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.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
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.
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?
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?
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?
Friday, March 20, 2009
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?
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?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
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?Tuesday, March 3, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, March 2, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)