Intellectual Property and Patents

Patents are supposed to protect intellectual property and grant exclusive rights to an invention. According to WIPO, “A patent provides patent owners with protection for their inventions. Protection is granted for a limited period, generally 20 years.” Patents are supposed to encourage innovation by assuring people that if they come up with something, they can benefit from it without people just stealing the idea from them and leaving the inventor without anything. I think that patents are beneficial in they can encourage people to try to think of new ideas and invent new things. However, I think they they can hinder progress because I think that once someone invents something, if you allow the information to be free to anyone, someone new can take that invention and help build upon it. This isn’t possible with patents being protected for 20 years. Also, having the information be free would probably encourage more competition.

Jefferson said that, “If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.” I agree with Jefferson in this and think this is one of the main reasons why patent law is so difficult. I’m a bit unsure as to whether or not I think patents should be granted, especially when I can so clearly see how they are hurting innovation and I admire people like Elon Musk for deciding to give up Tesla’s patents. What I am sure of is that they need to come up with a better way of giving patents because I do not think the system works well enough now since just by having a similarity, even if small and accidental, to something that is patented, inventors can get in trouble. I think that if patents are going to be given, there can also be some protection for software. However, I think they should take their time in thinking of how to do this because it is even more complicated that coming up with guidelines for patents of more tangible things.

The existence of patent trolls is evidence that the patent system is broken. This is because patent trolls are making it so that it is harder for people who have good ideas and actually deserve patents to get the patents, protect their ideas and be able to make their business or idea flourish. Patent trolls just take advantage of how difficult it is to tell what should be patented and what shouldn’t and they end up making money off of it. Also, a lot of times they make it so that inventions that could get out there and be potentially useful just don’t make it. Intellectual Ventures, as described in “When Patents Attack!” seems to be a good example of how patent trolls are taking advantage of what should be a system that helps innovation. I think patent trolls should be used to see where the weaknesses in patent law are and to better define what should and shouldn’t get patented.

Automation

“Paid labor does not always map to social good. Raising children and caring for the sick is essential work, and these jobs are compensated poorly or not at all. In a post-work society, Hunnicutt said, people might spend more time caring for their families and neighbors; pride could come from our relationships rather than from our careers.” That is what Derek Thompson says in his article in the Atlantic and it is definitely a wish that accompanies the increased automation of things. However, in the end I’m really not sure it would work that way. Also in the same article it says: “By and large, the jobless don’t spend their downtime socializing with friends or taking up new hobbies. Instead, they watch TV or sleep. Time-use surveys show that jobless prime-age people dedicate some of the time once spent working to cleaning and childcare. But men in particular devote most of their free time to leisure, the lion’s share of which is spent watching television, browsing the Internet, and sleeping…. The unemployed theoretically have the most time to socialize, and yet studies have shown that they feel the most social isolation…”

I don’t think the Luddites were completely right about technology and jobs. Technology, especially if it aids people do very burdensome, labor intensive tasks is a good thing. However, I do think they had a good point to make. There is definitely a fine line between automation making the lives of humans better and allowing them to pursue other (maybe better) endeavors.

I’m not particularly comfortable with artificial intelligence taking over work normally performed by humans, especially since I believe work a lot of times helps a person feel their usefulness, which is something that, at least from my experience, humans need in order to be well and in many cases even to feel their self-worth. Of course, it might is good to build a society in which people recognize their self-worth even apart from their work and careers. Also, there are probably a lot of things in which artificial intelligence can actually help the world be a better place, so I do not want to be too quick to dismiss it. I think artificial intelligence performing typically “human” activities such as caregiving, creating artist works, or making life-or-death decisions is not something that should happen. Care-giving is something that should be done by humans. No matter what people try to say, I don’t think people can be cared for or comforted quite as much with something that does not involve human love and presence. In the end people need other people; that is how we were created. Yes, making sure people have care-givers is good. However, I do not think that we should become reliant on artificial intelligence for this because it’s not the same. In fact, I want to go as far to say that people in most cases should get the most care from their families even though from my point of view there seems to be a trend of younger generations not wanting to take care of their elders (maybe this is a case where the use of artificial intelligence in other jobs could help people focus on this more fundamental human job). Art is supposed to be something humans do which a lot of times even helps release and express different emotions and I don’t think it even makes sense to have machines do it. Life or death decisions should not be made by machines. Life or death situations involve a lot of moral complications and emotions which I believe need to be part of the decision-making and I don’t think a machine can or ever should do.

