Artificial Intelligence

With all the advances in technology today, technology singularity and artificial intelligence are very interesting topics. I have always wondered how far technology will advance in my lifetime. One of the group members asked us if there were a chip to but in our brains to allow us to think twice as fast, would we do it? I honestly don’t know how I would feel about that. On the one hand, it would be nice to think twice as fast, however, would that really be fair? They also mentioned that it wouldn’t be fair if some people could afford these chips and others couldn’t. Is it ethical to allow some people to increase their mental capabilities because they can afford it, and hold others back just because they cannot afford it. It also raises the question of what happens if these systems begin to fail. Suppose all the sudden they do not work and you have spent time and money getting them put in. What if they begin to cause harm to our bodies. While it would be very nice to have a chip put in our brains to allow us to think twice as fast, it is interesting to think about the possible consequences. What do you think? Would you do this if you could?

AI and moral/ethical codes

A lot of our presentations have brought up ethical or moral issues, but I think the technological singularity presentation raised a really interesting point: how could we program artificially intelligent systems to behave morally or ethically?
Of course there are a lot of technical things at work behind the scences, but I think the most important question here is: who decides how to program the systems? Would there be an organization founded to develop these codes? Who decides those are the most qualified people?
One issue that comes to mind is culture - how would cultural norms be incorporated into these moral and ethical codes? There are obviously huge differences between some societies and cultures, so this would be as essential to the program as what language (spoken, not programming) the system used. And this isn’t even an international thing, necessarily – think of the differences between the southeast and the northern east coast in our country.
Since we talked about outsourcing recently, consider this: what if the company was founded in America, the actual program was written by people in India, production was outsourced to China, and the robots/machines/whatever were shipped out to 10 different countries?
What other problems you can see with programming moral codes?

Technological singularity

This week we learned about AI and technological singularity. I think it's an interesting topic, in that our technological advances are exponential, and that perhaps the creation of superhuman intelligence is right around the corner. And even with AI, will we ever truly achieve technological singularity? Looking at the technology advances that we have achieved now, while the older generations are having a more difficult time understanding and using them, it is almost second nature to the younger generations (us), who use them on an everyday basis. So in the future, isn't it possible that our intelligence will not be surpassed because those younger generations will be experts in that technology?

Do people really believe that something greater than human intelligence can be created? And if it is created, what do you think will be the consequences for the human species? With more advances, people become more lazy. Think of the website that allows people to hunt in Africa from the very comforts of their couch. If true singularity is accomplished, then where will the human race fit on this planet?

Artificial Intelligence

As we saw in Dr. Nicholas' lecture and the presentation on Monday, artificial intelligence is a real issue that we may have to deal with in the near future. As we develop the rudimentary systems which display an ability to learn and develop on their own, what risks do we incur?

I for one am both excited and fearful of the possibilities of using AI technologies. So many advancements could be made in medicine, business, education etc. But there is always the looming fear of complacency and apathy developing in humanity, and of course the eventual dooms-day scenario played out in countless movies.

To make it more real, Marvin Misky of MIT said "People have silly reasons why computers don't really think. The answer is we haven't programmed them right; they just don't have much common sense." Since we are on the cusp of developing this powerful technology, what kind of regulations do you think our government should put in place to protect us from all of the potential risks and ensure that the technology improves society?

E-Consumerism: similarities to history

During our discussion of E-consumerism I noticed one thing in particular -- we began the discussion with the history of shopping in general, with the Agora (a marketplace for people to meet, discuss, and purchase), the general store (interaction with the store clerk), and the department store (a browsing experience where everyone can partake even if they do not have the financial means to actually purchase). Though it seems like e-consumerism is an entirely new concept, I tend to think that it is a new embodiment of all of the former means of shopping and consuming. The Internet now seems to match literally the exact definition that we provided for Agora: "the social and economic hub of the society." Communication and economic activity are available and practiced just as much on the Internet (via social networking, instant messaging, email, blogs; and online retailers, banking, etc) as they are in any real life setting, thus it seems like just as the Greeks used their 'agoras' for basically any sort of interaction they required, so do we use the Internet for all of those things. The department store also has its parallel in the online realm--on Internet shopping sites, people can navigate their way through thousands of products per day, browse different details/reviews/pricing/options for as many hours as are in the day, without ever having the obligation to purchase or even to INTEND to purchase. The browsing experience is taken to an entirely new level here though, because now not only do we have access to local department stores, but I can even browse the stock of small boutiques across the country that normally would rely only on local customers.

These similarities obviously do not suggest that E-consumerism is the SAME as in-person activities like those that occurred in the shopping experiences of centuries past, but there are definitely some parallels now that the Internet offers such a vast array of options to its users. Do you think that the transition of these activities from real-life to online action is better or worse for society's development? Is the efficiency of the Internet valuable enough that it outweighs the importance of face-to-face social interaction? Because this is essentially the reason we use the Internet for communication and shopping...it takes less effort to email than to have dinner with an old friend, and less effort to buy a shirt online that will be delivered to your door than to drive to the store. Is it worth it?

The Benefits of E-Commerce

I found this weeks’ discussion on e-commerce really interesting. The Internet has changed nearly every aspect of the retail experience for both the retailer and the consumer. While I don’t feel that the Internet will ever negate the need for brick and mortar locations, the trend is certainly toward e-commerce.

Over the past year, I’ve relied heavily on Amazon.com for everything from textbooks to camera equipment to things for my apartment. I find that I’m attracted to the customer reviews and ratings features, which could never be duplicated in a face-to-face setting. I think that for purchasing certain items, especially tech products, the ability to view detailed product specifications alongside customer reviews is hands down a better way to shop than heading to Best Buy or even a camera store and trying to figure out what’s the right product for you. For clothes and other things that need to be sampled or tried on, I think it’s another story. While the Intellifit and other related technologies are really interesting and impressive, I doubt it will ever take the place of going to the mall and trying on jeans. In my opinion, online shopping is hugely beneficial to consumers as they can shop around, avoid salesperson pressure and save time and money. In my exprerience, customer service is paramount to online retailers and forces them to do an amazing job compared to return counters or call lines. What are your thoughts and experiences with online shopping? What kinds of products do you see yourself continually buying online or in retail locations?

