Computer Science 4 All

I think knowing how to code is an incredibly useful skill to have in today’s world, but I would not go so far as to call it the new literacy. Knowing how to use technology is the new literacy, not knowing how to program the technology, itself. That being said, I certainly think that everyone should be required to take some sort of computer science course that includes elements of programming. Technology education in America is pretty lacking, and it makes no sense to me that people are not making it more of a priority, especially when we’re surrounded by technology every single day. Learning how smartphones, computers, tablets, etc. work will definitely give consumers more power over their own devices, as they’ll be able to better understand why they have to download software updates or why an app has all of a sudden stopped working or why always having location services active is a bad idea. Education is the greatest equalizer and teaching people how their electronics work will only improve the average consumers ability to use those electronics.

Obviously, there are compelling arguments as to why everyone should be introduced to computing or programming. I touched on a few of them above, but some others include the need for more programmers to enter the workforce. There are plenty of these kinds of jobs emerging all over the country, and it’s imperative that qualified individuals are filling them. Moreover, making access to this field more equitable is important, as it is incredibly dominated by white males. A diversity of individuals leads to a diversity of ideas. However, the problem with making computer science a mandatory part of the curriculum is that it can be incredibly difficult to pick up. Everyone learns at different speeds, so it faces the same problem as topics like mathematics: how do you keep the fast learners engaged without leaving the slow learners behind? Additionally, not everyone can be a computer programmer. Then again, not everyone can be a doctor or an accountant or a musician, but we still teach biology, mathematics, and music to everyone. The biggest challenge, then, is how do you incorporate computer science into the curriculum. Schools must determine whether or not it will be one of the core classes (Math, English, Science, Social Studies) or an elective course.

I think computer science could be added to the curriculum as an elective course. Make it required for high school students to take at least two technology courses, with programming as one of the offered electives in addition to things like computer drafting and design, general engineering, or Microsoft Office 101 (or similar). I think the course should cover the basics of computer science: how computers work, how to write simple programs in C, and it should include discussions like the ones we had in this class. I definitely think anyone can learn to program, much like anyone can learn how to do physics or do taxes or write research papers. It honestly depends on the given individual and whether or not learning how to program is something they want to do. If they’re not legitimately interested in learning, then it will be difficult. Again, though, that’s true for any topic. I do not know if everyone should learn to program because, like I said, coding is not the new literacy. Rather, knowing how to use technology is the new literacy. That’s why I think any required computing courses should focus mostly on the how, and supplement that with just a little bit of programming. The students who enjoy that aspect can then seek out more programming intensive electives.

Piracy

The DMCA treats piracy as an illegal activity. Specifically, it is viewed as an unlawful distribution of copyrighted or protected content. When something is labeled as being in violation of the DMCA, it is issued with a takedown notice, allowing the intermediary (i.e. YouTube) to remove the content without being susceptible to legal action. This protects organizations like YouTube from facing lawsuits because a number of users uploaded content they did not own. Of course, Fair Use laws come into play, allowing users to make counterclaims, etc. In general, though, sites like YouTube cannot be found guilty of allowing pirating of content should they continue to operate under the practice of “Every DMCA request is valid and the content will be removed immediately. It can only be restored should the user submit a counterclaim that effectively proves they are not in violation of DMCA.” However, sites that do not attempt to hide their piracy practices, such as The Pirate Bay, seem to be fairly immune to any legal action taken against them. As the article announcing Kayne might sue The Pirate Bay highlight:

First of all, the Pirate Bay administrators would have to actually show up in court. Then they would have to lose the standard argument that hosting torrents is not the same as hosting pirated content. Then they would have to actually remove the torrents in question.

So basically, the provisions that deal with infringement will only be followed by those who actually care about DMCA and pirating, in general.