I think Universal Basic Income definitely would help with addressing the concerns over the loss of employment due to mass automation since it would give people a way to still afford things like food and home, which are definitely important for people to have. However, I think that it is important to remember that not everything is about people having enough money. People do well if they feel useful and if they spend their time doing worth-while things. It is important for the unemployed and retired to not just spend all their time watching TV, being online, or doing pointless things that might be alright and fun for resting but definitely would not be healthy (emotionally or physically) for people in the long-run. In order for society to do well even with mass automation and lower employment, I think people need to be provided and also they need to learn to do things like learn for learning’s sake instead of just doing it for a career, learning to do more things with their hands and definitely to do be active. Also, I think society would need to make sure that people interact with each other and take care of each other without too much dependence on electronics. I’m not sure how we would prevent the rich from getting richer but as long as people in general had good quality of life, I do not even care too much about preventing that. Still, I think things like Universal Basic Income tend to only work in theory and not in practice, so I’m going to hope that machines do not take over all the jobs.

In the end, I am not sure whether automation is ultimately good or bad for humanity. It can definitely have some good effects in the world, but there is also a risk for people’s well-being in a world where they’re expected to live in leisure. I’m definitely afraid of a situation like the one in Wall-E and I have hopes that we would not let that happen but I do think that we’re closer to able to make something like that a reality and it is really scary to me because it shows an example of people who do not seem to have much of a purpose. I think the people who develop and utilize these automation technologies need to keep in mind the damage that they could be doing to people by taking away their jobs, which would go beyond just not allowing them to support themselves and their families.

 

Artificial Intelligence

 

 

 

Artificial intelligence is when computers are made to solve problems and do things similarly to people. In his article, Kris Hammond gives the following definition of artificial intelligence: “artificial intelligence is a sub-field of computer science. Its goal is to enable the development of computers that are able to do things normally done by people — in particular, things associated with people acting intelligently.”  It is similar to human intelligence in that it can change it’s strategy or learn as it goes. However, the machine does not have real understanding, it only takes the stats from what it has done before and makes sure to use the more effective method. This “learning” is talked about in the article by Christopher Moyer about the AlphaGo, which says:  “AlphaGo has had nearly five months to improve—and it is always improving, playing itself millions of times, incrementally revising its algorithms based on which sequences of play result in a higher win percentage. As you are reading this, AlphaGo is improving. It does not take breaks.”

AlphaGo, Deep Blue and Watson use sophisticated algorithms which help find patterns and also use a method of “learning” like the one I mentioned above.  In his article, Christopher Moyer talks about the match between the AlphaGo and Lee. He says the following: “It was widely believed that an AI strong enough to beat a professional player was still at least a decade away, and that milestone had been quietly crushed. The next logical step was to discover what AlphaGo’s upper limit might be, and Lee was the logical choice for humanity’s champion.” Still, even though it was able to beat the player, I am not convinced by the viability of actual artificial intelligence that is comparable to human intelligence, even if it only ends up being because it is created by humans instead of being human.

I think that the growing concerns over the power of artificial intelligence and its role in our lives is sort of warranted mostly because I think people can end up becoming (and maybe are already starting to be) too dependent on technology. Eric Schmidt and Sebastian Thrun have a point in the Fortune article when they say: “The history of technology shows that there’s often initial skepticism and fear-mongering before it ultimately improves human life. The original Kodak camera was seen as destroying art. Electricity was believed to be too dangerous when it was first introduced. But once these technologies got into the hands of millions of people, and they were developed openly and collaboratively, those fears subsided.” In the end, I think that artificial intelligence can end up being something good.