One thing that stood out in my mind during our class discussion was my use of Sephora.com. Sephora is a makeup and skincare retailer that has stores in many malls and even in some department stores. I started buying products from Sephora.com because there was no Sephora store in Asheville, where I’m from. I’ve continued shopping there even since moving to school here, where there’s a brick and mortar location a few mile away, because they have e-mail marketing down to an absolute art. I find myself going to the store to browse and test products then ordering them online where I often get free shipping, samples and free gifts. It’s the best of both worlds for me, but may not be sustainable for the company as the Southpoint location is not receiving my business even though I’m purchasing products in the end. Has anyone else had a similar experience where they shopped for products at a brick and mortar store with no intention to purchase anywhere but online? How do you think businesses can best capitalize on customers like me who want the hands-on shopping experience but always look for online bargains?

In one of my Entrepeneurship classes, we did a case study on Netflix. It is incredibly interesting to read about the development of a company that found the opportunity in online shopping and completely opted out of any physical store locations. While it was revolutionary and hugely successful at the time, even Netflix is losing business to even more convenient services like Redbox and iTunes, not to mention illegal downloading/streaming websites. What do you think the future holds for retail? Do you think we’ll still have stores like Best Buy? Internet retailing seems like an amazing way to minimize overhead costs and pass the savings on to customers, but are you concerned about the potential decline of the social shopping experience?

One important aspect of e-commerce that I think is most impressive is the rise of tiny independent businesses that are so specialized they could never survive in a single bricks and mortar location. Sites like craigslist and eBay allow peer-to-peer sales of useful goods and services available in close proximity or only a shipment away. You can generally find something to suit your needs and budget without leaving your home. Other sites such as etsy.com allow artists to support themselves by displaying their goods in a huge, international online marketplace where they have the best chance of reaching customers. How do you think e-commerce provides opportunities for small businesses and entrepreneurs? Have you personally witnessed any examples? 

E Consumerism: Going too far?

With online shopping sites such as amazon.com becoming more in tune with consumer preference and need, it’s no wonder internet shopping is up 40% in the last two years. Yep, it’s pretty magical if you think about it: you get online (in the comfort of your home), shop around a site like amazon, make some purchases and then you wait for the delivery. The next time you sit down to shop, you are presented with a plethora of options that have been data-mined or hypothesized based upon your previous activity. Pretty soon you’re buying things you didn’t even realize you wanted.
Now I’m not an impulse buyer, but technological innovations such as these are tearing up the former retail market. Consumers have unlimited options even with limited time on their hands. We point, we click, we buy and hardly any energy has been spent.
Kansas State professor Esther Swiley believes that e-consumerism will turn into something much like second life. It’s a compelling thought, to be honest. People, again, can remain in the comfort of their home while perusing a world of unlimited options (even shop with their friends).
Now I’m all for technological development, don’t get me wrong. But as we continue to exponentially evolve our technology sector in ways that alleviate traditional “coming and goings” from the store or business environment I think we need to pause and think. Is there a ceiling on how far we will go? Just how much do we enjoy the virtual world versus the interaction that makes us all human? For me, it’s comforting to break away from the mundane screen. It seems that more people are finding the real world to be an escape from the computer world – basing that assumption on the way business is run today.
Wholly speaking I’m all for saving time and the “assisted shopping help.” But really, when is enough, enough? How much farther will we push not only shopping but other every day activities into the digital realm? Will the next generation be socially hindered by our dependency on the computer and the ease of living it brings?

Digital Manipulation

Today we live in a society where consumerism (consumption of goods) runs rampant. In this economy, companies are vying for the attention for American consumers to purchase their product. With all the competition in advertising and promoting of products, people are constantly exposed to this.

Digital manipulation is perfect for companies to be able to convey exactly what they want consumers to see and hoping that they elicit the response they wish ie. consumers purchasing product and promoting to others they know. Although digital manipulation is argued to be used as a "polish" for works (in journalism for example) or for artistic purposes, there are obvious lines crossed where it can be considered misleading.

The obvious questions that arise when discussing digital manipulation includes when we consider if something is unethical, insensitive, inaccurate and misleading or rather just a following of the first amendment concerning expression. However, since we are in a class that discusses computers and society, the question I pose is how much does digital manipulation reflect the society we live in? How many people are aware of how much is manipulated in the advertising of products? Even if people are aware, as a society, it sometimes seems we live in a society that is somewhat superficial (ie. diets, flashy clothing, popular music) and too conformist. With our busy lives, we sometimes seem to just accept that even some things are not what they seem, we continue to partake in the consumerist society. Is this a phase that we have always been in or will it change - especially due to the circumstances of economy?

In addition, this also in fault to the technology developed. Although this is generalizing, seeing how digital manipulation has developed into various issues, how do we maintain controls on what we develop and how it is used? Although we see the positive possibilities that a technology implicates, how do we handle the negatives of it?

Photo Manip: You at Your Absolute Best

I’d like to preface this post by noting that Warren (fellow classmate) and I run a glamour/studio photography hobby-venture where we routinely manipulate/airbrush/touchup photos of our models (friends). To see examples, take a look at: http://apglamour.com/portfolio.htm

My question is this: is it so much of a sin to make someone (or something) look its absolute best? As an example, every girl in this class has worn makeup at some point in their life. Is this not a deceptive portrayal of what you really look like? Bear with me for a second. What is the motivational difference between you applying makeup to smooth out skin tones and hide blemishes and a photographer doing very similar techniques with software? You are both trying to create visual appeal.

Another example: when you get married, you’ll probably hire a professional photographer and not have your uncle take them with a point-and-shoot. Why? Probably because the photographer is talented at using lighting and composition to make you and your wedding look as beautiful as possible. That makes sense; you want to look beautiful in your wedding photos. But the whole reason you are willing to shell out serious money for the professional photographer is because he can make you look drastically better than your uncle could. You looked the same but the photos of you just became much more flattering. Is that deceptive? Surely not. Photoshop is an extremely powerful tool, lighting is more powerful. I speak from experience when I say that light can be used to make breasts larger, muscles stronger, waists thinner, and skin smoother. Does this mean that we should shoot everything in flat, harsh light just in case the viewer thinks that the model (or BigMac for that matter) looks more visually appealing than they might in another setting? I would argue no. Thoughts?

Digital Manipulation

Digital Manipulation has been my favorite topic thus far. Due to the advances in technology, digital manipulation creates a new area of ethics never seen before. The group that presented today showed the deceiving ways several businesses have used this practice to deceive us, the consumers. This ranged from beauty supplies (Dove) to universities (Wisconsin).