I’m not sure whether or not it is ethical for users to download copyrighted material that they do not own. The same goes for sharing it. I am of the opinion, however, that if I own the content in some form, such as all eight seasons of House on DVD, then it is not wrong to access it online in some form. If I do not already own the material, though, I tend to believe that it is wrong for me to download it. That is how people make money and support themselves, and I am taking away potential income from them. I don’t typically share copyrighted material that I do not own anymore (I used LimeWire, and then Grooveshark, to get my music), but I occasionally watch television shows on (probably sketchy) hosting websites without paying subscription fees or the like; that’s how I watched Seasons 1 and 2 of Rick and Morty, although I’m going to try and watch Season 3 on Adult Swim this summer. I think people like free stuff and convenience, which is why they are willing to break the law.

I do think that we’re reaching the point where people are willing to go back to lawful ways of consuming content, such as Netflix and Spotify, because it’s fairly inexpensive and super convenient to use these applications. Services such as these have certainly made piracy an almost moot point; people just don’t seem to care as much anymore. Piracy will never go away, though, because there will always be sections of the Internet dedicated to “freedom” or whatever, but the number of people who illegally download content is decreasing every year, and I think a lot of that has to do with content creators getting better at distribution (i.e. Steam, Netflix, and Spotify).

Self-Driving Cars

The motivation behind the development of self-driving cars, at least in the United States, is improvement in travel safety. Currently, roughly 33,000 Americans die every year from auto-related accidents (according to the article “Car makers can’t ‘drive their way to safety’ with self-driving cars.” Admittedly, humans are pretty freaking terrible at driving cars, and with more cars on the road than ever before, increasing automobile safety must be a priority for car makers. Self-driving cars (or autos) don’t have to be perfect, they just have to be better than humans. Insurance companies most certainly await the take over of autos because human error is the number one cause (by a long shot) of car accidents. There are other benefits to autos, as well. They’re more fuel efficient than cars with human drivers, presumably last longer, and don’t cause traffic jams. CGP Grey has two great videos on automation and self-driving cars: The Simple Solution to Traffic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzzSao6ypE; Humans Need Not Apply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU. They are both lengthy videos, so there is no need to play them in class, but I felt obligated to share them. I tend to agree that autos are going to replace human drivers very soon, as they’re already being used in warehouses, farms, and now some cities, highlighted by many of the articles on Uber’s fleet in Pittsburgh. I think they are going to make our roads safer because, again, they don’t need to be perfect, just better than us.

The biggest problem facing the emergence of self-driving cars is how do they handle the Trolley Problem and when they do cause an accident, which will happen, who is liable? Truthfully, I am not sure how to program morality into an auto. The movie I, Robot with Will Smith, although pretty goofy in retrospect, does raise some of these questions: How do robots make moral decisions? In the end, I suppose a utilitarian approach will probably be adopted, meaning have the autos make decisions that will cause the least amount of harm. I am not sure there is ever going to be a correct answer to this problem, but a consensus must be reached soon because self-driving cars are on the way whether we like it or not. Determining who is liable when accidents happen is very difficult, as well. Do we hold the owner of the auto responsible? The manufacturer? The government? The insurance company? I’m inclined to say the insurance companies will assume liability in the event of accidents. Like I said before, they would prefer to insure autos over people. People present a much greater risk because people are much more likely to make an insurance claim.

Self-driving cars are going to have an enormous impact on every facet of life. CGP Grey provides the exact figures in his video, but the transportation industry employs the most people in the United States and probably worldwide. Huge numbers of people are suddenly going to find themselves unemployable through no fault of their own. Governments need to be prepared to handle this and they are not even remotely prepared right now (although our current government doesn’t seem capable of doing much of anything as it is). I do want a self-driving car and I’m going to have to get one whether I like it or not. I firmly believe that autos are going to take over. Admittedly, I will be sad if they don’t allow people to drive at all one day, which should probably happen because people are awful at driving, because I absolutely love driving. There is nothing more therapeutic than getting onto the highway, cranking up some music, and just driving. The open road has that romantic ideal surrounding it, but technology always replaces people, and it will happen with driving, too.