A computing system can never be considered a mind. I think this is because artificial intelligence is man-made and I don’t think anything we make will ever get to the point where it can be considered a mind. Humans are not just biological computers; we are much more complex than that. Also, we’re not just biological computers or machines, we are have both bodies and souls.

Project 3: Privacy and Cloud Computing

The project can be found in the following link:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0By4xU2ffr4j6am1FQmIwaWtFSm8

 

When using the cloud, you give a company control of a lot of personal information in return for convenience. I have consciously evaluated these trade-offs because I believe it is important to consider where my information is going and how comfortable I am with that idea. Although I am a bit uncomfortable at a company having so much of my information, I do justify it because of the convenience. The convenience is especially important to me in how easy it makes sharing things easy, which is important for me because I have family around the globe.

I think it would be worth it to manage some of my own private cloud services, especially for an alternative to Dropbox and Google Drive because that’s where I think people are most likely to put more personal information that we don’t necessarily mean to share with others. I could envision a future where I may use my own services rather than third party ones, especially once I’m worried about having family related things that would be on there.

I think I do have the moral standing to complain about encroachment on my privacy when I consciously give away my information to third party services. We should be able to trust companies like we trust ground-mail services.

 

Online Censorship

 

 

 

Online censorship opens up a lot of concerns in the way that it gives a lot of power to companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter. On the one hand, I want to say that certain forms of speech should be suppressed because a lot of things people say are hurtful and there are many things out there that are absolutely horrific. However, it can be difficult to decide the line at which something goes from being something you disagree with to something that is objectively wrong. Also, it gets really easy to abuse censorship. As is pointed out in the Wired article by Julia Greenberg, “A blanket policy of banning anything that might be seen as inciting violence also could lead to questions of censorship, because one person’s hateful propaganda could be another’s free speech.”

It is not ethical for companies to remove dissenting opinions for governments because people should have the right to freedom of speech and beliefs. Also, there is no perfect government so discussion and communication about government are important. Also, we want to avoid totalitarian and tyrannical governments.

I want to say that it is ethical for companies to remove information broadcasted by terrorism organizations. In this case, though, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be better to take advantage of the use of the platform and hand the information over to the government in order to prevent these terrorist attacks. I say this because I think that whether or not terrorist use a company’s platform, they’ll find another way. Still, even with the attempt to remove information broadcasted by and support of terrorist organizations, there are many challenges. As the Wired article says, “the challenge for sites like Facebook and Twitter goes beyond tracking down content that promotes terrorism. It also requires defining ‘promoting terrorism.’ In a sense, the two platforms are global communities, each engaged in a constant process of determining community norms as the use of the platforms evolves.”

I think it is ethical for companies to remove discriminatory, provocative, hateful content generated by its users because it is important to prevent all of these things. It is important to protect people. We have a responsibility to help others and make the world a better place.

I think it is not ethical for companies to remove information that does not promote or share their interests or political beliefs. I think companies should actually use their position to encourage conversation between opposing views. Also, they should also allow access to different views because people need to be educated. At the end, I think that conversation and education would end up in better understanding between people.

Online censorship is a concern to me, especially when I think of the possibility of living in a filter bubble. I think it was good to be in a bit of a bubble as I was growing up and my parents help manage things in a way that was beneficial to my well-being and learning. However, companies should have the power to keep people in a bubble. It was concerning to read the article about Google and it’s blacklists and knowing that a company like that can have so much information and power over people. I’m terrified of living in a dystopian society like the ones I read about in novels but when considering things like censorship it sometimes seems like the world really is headed that way.

 

Corporate Personhood and IBM and the Holocaust

Corporate personhood refers to when corporations are given some of the same rights that apply to individuals under the Constitution. Corporations should definitely act within the law and the law needs to protect corporations from government. As is stated in the article from the Atlantic, “If corporations have no rights, then governmental power in connection with corporations is at its maximum. That power can be abused, and corporate personhood is a necessary bulwark.” The court has ruled on what rights a corporation has. In the article by Nina Totenberg, she states that, “It ruled that corporations have the right to spend money in candidate elections, and that some for-profit corporations may, on religious grounds, refuse to comply with a federal mandate to cover birth control in their employee health plans.” These rights are especially important because they are protecting the people behind the corporation.