Digital manipulation allows for a completely new way for the human population to express their creativity. Here is one example how an individual's creativity provides humor and entertainment for a certain population (UNC Basketball fans). http://mrtarheel.com/hansbroughindoorwallpaper.jpg For those of you that do not understand the context, the sign for Duke's Cameron Indoor Stadium was digitally manipulated to Hansbrough Indoor Stadium since Tyler Hansbrough never lost at Duke in his four years. While we may enjoy this picture, what do Duke fans think? Is it a legal issue that 1.) someone's picture was used and then digitally manipulated, and 2.) a part of Duke's property was manipulated? Those are questions hard to answer since there have not been any clear-cut solutions to these problems.

Digital manipulation has been effective in solving social problems. The group that presented showed how cops use this information to locate suspects. I remember learning in middle school (can't find any info on the web, sorry) how digital methods are used for missing kids. After kids are still missing after several years, a digital process can "age" the kid to how he/she is expected to look after a certain amount of time. In one case, a missing kid was found one week after the digital process was developed.

Like most of the topics we have learned so far in this class, there are positives and negatives to digital manipulation. Digital manipulation allows the advancement of human creativity, solves social/legal problems, and serves for entertainment purposes. However, digital manipulation can also be used as acts of deception.

Blogging and Journalism

I found today’s presentation debating whether blogging is considered a form of journalism very intriguing.  There are a lot of journalism majors in the class, which led to great heated discussion.  I personally believe in the first amendment, that everyone has a right to share their opinions.  In saying that, I believe sharing opinions on blog is a perfectly acceptable form of free speech.  People have the right to supplement news stories with their opinions without leading to the demise of journalism. 

Aman brought up a really interesting point that I would like to hear more about from the class.  How did journalism sources become so trustworthy that individuals are comfortable with what they hear from one media source?  I understand that journalists are taught certain values and are supposed to follow a code of ethics, but the code is not enforceable with consequences.  Referring to the class example, while it is likely that a photographer will be fired for combining images, it is not absolute; one can hope the editor will fire the photographer, but the editor is not held accountable for firing his employee, other than his personal code of ethics – no different from a blogger’s personal code.

I want to know where people get their news.  How do you decide what is and is not a credible source, what to follow regularly, and how do you prefer the information disseminated?   Furthermore, do you believe the information you find unreliable should be regulated, and how would you censor people’s posts?   Meanwhile, how many individuals supplement their news stories with blogging?  For example do you use blogs as a way to stay updated and connected with your current industry?  How else do you utilize blogs?

Spatially Immersive Displays are the Future of the Virtual Office?

Group 6 did a great job presenting the topic of virtual offices being used by all sorts of companies. The idea sounded brilliant because people were saving gas and were able to work from home, but as I thought about it more and more there were many issues that came up that presented some sort of controversy. I began thinking up these questions….The virtual offices are said to be more cost effective and increase worker productivity, but are businesses really more effective or is it just convenient for the employees to work from home. Are the employees working from home, fully focused on their work or are they being distracted with issues at home. Even if they are not being distracted, does the flexible work lifestyle blur the line between work and family life. Does the lack of socialization between employees, lead to disconnect between the organization and clients. The issue of a lack of disconnect may no longer be an issue because of the creation spatially immersive displays.

This research is actually going on at UNC! http://www.cs.unc.edu/Research/stc/. One of the projects being work on at UNC is called the Office of the Future. Their goal is to make people from across the world feel as if they are right next to each other by creating 3D images using the following: panoramic image display, tiled display systems, image-based modeling, immersive environments, and computer graphics. This may sound like jargon to many of us and with the purpose of this class it doesn’t matter if we don’t understand it. How do you think this technology will affect the virtual office…think beyond the simple idea that people will be “sitting” next to each other.

IT Outsourcing

IT outsourcing is indeed a controversial topic and one that is hard to take sides. In the presentation yesterday some people mentioned that they themselves don’t know where to draw the line of what is right or wrong. Before going into this project I had a completely one sided opinion that IT outsourcing was hurting Americans rather than helping. Research on how globalization of the job market and decreased global disparities really put things into perspective, but I still feel the same way as before except more educated. One of the interesting comments made by the class really triggered some thoughts and compelled me to do more research. It was the idea that even though more jobs are being created overseas, the pay there is low that it is really not benefiting the country in such a significant way. I just read an article that explains how some U.S. companies are exploiting cheap labor within this country and are using inappropriate methods to do so. This ‘recruiting’ company essentially importing foreign electricians under the banner of ‘cultural exchange’ and leased them to companies around the United States for $15 an hour while paying the actual employees $10. An example of this overseas is the great company of Disney. For each Pocahontas pajamas that is valued at $11.97 at Walmart, a Haitan worker who made it was paid 7 cents an hour. As much as the case for globalization stands, there are still a few problems with it such as this that I still can’t seem to side with proponents of outsourcing. Of the pros mentioned during the presentation, do you believe they outweigh the cons? Is there any real solution to this?

Cached web pages and our futures

When I read R22: "Twitter gets you fired in 140 characters or less," I started to think about the implications of our social postings on the Internet.
Most of us started using Facebook at the end of high school or the beginning of college—it was new then, we were the first wave of users posting pictures of our freshman year escapades and writing who-knows-what on our friends' walls. Maybe we were early adopters of technology and even rocked a MySpace page with the same kind of content before we had a driver's license.
Who cares? Well, after reading R22 and the passing mention of searching for cached web pages in the case of Cisco Fatty, I realized these cached pages might come into play in a major way in at least a few of our futures.
I started thinking about how much fun we (the press or the public) would have diving into the cached social networking web page postings of presidential candidates and presidents. Can you imagine getting into George W. Bush or Barack Obama's high school MySpace pages?
Fastforward a few decades when all of us are coming into our own— becoming CEOs or running for public office— and we have an army of curious internet-savvy investigators vetting us and digging up those dubious Facebook postings we made as youngsters.
Will the visibility of our youthful folly hurt us in the future? Or will there be more information across the board so that it won't matter whether or not we had an 'Oops' posting or two when we were young?

Music's Effect on Social/Physical Barriers

Gary Bishop's lecture on enabling technologies was nothing short of inspirational. His enthusiasm for the topic was unparalleled, making it easier for the audience to become engaged in his presentation. His statistic that there are over 10 million blind and visually impaired people in the U.S. was an eye-opener, yet the expenses these disabled individuals face for enabling technology were even more astounding. It would be difficult for the government to regulate the price points of such devices as Braille writers and other communicators for fear that it might have a chilling effect on the production of such devices by manufacturers, yet it is a fact that as a demographic, disabled individuals have less money than the non-disabled. This creates the question, "Should there be a way for the disabled to have easier/more affordable access to enabling technologies?" And if so, "How can this be made possible?" I think most of us agree that those with disabilities shouldn't have to pay such high prices, which makes us ask, "Who should make the sacrifices necessary to lower the prices of these devices?"