Internet Trolling

As someone who has been on the Internet for a very long time, I like to think I am very familiar with trolling. In the most basic sense, it’s making comments about or towards others in an effort to make fun of them in some fashion, usually based off of absolutely nothing that is grounded in reality. Recently, however, Internet trolling has taken a turn for the worse, as an increased sense of power (behind anonymity) has led to more directed and target abuse online, with much more time and resources being devoted to trolling someone. Internet trolling is now synonymous with online harassment, something people do out of a hateful spite instead of simple ribbing among peers. The fact that people will go to great lengths to find personal information about someone they come across online is deeply disturbing. This behavior manifests itself, I think, when someone with a genuine, differing opinion (or is a minority from a demographics standpoint) makes their voice heard. Every community on the Internet is, without a doubt, an “Old Boys Club,” with an emphasis on Boys. Most communities are dominated by white guys, so when someone different arrives and starts garnering more attention than the “established members,” there is always push-back. Always. Trolling can be dangerous, as people’s personal lives become affected sometimes, so there are definitely serious effects to trolling. It is not always innocent.

I certainly think that technology companies do have an ethical obligation to limit the reach of those who commit online harassment. As of late, as the articles on Twitter mentioned, Twitter has taken a more active role in stopping individuals from abusing their platform to spread hate, or to specifically attack an individual. I think that all of the social media giants have an obligation to its users to protect them from online harassment, be it personal attacks, threats of physical violence, or the spreading of personal information, such as photos, phone numbers, or addresses. Gamergate is a very depressing thing for me. I definitely consider myself a gamer, having been playing games online since at least 2005, it is disturbing to think that I share a community with some of these loathsome individuals; people who would dedicate large amounts of there time stalking, harassing, and threatening women in the gaming community, simply because they are woman. And while I don’t necessarily agree with all of the things that Anita Sarkeesian has advocated (although I don’t think there’s anyone on Earth that I agree with on everything, which is kind of the point), that doesn’t mean I think she should be completely shut out of the community. Nor do I think she, or anyone for that matter, should be subjected to the kinds of abuse she receives on an hourly basis. I honestly don’t know if I could handle receiving that kind of harassment for that long without completely going off the grid for the remainder of my life.

Gamergate definitely highlights the dangers that come with complete anonymity on the Internet. I definitely think that the Internet will always contain some form of trolling because trolling is a fun thing to do (when I say trolling, I mean the kind of trolling where you throw insults around that don’t even apply to the person you’re directing them at), but I think the kind of behavior that was on display, and continues today, during Gamergate needs to be eliminated. How to eliminate it is beyond me, but it is imperative that a solution be found because the Internet should and can be a wonderful place for ideas and people to come together, and allowing a small number of people to harass potential members so that they feel unwelcome and leave permanently is unacceptable. Internet anonymity is a double-edged sword. It allows us to freely access it without fear of the government knowing what you’re looking at at all times. It also allows people to say terrible things to people they have never met, simply because they can. The article “What happened when I confront my cruelest troll” gave me hope that, perhaps one day, these people will have the realization that there is a very clear line that differentiates harmless Internet trolling and blatant online harassment. It goes without saying that trolling is a problem on the Internet, but I think that we are moving in the right direction. Most of the trolls I run into are in online games, so my interaction with them is brief and ends once the game ends, at least for me. I would probably consider myself an Internet troll, but not a malicious one. I honestly cannot believe some of the things I see people writing on the Internet. I am certain there are times I have toed the line between acceptable and unacceptable trolling, but more often than not, I like to think I am one of the good guys.

Project 3: Privacy Paradox

For project number 3, my group and I decided to listen to the Privacy Paradox podcasts. I thought it was a pretty insightful in terms of education, although a lot of the information was not necessarily new to me. As someone who is somewhat close to the technology community, as a computer science major and a general technology enthusiast, I was aware of many of the issues that the podcast highlighted. That being said, I would highly recommend this series of podcasts to anyone who has questions about online privacy, especially in the wake of recent legislation that was passed in the United States. I thought the challenges were a great demonstration of just how much data we put out there by simply using various applications or going to certain websites.

