Surely in a time where nearly everyone has access to a computer, the general public must have a decent understanding of how computers function and what they are capable of. However, a quick look at films of today suggests that this isn't the case. For example, take a look at this collection of clips from Die Hard 4 (2007)). Much of DH4's plot revolves around computer hacking, and these segments show a number of the characters hacking their way to all sorts of "secure" information. However, are any of them dealing with computer code or command-line interfaces? No, they essentially just hit the "hack" button in their hacking utility that happens to have a very nice, clean graphical interface. Computers have certainly come a long way, but this is a pretty blatantly inaccurate representation of hacking.
Another example of just how out of touch we can be with technology is a now famous quote from Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) regarding Net Neutrality in which he describes the internet as a "series of tubes"). I find it a bit scary to consider that legislation regarding important issues such as net neutrality and copyright law will be decided by people like Ted Stevens, who don't seem to have a strong understanding of today's technology. This makes the area of Computer Ethics an even murkier subject. How can judgements be made about right and wrong when many people do not understand the basics of how computer technology functions today?
The "hack" button--ha! I love it. We'll be looking at many more of these media representations of computing and computer anxiety throughout the semester, Jordan. I agree that it is fascinating to see the way our use of technology and our anxiety about technology intersect.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to comment on how the clips from DH4 showed how ingrained computers are in our society. After reading Moor's article which compared the computer revolution to the industrial revolution I now see that we are truly in the second stage with computers being almost essential to our society. In the clip it flipped back and forth from Bruce Willis driving the car and hackers monitoring them and facilitating the mission like opening the gate as they are driving. This may seem like a very small technological advancement, but to me it shows how even the smallest things in our society are controlled by computers because they have become so cheap, abundant, and relatively easy to use.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Jordan in that it is quite scary that legislators can be as clueless as they are with technology. Another such example, which came up during the presidential campaign, is how John McCain is almost unable to send an email message. We, as college students who have lived with the Internet almost all our lives, often forget that many people are not accustomed to newer computing technologies. This has led to legislation (like what we talked about in class) that only broadly defines certain laws and limitations with computers. I believe that the next several years, with a tech-savvy president in office, will be critical for the regulation of the computer and internet industries.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the DH4 clips, I am reminded of the newly released movie "Eagle Eye" (in case you haven't seen it, my comment contains some movie spoilers - sorry!). The main characters are sent on a wild goose chase by a top secret supercomputer designed by the military named ARIIA (Autonomous Reconnaissance Intelligence Integration Analyst) who autonomously sends out instructions through digital information (cell phones, traffic lights, robotically-controlled cranes, etc) and threatens the characters' families if they fail to comply with ARIIA's demands. The whole premise of the movie seems somewhat far-reached but considering how rapid technology is improving itself, such a scenario is theoretically possible. Back in 1983, I'm sure the makers of "War Games" couldn't completely predict how much of a role computers play in our lives in 2009. In addition, although our current president is more tech-savvy than other legislators, President Obama's well-known addiction to his Blackberry poses as a dangerous security threat. There is talk about giving him a "spy-proof smartphone," but even if that were invented, I'm sure someone would find a way to breach it eventually if you consider how much damage hackers/viruses are capable of now.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Aivi in that this post really made me think of Eagle Eye. I think one interesting difference between Eagle Eye and DH4 is that DH4 seems more realistic in the fact that it takes the human influence on computers much more into account. In Eagle Eye, the computer is programmed to always do what she quantifies to be best for national security, going so far as to cause death and destruction to our nation's most prominent politicians and places. In DH4, the computer isn't the enemy so much as the people who know better than everyone else how to control them. I think it's more realistic to fear "terrorist hackers" than an all-knowing computer who, like in War Games, has to be physically damaged to stop trying to destroy humanity. In Die Hard, it's programmer v. programmer instead of programmer v. computer with the real problem lying not in a computer's intelligence, but in our society's reliance on the Internet to control all of our most important municipalities and regulate our everyday lives. We're all completely hooked on our devices to the point that they actually did end up engineering a special Blackberry for Obama to keep by his side for his time in the White House.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, Ted Stevens's unfamiliarity with technology is likely not all that uncommon among our nation's leaders. However, I feel the most difficult problem that the government faces in regulating the Internet isn't their personal inexperience with it, but the fact that it is woven into almost every asset of our lives already. The Internet is much more difficult to regulate than typical means of communication (newspapers, TV, radio, etc.) because EVERYONE is able to publish and broadcast, not just traditional media companies. This means that, instead of making rules for companies to comply with, the government has to avoid restricting free speech on an individual level.