Are corporations people? No. However, corporations are made up of and led by people. I think that should be enough to justify there being some sort of Corporate Personhood in which the corporation is protected but also held liable in some way.  In the article from the Atlantic it is stated: “Understand that ‘corporate personhood’ simply expresses the idea that the corporation has a legal identity separate from its shareholders… The very purpose of the corporation as a legal form is to create an entity ‘distinct in its legal interests and existence from those who contribute capital to it.’ This separateness means that shareholders are not held liable for the debts of the corporation. That makes it possible for people who do not wish to oversee the day-to-day activities of companies in which they invest—and do not wish to risk every penny they own if the corporation goes bankrupt—to invest in corporate stock.” Even though it is supposed to keep the corporation’s legal identity separate from the corporation, it is important to remember that it is still people running the corporation and they deserve some rights as to how to run it and the shareholders really are never going to be completely separate from the corporation’s identity.

Edwin Black wrote a book concerning IBM and its role in the Holocaust. A lot of people thin he is exaggerating the role IBM played. However, Black seems to have a point in his writing of the book. The article from Mic says: “Despite Black’s firebrand ethos, his meticulous research has uncovered tens of thousands of documents, culled together from across Europe, that carefully show how IBM didn’t just provide technology to Hitler’s Germany — it helped implement and maintain it for whatever purposes the Nazis required.”Especially if Black is correct about the extent of IBM’s involvement, IBM was not ethical in doing business with Nazi Germany. Just because a company’s main goal is to make money and doesn’t mean IBM should have taken Nazi Germany’s money. This is mainly because it wasn’t just a product that was bought and used for wrong; it seems to have been more of a relationship between Nazi Germany and IBM. Yes, the Holocaust would have still happened without IBM’s help but it doesn’t mean it’s ok that IBM was that involved. Corporations should refrain from doing business with immoral or unethical organizations or persons because that is a good way to help prevent immoral or unethical things from happening. They would have maybe just found another corporation that was willing to help. However, if all businesses refrain from doing business with immoral or unethical organizations or persons, and always maintain their business practices ethical and moral, the world will be a better place. In talking about all of this, it is particularly important to remember that companies are made up of people and people are behind the decisions of these corporations, which is why corporations need to be found ethically and morally responsible for different things.

Corporations cannot be expected to have the same moral obligations and responsibilities as individual persons. It is just not possible because a company might make something and sell it without knowing what the person who is buying it is going to use it for. So, in this case, if the person uses their product to do wrong the company cannot be held liable for this. However, in a case like the one with IBM, in which the company seems to have an idea of what is going on and they continue to sell their products and services, it is a lot more reasonable to hold the company responsible in the light of ethical and moral obligation and responsibility.

Personal (Private?) Information and Online Advertising

When I think of online advertising I think of these issues:

1. The selling, buying and using of my information without me having much of a say
2. Using of information that has hasn’t been directly given
3. Targeted ads that make me realize I’m being followed wherever I go on the internet

These are things that I think go through most people’s minds at some point or another but they just accept it and continue doing what they were doing. Maybe privacy has become a bit of an unrealistic expectation but I think it is something a lot of people aren’t expecting as people seem to increasingly share their entire lives online. Still, people care about how that information is used.

“If you’re not paying for it; you’re the product being sold” is partially true because people are taking information about us and selling and buying it. However, in the article “Convenience-Surveillance Tradeoff” they point out the following which seems to be true: “People like no-cost services, and are willing to forfeit some privacy in exchange for them. An individual’s data has become its own kind of currency.” So we are a product since our information is being sold and bought but we are providing that as a sort of payment for convenience (nothing is ever really free). Still, I think there are people who would forgo this convenience for privacy but we aren’t getting too much of that option since the main reason behind what is going on is that companies want more money.