I think the most beneficial challenge would have to be the first one, which was to go through your phone and check what permissions all of the apps on your phone have. This definitely was the best demonstration of what kind of data you are allowing companies to collect from you by using their applications. I think that many people would be surprised what kind of permissions any given application has, and it would definitely make people think twice before they continue to use the apps they do. What’s more, when you try to take away an app’s permission to use location, for example, you are presented with a warning indicating that removing that permission from the app could seriously damage the app’s ability to continue functioning properly. For an app like GoogleMaps, removing its permission to access location would, in fact, harm its ability to function properly, but for an app like Google Chrome, I find it hard to believe that it will not be able to function without access to location. Nevertheless, I think the challenges were definitely a useful part of the podcasts. I don’t know if they will necessary change my technology habits, as I’ve already taken steps to limit the amount of personal data I make available online, but I think it was a great refresher on what exactly I give up when I use certain websites or applications.

I think there can be a balance between personal privacy and technological convenience, but I do think certain aspects of privacy will be impossible to maintain. Technology is such a huge part of our daily lives, so I do not think it’s possible to “go back to the way things were.” It certainly is a tough decision balancing the convenience of storing all of your photos on Google Drive versus letting Google use photo recognition software so that they can easily identify you in any given photo; however, I think that’s the world we live in. One in which the users of technology must take extra steps to protect the information they want protected, while still being able to use these amazing technologies that have been created. In general, I think the right to privacy is incredibly important. However, that’s from a government perspective. By using a private company’s products, you make certain concessions, especially when these products are free! I have less issue with private companies collecting my personal data than I do with the government collecting my personal data without a warrant or my consent. That being said, I am not sure the companies can be trusted to not give that data to the government, which makes them a middle-man for government overreach when it comes to privacy. It’s a very difficult issue to unpack, but it is something that must be properly addressed, especially as we rely on technological convenience more and more.

(Our podcast can be found on Nancy’s blog).

Net Neutrality

Very briefly, Net Neutrality is the principle on the Internet that allows it to be the wonderland that it currently is. It prevents Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from restricting, slowing, or prioritizing what kind of data you want to access. This principle is essential to the Internet, and would suffer greatly without it. The main arguments for Net Neutrality center around the fact that data is data, and you, as a consumer, should not be hindered in your attempt to access it. Further, ISPs cannot charge the content creators more money to send their data over their bandwidth because they could, then, restrict competition by favoring their content over other content creators. The main arguments against Net Neutrality focus on how government regulation is bad and Net Neutrality actually kills competition because it doesn’t allow ISPs to sell their content to consumers as effectively…. or something. Again, CGP Grey has a fantastic video on why Net Neutrality is awesome and you should totally play it in class! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw

Obviously, I am a big proponent for Net Neutrality and actually participated in the FCC’s collection of consumer input on the topic. Because of the way Internet is currently available in the United States, maintaining this principle is incredibly important. Without it, ISPs would one hundred percent abuse their power and punish users for accessing content that they (the ISPs) do not create. Think about what kind of Internet is available in your area. Not that many options, are there? Opponents of Net Neutrality like to argue that, should ISPs do bad stuff, like throttle bandwidth for certain services, charge premium prices for services you currently get at no extra cost, etc., that consumers will simply switch ISPs. “Competition will stop these companies from doing bad stuff, surely!” they cry. What they fail to realize is that these companies all secretly coordinate with one another to not infringe on their localities, which is why Google Fiber is having such a difficult time gaining traction. If you live in a city, such as Omaha, Nebraska, you might only have access to one ISP, and if they recently implemented monthly data caps on all of their plans, well it looks like you have to move, even if you just moved to a new house. This is a real thing. A popular Twitch streamer, named Destiny, only has access to Cox Internet, which already provided spotty service, and now will have to pay large monthly fees for exceeding the monthly data cap. That’s why many proponents of Net Neutrality think it is essential; there already is a lack of competition among ISPs, so very minimal government regulation must be put in place to stop the ISPs from abusing their already powerful positions.

