

This made me think about the book, “The Circle” by Dave Eggers. Back when it was published in 2013, its situation was taken as by most reviewers, too futuristic or implausible to apply to society. However, it’s interesting that as time went by, the books premise became less of a distant dystopic sci-fi, but more of a increasingly close reality. The book presents an almost monopoly-like tech giant (just like Google now), where the next main technology the company wants to feature is live streaming services which the main character becomes in charge of. She’s spearheading the initiative of the world becoming more and more transparent, as the company belief is that transparency is the solution to a utopia. And in the book, it has, there’s virtually no crime since everyone’s held accountable, and the inexcusable behavior of people online dwindled. So she becomes a celebrity of sorts, where she basically has to stream and wants to stream her entire life (except for bathroom breaks), and people fall in love with that image of her. But that’s a problem the book presents. With constant eyes on her, she doesn’t even realize that her behavior’s changing for the worse, people in her life start to distance themselves away from her because they don’t want to be involved in that sort of transparency. It’s almost to close to reality now with Facebook Live, Twitter Periscope, and Twitch where these services stream streamer content, which can lead to privacy issues as well. In the book, it becomes pushed to the extreme with everything essentially being live-streamed all the time,

I think the main unseen danger is the possibility of using that innocuous information to guide, direct, or take advantage of people based off of their information to tailor to specific company or governmental needs. For example, if I walked into a Target supermarket, and they had cameras and scanners tracking whatever I bought, Target could use that information later on to advertise to me possible wants that are more tailored to me the next time I come in. However, if people are being held accountable for all aspects of their lives, then their could easily be marketing that implies “if you don’t buy this, then we’re going to imply that you’re missing out”. For more examples, would you say no to donating to a cause at the cashier register with thousands of people possibly watching you? Maybe you just really couldn’t spend more money that day, maybe you could but honestly you just don’t want to, but with decisions becoming more and more narrow with surveillance, individuality slowly gets lost, and with that the degradation of humanity. As what we see on the camera screen, isn’t always the truth.

-ANON please.

Q: From the readings, what is your opinion of Chelsea/Bradley Manning‘s decision to leak sensitive information to WikiLeaks and her subsequent sentencing? Is what she did ethical or did she violate her duty? Should she have been protected under the Whistleblower protection laws? Is she a revolutionary hero or a traitor?

---

A: Even though I was reading through the articles provided by Professor Bui about whether Chelsea Manning was a hero or not, I think I just needed to hear an answer from her herself, on whether what she leaked would be a danger to the public, or whether it was a harried grab of information and deciding to spread it everywhere. From ABC’s interview with her, the interviewer asked her if she had that intent in mind, and she decidedly said no. I think from then on, it was clear in my head that Chelsea Manning was a hero. It’s true what she says, war is not a clear good and evil, it’s always messy. And this principle has been reiterated over and over again in many texts and biographies that at some point, maybe we’ll learn from it. Also, the decision to remove soldiers from that region by President Obama made me realize that the amount of resources going into it weren’t necessarily needed.

However, the information she revealed, most importantly or at least the most highlighted one, was definitely of corrupt nature. The video gained traction by showing a gunning of 2 journalists and innocent civilians. Also, since that video was never meant to come to public light, it’s sort of scary to think about that the information we see may never be the full story.

In her interview, she reiterated the point that what she did was her responsibility, her duty. It’s not something that was drafted up in one night. It took a lot of thought and choice into releasing something like this.

However, I do see the panic behind the nature of her whistleblowing event. The hacker that she was in contact with at the time, made a reasonable decision to turn this information and the informant to the government, as it was during a tenuous time and the amount of classified information presented could make anyone nervous about its release.

First off, it’s kind of funny that there’s now a whistleblower protection act, because one of the parties that hid information was the government itself. Besides the fact, should Chelsea Manning have been protected under these laws? I think if the authority, in this case the government, is hiding information, and is selecting what information to broadcast for propaganda, then I think I would interpret that as an abuse of authority. However, critics do say that this act violated protection laws since the act of whistleblowing itself was a potential threat to public safety. That’s where I needed to hear Manning herself have the intentions that was the complete opposite of that. To hear her intent of having public attention, discussion, and knowledge without endangering the public at the same time, was a little reassuring, even though no one truly knows the circumstances.

Q: From the readings and in your opinion, is the lack of diversity a problem in the technology industry or is the gender gap overblown? 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?

In the article, “Why is Silicon Valley so awful to Women?”, it listed three main reasons as to why women leave tech: “workplace conditions, a lack of access to key creative roles, and a sense of feeling stalled in one’s career”. A lot of side thoughts said out loud, what may be deemed as harmless to one, can build and become just a complete mess to the other. I think either Silicon Valley has a major superiority complex, or pride issues. I think there’s also a lot of misunderstanding, and not enough perspective in the field as well.

I’ve also wondered why such a progressive place in the world, had so many equality issues. The article above blames it on the idea of meritocracy, but I think that idea is permeated by bias of the ones who make it first (because being first is very important), and then that just sort of continued on and on for generations leading to and creating toxic behavior.

In an Observer article called, “I’m a Latino in Tech, and I Think the ‘Diversity’ Discussion Is Utterly Broken”, by Eric M. Ruiz, he discusses that most workplaces don’t understand what diversity might mean in the first place. And just like in the article, I agree that diversity just doesn’t mean race. If a company tries to specifically target a demographic, but they all come from similar experiences, then there’s not much diversity at all. It all comes from what one actually experienced, such as their socioeconomic situation, their neighbors or lack of, and so much more. And I could relate, because overall, even though I am Asian, my background is so much more than that. My background isn’t and shouldn’t be defined by just that.