In my opinion, the most interesting part of Bishop's lecture was the integration of music into learning. Beethoven once said, "Music is the electrical soil in which the spirit lives, thinks and invents." Bishop's discussion of programs like "Hark the Sound," "Sonic Zoom," and "Move to the Music," seem to take this idea to heart, offering those with specific disabilities the chance to express themselves in ways similar to those who do not need assistance. Do you think "mainstreaming" those with disabilities with non-disabled people would be more effective through the integration of music programs? We have already discussed the issues and advantages of combining students of various ages, abilities, and intellect in a single learning environment. Rather than addressing this same issue, I'm presenting the idea that through music, this integration of peoples would be made more effectively. Music is such a powerful tool for self-expression that barriers of disability virtually dissipate, and it is perhaps easier for two people to relate. Do you agree that this is a good strategy to promote social interaction between the disabled and the non? If so, should it be implemented in some way through all types of classes in the public school system, or just those related to the arts?

Gary Bishop and Enabling Technologies for People with Disabilities

Gary Bishop’s lecture on Monday night was both informative and eye opening to me. His discussion about how children with disabilities are often left behind socially and academically while at school brought up an issue that not many of us have probably considered before. I also felt that his initiatives were forward looking and will continue to raise awareness for the issues children with disabilities face. We as a society must not forget these children, as they have redeeming qualities and can live great lives and help those around them.

I was particularly impressed with the technology that Bishop introduced to the class. Of particular note to me was the Braille twister to help the blind develop their upper body strength. I would never have considered that blind children do not use their upper bodies to crawl and that it is necessary to engage them to develop vital muscles. Can we think of any other games which would be interesting for those with disabilities to play while also helping them develop in areas otherwise neglected? The “Sonic Zoom” activity, where players step on certain arrows is great for developing coordination and also for having fun. The ability of players to bring their own music furthers the interaction of the player and heightens interest. Unfortunately, these types of activities are not available to the majority of those with disabilities due to their expense. What are some ways that we can think of to give greater access to new technologies to those with disabilities? Should the government assist schools in funding or should it be left to the private sector?

Another point Gary Bishop brought up was how people with disabilities are “mainstreamed” in schools, lumped in with all of the other children. Do you think that this is fair to them? Are teacher s able to devote enough attention and resources to their needs? Further, is this fair to the children who are not mentally or physically disabled? Does this allow them to develop as they should or bring them back to the middle? I argue that these two groups should be distinctly set apart. Forcing gifted children to wait for those who are disabled hinders their ability to thrive. It is for this reason that many parents opt for private schools where more individual attention is paid to each student. What are your thoughts?

Finally, I was impressed with the emphasis on music to develop the minds of disabled children. It often said that those who at young ages play a musical instrument perform better in school down the road. Bishop’s focus on music as an avenue for helping children learn, coupled with the interactive nature of technology giving the user several choices, was a reinforcement of this idea. What do you think about music’s ability to help develop analytical skills and do you have any relevant experience with this idea?

Computers and Privacy

This week’s topics brought forth intriguing and provocative implications of how technology affects personal realms of privacy. Like James Moor has pointed out, one of the complicated issues with computer ethics is that there is no conceptual framework in which we can structure a policy for action against digital wrongdoings. Ideally, it would be prudent to establish an agreed-upon set of ground rules before implementing actions such as extensive workplace e-monitoring, released genetic information, and data mining. However, some of these activities often occur without an individual’s consent. What kind of policies would you suggest to protect one’s privacy rights against any of the practices that were discussed this week?

In the Jenning’s video, I considered some of the data mining programs as socially beneficial and some as dangerously intrusive. The NORA (or Non-Obvious Relationship Awareness) program mines data to detect relationships between potential customers and previous cheaters in casinos. I find NORA to be beneficial because it is merely a preemptive screening process to detect possible cheaters of the casino business. Some other data mining programs create a large collection of people’s personal information such as credit report, mortgages, and even personal interests without consent. These can potentially feed into a dangerous black market, in which people sell such information to others, resulting in identity theft. In general, would you consider data mining programs to be ethical or useful/necessary for society?

The genetics and privacy presentation brought up several concerns for me. As genetic testing becomes more accessible and popular, I foresee the media portraying one’s genetic history as the ultimate determinant for one’s actions. As this kind of technology becomes more accurate and refined, people may eventually abandon the “nurture” side of the nature v. nurture debate (that is, do genetics or experience determine behavior?). To reiterate what someone said in class, one of the potential risks of wide access to genetic testing is dehumanization. For example, genetically designing your baby is something that seems absurd right now but it is entirely possible, especially with the techniques of in vitro fertilization and amniocentesis testing. Who is to determine which qualities make up the “perfect” human being? What other concerns did you have in regards to genetics and privacy?

RFIDs

In the reading for class on Monday, a device called RFID or radio frequency identification was mentioned.  It works like a bar code but is able to store more information. Originally they were used for tagging cattle and tracking railroad cars, but as the technology has gotten less expensive, more uses have become available.  They have the potential to replace bar codes entirely, as well as being used in electronic passports or tracking of people and animals.  A chip embedded in a pet can help people reclaim a lost animal, or one implanted in a person can contain your entire medical history, which helps doctors to identify any allergies or pre-existing conditions.

While these make things like scanning products for inventory much easier (you don't have to be right next to every item to catalog it), it brings up issues of privacy.  Critics call them "spychips" because the RFID remains active even after you buy the object and take it home.  Since people don't necessarily know when one of these chips is in their purchases, they can be tracked without their knowledge.  As of now, the readers for these chips can at best (for active chips and long range readers) is 100 yards, but as technology improves, who knows how accurate or what kind of range these readers could reach.  It is one issue to think that people can track where you go based on the pair of jeans you're wearing, but it is another entirely to think that electronic passports could be read at a distance to attack highly concentrated areas.

The Cost of Enabling (Assistive) Technology

Gary Bishop brought up a very valid point in Monday night's recitation that the cost of assistive technology (that is, technology that helps mitigate a disability) is outrageous. Some of the devices a disabled person might use include computer screen reading software ($800-$1200), a Braille writer ($700-$1100), Braille computer keyboard ($1800+), and scan and speech machines ($2500+). These prices go along with the fact that most disabled people often come from a poor background and often have to rely on the generosity of others to obtain such equipment.