The simplest way to enforce Net Neutrality is to treat Internet data like a utility, such as electricity and water. The electric and water companies cannot tell you what to do with those services, they simply have to provide the proper amount to you. To my knowledge, neither of these services suffer from government over-regulation, whatever that means. Further, I fail to see how forcing ISPs to treat all data equally is putting unnecessary burden on them. These companies already have huge amounts of capital and probably are not in danger of going bankrupt (due to their coordination with one another not to compete). Lastly, Net Neutrality, not the absence of it, promotes innovation because it means anyone with a good idea can put it on the Internet, where everyone has equal access to it. Again, the Internet is such a wonderful tool, and allowing companies to restrict our access to it is a terrible idea. I highly recommend CGP Grey’s video because he explains these ideas much more eloquently than I can.

Corporate Conscience

The idea behind corporate personhood revolves around the notion that corporations consist of groups of individuals who have come together in some sort of vested interest, and, as an acting body with financial and legal interests, warrants some of the same legal protections that individuals have under the Constitution. Indeed, the belief that corporations are people certainly isn’t new, as described in greater detail by the readings. Of course, back then, the number of corporations and the kinds of corporations was a much smaller number, not to mention the financial influence those corporations had is minuscule compared corporations today. Ultimately, corporate personhood guarantees that corporations have many of the constitutional rights as individuals. In recent years, corporations have seen their rights expanded. Specifically, the Supreme Court case Citizens United essentially ruled that the government could not restrict corporations from making political campaign contributions, citing the First Amendment as guaranteeing a person’s “free speech.” Certainly, there are plenty of ethical reasons corporations should be barred from being able to make unlimited donations to political campaigns, as the amount of money a corporation could donate is much greater than any one individual could hope to donate. So while certain legal aspects of corporate personhood can be questioned, ultimately, it comes down to which legal protections do corporations have. Socially and ethically, however, corporations are quite obviously held to a different standard than individual persons. The most obvious comparison being that individuals go to prison for wrongdoing and corporations reach settlements that no individual could ever hope to pay. This allows corporations to act unethically, as they are above the law more often than not, and can buy there way out of any legal dispute. Further, how does one imprison a corporation?

I do believe that both tech workers, and the companies themselves, are right to pledge against helping to create an immigration database. I think a Muslim Registry is absolutely abhorrent and it completely baffles me that any individual would even consider implementing something like that. I absolutely think that corporations should make business decisions based on morality and ethics. First of all, as discussed above, they are considered persons under the US Constitution, and, therefore, should be held to the same standard of behavior as individuals when it comes to the law, which, ideally, reflects morality. Should a company engage in a practice that violates the law, they should be held accountable. Whether that means fining them an appropriate amount of money, jailing those most responsible for the company’s wrongdoings, or completely dissolving the company, some sort of legal action must be taken, especially in cases as serious as the creation of a Muslim Registry. Secondly, many corporations receive huge subsidies from the federal government, which results in an effective tax rate of 0% for some of the largest companies in the world. That money comes from taxpayers, who are directly impacted by the decisions these corporations make. Therefore, these corporations should strive to make business decisions from a moral and ethical perspective. Of course, that does not mean that all corporations should make sure they have $0 in revenue. After all, companies exist to make money, but they do have an obligation to do the right thing. Ultimately, the people will decide what is right and wrong for a company. For example, when Uber continued to provide service to airports, while many taxi companies went on strike after the first Muslim Ban went into effect, they faced enormous backlash from their userbase, and saw an enormous number of people uninstall the app, myself included.

 

Internet of Things

The major motivation behind the Internet of Things (IoT) is to make life more automated. This will be achieved through connecting all of the devices and appliances we interact with on a daily basis, be it the lights in our home, our alarm clock, our refrigerator, our car, etc. The idea is that, one day, these devices will perform their function automatically, saving money and, generally, improving our lives. The IoT has already impacted our lives, and it figures to become more pervasive as the months (not even years) go by. I think the wide consensus is that the IoT will make our lives easier. That being said, there are certainly some concerns. Specifically, with the increase in connected devices transmitting (potentially) personal data, securing user privacy is more difficult now than it ever was before. As many of the articles pointed out, most of these IoT devices are not very well secured, leaving them vulnerable to malicious attacks. In addition to the threat of malicious users (both independent hackers and government surveillance programs) gaining unprecedented access to personal data, IoT devices can be utilized to carry out cyber-attacks, as already demonstrated by the DDoS against Dyn. This massive attack could only occur because hackers could create a massive botnet of IoT devices. Certainly, these risks must be weighed as more and more electronics are outfitted with network and data sharing capabilities.

