Month: March 2018

Question: From the readings, what exactly is Net Neutrality? Explain in your own words the arguments for and against Net Neutrality. After examining the topic, where do you stand on the issues surrounding Net Neutrality?

 

Net neutrality is the belief that all data which is accessed on the internet should be treated the same from the point of view of internet service providers.  This means that certain websites cannot be favored or blocked depending on how the ISP feels about the website. An example of this would be Comcast blocking internet users from accessing Verizon’s website, or an ISP allowing faster streaming on Hulu compared to Netflix because the ISP had made a deal with Hulu. Net neutrality first began in 2015, when the FCC passed a law encouraging net neutrality and making it illegal for companies to favor or block data from certain sites. The law was met with much controversy and ISP’s were involved in several lawsuits at the time trying to fight net neutrality. This changed in 2017 when congress essentially eliminated all of the net neutrality protections which were put in place two years ago. Now, the topic is as heated as ever, with many lawmakers trying desperately to get net neutrality protections back in place, while others are fighting to keep net neutrality out of the law.

People who are in favor of net neutrality argue that it keeps certain organizations without as much capitol as big companies from being discriminated against. The whole concept of the internet is that it should be open and free, but if big companies can pay to have their sites in a “fast lane”, then you are essentially losing the openness of the internet, and will become restricted to only viewing certain sites.Aside from money, ISPs could discriminate against organizations which they do not agree with, either for political ethical or religious reasons.  This could severely inhibit grassroots movements, which often rely on the open internet to organize events and gain supporters.

 

Opponents of net neutrality argue that it does not necessarily make the internet neutral.  One big argument against net neutrality is that companies that use a significant amount of bandwidth, like Netflix, should have to pay more for that bandwidth because they are limiting the amount that ISPs can use on other smaller sites, seeing as there is a finite amount if bandwidth an ISP can use. Other arguments against net neutrality claim that there are not any real examples of ISPs doing anything unethical during the time before 2015 when there were essentially no net neutrality laws. Due to this precedent, opponents of net neutrality claim that it would be a waste of tax dollars to impose a litany of additional regulations on ISPs to prevent them from doing something which they seem to not be doing anyway.

 

I believe net neutrality is  good thing which should be brought back into law. For one, the articles which claim that ISPs haven’t done anything bad in the absence of net neutrality are mistaken, as it was pointed out that AT&T had already shown a history of favoring its tv service above other services by not having tv streaming charged to a user’s monthly data limit. Additionally, I think that even if there are not egregious examples of companies acting unethically in the absence of net neutrality, that doesn’t mean that there is no possibility of that changing in the future, and in order to ensure this doesn’t happen net neutrality laws need to be put in place.  I believe the biggest concern with net neutrality is the blocking or favoring of certain sites. If net neutrality regulations are put back into law, they should be focused on ensuring that companies cannot pay to have their sites featured more prevalently than others, and also that ISPs cannot block sites due to conflicting beliefs.

Case Study: IBM and the Holocaust

The concept of corporate is a longstanding notion that exists, stating that the government should afford corporations some of the same rights as people.  This notion has a wide range of impacts, spanning legal, social, and ethical issues. Legally, there have been a number of supreme court cases throughout American history which have established to what extent corporations can be viewed as persons in the eyes of the law. For example, the 14th amendment guarantees the fair treatment of not only people, but corporations as well.  A more recent legal example of corporate personhood came in 2010: the famous Citizen’s United case.  This case guaranteed that corporations could spend money, just as people can, to donate to campaigns and elections in the hopes of placing desirable candidates in office. Further, corporations also have a right to take on social issues such as gun control, or the use of contraceptives, just as an natural person does. What is controversial about this, though, is that corporations tend to have much more influence than any normal person, so their social stances can have a significant impact on many people. For example, is a company owned by a catholic family is against the use of contraceptives, they can deny access to their employees, therefore imposing their social viewpoints on a large number of people.  This corporate clout also demands ethical accountability.  Gun stores must distribute their products in a safe way to ensure the safety of the population, and construction companies must be held accountable if they cut corners on safety measures. All of these issues and many more play into the complexities of American corporate personhood.

I believe the ethical dilemma surrounding IBM’s involvement in the Holocaust is very cut and dry. There is absolutely no excuse for a company to do business with any organization that so clearly evil as the Nazis were.  Other companies like Ford can claim that they had lost control over their German branches, and they still have openly apologized and taken on efforts to fix those mistakes.  Not only did IBM have complete control over what was going on in Germany, but they also have never accepted blame for their actions! What’s worse, it seems as though IBM worked directly with the Nazis to tailor their product line in order to make the Holocaust as logistically smooth as it could possibly be.  I honestly had no idea any of this was true, or the extent to which IBM positively impacted the Holocaust, and after doing research it has certainly changed my opinion on the company as a whole. Generally speaking, I believe it can sometimes be hard to identify how morally pure an organization is, and this can make it difficult for companies to decide who to do business with.  While they should always do their best to refrain from doing business with unethical groups, if the group exists in a grey area then I think it is up to the discretion of the executive leadership to decide what to do.  Regardless, if a group is as clearly contemptible as the Nazi’s there is no excuse to be doing business with them, and I believe IBM should be punished in some way for its previous actions.