Should the price of this equipment really be so high? Some of the most influential people in the world have had disabilities. Most people are familiar with names such as Stephen Hawking (Lou Gehrig's Disease), Helen Keller (blind, deaf and mute) and Beethoven (deaf). However, there are many more people that have recovered from disabilities to become incredibly influential people. Thomas Edison could not read until he was twelve years old, Franklin D. Roosevelt had polio, and Woodrow Wilson was severly dyslexic. My point is that the high cost of assistive technology could in fact be disabling the next great mind of the world. Do you think the government should regulate the pricing of assistive technology, and if not, what do you think their role should be?

However, while the argument above is very compelling, there is also a counterargument. The cost of teaching and training a disabled person is obviously much higher than teaching someone without a disability. Furthermore, we must remember that many great people have not had disabilities. The chances of training the next Bill Gates or Albert Einstein are greater for someone without a disability than they are someone with a disability. Therefore, should the cost of assistive technology be as high as it is because of the cost it takes to train and teach disabled people? What are your thoughts?

Privacy Act of 1974 and Today

On Monday, we discussed what privacy entails and the ever changing environment in privacy issues. Privacy is not guaranteed as a human right. Here in the US, we have “zones of privacy” as can be noted in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments as mentioned in class. What interested me in class was the Privacy Act of 1974 followed by the film.

The government has the role of regulating personally identifiable information. There should be no secret records and when errors found, they can be fixed. In a perfect world this sounds great. But in a bureaucratically heavy state, files and information are fragmented. We have the NSA, CIA, Dept. of Homeland Security, DIA, FBI and the military branches all with intelligence, all with our information. Furthermore, information isn’t just limited to intelligence, but the IRS and treasury dept. All departments and agencies have information. Citizens have little access to reach them, see their information, and correct it if need be.

The film in class brought up issues of concern with me. I found it extraordinarily interesting on the issue of fragmented information and the general problem of too much information. All of the programs like MATRIX and NORA seemed really interesting, possibly unethical, but definitely with their merits. Yet, they cannot discriminate between good information and bad information. What can we expect as an output when there are poor inputs?

I believe information is necessary. Although it concerns me how much of it is sold and traded for marketing purposes. Yet, I see the need for having an organized intelligence system. It was intriguing how NORA managed to find multiple hijackers after the fact and connect 13 of the 19 in unexpected ways. How do you feel about information being so open and unregulated? Technically 1974 suggests that it be better guarded. Where is it appropriate and inappropriate? What should we think of the idea that when telemarketers call, they may know more about you than your neighbor? But shouldn’t we also see the big picture and national security? Where should the line be drawn?

Online Sex Offender Registries and CIPA

One of the presentations today featured the somewhat recent controversy of Online Sex Offender Registries. The four presenters, Morgan, Mandy, Olivia, and Ellison did a wonderful job explaining the debate on whether or not information on sex offenders should be online (and thus accessed so easily). In my opinion, I agree 100% with online registries to learn about possible sex offenders in your area. The fact that most sex crimes are committed close to your house is enough grounds for the minimum of 15 years (Tier 1) on the Sex Offenders registry. I think legislation like this only helps the safety of one’s community by keeping the constituents aware and the children protected. Regardless, there is much debate as to whether this system is too invasive, unfair punishment for the conviction, or even a medium to facilitate increased identity theft. Please feel free to post your opinions on the presentation and the controversy in general!
The Online Sex Offender Registry debate somewhat feeds into our reading from Quinn’s Ethics for the Information Age on the Child Internet Protection Act. CIPA was the governmental effort that weighed the question of whether the government can require libraries to install a web filter for anti-pornographic and other obscenities on the internet in return for federal funds that granted internet access. Web filters are popular systems used mostly by parents to protect their children from the possibility of opening inappropriate websites. For the most part, parents who use filters pay for it out of their own pocket to be installed on their personal computers. However, CIPA opens an entirely new ethical question that is necessary for the government to consider. If libraries are funded by tax-payer money, the constituents paying taxes should be allowed to voice their opinion on whether they want web filters on public property or not.
The strongest argument for CIPA is that libraries should not be obligated to offer access to pornography when they are not obliged to rent out pornographic movies or magazines. The counter argument is that these web filters would unnecessarily block thousands of inoffensive sites. In addition, the act of seeking out a librarian and asking to turn off the filter is disruptive and presumably embarrassing.
What is your opinion on the ethical dilemma of CIPA?
- Do you side with the Kantian evaluation (aka the counter-argument) that CIPA does not in fact protect children from the dangerous exposure to pornography because the web filters are unable to target all the harmful sites and end up blocking sites completely appropriate for children? Kant would reason that the ends do not justify the means- how would u reason this statement? How could it be broken down?
-Or do you agree with several points of the Act Utilitarian evaluations? First, the act of passing legislation such as CIPA will most likely lessen the amount of children exposed to indecent websites. In addition, tax-payers money should be allocated to systems that are advantageous to society as a whole, and if sheltering children from indecencies is a means to benefit the youth, then it should be enacted.
Taking the example of CIPA and the exploitation aspects of today’s presentation on Online Sex Offenders Registry, can we come up with ethical reasoning as to why or why not certain images and information broadcasted so publically on the internet can be considered innately is right or wrong?

Computer Ethics and Facebook

On Monday we began our discussion of social networks and their impact on society. Online social networks are valuable tools that enhance the speed of communication and connectivity. As we learned earlier in the term, James Moor views computer ethics as a unique field of study because of the dynamic nature of computers and their consequences for society. I think online social networks fall under James Moor’s umbrella of computer ethics because of the unlimited possibilities they present to users and our incapability of fully grasping their potential. As a result, I think society should examine the issues that arise on them as new subject matter with a unique set of rules and ethical principles. Two articles from this week’s readings illustrate Moor’s view and present challenging questions for society.

The first article, “Facebook Flap,” discusses a recent change in Facebook’s privacy policy that caused outrage among some users. According to the article, Facebook changed its terms of use that would allow the company to have perpetual ownership of users’ contributions to the site. Personal rights activists worry this would eventually give advertisers the ability to access personal information from status updates and other private sources. Facebook rescinded the policy but the question remains about the morality and legality of their actions.

Does Facebook have the legal authority to control such content or the distribution of this type of information? Do the author’s lose their right to privacy because they post the information in a semi-public space, albeit a digital space without concrete boundaries? Even if Facebook can legally do this, is it moral for Facebook to have perpetual control of your contributions to capitalize on them with advertisers?