Programmers must take the security of IoT devices very seriously. Making these devices secure from malware and other attacks should be considered as important as securing mobile phones, laptops, and tablets. In fact, these devices need extra protections because they usually lack user involvement, and are simple computers that lack a GUI. This means that lay-users, the main purchasers of these devices, won’t be able to implement proper security measures themselves or identify when their device might be compromised. The companies who produce these IoT devices and fail to implement sufficient security measures should be held liable should breaches or hacks occur. That would be like car companies denying culpability if their car’s breaks sometimes didn’t work. Obviously, the manufacturers can and should protect their users’ privacy, much like traditional communication companies.

Much like the Internet changed our lives 20 years ago, as one article pointed out, the IoT will completely change how we go about our daily lives. It’s hard not to imagine life where our daily routines are completely streamlined; as we get up in the morning, the house appropriately opens the curtains to allow sunlight into certain rooms; throughout the day, windows allow more or less sunlight through based off desired room temperatures, saving money and energy; certain parts of the house receive more or less energy depending on the time of day. Certainly, the economic benefits of the IoT are undeniable. Socially, these programs already exist, evidenced by apps like Lyft and Foursquare, which use GPS data to provide easier transportation and venue recommendations to users, respectively. The political implications, of course, I have already mentioned briefly, and have been covered in class. The government already utilizes devices connected to the internet to collect large amounts of data on its citizens; there’s no reason to believe they won’t use IoT devices to collect data, as well. Nevertheless, the government has a duty to protect the safety and privacy of its users, therefore they must take steps that ensure manufacturers design these devices with the users’ best interests in mind, be it automobile companies or nanny cam companies.

Admittedly, it is a tad bit scary how much information can be collected and processed by devices, which then can automatically do things we would normally do ourselves. I’ve seen plenty of science fiction movies where the machines turn against us. While sentient AI is quite some time away, it certainly lingers in the backs of everyone’s minds. Still, I think the IoT will ultimately provide a greater good than greater harm to our lives. I’m sure arguments were made about the risks of the Internet back when it first gained traction, and her we are today; we cannot go one day, let alone several hours, without Internet access. I think the pace at which developers are producing these devices should probably be slowed so that proper safety measures can be put in place, but the IoT will be a regular part of our lives soon, whether we like it or not. We might as well embrace our technology overlords sooner rather than later.

Government Surveillance

The battle between individual privacy and national security has existed for a long time, and with communication technologies as advanced as they are today, it is an even more pressing issue that lawmakers and technologists must resolve. There are some great videos on YouTube by CGP Grey. He talks about a variety of topics, some of which are technology related. His YouTube account can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2C_jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w. He did a video discussing this very issue, which was probably my first introduction to the topic of locks, keys, and government surveillance. The video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo. I think he does a great job breaking down why users’ privacy needs to be maintained, but also highlights that the legal precedent for government collection of an individual’s private documents does exist. I highly recommend this video, and others, made by him!

I’m gonna try to answer the questions one by one, so bear with me if this lacks any resemblance to an essay. To begin, I do not think that technology companies should purposely weaken encryption or implement backdoors in their products to allow simpler government surveillance. As some of the articles mentioned, data security methods need to be developed even further, as the information we send via the Internet and other mediums must remain protected at all costs. There are interesting cases, however, where one must consider whether or not a backdoor, similar to what the FBI demanded from Apple (at least according to Apple), would help prevent a tragedy from occurring. One of the examples in the video I linked went something like “Suppose there is a bomb locked inside of a safe, and it will go off in 5 minutes, which is not enough time to simply demolish the safe and access the bomb. Now suppose that the only person who knows the combination to the safe is dead and that they have the combination stored in their phone. There is legal precedent for law enforcement to obtain those ‘documents,’ but how can they since they do not know the password to the phone?” In this situation, it certainly seems like a backdoor option would be beneficial to everyone involved.