I agree with both Jordan and Brad in that it is scary that the same legislators that are making the laws regarding technology can be so clueless about it. I think that with a president who knows a good bit about technology will help to establish better laws and rules regarding technology. I also think that as each generation becomes more technology-savvy this becomes more and more important.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually in class right now and in the first row there are fourteen students and of them nine students are taking notes on their laptops. I agree with the fact that having a tech-savvy President will knock more sense into Washington. I mean if anything its better than a President who thinks there are multiple 'internets' and refers to Google as 'The Google.' Check it..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MunMCO3uNdA
ReplyDeleteComputers, however, do have immense power and control our lives in so many ways that without them we would greatly suffer. I think its the fear of the power of the computer that drives moviemakers to exaggerate their depiction of technology. I do agree that people are misconstruing technology and that people are getting the wrong ideas as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe clip we watched also reminded me of Eagle Eye. The movie seems incredibly unlikely because it would require a computer system to learn" a certain amount of material without being given instructions or authorization from humans. The ability for computers to "learn" is a goal and a fear in our society. Artificial intelligence is based on the underlying theory that these robots or computer system have a functioning intelligence, including learning. The fear with these types of machines is that it will "take over" the important jobs that humans do. And then they will just "take over".
ReplyDeleteWe have discussed how technology has made this generations lives incredibly easy. But there is a commercial on TV that romanticize life before computers. There is a definite lack of face to face encounters and this could have negative effects since text can be just as damaging as personal conversation but also, more freeing.
Having legislators that are unable to understand the extent of technology obviously poses a huge problem for defining a set of laws. If we don't understand the extent of how we can manipulate computers to retrieve information, it is difficult to produce laws that will hold people accountable for their actions online.
Legislators that aren't technologically savvy can only make laws based on the world that they know. Sen. Ted Stevens created some sort of analogy in his mind to represent how the internet actually works. Since this analogy isn't exactly accurate, it is a little terrifying that he is in a position to influence laws about this area.
ReplyDeleteI agree that legislators who aren't technology savvy are worrisome to the public individuals who are. We also must remember that IT is one of the first areas to be cut when budgets come under pressure. Therefore, the need for older legislators to adopt the skills necessary to be technologically literate is not as high of a priority as being up to date on "higher" priorities such as defense, healthcare, etc. The fact that they do not always associate computers with these programs is confusing to me because they make the systems work smoothly and give us our competitive advantage in the world. I do think that the next generation of leaders will embrace technology to the fullest amount possible. If they themselves are not as savvy, they should appoint those that are.
ReplyDeleteThe reason legislators are largely clueless with computers is because these people are older. The average age for legislators is about 60 years old. As b.fonville stated, developing skills for this new technology is not as high of a priority as some of the other pressing issues in today's world. As more people who grew up with this technology enter the ranks of lawmaking, we will see more laws passed.
ReplyDeleteMaybe hacking a computer isn’t as easy as pressing one button right now, but it could become that simple before we even realize it. Major advances in technology can occur within a span of as little as five years. Small things we hardly think about that have only recently become essential to our lives have merely been around for a couple of years. For example, cell phones have only become “essential” to a 12-year old in the last decade. At first cell phones were as big as house telephones that only big businessmen would carry around in their briefcases for job use. Now it is something that young teenagers use every few minutes to text their friends during class. Considering that, it is no wonder that legislators aren’t up to date. If it wasn’t a thing of their time, it is hard to keep up. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t need to. Technology will increasingly become more important to peoples’ everyday lives, so those who are making decisions for our country should acknowledge that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyones statements about how someone so high in our political system should be technologically savvy, but honestly how important is that considering they have dozens of people working for them. I think its hard to put a finger on what exactly is technological savvy because technology is so prodigious. Even some of the most technologically savvy people are going to fall behind at some point because the new information age is expanding and improving so quickly. I think it is scary what technology can do because personally I think its to big for any person to fully understand. Like we talked about at the beginning of the year that no person is a master of all of it. Each person specializes and understands a part of it, which we can work together to best understand all of it.
ReplyDeleteAs opatel said, it is amazing to think of the new "essential" technological advances that will come along in the next few years. While it is more difficult for those of older generations to keep up with this emerging technology- this too is essential. Adding to the comment Katelyn presented regarding the numerous staff members legislators have around them, it may become necessary to create positions specifically regarding technology. This staff member (or members) would be responsible for following the latest technology and making their legislator accessible via these new technological methods. Many news outlets are currently utilizing Twitter and other social network technologies. Not only is it vital for law makers to be aware of the technologies which they are issuing laws about, utilizing this technology could be incredibly beneficial as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree that politicians making laws on technology should have at least a basic understanding of how computers work. It is scary if they have no understanding, but do they not have some sort of advisor to help them understand what they are making laws on? I am not big on politics, but this seems the logical solution. We can't expect our president or anyone else to totally understand everything. I do think that a basic understanding of most things is key.
ReplyDelete