The second article, “Facebook Bullies,” is about a New York teenager that is suing Facebook among others for trauma that resulted from cyberbulling on the site. She contends that four high school classmates made a password-protected page used to make slanderous and false statements that were mentally and socially traumatizing. The girl’s attempts to notify Facebook about the material remain unclear. Facebook says the lawsuit lacks merit but did Facebook do enough in this situation?

Does Facebook have a moral obligation to protect the character of its users? If so, what actions should the company take to ensure their safety? Although Facebook is legally protected when others post libelous statements on its site, at what point (if any) should Facebook become liable for the spread of this disinformation?

Internet Disorder...Fact or Fiction?

There is a large camp of researchers and academics now claiming that Internet Addiction Disorder is more than just bad habit. These people believe that excessive computer use that interferes with daily life is a serious diagnosable disease. Consequently, this group of people is seeking to enlist the disease in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) , likening the "disorder" to gambling among other problems. Jerald Block, of the American Journal of Psychiatry, claims Internet Addiction Disorder is considered a serious public health problem, and the government estimates that 168,000 children may require medications. China estimates that teenage pathological computer users alone number 10 million or more. I respectfully disagree that this should be a clinically diagnosable disease.

While I certainly don't have any research readily handy to disprove such a disorder, I do believe that people who allow the Internet to disrupt their lives have not only bad habit, but immature social skills. Moreover, I believe that people are addicted to many aspects of the Internet (gambling, pornography, gaming) rather than the Internet itself. If academics and scholars do, in fact, succeed in officially publishing the disorder in DSM-IV it will become problematic in many ways. Particularly, insurance companies will be forced to burden the medical care required to tend to this "disorder". In a day when our country is moving to universal health care, this is an unfair burden for insurance companies to shoulder when they will begin to immediately lose money in the near future. Moreover, if the disease is so widespread, it may become superfluous to treat everyone with the disease.

Rather, people need to become more aware of time management and other social skills. If a fully matured adult cannot monitor the time that they spend online, then the parents didn't do a very good job raising their child or the person needs to be put into a mental institution. Perhaps a middle ground would work as well, having focus groups like Alcoholics Anonymous to bring a heightened sense of self-awareness to the problem. In any case, people should be able to control their usage of technology this day-in-age. Increases in technology will only be incremental from this moment forward and we can't diagnose half the country with a disorder.

Internet Addiction - Is it a serious problem?

Some days we spend way too much time on the internet surfing the web, playing games, keeping up with our friends on facebook, but how much internet is okay? With the Internet being so complex people can do anything and everything on it allowing it to take up most of our days. How much time do you spend on the Internet? Can something like the Internet be so addicting that people really need clinical help? In class we discussed that maybe the Internet isn’t the actual addiction and it’s the game or activity you do on the Internet just like we may be addicted to T.V/gambling/caffeine, so why is this internet addiction being taken so seriously?
An article done by a Psychologist, Kimberly Young, examines the issue that addictions on the Internet may be similar to real life addictions such as drugs, gambling or alcohol. The Internet is being related to these other addictions because just like alcohol or drugs its affecting a person’s daily life as school, work, social life are being neglected. Through research Kimberly doesn’t see it as a danger right now making it unnecessary to get clinical help. I agree with this is many ways because no matter what it is in life things can be addicting and yes something’s can be harmful (like drugs), which need to be dealt with, but I don’t see any serious harm in the internet. Other then a few expectations Internet addiction is something I believe doesn’t need to be handled under professional help and other addictions may be more serious. For instance, lung cancer is a huge problem in the United States and this is because people are addicted to cigarettes and can’t stop smoking every day. Just as the Internet may affect someone’s daily life, cigarettes affect someone’s health and may end their life, but no one is making them go get help.
The Internet is not going to go away and is going to continue to control a lot of people’s lives. The example given in class about the women who forgets to feed her kids and is left by her husband because of her internet addiction is a case that makes most worry, but I think that she has more problems then just being addicted to the internet. So what do you do about this Internet addiction? Is it that serious? Do you think that having clinical help will prevent it or will it be a waste of money/time because only a very few amount of people actually have these absurd problems (starving children, neglecting bills, ruining marriages) because of an Internet addiction?

KIMBERLY S. YOUNG. CyberPsychology & Behavior. January 1, 1998, 1(3): 237-244. doi:10.1089/cpb.1998.1.237.

Web Addiction and Gaming

In this week’s classes and lecture, we learned about the various types and users of games. We talked about many ways gaming could be beneficial to its players and then discussed the ways that it could be construed as negative. How do you feel about gaming in general?
As talked about in class and by our speaker, Diane Pozefsky, gaming can be a very helpful learning and rehabilitation tool. Pozefsky noted in her lecture that games could be used to help children learn. She explained that they had an extremely beneficial impact on those students who were falling behind, and even to the average and above average student, the effects of learning games were nothing but positive. Games are also used for helping patients with physical therapy and post-traumatic stress. There are so many positive effects of gaming that are overshadowed by the negative effects. When does gaming cross the line into being harmful?
On Wednesday, we talked in class about Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD). We discussed in groups how the disorder could be exist or be the result of other psychological problems. Is it just the highly involved games such as Second Life or World of Warcraft that cause this phenomenon? We heard extreme cases of game/internet addiction cases in class, such as parents neglecting their kids in favor of playing a game, but is that entirely the game’s fault?

Video-Games and Violence

Over the past few years, concern has developed between the potential connection between video-games and vi0lent behavior in children and adolescents. Since the 1990s and the introduction of fighting games like "Mortal Combat" and "Street Fighter," video-games have become increasingly graphic and realistic. Critics believe children who play lots of violent video-games are much more susceptive to aggressive behavior and criminal acts in life. Opponents of this view believe video-games are harmless and other factors like environment and parenting are the true factors that influence violent behavior. Still others believe the violent acts that pervade the news, media, and television are the most influential factors on children's lives. The main question to be answered here is: Do you think exposure to violent video-games increases a person's likelihood of committing violent acts?

A study conducted by Iowa State University sought to answer some of the questions and opinions this issue has aroused. This experiment used 3,000 "gamers" of all ages from young children to college students. The study concluded that "high video-game violence was definitely associated with heightened aggression. Indeed, this effect of violent video-games on aggression is as strong as the effect of condom use on the risk of HIV infection." However, this experiment also studied a person's level of aggression when not playing a violent video-game. The findings showed a similar heightened level of aggression as when a person was not playing a violent video-game. Over 75% of all individuals in this study presented evidence that any sort of video-game, violent or nonviolent, was unhelpful for their level of aggression. Does this mean that video-games as a whole increase a person's aggression and, therefore, the likelihood that a person will commit a violent act?