I really don’t know whether or not it is ethical. On the one hand, it definitely makes me uncomfortable that a company could have so much information about me and be able to find out so much more just through the information they have. On the other hand, this can add to a level of convenience when it comes to shopping (especially when I’m online shopping and when I type in what I’m looking for Google knows what sites to suggest to me). Also, I’m probably not as annoyed by the targeted ads and stories on my newsfeed as I would if they weren’t targeted (I get to look at pretty dresses most of the time). Also, I recognize that the ads are a way of paying for the sites I use and whether or not I’m ok with targeted ads, I do use the site without paying for it and if the company stops getting money, I won’t be able to use their site any more.

Companies should definitely keep this information as safe as possible. It would be terrible for someone to get access to all of this information and use it for real harm instead of for a few targeted ads. As much as I would maybe want to know more and have more of a say as to what is done with my information,  I do understand how companies just want more money and this is a pretty effective way to do it. However, past what products the user buys or stores they look at often while online, I think that the information needs to be kept more private and definitely most secure. As the article about Facebook users pointed out: “Researchers were able to accurately infer a Facebook user’s race, IQ, sexuality, substance use, personality or political views using only a record of the subjects and items they had “liked” on Facebook – even if users had chosen not to reveal that information.” Those are things that should be kept safe because, in reality, it can become dangerous.

Privacy vs. National Security

On the FBI post there is this line which I think captures most people’s understanding about the issue. “We must ensure both the fundamental right of people to engage in private communications as well as the protection of the public.” However, it is more complicated to know how to get there.

I agree that it would be helpful in some cases to have some sort of backdoor in their product in case government involvement needs to happen. However, in order for me to be ok with it, the government would need to very much limit this use to only certain situations and I’m really that sure as to whether that would happen, although I do want to have a more positive view. Also, I’m a bit afraid of the following which was pointed out in the message that Apple wrote for its customers:”In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.” My worry in this is not only that people’s privacy could be violated more easily but also that this could be used to hurt others more too.

Companies like Apple cannot be ethically responsible for preventing harmful or violent activities that their platforms enable because even if they came up with a backdoor, there would still be ways to use the technology for harm. People can decide to use almost everything for harm instead of good but we need to keep making things for those who are going to use it well. Also, it is very important for Apple to protect the privacy of the user because the user is trusting Apple to do so. Although, I do have to say that a lot of companies do not fully protect the privacy of their users already, even if it’s just for things like ads,which makes me a bit uncomfortable. The two things are conflicting things because in order to have safety, you sometimes need to forgo a bit of the privacy so that they can help find the people who have done harm (or potentially could do harm, but that is another issue since you get into the problem of stopping someone who hasn’t done something wrong).

Ideally, the government should work to earn the trust of its citizens and act in a way that isn’t taking advantage of the situation. Saving lives probably is worth more than privacy from government since human life is precious. However, I don’t very much like the idea of “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.” Just because you’ve done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide doesn’t mean that you want someone going through your stuff, even if it is the government. Also, there is the risk of government abusing its power (which is a bit of a terrifying idea).

 

Interview Guide

Project

The interview guide written by me and Matthew Staffelbach can be found in the following link: Interview Guide

Reflection

From my experience, the most important parts of the guide are the ones that encourage to ask others for help. This is important because they can give you knowledge that they have gained from personal experience and also because it is okay to realize that it is not easy to do everything by yourself. Something I wish I had known earlier is the importance of thinking ahead of time of what you can say in an interview. It sometimes happens that conversation very naturally goes one way and you didn’t plan it; however, it is always good to have something planned, especially if you’re someone like me who struggles with talking to people sometimes. One of the best pieces of advice I’ve received for interviews is to  breathe and remember that the interviewer is a person too. This is something especially important for me to remember because I get rather anxious, but chances are the interviewer understands what you’re going through.