 

Topic: Internet of Things

The Internet of Things (IoT) refers to a broad range of devices and objects which can be outfitted with electronic equipment (sensors, cameras, actuators, etc.). Some examples of IoT devices are self driving cars, smart home appliances, and electronic medical devices such as pacemakers.  There are many benefits to these kind of devices. For one, they make our lives much easier. By reducing human intervention people can live easier lives, and be more productive. This benefit could also in turn lead to economic benefits. If people can save time, they will have more time to do work or otherwise stimulate our economy.  There are also applications where IoT devices can greatly increase efficiency for companies.  For example, connecting IoT devices to valves on a oil rig would make diagnosing rig problems much easier; instead of manually checking multiple valves to find the defective one, an operator could just look on a screen and see which ones have signaled, through IoT integration, that they are faulty.  However, there are drawbacks to connecting everyday items to the global internet.  The biggest concern is hackers. Without secure encryption techniques, there is nothing stopping a hacker from connecting and manipulating an IoT device.  The potential fallout from this ranges from mild inconveniences to absolute catastrophe. For example, if a hacker were able to gain access to the safety system in a nuclear power plant, he/she could override the reactor, while at the same time disabling the alarms and notifications necessary to alert the crew of the override. There are an infinite number of examples like this, hackers could gain control of someones self-driving car, a home video system, or even an embedded medical device like a pacemaker.  With these security concerns, it is important for companies to be very cautious before designing an IoT device, and be aware of all potential consequences a breach could cause both them and their customers.  Regarding liability for such breaches, I believe that a detailed investigation of the IoT device should be performed to determine liability.  For example, if the company ordering/designing the device chooses to have low level/no security, then they should be liable for security breaches. On the other hand, if the manufacturer of the device has problems in the code/hardware that make it more susceptible to hacking, then they should be liable. As far as regulation, I do not think it would be wise to have the government regulate every single IoT device, I don’t need my tax dollars being spent making sure my IoT Keurig is un-hackable. However, for more serious devices I think there should be regulations in place, the same way the FDA makes sure we are getting safe drugs and food.  If there is potential for a device to have a significantly bad impact on someones life if hacked (self-driving cars, pacemakers, etc.) , then I think it should be regulated to ensure people who may not be as tech savvy are not getting duped by buying insecure devices.

I think the IoT could be a great thing, if done correctly.  I already stated how the time saved by implementing such devices could significantly improve the economy. By the same logic, people could also have more time to spend socializing and building relationships with friends/family, so I think the social impact of these devices would be great as well.  I would not be afraid of an IoT world because at the end of the day I am the one deciding how much IoT I am bringing into my life. If I am worried that someone may hack my automatic door locks, or gain access to a video feed within my house, I simply won’t buy those devices. At the end of the day most IoT devices are implemented for convenience, not necessity, so it is really up to the consumer how much hacking risk they are willing to accept to make their life easier.

 

 

Question: From the readings and in your opinion, is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor? Should the US government pardon him for any possible crimes or should they pursue extradition and prosecution for treason?

 

Edward Snowden is a person I have not thought about for a long time. When his story first broke in 2013, I was only really aware of the bare minimal details regarding what he did. However, after doing some research on the topic I have found it very interesting to learn more in depth about the information he leaked and how that leak has impacted the World.  The basic logistics of how the leak came about were that while working as a contractor for the NSA, Snowden filled multiple laptops of information from the NSA’s top secret network. Most of this information dealt with how the NSA collects and records data on American citizens.  Among the leaked information was a secret court order sent to Verizon which demanded the company to hand over information on its client’s phone usage records to the NSA.  Snowden also revealed that the NSA had a method of recording phone and internet habits of Americans, which contradicted previous statements of the NSA that this information was only looked at in real-time.  Another secret which was revealed was the existence of the Prism program, which gave the NSA “direct access” to internet usage data from a number of tech giants (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.).  All of this information and much more was laid out on Snowden’s laptops, including detailed descriptions of how the NSA collected, recorded, and analyzed the data it was receiving.  After meeting with journalists from The Guardian in a Hong Kong hotel, Snowden detailed his findings in a series of interviews, and uploaded his information to WikiLeaks.

While I don’t think I would go as far as calling Snowden a hero, I do not believe his actions were unethical.  I understand that there cannot be complete privacy without sacrificing security, and I personally do not have any problems with the NSA monitoring my internet usage, after all its not like I am doing anything illegal or remotely interesting from the NSA’s perspective on it.  However, I think Americans have a right to know about this sort of thing. Governments should not operate in the shadows, and it seems that the NSA had been doing exactly that for quite some time.  Because if this I respect Snowden’s bravery for making a move to increase government transparency.  It also does not seem that the leak has had any significant repercussions for American security. Some articles claim that the information will be used by terrorists to better avoid NSA detection, but I highly doubt that any terrorists were really shocked to learn that the NSA says on them, and I considering the power of the NSA I am confident it has already come up with numerous different data collection methods than those which were leaked. It seems that the biggest impact these leaks had were on the people who didn’t know they were being watched: everyday Americans.  I am sure these people may feel betrayed by their government, but I believe it is better to know what is going on in your government than to be blissfully ignorant.