I think the biggest issue here revolves around the idea of the government mandating that Apple provide a method for accessing an individual’s phone, as opposed to asking for Apple’s help. As Tim Cook explained, Apple feels that user privacy is a major concern, and that no one, not even Apple, is necessarily entitled to the information on a customer’s phone. I agree with Cook’s assessment and think that companies like Apple are ethically responsible for protecting the privacy of users, while also having a duty to protect other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. To that end, Apple does have an obligation to cooperate with governmental requests, but only to the extent that the current law allows. The problem is, as pointed out by several of the articles, most of the laws regarding government surveillance lag behind current technological trends, thus leading to ambiguities into what the government can and cannot make requests for. Of course, as in most legal disputes, clearer legislation would probably eliminate much of the controversy surrounding this issue, but passing clear legislation has two problems. One, it is not futureproof, meaning that there is no possible way to know what future technologies may come about and lead to ambiguities in the law. Two, Congress is in gridlock due to partisan hackery.

I find it hard to exactly answer this question, but at the end of the day, I would say I am against government surveillance and backdoors, as it sets dangerous legal precedent into what the government can do in the name of “national security” (i.e. PATRIOT Act), which can lead to the infraction of the right to privacy. Ultimately, I am not sure, as many have argued, that increased government surveillance leads to greater national security. If I recall correctly, the US government was aware that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on US soil, but decided not to do anything with the information. How could greater intrusion into American citizens’ privacy have prevented it if they already knew an attack was imminent? Further, the right to privacy, established in the Bill of Rights, ranks among the most important rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Under no circumstances can the government infringe on the rights of innocent Americans. “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear” is easily countered. Saying that is so incredibly un-American, and any government official or politician who uses that mindset to advocate for greater government surveillance or stricter laws should be immediately fired and forever barred from holding any office within the United States government.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Hidden Figures

Sara, Nancy, and I went with Option 2 and watched Hidden Figures. We then did a podcast and addressed each of the questions. Nancy McNamara submitted the Google Form and it should be on her blog.

1) Why is it challenging for women and minorities to break into STEM fields? What sort of obstacles do they face?

I think the biggest challenge for women when it comes to entering STEM fields can be traced back to elementary school. At the very least, I remember being encouraged to take an interest in my science and math classes at a young age. When I would complain about my English or art classes, my parents would say “That’s okay. Most boys don’t like their English classes.” As a matter of fact, I was one of 5 guys to take AP English my senior year of high school. My graduating class was nearly 1000 students. In total, there was probably 35-50 students who took AP English that year. Clearly, I think the biggest obstacle is at the elementary and middle school levels. By the time high school rolls around, most kids have decided what subjects they like and which they do not. With regards to minorities, I’m not sure I have much of an explanation for that. I went to a very diverse high school (there was no majority demographic, at least when I went there), so my AP math and science classes had all kinds of students (mostly guys, admittedly). I would guess that it revolves around adequate funding for schools; the better funded a school is, the more likely students are to continue with schooling and pursue degrees in technical fields. In general, underfunded schools are in minority communities, which, in turn, leads to less minorities entering STEM degree programs, and, therefore, less minorities entering STEM fields post graduation. That is my best guess, at the very least.

2) Are role models important? Growing up, did you have any role models? Who has inspired you or motivated you to pursue your STEM field?

I definitely think role models are important; striving to be as successful as someone else can be a powerful motivator. I think having good mentors and motivators who inspire you to be successful can be even more important, and these two roles can certainly be combined (i.e. having a teacher who is also a role model). I suppose my role model growing up was my older brother. He did really well in school, he knew a lot about stuff like science and sports, and I enjoyed spending time with him. He got a degree in physics, so I suppose that had a minor influence on my decision to pursue a degree in computer science. I think the biggest motivators behind my pending computer science degree would be a select few teachers I had over the years: Mr. Landmesser (7th grade math), Mr. Hight (now Dr. Hight, actually – 8th grade engineering), Mr. Choroneko (high school engineering), and Mr. Snow (high school calculus) come to mind. I was lucky to have teachers who really cared about the kids they were teaching, encouraging me to really enjoy the material they were teaching.