One of the nicest guys I know plays a video-game where he kills people by beating them with a bat and shows no aggression towards others. However, evidence points towards the correlation between violent video-games and aggressive behavior. If this is true, what are some of the possibilities, other than parental guidance, that can be done to control this problem? Are there any sanctions that can be placed on the gaming industry to decrease the graphic nature of games? Are there any other possible explanations for the correlation between aggression and video games?

Anderson, Craig A., and Brad J. Bushman. "Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature." Rep. Sept. 2001. Iowa State University. 25 Feb. 2009 .

Ethical Hacking!

While reading the Quinn text, I began to question the intentions behind the creation of computer viruses, worms, and other forms of attacks and hacking (beyond the obvious that is). Then I considered the moral and ethical aspects/backings of such creations and executions.

I found an article online, "Are Computer Hacker Break-ins Ethical?", authored by Eugene H. Spafford from Purdue University. One of the main arguments is that if no significant damage results from incidents of unauthorized intrusions, these intrusions can serve a useful purpose (Spafford 1997).

Do you agree with the following reasons and the overall argument previously stated, what are some of the flaws? How are any of them valid? invalid? :

1. "individuals who break into systems are performing a service by exposing security flaws, and thus should be encouraged or even rewarded"--> that it is "perfectly acceptable to engage in such activities on a continuing basis, so long as they might expose security flaws"
   
2. "that such security breaches should immediately require vendors to issue corrections to
   their customers, past and present...that without highly-visible break-ins, vendors will not produce or distribute necessary fixes to software."
3. Hackers argue they are simply making use of idle machines. "They argue that because some systems are not used at any level near their capacity, the hacker is somehow entitled to use them."
4. Some argue that no harm is done and that they change nothing, that simply they are learning how computer system operate. " They argue that computers are expensive, and that they are merely furthering their education in a cost-effective manner. Some authors of computer viruses claim that their creations are intended to be harmless, and that they are simply learning how to write complex programs."

Hate this post? Voice your opinion...anything LOL!
I personally feel that accepting any of these reasons are a bit of a stretch. Although, some opposition, in any aspect, is necessary, I feel that in many case, many hackers hack for some sort of personal gain, and do not have the best interest of others in mind, at least not initially.

Web Addiction and Gaming

With the spread of internet use and society’s reliance on its tools, people do become more dependent on it. However, the concept of internet addiction seems too broad when actually addressing the negative issues related to Internet use. Many students use the internet regularly, not because they are addicted to it, but because it is their main source of research and information. Ivan Goldberg, M.D coined the term Internet Addiction Disorder in 1997. Since then the internet landscape has changed and people do not fear the growth of its use. The internet encompasses such a vast meaning for different users and its implications are as equally extensive. Potera and Bishop made a strong argument that the Internet and pathological gambling are two drastically different things. I think many tools can be abused and the actually activity that a person is interacting with will indicate the severity of the problem. Is it addiction when a news reporter constantly checks the internet for news updates? Is this as problematic as a sports better excessively gambling on games? Can internet addiction really be defined by internet use, or is it categorical and dependent on the activity of the engaged person?

The concept of internet gaming is a specific aspect of internet abuse. The psychological effects of video games have been an issue of debate for a long time. Will the internet perpetuate these problems even further? Northwestern University’s study about the depression levels in the game EverQuest II showed high depression levels in users. Do you think it was because active players get depressed or because people with depression play the game? I think that gaming can be an escape mechanism that is often attractive for people suffering depression. Also, a study at Oxford argues that video gaming relieves stress. People can unwind and remove themselves from stressful activities by playing the games. Games can be distracting, as indicated in "The 15 Clearest Benefits of Gaming," but this distraction can have both a positive and negative effect. Overall, I think the appropriate use and manor of consumption plays a huge role in determining overuse or abusive behavior of the Internet and video games. If a child never plays outside with friends and constantly interacts with games, they are at risk because of the time missed from participating in other positive activities. If the child were to play the game and still play outdoors and interact with children, would the games be as harmful? How do we determine what degree of gaming is beneficial? Does it depend on the person?

If the Internet and video games do attract so many users, what positive impact can they have on society? I think it will be interesting to see if Keri Schreiner’s mention of games as a platform for social change will actually work . I typically think of video games themes to be more negative and related to criminal activities. Could it be the content of the games that leads to depression? If the violence is removed from games and it becomes more focused on social issues, will the number of participants continue to increase?

Computer Security- its future and questions (take 2)

First off, I think it is important to address the youtube video we watched with the "interface mockery."  I think it is so creative (and amusing) of Microsoft and at the same time it got me thinking- where is our technology world going to go next? Nowadays, anything is possible!  It is also interesting how in a sense we bow down to Apple and all of its advancements when they make something as simple as a phone dock, but then on the other hand, attack Microsoft for their even more innovative projects.  That being said, if we can do just about anything with technology, it makes me wonder why the security threats are such a prominent issue still.  Wouldn't you think that if they have thoughts of a "Microsoft surface"- why aren't they able to come out with computers and other forms of technology that are able to keep the bad viruses, worms, Trojan horses, etc.?  In a sense it almost makes sense, due to the fact that technology continues to advance so rapidly, unfortunately that must mean the rate of these forms of evil technologies are advancing just as much.

According to CNET News in the article, "Computer Security Problems Growing" it discussed the growing problems related to computer security.  For instance, there was a study released that reported computer security breaches were up to 16 percent from 1996 to 1997, also that computer-related crime (this includes security breaches) cost 241 surveyed organizations $136 million last year.  Do you think these numbers continued to rise in the last decade?  There was also another study released that said personal security to be of "paramount interest to Internet users."  After these studies came out, the report warned that "the resources necessary to conduct a cyber-attack are now commonplace.  A personal computer and a simple telephone connection to an Internet service provider anywhere in the world are enough to cause a great deal of harm."  This scares me as a rapid technology user and at this day and age depends on having my computer and phone for work, internet, email and many other important (as well as unimportant, such as online shopping or "facebooking" of course) reasons in my everyday life...what harm could someone like me be in?  I mean we all know the risk of losing all your work, documents, music, pictures, credit card information, etc.; but is there more risk you could be in with all the new and innovative viruses and the complexity of a hacker's mindset? 

With that being said, what can be done to many hackers stop?  According to Peter Neumann of consultancy SRI International, "making it illegal doesn't stop hackers" and "if a terrorist wanted to take over all those Pentagon machines, it would be child's play, and that would be a serious problem."  Which brings me to my last point, this problem of computer security, how do you think 9/11 effected this?  What type of precautions do you think need to be made at this point, not only for the Pentagon and the US government, but on an even smaller scope for each and every one of us?