College has traditionally been viewed as a place of learning and not job training and I believe that it should stay that way. Job training should happen once you get to the work place. Of course, it is good to build up good habits that might help in the future, but colleges shouldn’t be a place where you’re trained to prepare your job. If that’s what you want then you should go to a vocational school or trade school. College should be a place where you are educated in how to think and are introduced to different ideas and culture. Yes, it is important to also learn a basis for what you’re going to go to work for, but it makes no sense for companies to expect people who come out of college completely trained for the job. Of course, since it is somewhat expected, it is good for colleges to offer some sort of resources. Being an EE, I don’t really know how the CSE department supports the students in this and I honestly don’t really know how much the EE department does either. However, I do think  the Career Center has worked as a good resource for many people.

Boeing and Whistleblowing

From the readings, it seems like Boeing did not do a good job of handling its computer security employees. According to the Seattle PI article, Boeing “failed in both internal and external audits, to prove it can properly protect its computer systems against manipulation, theft and fraud.” They were struggling to comply with the standards set by the Sarbanes-Laxly Act. It is understandable that it would take some time to adapt to changes, but it is something else entirely when it seems like the company isn’t taking some measures it should be or seems to be ignoring people who are trying to bring up issues.

In the Wired article, Kim Zetter states: “The fired employee says he was trying to save the company but was treated badly after he raised ethical concerns internally about how the company was conducting security audits of its systems.” If, as the employee stated, the company did not pay attention to when the workers tried internally report, then it was ethical for them to report to someone outside of Boeing itself. I don’t know the situation completely, but the issues below, taken directly from the PI article raise some questions as to what Boeing was doing.

• “Boeing’s internal audit findings were so poor — meaning that so many computer system controls were failing or evidence was missing — that external auditor Deloitte & Touche decided not to rely on the results for three consecutive years.”
• “Boeing exposed sensitive information about computer systems’ holes to employees who did not need access to all of the data, according to e-mails and interviews.”
• “An internal complaint was filed with the company’s ethics board that audit results had been manipulated. The company decided last September that the allegation was unsubstantiated.”
• “Some employees involved in the compliance process perceived a threatening culture. A late 2006 internal report said that employees felt they were being told that their jobs and salaries were “on the line,” and they were being pressured to produce evidence for audits “ahead of events occurring normally.””

So, do I think Boeing should have listened to any worries that were brought up internally? Yes. Do I think they should actually address the problems brought up in the leak? Yes. That being said, it makes sense for the company to want to fire someone who exposes them that publicly, whether or  not the accusations were valid. The only thing that I think is unfair about the situation is that it is probably much harder to get a job once you’re fired for whistleblowing.

Of course that if the workers reported internally and nothing happened it was okay to turn to someone outside the company, but maybe going to the media was not the right one. Also, I wonder if they tried to complain more than once and to more than one person in the company or whether it was only once? Because that also would affect whether I think the workers did the right thing by going to the media. I also do believe that it would have been more appropriate to notify a government agency before going to the media with the information.

Also, I am unsure as to whether the law should have protected the workers. According to the Wired article by David Kravets the “San Francisco-based appeals court sided with Boeing, saying a provision in the act [Sarbanes-Oaxly Act] only protects those who notify the authorities, not the media, of alleged wrongdoing.” Also, “The law protects employees from discrimination if they deliver the information to a federal regulatory or law enforcement agency, a member or committee of Congress or or a work supervisor.” This law was therefore not going to help since they turned to the media.

The Whistleblower Protection Act requires “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety,” in order to protect workers. Therefore, it could maybe apply, especially due to things like the audit findings being so terrible. However, it is hard to say whether they should have been protected under this since we don’t have all the proof of how Boeing managed everything. Also, we don’t know how it compares to other companies or any cases that could have been used to set precedent. Deloitte didn’t really classify never categorized the problem as a material weakness and didn’t report anything, so maybe that could be taken as a sign that Boeing was not doing anything too terrible. However, there was definitely some mismanagement going on from what is told in the Seattle PI article, so even if they allowed Boeing to fire the employees, something needed to be done to make Boeing take some responsibility.