• What do you make of the events at Uber? What is your reaction on the events and the aftermath and what do these events say about diversity in technology?

After reading about Susan Fowler’s experience at Uber in her article, “Reflecting On One Very, Very Stranger Year At Uber”, it’s kind of a no-brainer on how Uber became a public HR mess. It also shows how bias can make people so ignorant to a fact that women were dwindling in the company, and the fact that other employees were looking for faults in their women employees, without taking a moment to reflect and wonder if they themselves could possibly be the reason.

It seems as though it would all be common sense, it’s not really hard to be a respectful person. It doesn’t even mean you have to be nice. All it means is that every person is simply their own person, and it’s not that hard to take a step back and think about what you would do in their shoes if these horrible situations ever came to you.

As I was reading through the requirements and content of the H1-B visa on a government site, the more I found myself scrolling and searching and clicking on more and more links to find more additional information that seemed crucial. It felt like I was Alice in Wonderland but the rabbit hole just kept getting deeper.

Simply put, I lucked out on one major thing in life. I was born in the US. What that meant was that even though my parents weren’t US citizens, I automatically became one without having the need to go through any of the circumstances and details that one not born in the US needs to go through in order to come / work here. But even though I was a US citizen from day 1, my parents still had to go through the complicated process of getting green cards, and then ultimately becoming US citizens as well.

So should the H1-B program be expanded or rescinded? I honestly think that before even considering these options, that the program should first establish its myriad of complications and make them more understandable and reasonable before considering its options of expansion or deletion. The H1-B is such a complicated contract, that I think it’s necessary for a company that has employees specialized in taking care of those legal documents to take care of it for you. In addition to its inherent ambiguity, it’s even worse that its purpose is also mystified and misconstrued. In the article, “America’s Mixed Feelings About Immigrant Labor: Disney-Layoffs Edition” written by Bourree Lam on The Atlantic, the author presents the case where Disney replaced its current employees straight up with H1-B immigrant employees who would be trained to replace their current positions. The problem with this, is that it completely outright rejects the purpose of the H1-B program, which was intended for skills that were needed that were not inherent in the US. But when employees are fired because Disney can pay H1-B workers much less to save costs, that presents the current problem of people viewing work being stolen by immigrants. It’s the whole issue behind the saying, “Get out my country, you…” followed by usually derogatory terms. I’ve had this happen personally myself multiple times even though I am a US citizen, and after seeing cases like these, I can’t help but see where they are coming from. Don’t get me wrong however, I think it’s ultimately unfair to state that America needs its independence from immigrant workers, since that’s what the nation’s foundation was built upon in its humble beginnings. But when American companies decide to replace workers for workers they can abuse for lower pay, that’s where problems arise.

Its apparent in Silicon Valley, that the Valley itself is made up of many visa workers. The talent that diversity brings to the table has been realized in those places, and that’s why they thrive. But I think first that the H1-B program needs to be refactored and less complicated in order for any consideration of expansion, which I ultimately want to happen, to actually come through.

 

Q: What has your job (or internship) interview process been like? What surprises you? What frustrates you? What excites you? How did you prepare? How did you perform?

What is your overall impression of the general interview process? Is it efficient? Is it effective? Is it humane? Is it ethical?

---

A: A lot of what I’ve done for my entire life so far has been analyzing and understanding what I needed to do to achieve greater accomplishments. So when society tells me that education is the way, that the eventual SAT is the way, and that going to a great college will eventually lead to a great job is the way, I did everything I could to get there. I sacrificed a lot to study for the SAT, I spent a lot on college applications, and I hope I’m doing everything I can in college right now.

But now what I’m considering is whether what I’ve had to do has been worth anything, because I’m not even sure that those tests have to do with me testing whether I’m worth anything in any way. If something is so down to a science in many textbooks, preparatory materials, and etc, then it almost feels as though I’m just a regurgitating monkey, just spitting out answers I’ve seen over and over again. I’m not even sure that those major milestones were due to any of my achievements, but due to a system that’s so biased in the first place, that even though I may be going through the ropes, who knows whether I’ll succeed in my own right. So now that I’m going through studying the preparatory material again, this time, for technical interviews, I can’t help but feel as though the job interview process is so familiar to all those other major milestones, and can’t help but wonder whether the end result of being able to support my family with getting a quality job will all be left to chance or randomness in difficulty or even a simple dislike of just looking at me.

After going through I think maybe around 50 interviews since freshman year, I think that interviews are really chance. It depends on the rapport between the interviewer and me, it depends whether it’s not a random puzzle or a data structure that was covered very briefly, or it’s something so complicated that it intimidates me right off the bat. I can’t trust my gut feeling either. There have been times where I felt as though I’ve had the best interview in my life, but I’ve ultimately just been rejected or never contacted again.

There’s the screening process as well, where there have been times where if I missed  a single question or case, I would be flat out rejected. There have also been times where the process came down to an interviewer being cranky, obviously tired, or didn’t even understand the language that I was using. And worst of all, there have been times where I had to do most of the rapport, and all I got as a reply were “uh huh” and “sure”.

The interview process right now is extremely hard. Even getting entry or a chance to interview is tough, the amount of ridiculous problem solving and regurgitating of algorithms that one doesn’t need to do interview-wise makes it tougher. And even if you get the questions right, the fact that its left to a coin flip as to how some people are feeling that day is the thing that makes this process just topple on itself.

I may or may not be being too negative right now, but I think that I’m justified in my negativity because of how the process is due to so many circumstances that it feels like it’s out of my control. At least I hope networking seems like the surefire way to at least get a foot in the door.