(This is the second time I am posting this because I am not sure if it worked the first time, so sorry if you are seeing this twice!)

Computer Reliability and Online Voting

The discussions of computer reliability and network security are important to consider when further pondering whether or not this concept of online voting is something we should continue to invest our time and efforts into. With regards to computer reliability, sure instances of having a glitch in the system have been corrected in the past by producing updated versions of a system (for example the case with Windows or the Therac-25). But, these glitches would never have been found had the programs not been put to use. When voting for the president of the United States, this isn’t exactly something people are willing to gamble with by using a machine that is possibly still in its “trial and error” phase. Furthermore, it took time to update Windows 95 and remove all the viruses. Could we potentially have elected officials in office for an entire term before finding out they hadn’t actually won the election? This seems to potentially threaten the legitimacy of American democracy and the concept of popular sovereignty. I know someone made the point in class that we are willing to allow potentially erred systems to run things like power plants, which is a good point. But as someone else also stated, it isn’t often that people try and tamper with things like that. People are, however, very passionate about their leader. There were documented instances of violence that arose from heated debates over Obama and McCain. You think these people wouldn’t try and alter the election in a heartbeat were they given the chance to? The high probability of individuals tampering with an electronic voting system would require a system that was next to perfect. Is that possible when using computer systems, and do we really think it ever will be possible? Sure older methods like vouchers seem obsolete, but sometimes the old phrase “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” makes a good point. Aside from the logistics of potential computer error or lack of computer security, you also have to consider the demographic of people that will be isolated from the vote. I know people spoke a lot about the elderly being isolated from online voting, but we must also consider other demographics of people that will be left out of the vote by making it online, namely the poor. It was brought to our attention that historically the vote was made difficult, so that only certain individuals ended up voting. For the sake of progress, we want today’s vote to reflect people all of all ethnicities, gender, sexual-orientation, etc. Certain poor regions are marked by the very demographic of people that we want to make a point to include in today’s vote (I’m a psych major and have been studying this a lot in my poverty and development course). People in these areas have a hard time getting access to grocery stores and banks, let alone computers. I know this last point wasn’t as much related to the concept of computer reliability, but I think it is still very important!

Is fair use ACTUALLY fair??

The answer to that question is quite simply, NO.  Copyright laws are hurting the human need for creating works of art that stimulate one’s imagination.  I was reading the comic book that Jennifer Jenkins and her colleagues wrote about intellectual property and I just don’t think it’s right or fair for someone to sabotage a perfectly good scene of a documentary and request money because a 4 ½ second clip of “The Simpsons” happened to be on the television where they were filming the scene.  I think I can semi-understand if the director intentionally showed a clip of the show for the scene, but that’s not what happened.  So, instead of being able to freely create and imagine new things and new viewpoints, Americans are forced to cut scenes because of unintentional slip-ups.  In my opinion, that is just ludicrous!  Do Americans need to stop and think about everything they do or say to prevent possibly being hit up for money?  Do you think it’s fair that for saying phrases like “Everybody Dance Now” in a scene could wind up costing you $5,000 dollars?  Okay, I understand that’s a song but come on…that is such a basic statement that I think it should be considered fair use! Right?!?!? The actor did not break out in a dance or sing the lyrics to the song at the top of his lungs.  He simply stated a phrase that wound up costing a lot of money to keep the scene in the documentary (which they ultimately decided to cut because of cost issues).  

I think the worst part about this whole copyright law situation is the time period allowed to keep a copyright.  You get 70 years after your death and I think that’s too long.  I’m pretty sure everyone in the world knows the “Happy Birthday” song and somehow that is still copyrighted. So, someone out there is making money every time that song is referenced or used in any capacity. Umm, who else thinks that is ridiculous besides me? Do you feel like it’s only a matter of time before people stop making films or creating TV shows because they are afraid of being sued for copyright infringement? I definitely feel that way but I’d love to hear what your take is on the situation. Do you think the fair use act we have today is actually fair? If your answer is no, what do you think needs to change in order to make things fair?  

Intellectual Property

Trying to play devil's advocate, it is incredibly diffcult as college students to understand why many fight for the rights of their "intellectual property." We don't have money. We want to get the things we want for as little money as possible. We "borrow" music from our "friends" across the internet. We want less control on sharing of digital files. But, on the opposite spectrum, what if we stood to gain money, no matter how insignificant the amount, from the sale of our intellectual property. The monetary amount doesn't necessarily matter, but the sale of that album, or that book, or anything is an affirmation of the artists creativity. That acceptance cannot have a price label on it, and there cannot be laws protecting that or ethics involving that.

On another note, did you know that a hospital in Britain owns a perpetual copyright of the Peter Pan play?!

Jennife Jenkins and Copyright Law

On Monday night Jennifer Jenkins spoke about intellectual property and the laws that went along with it. I found it really interesting to find out about the copyright laws in particular. According to her a copyright is obtained as soon as it is fixed, and lasts 70 years after the death of the owner. This law caused a lot of questions for me. Questions such as how to prove who fixed the object first, and what happens if more than one person wants to claim the item. To bring it back to an ethical dilemma, people could easily steal an item that has a copyright, apply for the license on it, and use it as their own, which now allows that person to make money off of an item that was not theirs. The idea of having an automatic copyright on an item as soon as something is fixed, seems to me to come with a lot of complications. Wouldn’t be easier to require people to apply for a copyright in the first place. I think that requiring a person to register for a copyright would eliminate most problems with establishing or recognizing ownership of the work. What are some thoughts on this topic?

Misrepresentation of Intellectual Property in the Media

I have to admit that I, like most Americans, am guilty of assuming that intellectual property laws were grouped together under the same basic principles and ideas. I agree with the article that by doing this the majority of people forget what the actual laws are about. For example it makes hardly any sense to think of a copyright law protecting an artist's right to a painting in the same sense that a trademark law protects the formulation of Coke. This way of thinking makes these laws more vague in that they are only distantly related to one another. I agree with the article that overuse of the term "intellectual property" disguises the details associated with copyright law, patent law, and trademark law which sometimes helps certain companies that claim some of their products as "intellectual property". Applying only this term would mean that anything that is a product of your intellect is protected under law, which ignores the concept of fair use. This over generalization may seem like a small detail, but it is important that society is well educated in the details of these laws due to the fact that the information age has made the works of others so remarkably accessible.